Roe, Rights, and Religious Terrorists

Previously, I talked about the very real, and very severe implications that a repeal of Roe V Wade is going to have on every single woman in your life. Originally, that piece was going to be expanded to include several other topics in relation to the SCOTUS and Roe, but I felt that the gravity of this decision on the lives of women deserved it's own standalone piece, because it simply cannot be understated how grave this repeal will become to their health and welfare. If you're more interested in that topic, it's called No Exceptions.

This piece is more in line with what's going to come next.

Because, well...these ideological religious terrorists on the SCOTUS are just getting started.

They haven't even begun to show us what they will do, and they have plans that have been in the works for 30 years.

Roe is just the beginning

A direct quote from Samuel Alitos leaked draft of the argument being used to repeal Roe:

I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor have I spent any measurable amount of time stalking potential supreme court justices so I can figure out what they're thinking. That being said, I don't think you have to be either of those things to understand that the language being used in this argument leaves so much open to interpretation, it's almost not an argument at all.

Yet, as flimsy as the language is, this is potentially the most important paragraph in the entire 93 page draft when it comes to understanding the mentality of Alito, and the other terrorists that were appointed by a one term, twice impeached president who has never not been under federal investigation.

But I digress. These are the points that require paying attention too:

1. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion..."

No, it doesn't. The constitution also doesn't mention that social media companies can sell my meta data to advertisers. The constitution also doesn't mention that black people exist. The constitution also makes no mention whatsoever, in its original state, that women have the right to vote, or that they are anything other than human incubators. The constitution is a 235 year old document that is in many ways, completely unrelated and out of touch with modern society. Yet, as stated by this judge, anything not explicitly stated in this document is not considered a right. A 235 year old document is being used to establish the legitimacy of rights of living people, in 2022, by a lifetime appointed Supreme Court Judge.

Think that's the way it's supposed to be?

Ok.

This random dead guy named Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you though:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

2. "...and no such right is implicity protected by any constituional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely - the Due Process clause of the Fourtheenth Amendment"

Now we're getting somewhere.

For the uninitiated, the due process clause of the 14th amendment states that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” To simplify it, this law essentially covers the gray areas of personal privacy that the founders probably didn't bother including, because lets face it, it probably took a really long time and a lot yelling back and forth to get the constitution written at all in the first place, and it's amazing we got as much as we did. That's why we can amend the constitution, to update it, and work on making sure that the founders original ideas still coincide with the rapid change of the modern world.

To simplify this statement further: The right to privacy is the justification used to pass Roe V Wade.

Judge Samuel Alito is arguing that the Due Process Clause is illegitimate. He's saying that the fundamental right to privacy, as stated in the constitution, has no historical precedent.

He is stating, as plainly as the verbiage that legal jargon can possibly state: Americans have no right to privacy. There is no historical precedent in the constitution that allows a right to privacy.

Do you get it? You have no right to privacy.

According to Samuel Alito.

According to Neil Gorsuch.

According to Brett Kavanaugh.

According to Amy Comey Barret.

According to John Roberts.

They have the majority vote in the supreme court.

They are all Christian extremists.

They are all appointed *for life*.

3. "That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Consitution, but any such right must be deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition"

"Deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition".

Regardless of your political positions, regardless of what you believe, regardless of whether or not you consider yourself purely apolitical and would prefer to stay out of it, regardless of quite literally anything you might be thinking at this exact moment, if you are a sane and rational human being: this statement should scare the fucking shit out of you.

A supreme court justice, a lifetime appointed judge who can dictate the lives of 350 million people with the stroke of a pen and 4 raised hands, fundamentally believes that any right not enumerated in the *original version of the constitution with no amendments* is not a right that any Americans have.

When the constitution was written, black people were still slaves. They were "counted" under the 3/5ths compromise. They were not "freed" until 78 years later, where they lived under Jim Crow, until 1965. If you're a millennial, your grandparents remember this. Though they may not like to talk about it.

When the constitution was written, women were not included. I mean that literally, they are simply not in it. The word "women" or "woman" is nowhere to be found. It was not until 1920 that women were acknowledged by the US political system at all, by being allowed to vote. Even then, female representation was struggling to be taken seriously by a majorly patriarchal political system, and that mentality still exists today in 2022.

When the constitution was written, the word "gay" and "homosexual" were not included. I mean literally, they're not in it. "Why would they be?" you might be asking. To that I would say, if you think being gay is simply a product of modern times, you're going to be absolutely shocked by the Romans.

Same thing with LGBTQ people. Simply not in the constitution. This group is potentially the most at risk of religious totalitarianism, worldwide. Frankly, this the group I fear for the most.

The constitution was written, as of the writing of this sentence, 235 years ago. Two hundred and thirty five years, we have been arguing, amending, pissing, moaning, voting, complaining, protesting, writing to representatives, expressing our intentions to do everything in our power to live up to the standard that we always believed America to be: a place for everyone. A place where anyone can come from anywhere, have the same rights as anyone else, be held to the same standard as anyone else, and have the same opportunities as anyone else, to be able to live any sort of life you can possibly dream of.

Two hundred and thirty five years of blood, sweat, and progress.

Undone by the pen of a single man, and 4 raised hands.

According to Samuel Alitos draft, if you are not a straight, white, christian male, the constitution does not guarantee you any rights whatsoever.

Any rights whatsoever. You get nothing.

You get to live in the America of 1787, and if you don't like it, you will be imprisoned. Potentially for life.

"Deeply rooted in the nations history and tradition"

Americas history is that of violent bloodshed and oppression of minority groups. It is a history of white supremacy, a history of bending over backwards to assure that "freedom" only applies to a very specific demographic of people. It is a history of harboring grudges against anyone that dares question the status quo of the time. It's a history of Christianity attempting to dominate a national religion, in a country with the freedom to practice any religion.

It's a history of people that refuse change, living next to people that demand it.

We've made it pretty goddamn far in 235 years.

We cannot let 5 people upend it in the name of "history and tradition".

We cannot let 5 people upend it in the name of their god.

In the name of their fucking sky fairy.

We have to understand, and accept the grave reality, that 5 people are about to eliminate a 235 year old American experiment of self governance, and that any right that isn't explicitly nailed down to the floor, is a right that is up for grabs.

When your right to privacy is being argued against, nothing is nailed down to the floor.

Nothing.

"Little by little, bit by bit, justification by justification, we become the monsters"

- Jim Wright, AKA @Stonekettle on Twitter