It’s difficult to write about something like this. We’d seen it coming like a car crash in slow motion, inevitable and unstoppable since the hypocrisy of the Republican party in 2020. Now, a right to choose guaranteed across our nation by the Supreme Court in 1972 has been overturned by a dubious cast of that same institution. And Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t want to stop there – image below from the third page of his concurring statement on the decision.
For those unaware, the original decision, and the decision of these other cases on Justice Thomas’s warpath were ruled to be protected by an implied “Right to Privacy” guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. From the fifth amendment: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law.” And from the fourteenth: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Overturning Roe vs Wade is chipping away at this Right to Privacy by disallowing women that privacy when discussing medical treatment with their doctors. It is no business of mine, my neighbor, my senator, or anyone else what a woman and her doctor must do for her health. That decision is for that woman to make alone. And removing the federally granted guarantee for that choice to be available nationwide is unacceptable. Deplorable.
It’s difficult to write about something like this. Because things just seem to be getting worse and worse. I write a blog focused on D&D and media criticism. I write fantasy stories. But if what I say can convince one person to reconsider their stance, it’s worth it right? If someone in my small audience reads this post and thinks, “I hadn’t thought of it that way,” that’s a victory.
So, let’s get into more detail, I guess.
Republican Hypocrisy
Back in 2016, during the last year of Obama’s presidency, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed. As part of his presidential duties, Obama was set to nominate his replacement. The Republican party controlled the Senate at the time, and they didn’t want Scalia’s seat to be taken by a left leaning justice. An informal rule in the senate from 1992 had a lot of precedence in this situation, saying that a nominated justice should at a minimum be someone playing closer to the center of the political spectrum. Enter Merrick Garland.
Back in 2010, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch had publicly said that Garland would be a “consensus nominee.” One who would easily win confirmation in the Senate. In March of 2016 when Obama announced his nomination, he said “I have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence. Presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term; neither should a Senator.”
The Republican-controlled Senate decided that they might consider Garland if Hillary Clinton was to win in November’s election, as he’d be less liberal than any nominee she would put forward. So they were happy to have him only if they were going to lose again. Their principals about the people having a say in this vacancy since it occurred in the last year of the presidency were going to be thrown out the window regardless should the election not end favorably for them.
And they doubled down on this hypocrisy in 2020 with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rammed Amy Coney Barrett through the process despite the election occurring during the process. Lindsey Graham, who’d gone so far as to invite everyone to use his words against him should he do the same in 2020 after 2016.
Lindsay Graham “Use my words against me”
Whether you believe that an upcoming election should serve as a delay for the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice or not doesn’t matter to the Republican Party. They only care about furthering their agenda. There are no codes or morals they will not sully. They do not stand for anything.
It’s a game to them. It’s just about racking up the most points, the most victories, and plastering a smile on their face like it’s their favorite football team and you were backing their rivals in one of the biggest games of the season. They don’t care that it actually affects people’s lives.
What Exactly do They Mean by Pro-Life?
People that are against abortion say they are pro-life. That they value life. That’s what it’s all about, right? Saving lives! Making sure a baby can grow up happy and healthy.
Yet these same people are often against legislation that would improve lives. They advocate against universal healthcare. They don’t want the social safety nets to be expanded. They are in favor of the death penalty for crimes. They refused to wear masks during a pandemic. They refused to be vaccinated to protect both themselves and those around them. Their legislators cut programs to feed hungry children in schools. They shrug their shoulders when a school gets shot up and children die. ‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens is a title the Onion has used TWENTY-FOUR times since 2014.
Are these people really pro-life? Do these people really value life above everything else? Or are they interested in control? In ensuring women don’t have access to a procedure that might save their lives?
Why do these people have such a fixation on punitive pregnancy? “If you didn’t want a child, you shouldn’t have had sex.” It takes two to tango, so why isn’t there any legislation in the works to ensure men don’t abandon the children they sow with unprotected sex? Or even in the rare event that the contraceptives don’t work? Why is the case that guaranteed access to contraceptives on Justice Thomas’s warpath?
What EXACTLY do they mean when they say they’re “pro-life?”
I guess they’re arresting women for Miscarriages.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
This woman was charged for losing her unborn baby after she was shot. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48789836
Conclusion
It really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s read my work what side of this issue I come down on. Ebonskar presents an emphatically clear opinion on a fascist state and its practices. The Adventures of Red Watch have centered around dealing with unwavering zealotry and how dangerous it is in each installment.
There’s a lot more that could be and has been said on these subjects. It’s out there. Thank you for reading. I hope you learned something.
Ben Stovall Blog 