The Supreme Court ruling doing away with Roe v. Wade essentially made women second-class citizens, without the autonomy that men enjoy. For some reason that reminded me of a feeling that I have experienced lately especially with medical personnel. Because I no longer drive, Jordan accompanies me to most medical appointments, and too often, the doctor, nurse, whoever talks to Jordan about me, as if I were invisible or, at the least, addled. I’m not sure if it is the wheelchair (if a long walk is involved, we take my transport chair instead of the walker) or if it is just age.
One
day last week, I had an appointment with a physician I’ve seen off and on for
maybe thirty years. He talked directly to me. Jordan occasionally offered an
opinion, and he acknowledged that. But his focus was on me. But when an aide
came in with the follow-up paperwork, the aide completely ignored me and talked
to Jordan. Some time ago, when I had a root canal, the oral surgeon explained
carefully to Jordan what he had done, showing her illustrations. I was still in
the dental chair, but he could have turned me around to see the illustration.
He didn’t, and he told her in careful detail what post-op procedures I should
follow. I was a second-class citizen. And now I am permanently—or until the
ruling is reversed.
I’ve
been wondering today about checks on the Supreme Court, because so much of what
I’ve read indicates that was a flawed and heavily biased decision that follows
personal agendas of the justices. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett apparently
lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, saying that Roe was
established precedent and would not be touched. Justices Thomas and Barrett are
obviously compromised and should have recused themselves, he because of his
wife who was involved in plotting to overthrow our democracy, and she because
she is associated with a restrictive organization from the religious right that
does not promote women’s rights. Can they be impeached?
Scholars
have been quick to point out problems with Justice Alito’s written decision,
from his reliance on an eighteenth-century jurist who prosecuted witches to his
focus on nineteenth-century thinking on abortion, influenced as it was by the
status of women in the pre-Civil War days—they could not own property or vote
and were essentially chattel owned by their husbands. Like the refusal to ban
assault weapons, it applies historically out-of-date thinking to twenty-first
century problems. Historian Heather Cox Richardson pointed out in her “Letter
from an American” last night that Alito’s decision relies on inaccurate history.
Other sources point out that the decision flies in the face of established
precedent and is the first time the court, which usually grants rights, has
taken away an established right. What the heck is going on?
And
where is Justice Roberts in all of this? I read that he wanted a slower
approach to the abortion problem (and problem it is!) but didn’t prevail.
Exactly what are the responsibilities of a chief justice? What authority does
he hold? He seems to be just letting the court run rogue without any direction.
Should he resign?
Where
does the will of the people come in? Quite obviously the majority of Americans
want abortion laws relaxed, even if not entirely written out of the books. What
if any is the court’s responsibility to the people of the U.S.?
And
why are so many men pushing for rigid abortion laws? I understand the position
of some Christians, ranging from orthodox to evangelical, that abortion is
murder of a living being. But when it threatens the life of the mother or gives
life to a badly deformed fetus, I don’t understand the rationale. I respect
others’ beliefs, but I want them to respect mine, which is that an established
life takes precedence over an unborn fetus when a choice is necessary. Interestingly
enough, that is written into the Talmud where abortion is explicitly called for
if the mother is in danger. Although the Bible, as Christians know it, praises
God as the creator of life, it does not explicitly mention abortion.
So why
are these men so rabid on the subject? I hate to believe that greed for money
and power would lead them to run roughshod over lives, but what else, besides a
prurient interest in intimacy, could it be? Are they so threatened by the
increasing power of women in business, the arts, and life in general that they
must subjugate us, take us back in history instead of forward to the future?
I don’t
think this is the last word, and it will be interesting to see it play out.
Meantime, though, some women are caught in the moment. More than one clinic waiting
room was full of patients with procedures scheduled for that day when the
decision was announced. The would-be patients had to go home. And not many of
them can afford to fly to California.
No comments:
Post a Comment