They Really Did

“They really did it,” the Atlantic headline read. They really did. But it was a matter of inevitability at this point instead of a matter of question, and we didn’t even need the leak to know it. It was a massive, sustained effort over decades that would be applauded if it were not so misguided.

If you missed my thoughts on the leak about six weeks ago, here’s the link. Nothing I say now would change what I said then. Incidentally, it was my least-read blog of the year. I think it’s a topic nobody really wants to talk about.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg talked about it, years ago. Roe v Wade, I mean. She didn’t like it. I forgot about that but was reminded of it in recent days. She thought the law was too sweeping, too broad, too swiftly structured, and too vulnerable to attack. Clearly, she was correct. Put enough ultra-conservatives on the bench at the right time and, yes, the law can be struck. It was.

A friend of mine asked me “does this mean no more abortion?” No, it does not. In fact, the entire argument to strike it down isn’t even about the right to an abortion, it’s about whether the federal government has a say in it. This court decided that it does not, that each individual state must decide for itself. In defense of that argument, it does say right there in the 10th Amendment that anything not explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution (like, say, freedom of religion or the currently misinterpreted right to bear arms) is left up to the states or the people. The Constitution says nothing about the right to an abortion, ergo it is a states’ right.

But the astute among you saw the loophole there, didn’t ya? “Or the people.” This is why you hear the sentence “Congress needs to codify Roe into law,” because that is who represents the people. If enough people vote for enough pro-choice candidates, they have the power up there to make the right to an abortion the law of the land. The Constitution, by the way, says nothing about restricting abortion rights, either, so the Supreme Court can’t get involved in that.

Codify is a fun word to say.

So, look, if you want a woman to have the right to choose what she does with her own body, want to see health care as a right in our country, and want to get a handle on the very American, very outrageous gun problem we are dealing with, vote for people who want the same things you do. Because people that don’t want those things, and instead want to restrict individual rights, put a gun in every pocket, build walls instead of bridges, waste the climate, enrich the rich while the poor get poorer, alienate immigrants, or otherwise follow the misguided teachings of shock jocks and ideologues, they are out there voting in droves. And, if you haven’t noticed, currently winning.

The good news is, according to some reports, the next generation ain’t having it. Hail to the Zoomers.

In other news, the January 6th committee has made a compelling case for charges of seditious conspiracy against the haplessly elected former president, Donald Trump, in my opinion. Told you he was a mistake. I wonder if his adherents take into consideration at all how many of his cohorts and family have turned against him? It’s a lot. Almost all. And I know why. So do you.

But I have noticed a shift in the level of fanaticism. Oh, there will always be those who think Donald Trump is the second coming, demagogues have a way with some minds, but many I have noticed who were on the Kool-Aid before are now saying things like “I liked him, but I hope it’s DeSantis now.”

Me, too, I tell them, I hope it’s DeSantis and not Trump this time around, too.

Not to say that DeSantis would get my vote, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose Ronaldo over Donnie. Just the same I’d choose Gavin over Joe. I like Joe, he’s done an above-average job as president. But I’ve always thought he was a good #2 at best and feel he is certainly past his prime. I’m all about age limits in government.

By the way, that’s your race, I think, in 2024. I’m more certain now than when I first mentioned it a few weeks ago: Ron DeSantis vs Gavin Newsom. Pees in a pod, I say. Couple of slick, white, middle-aged males who are each wholly representative of the political party that they serve. Ought to be a riot.

That’s all I got for this week, folks. SSL. As I write this, Above-Average Joe is signing a bipartisan gun bill into law that, to me, looks toothless. But everyone gets to say they did something, and something was done. More is needed. On every cultural and political front, in the march towards progress, more is needed.

The overturning of Roe was a call to act. Rise above the zeitgeist, my friends.

Don’t leave it to the zooms.

Apathy ain’t gonna get it done.

18 thoughts on “They Really Did

  1. I vote. I vote in every election for people who promise to do this and promise to do that. Yet here we are, still on the slippery slope. Thomas is already talking about reviewing contraception and gay marriage next. The conservatives have edited a long time to control the court, we should have ratified Roe into law when we had the chance.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Was that ever really an option, without going nuclear? Or maybe that was/is the answer. We certainly seem to be going backwards when it comes to crucial societal progress, but hopefully this is the wake-up call this country needs. 🙏🏻

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I never understand why people don’t vote. We had a provincial election up here and the Cons once again got a majority with only less than half of all eligible voters bothering to head to the polls. But now it’s just complaints, complaints, complaints. You don’t like it? Then vote, dammit!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The people who made this happen are a minority, but they vote every time. When they go for Trump, and I think it will be sooner than later after the searching of Jeffrey Clarks home during the week. He is close to trump and to search his place they had a judges signature so evidence is there. As for Biden he shouldn’t run and I also think Gavin would be great option. The dems need both houses and end the filibuster, then add Supreme Court judges maybe two a year up to about fifteen. As it is they have two much power and they are lifetime appointments, that needs to change!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I so agree, Joe! Pack the court (there should be at least 13 already, but that’s a different topic), end the filibuster, implement laws that are already the will of the people (concerning guns, human rights, and health care, for example) and throw the ex-president in jail where he has always belonged.

      See, we’ve made America great already. 😊


  4. I know people who vote for the sort of politicians who promised to end abortion here in Tennessee–although they’re really not content until it’s nationwide, and one thing I’ve noticed that’s consistent about them is they’re not interested in nuance. They’re not interested in really understanding the issue. They don’t even want to talk about exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother because they want to keep it simple.
    I don’t mean to portray these people as stupid because I don’t think they necessarily are. But they have a lot going on in their lives and they want to walk into the voting booth and make a quick and easy choice without having to think too much, but they vote because they’re scared they’re going to lose their guns, or that two people of the same sex being allowed to marry will somehow threaten their marriage.
    I also don’t know how to reach those people, how to tell them that a total ban on abortion won’t really benefit anyone, that it will only cause harm, both physically and economically, or that nullifying the marriages of same-sex couples will only cause chaos.
    The 10th amendment leaves a lot up to the states but we shouldn’t forget that this country started as a confederacy. The 10th amendment is only one part of a Constitution that’s meant to bind us together because, while there are some things that can be left to the individual states, there are other issues that affect so many regardless of where they live that we have to be united rather than just states.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Entirely telling! As telling as the conservative train wanting to flood the world with unwanted babies raised by folks unready to raise them, and then starkly refusing to help these parents and children once the struggle begins. It’s a weird thought train, I tell ya!

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Whew, there’s a lot to unpack here, Chris! To get deep into the weeds of nuance, I’ll start with a question (or statement) I said to Dylan – my coworker – the other day: if we know, as I do, that at conception there is no human being yet but at birth there is a human being, how do we determine when along the way this accumulation of cells has become a human being? Heartbeat can be heard by 6 weeks, survival outside the womb can persist (with help) after 23 weeks, and autonomic brain functions are fully capable by 32 weeks. So, how do we determine? A true battle cannot be fought for the full legality of the procedure until we can have a consensus on this, I say. If we never can, then we must simply default back to “her body, her choice” and we must all live with this determination.

      As for simplicity, I agree: most people will not take the time to explore nuance – or even get out and vote one way or another – because life is complicated and full of work and bills and beer and church and squabbles and lovemaking and whatnot. This is why I have always supported making voting simpler, but how do we make simpler the notions we vote for? For many, the simplest thing is to let talk radio sort it out which, as we have seen, is the worst choice of all.

      The states thing has been a pet peeve of mine for years. I think its long past time we gave up the notion of separation and begin to come together as a more whole structure (this would lead to universal background checks and healthcare we desperately need) so – obviously – I think there’s a big flaw in the original US Constitution. One nation. Hell, I will even go further and say that we need to come together as one humanity, one world, but ain’t nobody ready for that idea yet. 😉

      All in all, you have once again expounded the topic to a greater degree. Thank you for that, Chris!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I hate to say this but in addition to your considerations of fetal viability leave out an important consideration: the mother. Do we trust women to make such an important medical decision that will affect their health, one with a high chance of endangering their lives?
        And an unintended consequence of the Court’s decision is that pharmacies in Texas are refusing to fill prescriptions for drugs that treat lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and even cancer for women because of a chance the drugs could cause miscarriages in women who don’t know they’re pregnant and the pharmacies would be criminally liable.
        Some were already refusing to fill prescriptions before the Court’s decision. Whether or not lawmakers take any steps to address this issue will say almost as much about their concern for women’s health as the fact that they didn’t do anything sooner.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I heard about the prescriptions yesterday! I think the Court itself needs some reconsideration, perhaps akin to Pete’s recommendation a few years ago (5 appointed by each Party, 5 more by consensus of the appointed 10) or even larger to accommodate the fact that this is a much larger America than in 1776 or 1869.

    Do we trust women to make such a decision? We better. I think we better.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.