In its decision, the High Court rendered void various sections of the Bill of Rights, such as Amendment I - "...no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Countless women whose religion affords them the choice will be prohibited from the free practice of their faiths. Amendment IV - "...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects shall not be violated." No woman will be secure in her person knowing that the Court has determined that someone else will have the authority over her reproductive rights. Amendment V "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty...without dues process of law." The decision opens the door for countless "authorities" to now determine that a woman's reproductive rights are no longer within the scope of her own decision making process, and the act to terminate an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) becomes a capital or infamous crime, subject to prosecution. Amendment VIII - "...excessive bail, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." What can be more cruel than forcing a woman to endure and experience an unwanted pregnancy - particularly in the case of rape (and many of the abortion restrictions include rape induced pregnancies).

It would seem that the conservative faction of the court has indeed established its own religion by means of its decision. The political classification of conservative versus liberal notwithstanding, it would seem that the so-called morality of the court was indeed based on religious convictions as opposed to the rule of law. Further, there is a faction (ever growing in its voice) of the opinion that the justices that formed the opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, in fact committed perjury during their nomination hearings before Congress. The act of perjury is a crime whereby the insistence of impeachment would not be unfounded. (And we won't even begin to take up the case against Clarence Thomas, whose "good Behavior" has long been called to question.

Are not the voices so vehemently raised in support of the unborn, the same voices that decry aiding the mothers struggling in poverty; in opposition of helping young mothers to get an education in order to viably raise and care for their babies? Who among those loud voices that weep on behalf of the unborn, will come forward and care for an unwed mother that she might learn how to care for new life? Yet those same voices swear that too many resources are wasted on child welfare. They raise the banner of RIGHT TO LIFE only to eschew any efforts that might assist in caring for a new life. Oh, vipers and hypocrites...

For those yet unable to decide their position on the issue, consider. How long before there is a movement to silence the voice of reason, of legal protest, to quiet the few that yet speak for the downtrodden whose whispers upon the wind have gone ignored, disregarded and unheard? In the words of the poet - Ask not for whom the bell tolls...

27 June 2022