Early Friday my phone notified me the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.  It brought great happiness, comparable to the 2016 election.  I knew it was happening, but it got off my radar, so when I saw it, it was adulation.  Praise God!  I looked for a copy of the decision, downloaded the pdf, and started to read.  My mind gobbled Alito’s text with delight and refreshment.  Outside of the Bible, this doesn’t happen much.

I celebrate Samuel Alito and the four other justices.  They showed great courage.  They did something that I will never forget, a highlight of my life.  I was eleven years old at the Roe v. Wade decision and did not even know it happened.  I’ve lived almost my entire life under its evil effects.

Even as I say that, the most courageous was Clarence Thomas.  I separate him from the entire group with his concurring opinion.  Same sex marriage is not in the constitution either.  He wrote (p. 119):

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.”

Obergefell decided same sex marriage.  The court passed that on the same basis as Roe.  On the other hand, Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion, to distinguish himself, wrote:

First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in . . . . Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.

I hope he reconsiders this point if same sex marriage comes to the court again.

The decision showed three basic opinions, represented by a majority of five, minority of three, and then Chief Justice Roberts alone.  The majority said nothing personal about the morality of abortion.  The five wrote the Constitution says nothing about abortion and contains no right to abortion therein.  The Constitution neither commends or condemns abortion.  Roe v. Wade found a right where there was none.  It was unconstitutional.

Roberts upheld the Mississippi law as constitutional based upon a generous interpretation of Casey.  Even though the arguments required to choose one way or the other, he chose silence on an abortion right.  Roberts kicked the abortion can down the road, siding neither way on its constitutionality, attempting, it seems, to please both sides.

The minority of three wrote:

Today, The Court . . . says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.

The Court did not say that.  These three Supreme Court justices lied.  The Court said nothing about whether a woman has a right to abortion.  It said the Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion.  The Supreme Court does not decide what rights people have or do not have.  It does decide constitutional rights.  Is a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution?  The majority said, no.

Right now a state cannot force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term.  She can travel to another state with legal abortion and get one.  Everyone knows this.  The governor of California says it will give sanctuary to pregnant women who want to kill their babies.

As you and I read opinions such as written by the minority, perhaps you ask, “What is a woman?”  Or, “Who is ‘her’?” The three liberal judges function according to outdated language and meaning.  Doesn’t the patriarchy force its bias and its meaning of existence and reality through gendered language?

Feminists could support the Dobbs decision.  It establishes the existence of women.  For the court to force women to have their babies, there must be women.  What does that mean for transgender rights?  The Casey decision argued in 1992 a constitutional “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  These words followed Justice Anthony Kennedy’s now very famous sentence from the Casey opinion:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Yes, Kennedy was apparently one of the conservative faction of justices, seen as a moderate, appointed by Ronald Reagan.  Kennedy was no conservative in the spirit of William Buckley.

Donald Trump did a better job choosing justices than Ronald Reagan, who also chose Sandra Day O’Connor.  Take a moment to thank Donald J. Trump. He picked three of these justices in the majority.  Three for three.  Let’s hear it for Trump. True conservatives should give Trump credit, but many won’t.

Mitt Romney tweeted out support of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe.  Could we trust him to have made the choices Trump did?  I don’t think so, but he could impeach Trump for an appropriate call to the Ukrainian president.

The Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe was no thanks to Anti-Trumpers, who did not vote for Trump in 2016.  Most are further to blame for the horrific consequences of 2020.  This includes John Piper and David French.  I concur with this Mollie Hemingway answer to French.

So thankful your anti-Trumpist obsession and damaged ego failed to keep the country from this moment. If you had gotten your way, this day would have never happened. You should repent for your continual slanders against those who had far more courage and wisdom.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 24, 2022

George Bush selected David Souter and George W. Bush did Chief Justice Roberts.  Thankfully the latter also picked Samuel Alito, the author of Dobbs.  This decision would not have happened under Romney or McCain and didn’t under the Bushes.

Liberty Magazine writes the following about Anthony Kennedy’s words in Casey, the infamous abortion decision after Roe:

Though sounding more like a discourse on Spinozean metaphysics than on constitutional jurisprudence, this sentence has reached the level of notoriety among judicial and political conservatives that “separate but equal” once did among civil libertarians, or “material substratum” did among post-Enlightenment idealists.

No U.S. Supreme Court dictum in decades has faced such vilification as has poor Justice Kennedy’s 28 words. Robert Bork called the phrase indicative of “New Age jurisprudence”; William Bennett derided it as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”: George Will said it was “gaseously” written; Michael Uhlman labeled it a “thing of almost infinite plasticity”; the editors of First Things called it the “notorious mystery passage”; and on and on.

Kennedy’s take on liberty fits very nicely with a naturalist’s view of the world, turning language and meaning into one’s personal Gumby toy.

If I could brag about any one aspect of a reading of Dobbs by Samuel Alito, it’s the return to objective, plain writing.  He wrote like words meant something.  No one can follow that sentence by Kennedy, but it allowed for the perverseness we see in modern culture.  Your truth is your truth.  Your liberty is your liberty.  That’s not a baby, but a fetal, clump of cells.

The argument buttressing a right to abortion now undermines the definition of woman.  Most of those out there protesting the decision could and should protest both sides of the decision.  Both sides used oppressive and sexist language that uphold the patriarchy.  The liberal side does it in a more subtle and insidious way, thereby causing even worse damage to the LGBTQIA agenda.

The new, correct word for mother, or its replacement, abandoning the former meaning of woman, is gestator.  It’s obvious that this movement does not have everyone on the same page.  Their gender is fluid and the movement itself is too.  It’s changing and mutating so fast, it doesn’t have time to finish its handbook.  This forces liberal judges to use the outdated terms like “woman” and “her.”  You think I’m joking.

In a refreshing bit of honesty, unlike Roe and Casey, a gestator calling their self Sophie Lewis, in answer to Dobbs provides unmitigated clarity with her The Nation article:  “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!”  This entity (person, whatever) says:  “Dishonest sugar-coating did not work.  Let’s stop.  It didn’t work.  Let’s call it what it is, killing.”  Another word I would use, that Sophie did not, is “murder.”  So here we have it.  Samuel Alito was clear and so was Sophie Lewis.  Exhilarating truthfulness.

When you and I look at the protestors, they represent a profane culture.  They wear their piercings, falsely colored hair, and they speak streams of expletives and destroy private and public property.  This reflects the postmodern philosophy of Sartre, the French existentialist, who said that existence preceded essence.  Humans have no essential nature, thus no morality besides what every man makes for himself.  They don’t see themselves as accountable to God.  The appearance of Dobbs protestors mirrors this existential philosophy aligned with the Anthony Kennedy statement in Casey.  Their costumes are the uniform of their view of reality.  They define their own essence.

Not everyone will say it like Sophie Lewis, but the reason why an assassin could show up at Justice Kavanaugh’s house after the leak of the Dobbs opinion was because “killing is OK.”  That is also why a large majority of the media says little to nothing in opposition.  Their liberty allows for murder.  A baby may exist but cannot define his essence.  A critical theory justifies killing as the essence of liberty.

Since the Supreme Court announced the ruling on Friday, plain language came to the surface.  At a pro-abortion protest a man says, ala Sophie Lewis, he “loves killing babies.”  Many women call it the best decision they ever made.  Over ten years ago, I walked in a large pro-life march in San Francisco.  Those protesting the march on the side of the road were the most vile and lewd people I’ve ever seen in my life.  Their signs, language, and appearance were as bad as I’ve ever seen as an attempt to intimidate the march.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is so good.  The war, however, is just begun.  Hopefully, it won’t be a real war with real bullets, one that the Supreme Court provided the previous day with its concealed carry decision.