Here’s What the Reversal of Roe v. Wade Really Means

You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Whether it’s their close friends or the ideological company with which they cavort.

Or those whom they favorably quote.

Consider Justice Samuel Alito, who, in his recently leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, made it clear whose authority he believes we should rely upon for assessing the legitimacy of abortion.

That authority?

Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English Judge.

In his decision — in which he says the Court misinterpreted history when they legalized abortion in 1973 — Alito references Hale, who insisted that abortion was a “great crime.”

Even though Hale wasn’t an American judge whose meanderings might be seen as a matter of national importance, Alito insists his views are relevant.

Why? Because they speak to the common law tradition to which we should be largely bound and from which he believes Roe grievously deviated.

And he says this even though no state outlawed abortion for the first century of the nation’s existence, despite that common law history.

In other words, the founders didn’t give a damn about Judge Hale.

But according to Alito, Hale is the authority to whom we should look for guidance here.

This tells us a lot about Samuel Alito and the thinking of the anti-abortion right-wing.

Because Sir Matthew Hale wasn’t merely a jurist who viewed abortion as a horrible offense.

He was also one who imposed death sentences on women for witchcraft and devised the theory that a husband couldn’t be guilty of raping his wife because:

…the husband cannot be guilty of rape… upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up to this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract

Lovely.

This is the individual to whom we should listen.

A man who murdered women under cover of law and justified their rape under the same.

He, and not our own notions of right and wrong, should guide us.

He, and not women themselves, should be the arbiter of how their pregnancies progress, or if they do.

This is what the right has always believed: that the thinking of long-dead men (especially white men and Christians) should take priority over modern notions of justice and equality.

Especially when those modern notions might have been influenced by those who would have been previously forced into silence.

This was never about “state’s rights” or even abortion, per se

Anyone who believes the fight to overturn Roe has been about abortion alone hasn’t been paying attention.

It was never that simple.

Nor was it about returning these matters to the states.

Oh sure, some conservatives would insist that was their only purpose.

They would say things like, “Nine judges in DC shouldn’t tell people in Alabama or Nebraska how to think about the sanctity of human life.”

In other words, states should be free to live by their own moral convictions on such matters.

If Mississippi wants to outlaw abortion, it should be allowed. If California wishes to keep it legal, so be it.

But they never meant any of that.

Now that Roe is to be overturned, those who fought to make that happen have revealed their true selves.

They now admit their desire to obtain a nationwide ban on abortion if Republicans reclaim control of both houses of Congress.

Which shouldn’t be surprising.

After all, if you believe abortion is murder and that embryonic and fetal life is morally equal to the woman carrying it, it stands to reason you wouldn’t be satisfied with banning abortion in 26 states.

Once one decides a woman has no right to bodily autonomy and that she can be forced to sacrifice that body to another being against her will, federalism becomes a trifle.

But not only that.

Far more than abortion is at risk.

By ruling that the legal basis for Roe was faulty — that an implicit right to privacy exists in the Constitution — the Court has thrown down the gauntlet against the last half-century of jurisprudence regarding sex and gender.

Privacy was the basis for the Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which struck down state laws against contraception.

If there is no right to privacy, there is no right to control one’s reproduction even before becoming pregnant.

Though no state would outlaw all forms of contraception, it is certainly conceivable that several might seek to ban birth control pills, which some believe (falsely) to be abortifacients.

Beyond matters of reproduction, Lawrence v. Texas, the decision striking down so-called sodomy laws — really, the outlawing of homosexuality — relied upon the principle of privacy now put in the wood chipper by the highest Court.

And since Alito’s opinion insists rights aren’t real if they haven’t stood the test of time over many generations, it seems almost certain that he and his reactionary colleagues would find overturning Lawrence and once again outlawing LGBTQ folks acceptable.

As well as marriage equality.

Although Obergefell v. Hodges rested upon more than implied privacy rights — it also turned on notions of equal protection — there is little doubt that Alito would apply his anti-Roe logic to that decision.

Indeed, he already did in his dissent to Obergefell: an opinion for which he didn’t have a majority then — but likely would now.

The real goal is domination and control — the restoration of traditional hierarchy

It is time to face the facts.

First, those who still say “there’s no real difference between Democrats and Republicans” are unworthy of being listened to about anything beyond restaurant Yelp reviews at this point.

If you’re one of those who thought it would be no big deal if Trump won, or if some Republican Senator in your state did — so you sat out the elections or voted for some third party candidate so you could feel pure — seriously, fuck you very much.

Second, know this: the war on Roe was never about abortion so much as restoring traditional hierarchy and authority.

Outlawing abortion and limiting, if not banning, certain types of birth control strips women of sexual autonomy and restores hegemonic sexual power to men.

Which is precisely the point.

They aren’t principally concerned about fetuses and embryos, let alone “babies.”

As Margaret Renkl noted in her recent New York Times piece, if they were, they would support policies that would bring down abortion rates dramatically by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

They would want expanded access to birth control and more comprehensive sex education, which actually works, unlike the abstinence version.

But they have supported neither of these.

Why? Because their desire to limit abortion and save fetal life was always less important to them than restricting sexual activity outside of marriage or sex for pleasure without the possibility of procreation.

Additionally, as Renkl notes, if they’d been concerned with reducing abortions, they would have supported expanded social safety nets for families and children — affordable child care, paid family leave, and more comprehensive health care coverage — rather than seeking to slash these.

But in each case, they took the position that would make it more difficult for parents to raise children, increasing the likelihood that a pregnancy would end in abortion.

Because this was never about saving babies.

It was about controlling women and maintaining traditional hierarchy, which, in the economic sense, would be challenged by larger safety nets.

If that doesn’t convince you, there is one final proof that the right cares only about controlling women and nothing about “saving babies.”

Namely, the way conservatives address in vitro fertilization.

Jessica Valenti has pointed out that if fertilized eggs are “persons” in the womb, they must also be persons when waiting to be implanted in a woman who has stored them for later usage.

But if so, why do abortion opponents not seek to prohibit the discarding of such “persons,” which occurs all the time, usually after successful implantation and once a couple (or single woman) decides they don’t want more kids?

Why don’t pro-lifers seek to prosecute couples who discard their “extra babies” or the labs who do?

When Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss was asked this a few years ago, he gave the revealing answer, noting that “the egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

Right, because abortion restrictions are not about saving human life, they are about restricting the rights and autonomy of women.

The right-wing is solely about domination and subordination.

It is all they have ever been about.

The Republican Party and its ideological leaders are the enemies of women’s liberty.

They must be defeated, finally and forever.

Not compromised with.

Not understood or brought into some broader bipartisan coalition.

Crushed.

Roe vs. Wade is Dead, Our Lawmakers Have Failed Us Once AGAIN

Well, it’s happening.

As America’s celebrities gathered in all their wealth and glamour at a Gilded Age themed Met Gala in New York, news broke that according to a first draft majority opinion that was leaked to Politico, the conservative Supreme Court has decided to strike down the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that guarantees a woman’s right to abortion.

I struggled to fall asleep on Tuesday night.

All night long I tossed and turned as the news sunk in, unable to shake off everything that I was thinking and feeling. We all knew it was coming, didn’t we? But, that does little to prepare us for when it actually happens, does it?

I have become accustomed to essentially being told by those around me that I’m just too angry. Too divisive. I expect too much. I live in a fantasyland. I’m silly. Naive? Oh, I’ve heard that more times than I can count. I’ve heard it all. Well when it comes to this issue, I don’t have the patience for any of it.

Yes, I am angry. Absolutely livid.

In all honesty, though, I think I might be more sad than angry.

Obviously, I’m angry at the right wing. I’m angry at the fact that this decision was made with those responsible all too aware that this was going to do nothing to prevent abortion. This will kill women, and they know it. Of course, it’s not lost on me either that these are the very same people who claim to care about life, while at the same time refusing to do anything to help the women and children they’re forcing into these circumstances.

Do those who claim to be “pro-life” want to ensure that school lunches and breakfasts are free? Do they want to ensure they have access to a free, high-quality education that will continue through college? Do they want to ensure the women being forced to carry a child will be able to feed, house, and clothe that child? If she or the child gets sick, do they aim to ensure there is access to healthcare that’s free at the point of service?

Of course not, and they don’t even deny it.

In the eyes of the Supreme Court and those who support this decision, women are incubators and nothing more. This is not about life this is about control. This is about ensuring that it’s even more difficult for women to attain economic freedom and control over their lives. This is about upward class mobility and ensuring fewer and fewer people — obviously for women overall, and Black and Brown women in particular — can achieve it.

And then, there’s the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party whose refusal to even attempt to codify Roe vs. Wade into law with the House, the Senate and the White House in their control is absolutely unforgivable. The Democratic party would rather fundraise off of this than respond with substantive action. The Democratic Party, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, supports anti-choice Democrats like Henry Cuellar simply because of that D next to their name.

They must be so proud.

But hey, as long as those panicky fundraising emails deliver some money, it’s worth it, right?

How can you not be disgusted?

And then some brushed off the importance of the Courts. Those who insisted it really wasn’t going to make much of a difference and Trump’s impact on the judicial system was no big deal. Well, considering this wouldn’t have been possible if he had not won, I’d say that it was, wasn’t it?

I am exhausted. I am devastated. I am angry.

But I refuse to feel powerless. If they’re going to wage this all-out war, then we must fight back. No lawmaker should be able to visit their offices at home without someone questioning them about codifying Roe vs. Wade into law, and the steps they’re going to take to make it happen. I don’t want to see a single fundraising email or text message from any of them over this. Personally, I don’t even think I could stomach hearing Nancy Pelosi talk about it. They sicken me, and until they actually take action I have no patience for any of them.

Now is the time to channel anger into action. It’s time to fight.

Ted Cruz is a Racist Hack

His questions to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson reveal his contempt for Black people and the intelligence of us all

At the risk of sounding like a broken record — after all, what I’m going to say about Ted Cruz is something I said recently about Tucker Carlson — sometimes repetition has its virtues.

This is especially true when referring to birds of a feather who together drop their shit from telephone wires on the unsuspecting who walk beneath them.

And so, let it be proclaimed loudly and clearly: Ted Cruz is a racist asshole.

We know this because he treats Black people as interchangeable pieces on a racial chessboard who should be expected to answer for others of their group, in a way he would never expect of whites.

Cruz is also a hack, by which I mean a fraud who deliberately distorts reality for political purposes using out-of-context quotes from those with whom he disagrees to smear them and those he views as adjacent to them.

We know all of this because of how he comported himself yesterday in the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Cruz (who thirstily searched for himself on Twitter once his performance was done) demonstrated both the racism and the hackery during his allotted time to question Jackson.

Cruz’s attack on The 1619 Project was a racist and dishonest smear job

First, he quizzed the nominee about The 1619 Project because of a speech she had given in which she praised Nikole Hannah-Jones, who orchestrated the New York Times series by that name.

Cruz, noting that several historians have criticized the series, implied that Jackson’s favorable mention of it suggested she agreed with all of its contents. Presumably, this would include Hannah-Jones’s own essay for the Project, in which she argued that one reason for the American Revolution was the desire of white colonists to preserve the system of slavery.

Cruz, who thirstily searched for himself on Twitter as soon as his performance was done, demonstrated both the racism and the hackery during his allotted time to question Jackson.

Before addressing Cruz’s attack here, I want to point out that this view, though controversial, is not as outrageous as some might believe. Gerald Horne presents evidence for it in The Counterrevolution of 1776, as do Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen in their volume, Slave Nation.

I have no doubt Cruz has said favorable things about Thomas Jefferson. And yet, no one would presume that he agrees with Jefferson’s documented raping of his human property, his ownership of hundreds of Black people, or his comments about how, regarding whites and Blacks, “the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

Although Jefferson’s racism and rapism are infinitely more offensive than even the most uncharitable reading of Hannah-Jones, no one would seek to hold Cruz responsible for the former just because he has opined as to the greatness of the Declaration of Independence.

Yet Cruz expects this of Jackson concerning Hannah-Jones, simply because she said some kind words about the 1619 Project.

Likewise, it is inconceivable that anyone would quiz a white nominee about some speech in which they had praised the Constitution by asking how they felt about many of the framers owning other human beings and virtually all holding racist views.

Yet, in this case, Cruz has asked Jackson to justify her praise of the 1619 Project, based on one part of Hannah-Jones’s writing, which itself is only one small part of the larger work. Why, other than the two women’s shared race, would Jackson be expected to do such a thing?

The difference, driven home by Cruz this week, is clear — it’s racism.

White people can say and do racist things, and other white people don’t have to answer for them, even if those secondary white people have praised the first group.

But if Black people write things that merely offend your historical perspective, any Black person who has said something nice about the offending writer can be called on the carpet for it and interrogated like a common criminal.

Got it, racist, thanks.

Cruz’s attack on Ibram X. Kendi’s books was equally dishonest (and racist)

Cruz then did the same thing — seeking to hold one Black person accountable for another — in his discussion of Ibram X. Kendi’s work in the children’s books Antiracist Baby and Stamped (for Kids).

The link between Jackson and Kendi? None really, except that Jackson sits on the Board of Trustees for Georgetown Day School, a progressive private school in DC, and Kendi’s books are among several that GDS either uses in class or has referenced in recent years in some of their racial equity initiatives.

(Apparently) if Black people write things that offend your historical perspective, any Black person who has said something nice about the offending writer can be called on the carpet for it and interrogated like a common criminal

For Cruz, whose own daughters attend a private school in Houston that also recommends and uses Kendi’s work, this was enough of a link to grill Jackson about her views of it, or at least his dishonest caricature of that material.

Cruz notes that according to Antiracist Baby, children are either “taught racism or antiracism, there is no neutrality.” To Cruz, this suggests that kids are natural-born racists, and he asked Jackson her view about that, even though that isn’t what Kendi is arguing — quite the opposite.

As per the research on this matter, he insists that racism is taught. By not deliberately instilling antiracist thinking in young people, they will grow up to participate actively or passively in racism.

While one might find that hard to hear, it’s undeniable. Historically, that’s precisely what has happened.

Most white Americans, for instance, were not enslavers, owners of segregated businesses, or terrorists who attacked sit-in protesters. But most white people sat by and never actively fought against enslavement or segregation either. Most went along. Kendi’s point is that this is not neutrality. It is passive but real and meaningful participation in evil.

Cruz may not like the sound of it. But that doesn’t make it untrue.

And the fact that one Black person said it in a book on a reading list at a school on whose board Jackson serves doesn’t mean she should have to address it at all. Likewise, she also shouldn’t be expected to weigh in on Hemingway’s alcoholism and propensity for violence if the school teaches A Farewell to Arms.

So too, when Cruz turned to Kendi’s book for teens, Stamped (for Kids) — a version of his award-winning volume Stamped from the Beginning — he distorted its contents while expecting Jackson to weigh in on them.

For instance, Cruz notes, with much indignation, that Stamped (for Kids), which Kendi co-authored with Jason Reynolds, includes the line, “Can we send white people back to Europe?”

Of course, he ignores the context of this sentence, which, if read correctly, would change the author’s meaning from what Cruz implies (that Kendi is an anti-white bigot) to what he intended.

And what is that? By reading the entire passage, it’s obvious: namely, to tell people of color to “go back” where they came from — something they hear often — is absurd because they are as much a part of America as white folks.

Kendi and Reynolds were trying to make that point by asking how white people would feel if, for instance, Indigenous persons asked, “can we send white people back to Europe?”

It wasn’t meant to endorse European repatriation. It was meant to demonstrate the absurdity of racism.

And Ted Cruz knows that.

Cruz’s claims of Judge Jackson’s link to Critical Race Theory is peak bullshit

Likewise, Cruz knows Judge Brown doesn’t use Critical Race Theory in sentencing decisions. But he suggested as much when he displayed a poster board with a snippet of a sentence from one of her speeches, in which she noted how criminal sentencing policy raises all kinds of issues, including those posed by Critical Race Theory.

It is obvious to any honest observer that Jackson was talking about how sentencing policy raises the kinds of questions about racial injustice that CRT has long addressed.

And that’s true.

The history of sentencing policy obviously raises these issues.

From how rape and sexual assault were treated when committed by Black men as opposed to white men to modern-day differences in sentencing for powder instead of crack cocaine, such issues have been raised.

Critical Race Theory has long pointed out the consistency of such disparities to suggest that racism in the law has functioned more as a feature than a system glitch.

Jackson was reflecting on that inarguable point, which emanates from CRT but is understood by most anyone who has observed criminal sentencing in America.

However, to Cruz, Jackson was suggesting she used CRT when handing down sentences in court. As if she would listen to the trial, then sneak off to chambers, open up a book by Derrick Bell or get on the phone with Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, or Mari Matsuda and seek advice on what to do with the defendant in front of her.

Again, as with his distortions of Hannah-Jones’s work and Kendi’s, this is a ridiculous reading of Judge Jackson’s comment, and Ted Cruz knows it. Since he has no doubt read the full text of the various quotes he snipped and blew up onto poster boards for the hearing, his representation of those statements cannot be seen as anything other than deceptive.

In short, Ted Cruz is fully aware of precisely how full of shit Ted Cruz is.

Which, by now, is possibly the one thing he has in common with most of America, regardless of political party.