A critical point is being missed through all the shock, dismay, and fear over what most believe will be the Supreme Court destroying a woman’s right to choose. First, there is no question that the loss of a woman’s autonomy over her body results from narrow-minded conservative thinking and is the culmination of the concerted effort by conservatives to control a woman’s body. Democrats, in turn, have squandered the moral and legal high ground for the illusion of compromise; women should unquestionably have the right to privacy and body autonomy. While the Republicans spent years chasing the car, the Democrats took their foot off the accelerator. Instead of putting the pedal to the metal and flatly stating women have the right to decide if they want to bear a child—no matter the circumstance, Democrats kept looking for off-ramps to win over Republicans; what about rape or incest, they asked; how about the woman’s health? Women, it seems, are only allowed a choice as compensation for traumatic violence. No one asks a man contemplating a vasectomy why he wants to “kill” his babies. It is his body, his choice.
For one minute, does anyone believe that Republicans will stop at taking just one right away?
Republicans always inflate the head of their base with hot air to see if they will float. The leaked Supreme Court decision, seemingly a precursor to overturning Roe v. Wade, referred to Plessy v. Ferguson as proof that no decision is beyond scrutiny despite precedent. The obscenity of the comparison lies in the fact that Plessy was eventually overturned because the idea of America is to expand rights, not retract them. Chief Justice Roberts spearheaded the stripping of voting rights in 2013. The outrage was minimal because it mainly affected minorities. So the balloon was filled to the point where there are nearly 500 bills curbing voting rights. For years, the refrain was getting out the vote; Republicans now believe in getting rid of the vote.
There is a strange obsession with sex, race, religion, and privacy that disturbs conservatives. I have no doubts that contraceptives and the day after pill are next on the list. Again, the GOP telegraphed their move with the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. Aside from the fact contraceptives serve a medicinal purpose other than preventing pregnancy for many women, the Supreme Court ignored women’s health concerns. Instead, the Court prohibited the Affordable Care Act from paying for women’s comprehensive health care for religious reasons. Again, this was a retraction of the Griswold v. Connecticut case that legally made it possible for couples [women] to purchase contraceptives in 1965.
States’ rights have long been the excuse for anti-miscegenation laws, misogyny, racism, and anti-gay rights legislation. Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) was recently questioned about interracial marriage, “So you would be OK with the Supreme court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?”
“Yes,”Braun answered. “I think that that’s something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that’s hypocritical.” Braun issued a tepid retraction when the predictable blowback occurred from liberals, suggesting he misunderstood the question. The racist intent and public exposure were similar to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), questioned by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in 2010. Maddow asks Sen. Paul, Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?
This question should have been answered with a simple“no.” Instead, Paul went on a long and convoluted rant, a portion of which is below,
… Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it” said Paul.
Once more, the appropriate blowback occurred, but Paul pointed out that it was worth debating, which was his real aim. The mere fact that anyone thinks exclusions based on race warrant serious thought—even for a minute says more about the participant’s morals than the response. Democrats blithely go about their business with the old school belief that the GOP still exists of Reagan and “Tip” O’Neill, who would throw back a few after a hearty day of debate. The thirty-eighth state passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and it awaits publishing to make it the 28th Amendment. One problem is that the Trump-appointed Archivist is refusing. By obeying one of the last orders of the former President and not publishing, it has been in limbo since January of 2020.
Passage of the ERA has been on the liberal agenda for one year longer than abolishing abortion has been on the conservative wish list. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 and passed in 1972, but it needed passage by at least 38 states to become an Amendment to the Constitution. While we wait and Republican tie up women’s rights and Democrats tie up their thumbs, we are moving backward as a country. Voting rights, women’s rights…what is next? I am sure most people think women’s rights shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Associate Justice Samuel Alito dispelled that fallacy in blunt and uncompromising terms.
Continue to Vote for Change