CAN WOMEN CONTROL THEIR OWN BODY'S HEALTH?

The U. S. Supreme Court Dobbs vs Jackson pending legal case is one demanding significant attention.  This case decision will have profound consequences in our nation for women and men due to  ramifications for Roe vs Wade that legalized abortion in 1973.   

Reading CNN's  account of Politico that first published leaked Justice Alito's proposed 1st draft majority opinion (98 pgs)* suggests to me an ideologically obsessed Court.  The majority judges appear to have  gone to great lengths citing as a basis for their convolutional interpretation of our constitution justification to overturn a fifty-year precedent rule recognizing a woman has a right to decision-making about the health of her own body.   The Court's final decision is expected to be announced in late June or early July.

*(Note: click on emphasized content items to link with source.)

What I'm writing here is not about discussing the religious and moral question of abortion though those are signifiant issues individual women consider for themselves based on what they believe, also  in consultation with their health care provider(s)/physician.     Current reality and history through the ages is that some women will look for ways to end pregnancies as has always happened whatever one's belief and whatever the law.

NPR's fact checks include:  the majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in most or all cases; the rate of abortions has decreased since 1973; more than 60% who get abortions have a religious affiliation.  

The issue of abortion with questionable issues about life has been so politicized which is reprehensible since the matter is one that should be between a woman and her doctor much less have a court of law injected into the matter. But that's what has happened.

What is really at stake with this currently pending case decision is:                                                          does the U. S Constitution guarantee equality for women?

Abortion is the current issue chosen to answer this question. There may be even more issues introduced later with rights of privacy and other fundamental rights also threatened if Roe vs Wade is overturned.  

One such right to consider, a friend wrote me recently:  "...the right granted in HIPAA should apply to women's reproductive rights.  It's nobody's business but patient/doctor."

"HIPAA:  The health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge."  

"Abortions: Past, Present and Future" with an unsettling photo referencing Handmaid Tale-like laws is written by Jean you can view by clicking on her blog: "Misadventures of Widowhood".   She has advocated "keeping abortions safe, legal and rare."

"Handmaid's Tale" references Margaret Atwood's book to which she referred in a current Atlantic article.  She wrote: "I invented Gilead.  The Supreme Court is making it real.  I thought I was writing fiction".   She went on to write, should this Supreme Court adopt Judge Alito's majority opinion to overturn Roe vs Wade the United States would be "...turned into a theocratic dictatorship based on 17th-century NewEngland Puritan religious tenets and jurisprudence."  She asks, "Is this where we want to live?"

Margaret Atwood's 'Handmaid's Tale' Is Inspiring A New Generation

Some of you may recall Ronni Bennettt's blog, "Time Goes By" (TGB), you can still access by clicking on that link.  Some of what she wrote over the years is current even now as you will see.

(Ronni's writings with comments are still available on her internet site which she made significant effort to ensure would be available for a period after her expected death just as many fellow bloggers said they wanted.  Since her blog's continuation by a friend as Ronni wrote she had arranged has not occurred and no explanation after 2018 has been provided as to when or whether if ever will, I'm taking the liberty of linking for you to some of Ronni's blog posts to share here.)

Ronni hoped blog conversations would continue many timely topics she introduced that are not outdated today.  She documented what she wrote, identified thoughts as her opinions when she expressed them and sometimes offered suggestions about how to resolve some issues.  She often cited examples of the subjects about which she wrote to bring to others attention.   Ronni hoped other bloggers would also note examples they encountered in their lives writing about them, too, perhaps attracting additional bloggers to do the same since many doing so might influence desired change.  One such topic was Roe vs Wade and issues concerning a woman's health.

"The Supreme Court Abortion Decision" Ronni published first at Blogher, then on TGB in April 2007 questioned the Court's ruling on a case "...banning late-term abortion with no provision for the health of the mother".  In lieu of the strong words I think Ronni would be writing today I recommend you read what she wrote then that is still pertinent.  

Ronni felt so strongly about the matter that in her forthright honest manner she revealed in that article her own personal harrowing experience as an example of what women were and can be subjected to if Roe vs Wade is overturned by the Court.

Ronni also wrote:  Until a man is capable of giving birth and/or every man is forced by law to both financially support and participate in the gestation and raising of every child he fathers, and such law is enforced without exception (a permanent ankle tracking device for those who run comes to mind) no man has a right to discuss abortion, let alone to vote on it. 

In September 2018 Ronni shared in another post "The Penis Legislation Act" during now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's Senate hearings for that appointment. He was questioned about his views on a woman's right to choose.

Read Associated Press News for what Kavanaugh and other judges said in their nomination hearings about Roe to the Senate panel.  

Devorah Blachor's  satirical article, "Why Are Men Getting So Hysterical About the Penis Legislation Act?" prompted Ronni's post which is a must read.  Just imagine if men's bodies and sexual organ/function was subjected to legislation, much less judicial judgement as this "Act" describes.

The point of all this I want to make is the simplicity of the issue -- it's not complicated.   

Our Supreme Court's decision should affirm in the case before them now upholding the 50-year precedent Roe vs Wade rule ensuring women's right to make health decisions for their own bodies as the Piedtype blogger notes in "It's About Equality" with excerpts below:

"From  'America Is Not Ready for the End of Roe v. Wade' by the New York Times editorial board on May 6:

The principle is clear:

   Women and men should have equal control over their own bodies ...

Even more fundamental than our religious and/or unscientific differences about when human life begins is that simple statement:  Women and men should have equal control over their own bodies.  To deny women the right to abortion is to deny them equality with men.  Period.

Gender equality in the United States either is, or it isn't."  

Thousands gather for pro-abortion rights rally in Los Angeles and across the nation/ABC-TV 7