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

KEEPING OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

Be forewarned that I am feeling compelled to express what weighs most heavily on my mind right now with thoughts on the future of our nation.   Of special interest presently, as I cast my ballot and others vote across the U.S.A.,  is my concern our current nation's leader seems to be continuing to betray our constitutional capitalistic democratic republic.  We would be wise to remember his words and actions the past four years have gradually, chaotically bit by bit seemed to be systematically designed to destroy our trust in our government.

His goal appears to have been to alter our governmental system into what could be described as a capitalistic theocratic autocracy.

Capitalistic because of his strong emphasis on money, but largely for the benefit of himself and an oligarchy of a select number of the most wealthy supporting him, but not the majority of our citizens.

Theocratic because he panders to a religious extremist minority-in-number dedicated to forcing their protestant social beliefs on everybody rather than living in a society tolerant of others that also permits them to practice their own views.

Autocracy because he chooses to dictate everything to everybody, diminishing or eliminating the power of our other branches of government -- legislative, judicial and condemning anyone questioning him including in the fourth estate -- our free press.

Our government system will cease to exist as will freedom for anyone who might think or speak differently from him given his intolerance.

We would be wise to ask ourselves if our President is betraying or violating his oath of office to defend the intent of the country's founders and our constitutional democratic republic.

Is he placing our nation's citizens at risk of losing our democratic republic as one of the founders, Benjamin Franklin cautioned -- "if we could keep it"?  When asked "And why not keep it?"  Franklin responded, "Because the people, on tasting the dish, are always disposed to eat more of it than does them good."  So it is we could lose the freedoms our founders gave us.

While our current leader claims to care about all of the people, quite obviously that is just one more of his documented thousands of lies.   What is really alarming to me is how many people supporting him apparently do not realize what he is doing or don't care.  

Our leader is aided by this backing of the political party he hijacked whose members have failed to learn any of the twenty lessons from the twentieth century Timothy Snyder describes in a few hours of easy-read layman's language in his small paperback book "On Tyranny":

"Timothy Snyder reasons with unparalleled clarity, throwing the past and future into sharp relief.  He has written the rare kind of book that can be read in one sitting but will keep you coming back to help regain your bearings."

This book description is by Masha Gessen who eloquently predicted four years ago what to expect from our new leader then -- it has and is occurring.   Gessen also described how to survive based on experience as a citizen reporter in Russia ultimately perilously dissenting with leadership there before needing to come here and having dual citizenship with the U.S. now.  

A recent Guardian interview includes this statement from Gessen, "I never thought I'd say it, but Trump is worse than Putin".   Gessen went on to say,  "in order to actually survive Trump's attempt at autocracy we have to give up the idea of some imaginary pre-Trumpian normalcy and commit to reinvention.  And that is really what these protests are about."

Trump defies a basic democratic tenet by refusing to state he may not relinquish the office of the President if he is determined not to have been reelected.  This from a person who is in office now having received less than the majority of popular votes in 2016.  He suggests resolution of the 2020 election winner may end up being decided by our Supreme Court, apparently in expectation they will decide in his favor.

I can't help wondering if an earlier election in 2000 with Florida's hanging chads was erroneously given to a Presidential candidate that actually lost the election when our Supreme Court was injected into that process, then chose to decide who would be our President.  The consequences of that decision in subsequent years have been profound in our country and the world.

Preventing a stolen election in 2020 is critical but may not be easy since the Republican Party with the U.S. Senate leader seem complicit in allowing the loss of our democracy as does the Attorney General.  They think they control their President who has seduced them by establishing several of their ideological goals, but when unable to prevent potential takeover if he is reelected, they will find in the following years they've given away our and their democracy and freedoms.

The Republicans have been taken over by a minority-in-number faction of their once proud political party backed by private ultra-wealthy forces but fronted by those claiming to be representative of ordinary people under the guise of the Tea Party nomenclature intended to misleadingly imply a connection to a historical American event.  Reference: Dark Money.

The Supreme Court may be a wild card presently but there is ample reason to be concerned their allegiance for constitutional interpretation will fall on the side of big money, just as it did when they basically concluded corporations were people, unleashing corrupting monies into political campaigns.  The pending appointment replacement for Associate Justice Ginsburg is another factor.   Reference: 'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie -- "How a farcical series of events in the 1880s produced an enduring and controversial legal precedent."

We citizens must be ever vigilant in order to preserve our freedoms and rights best achieved with our current system of government, not an autocracy led by a dictator.  We must educate ourselves and vote at every election level.  We do need to continue progress toward healthcare as a human right, equality for all, and a more equitable distribution of wealth.  Along the way, we better take action to preserve this planet on which we live or eventually for future generations nothing else will matter.