Category Archives: On Being a Woman

Abortion and Judicial Review: A brief of the issues

Abortion and Judicial Review: A brief of the issues

(PDF Version)

I. …..Introduction/Judicial Review
II. …..The Role of Feminism
III. …..The Role of Religion
IV. …..The Role of the States
V. …..The Role of Men
VI. …..Conclusion
But it has been well said that legal education sharpens a person’s mind by narrowing it, and in the battle of opposing counsel, each of whom seeks to deduce an opposite conclusion from the same premise, a good judge must at every moment be willing to call a halt and say to the advocate: ‘Your argument is perfectly logical, but the result for which you contend seems to me absurd.’ William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, 99 (2001).
I. Introduction

The American criminal justice system, it is a decidedly adversarial one. In the quest for fair procedural and substantive due process, both sides constantly push and pull, one against the other; the right to contract and of free market principles vs governmental regulation for the welfare of the people; the rights of the individual vs the need for a well-ordered society; the rights of the victim vs the rights of those who are accused. In the case of abortion, the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the woman to bodily autonomy.

But the American system is one that guarantees protection to the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And to the accused- no matter how heinous the crime nor immediately overwhelming the evidence of guilt- it guarantees Due Process of law, even against the mob that riots, the angry crowd that marches on the steps of the courthouse or the lynch mob that lies in wait demanding immediate justice and retribution for the wrong done.

Decidedly, the Framers of the Constitution and millions who have flocked to the shores of America since Colonial days have come to her shores seeking refuge from oppression from all around the world. And the Constitution expresses the view that “congress shall make no law” regarding the establishment of religion or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I This oppression, which the laws and ways of the American system of government have guarded against since the beginning of its foundations, is the very oppression that those who originally came to the shores of America were fleeing from. See, eg., Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Part 1 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html ; Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Part 2 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01-2.html

So dear is the freedom of the individual against unnecessary governmental restraint and intrusion, so dear the freedom of conscience that it is embedded deeply and dearly into the very Constitution itself as a fundamental right, that the government may never take from its people lest it shows a compelling and legitimate reason for doing so.

Neither a direct democracy nor adhering to unlimited freedom that is the purview of anarchy and lawlessness, American judges have since the earliest days been given the power of judicial review to rule solely upon the issues of law, deciding in a fair and impartial manner, according to the spirit and values of the Constitution whether or not legislation impinges unnecessarily upon the Constitutional rights of the citizen. As such, the appellate courts in America have long been held to be the last bastions of freedom, a final buffer that stands between the citizen and unjust and oppressive legislation and abusive executive actions. See, eg., Marbury vs Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). (Defining judicial review in a case that has never been overturned since). “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule…if an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect?” Id., at 177.

This concept of judicial review has also served as a model for other developed countries around the world: the basic concept of judicial review being that the judicial branch of government exists to address the grievances of the citizens as a means of keeping a “check” on the executive and legislative branches of government.

II. The Role of Feminism

But beyond any one individual or group of individual’s personal philosophical or religious convictions about the meaning or the origins of life is the very real and justifiable fear in the hearts and minds of the citizenry- even if never realized beyond the subconscious level- that too liberal and permissive laws or lax social attitudes surrounding abortion or contraception would lead to women being too free and promiscuous as regards to how they express or conduct themselves sexually, thus leading ultimately to the destruction of the two-parent nuclear family and the natural ordering of society such as can be seen in today’s times. It could undoubtedly be said that abortion is the by-product- as well as the enabler- of feminism itself, giving women more “choice” in childbearing beyond mere contraception (especially if that contraception should fail) in order to compete on equal footing with men- who do not become pregnant (thus making the sexes “equal”).

Because motherhood has a dramatic impact on a woman’s educational prospects, employment opportunities, and self-determination, restrictive abortion laws deprive her of basic control over her life…A State’s restrictions on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy also implicate constitutional guarantees of gender equality. State restrictions on abortion compel women to continue pregnancies they otherwise might terminate. By restricting the right to terminate pregnancies, the State conscripts women’s bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care. The State does not compensate women for their services; instead, it assumes that they owe this duty as a matter of course. This assumption- that women can simply be forced to accept the ‘natural’ status and incidents of motherhood- appears to rest upon a conception of women’s role that has triggered the protection of the Equal Protection Clause…The joint opinion recognizes that these assumptions about women’s place in society; are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution…Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. V. Casey. 505 U.S., at 928-929. (1992).
The societal costs of overruling Roe at this late date would enormous. Roe is an integral part of a correct understanding of both the concept of liberty and the basic equality of men and women. Id., at 913.

Most assuredly, such fears as previously described can be seen in the viewpoints of those who espouse the view that they are “pro-life with exceptions;” with these exceptions usually being defined as allowing abortions in the cases where the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy, there is some deformity that the child might be born with, or abortions being allowed where the pregnancy is a result of either rape or incest. In other words, the availability of an abortion within any given circumstance should be entirely dependent upon the woman’s “good” sexual behavior.

But surely the unborn is just as innocent, whether it is conceived via consensual sexual intercourse or whether conception occurs as a byproduct of rape. Once again, no full and thorough analysis of the abortion issue could ever be complete without striking right at the very heart of feminism. To be sure, feminism in the present times is a moot issue for society. That is, the lives of all but those who insist on living on the “fringe” edges of society are ordered around the very concepts and ideals of feminism- even if they do not consciously acknowledge it as such. So pervasive has the influence of feminism been in society that people do not even realize that it is feminist ideals that they order their lives around. Up to the highest courts in this nation has feminism been upheld. In an emotionally charged and scathing diatribe against then Chief Justice Rehnquist’s “views on women” Justice Blackmun holds to an argument that few who haven’t been living in a cave since the time of JFK would only be all too familiar with:

At long last, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and those who have joined him admit it. Gone are the contentions that the issue need not be (or has not been) considered. There, on the first page, for all to see, is what was expected: ‘We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases…If there is much reason to applaud the advances made by the joint opinion today, there is far more to fear from THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S opinion. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S criticism of Roe follows from his stunted conception of individual liberty. While recognizing that the Due Process Clause protects more than simple physical liberty, he then goes on to construe this Court’s personal liberty cases as establishing only a laundry list of particular rights, rather than a principled account of how these particular rights are grounded in a more general right of privacy…This constricted view is reinforced by THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S exclusive reliance on tradition as a source of fundamental rights. He argues that the record in favor of a right to abortion is no stronger than the record in Michael H. v. Gerald D…where the plurality found no fundamental right to visitation privileges by an adulterous father, or in Bowers v. Hardwick…where the Court found no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy…In THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S world, a woman considering whether to terminate a pregnancy is entitled to no more protection than adulterers, murderers, and so-called sexual deviates. Given THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S exclusive reliance on tradition, people using contraceptives seem the next likely candidate for his list of outcasts…

…In short, THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S view of the State’s compelling interest in maternal health has less to do with health than it does with compelling women to be maternal…

…Even if it is somehow ‘irrational’ for a State to require a woman to risk her life for her child, what protection is offered for women who become pregnant through rape or incest? Is there anything arbitrary or capricious about a State’s prohibiting the sins of the father from being visited upon his offspring? …

…But, we are reassured, there is always the protection of the democratic process. While there is much to be praised about our democracy, our country since its founding has recognized that there are certain fundamental liberties that are not to be left to the whims of an election. A woman’s right to reproductive choice is one of those fundamental liberties. Accordingly, that liberty need not seek refuge at the ballot box… Id., at 941-944.

To be sure, there is not one- even in the highest Court- that has not implicated feminism into the very heart of the discussion of abortion. But judges are there to rule on the issues of law, free from emotion. They must consider the cost to society as a whole whenever they choose to either uphold or overrule laws created by legislative bodies. As Justice O’Connor said in Casey, supra, “The inescapable fact is that adjudication of substantive due process claims may call upon the Court in interpreting the Constitution to exercise that same capacity which by tradition courts always have exercised: reasoned judgment.” Id., at 849.

If modern lives have been ordered around the very concepts of feminism- and legalized abortions have thus facilitated women’s exercise of “choice” in how they order their lives to be able to stand on equal footing politically, economically and socially with men- then the societal costs of outlawing abortion must also be weighed in the exercise of reasoned- not emotional- judgment. The issue of abortion can thus never truly be reached by legislative bodies without engaging in legislation meant to further the religious convictions of a group of individuals -even if- especially if- that group indeed be in the majority- in violation of the spirit of the First Amendment of the Constitution unless the very essence of feminism and the concept of “gender equality” and sameness of the sexes also be reached.

Indeed, how can any rational and reasonable court of law or legislative body strike down women’s right to abortion in the early stages free from undue burden or coercion by the State in a world in which neither common, statute nor case law gives any due regard to the peculiarities or needs of her sex? The world in which those such as the Republicans and those in the “pro-life” camp would have us return to looks more like that seen in some third-world country, where women have no protected right to abortion- at any stage during pregnancy- and the church is in bed with the government. Also, it should never be misunderstood nor misconstrued that the very earliest abortion statutes were always about both protecting the potentiality of human life in the way of protecting the unborn and protecting women in the process, thus the woman herself who had procured, or attempted to procure, an abortion was never herself indicted or brought up on any criminal charge.

This flies in sharp contrast to the laws that the Republican elected officials of our own times today would have passed; laws which would go so far as to charge a pregnant woman for manslaughter in some circumstances even in the case of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and impose absolutely no penalty nor obligation upon fathers. See eg., Amid new talk of criminalizing abortion, research shows the dangers of making it illegal for women https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/04/05/amid-new-talk-of-criminalizing-abortion-research-shows-dangers-for-women/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c32397ad2812 ; Coverture and the Criminalization of Pregnancy https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/coverture-and-the-criminalization-of-pregnancy/

This again flies in sharp contrast to the ways of a well-ordered and functioning society that holds that fathers cannot evade responsibility for the protection and support of both women and children.

Indeed, a woman and the way that she is made could indeed be termed “precious” for she alone has the ability to carry life inside of her. No male can do such a thing. But, again, the State would restrict her right to abortion even when it offers to her no protection should she choose childbirth over abortion the way the Republicans and the “pro-life” camp would do anything in order to coerce her to.

But once she gives birth, that preciousness is over. The only “life” of any concern is that of the unborn, which, even the dissenting justices in Roe agree have never been given any protection in our Constitution or legal system; the only legal or Constitutional status that a fetus has ever had has been solely contingent upon live birth….

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

…The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to ‘person.’ The first, in defining ‘citizens,’ speaks of ‘persons born or naturalized in the United States.’ The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ‘Person’ is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators..; in the Apportionment Clause..; in the Migration and Importation provision..; in the Emolument Clause..; in the Electors provisions…But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application…

All this, together with our observation…that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S., at 156-158 (1973). (Justice Blackmun, delivering the opinion of the Court. Citations and footnotes omitted).

Neither her child’s legitimacy, nor her marital status, nor the preciousness of motherhood can protect a woman that gives birth to a child today, for she is neither entitled to a presumption of child custody in her favor as her child’s caretaker (assuming in our world she can even claim to be such, so disordered is society) nor the guarantee that society expects a man to support his wife so that she can fulfill her unique and nature-given role as her children’s nurturer and caretaker. Likewise, in the modern era, to compel motherhood upon women who are not trained for its responsibilities but rather are trained to act and be as men. What societal consequences would such a thing reap? Furthermore, will the State likewise compel childbirth upon its females as the nation also expects them to shed their blood on the battlefield? The State in the former and the Federal government in the latter would both punish women with stringent gender-neutral legislation while also coercing- indeed, forcing- her to choose childbirth over abortion. Can such a society indeed ever call itself “civilized.?”

As is the case with homosexuality, can a case be made against abortion without bringing in one’s own personal religious and philosophical beliefs about the origins of life or without striking down the very tenets of feminism and concept of “gender equality?” Its roots go far deeper than women’s lib, having roots as far back as the suffrage. Is society prepared to challenge this?

III: The Role of Religion
First, it is clear that, in order to be legitimate, the State’s interest must be secular; consistent with the First Amendment the State may not promote a theological or sectarian interest…Moreover, as discussed above, the state interest in potential human life is not an interest in loco parentis, for the fetus is not a person.

Identifying the State’s interest- which the States rarely articulate with any precision- makes clear that the interest in protecting potential life is not grounded in the Constitution. It is, instead, an indirect interest supported by both humanitarian and pragmatic concerns. Many of our citizens believe that any abortion reflects an unacceptable disrespect for potential human life…The State may also have a broader interest in expanding the population…believing society would benefit from the services of additional productive citizens- or that the potential human lives might include the occasional Mozart or Curie. These are the kinds of concerns that comprise the State’s interest in potential human life. Casey, supra., at 915-916.

There is a continuum as regards lines of beliefs and the standards that the Supreme Court has used (and also applies to the states) as regards just how far the government may meddle in religion. See, eg., Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (1984); Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992); Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971); Perry v. Van Orden 545 U.S. 677 (2005) …

At some points in United States history the Supreme Court and lower courts have taken the view that the government may accommodate religion, so long as it is done in a neutral way that does not promote one religion over the other. At other points in United States history the courts have taken the view that the government must remain entirely separated from religion, taking what is called the “separationist view.” See, eg., The Establishment Clause https://chancellor.maricopa.edu/sites/chancellor/files/Factsheet_Establishment.pdf In either case, to see whether governmental actions or legislation are consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, the government may not endorse any one particular religion (nor base its laws according to any one particular religion), nor may it compel the religious beliefs of one sect upon another. See, eg., McCreary County, Kentucky, v. ACLU 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (where two separate Kentucky counties posted up the Ten Commandments and cited that the Commandments were ‘the precedent legal code upon which the civil and criminal codes of Kentucky are founded.”)

To be sure, those who originally came over to this country and established the colonies were from predominately (Christian) European countries. Nonetheless, many of these same colonists flocked to the shores of America seeking religious freedom. The first Amendment (which has been fully incorporated as applying to the states) demands that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” U.S. Const. amend. I Individuals are free to worship and believe as they choose, but that does not mean that any one religion or group of individuals may impose their beliefs, based upon their religion, into the laws of this land. Such a thing is specifically prohibited to protect the freedom and liberty of the people.

If rights are to be restricted, it must be for a wholly secular purpose that serves a legitimate and compelling societal/governmental interest. And to be sure, no freedom is so dear that it cannot be curtailed when the demands of any given situation or the needs of society demand that it be. Can restrictions on abortion find a secular purpose, or a purpose that does not revolve solely around one group of individual’s beliefs about the origins or beginnings of life? Assuredly, they can. If society has become so disordered, and family life so shattered as to severely disturb the functioning and well-being of society, then the curtailing of abortions to serve the interests of the state in promoting sexual-law and order (presumably by means of attempting to curtail promiscuity) and stable families could certainly be legitimate. In times of war, invasion, or civil unrest, even the most precious First Amendment rights and rights to Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments may be abridged as the circumstances may demand it. See, eg., A Clear and Present Danger http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/a-clear-and-present-danger.html ; The First Amendment: A Wartime Casualty? http://www.newseuminstitute.org/2002/02/15/the-first-amendment-a-wartime-casualty/

If civilization has been so shattered that nobody is raising the children and they have become a burden upon the state and tax payers and the courts are overwhelmed, rape cases cannot be taken seriously and society and the family simply cease to function effectively, assuredly individual rights to sexual expression can be curtailed to serve the State’s interest in preserving law and order and setting to rights the state of marriage and the nation’s family to further the State’s interest in promoting the integrity of male-female interactions and relationships and to further the State’s interest in ensuring the welfare of the minor children within their respective jurisdictions- in which the regulation of human sexuality via the means of regulating abortion serve to further such legitimate and wholly secular interests. There is no freedom that cannot be curtailed whenever it comes at too high of a social cost.

There is also the State’s legitimate interest in the preservation of the potentiality of human life. To dispel the myths, in the outcome of absolutely no case has the life of the unborn not been considered. For various reasons that can be entirely secular in origin, the State always has an interest in preserving and protecting human life- whether born or unborn. However, life cannot be defined, and likewise abortions restricted, based upon religious or philosophical beliefs about when life begins. Nobody has an answer to such a question and since the beginning of time societies have dealt with the issue of abortion and the defining of when life begins in countless different ways. Court cases attempt to reconcile the rights of women to bodily autonomy and integrity with the rights of the unborn. Roe did this by laying out a trimester framework, Casey and other cases by laying out “undue burden” standards and defining the line more or less at “viability.” Again, when life begins is wholly dependent upon individual belief, an intensely personal undertaking of which no two parties will ever completely agree. To each individual is the right to believe and decide for themselves as regards the existence (or lack thereof) of a god, and the mysteries of life and origins of the universe. For any subject that can be named, individuals will disagree. Nobody can make nor coerce individuals to agree lest individuals be ruled by means of a dictatorship and the rights to freedom of conscience, association and personal belief be curtailed and punished. Some believe life starts at conception, some when a heartbeat is detected, some when the fetus can survive outside on its own outside of the womb, and some only when a live birth actually occurs. Accordingly, no two religions (even of the monotheistic religions) can agree either. Religious beliefs regarding abortion and when life begins also change over time.

The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in human uterus…The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother of that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolved the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live’ birth…Roe, supra., at 159-160

Judges are to sit in reasoned judgment to rule on the issues of law, taking into account both the immediate and long-term consequences of their decisions and the cost that will ultimately be borne by society as a result of those decisions.

But “reasoned judgment” does not begin by begging the question, as Roe and subsequent cases unquestionably did by assuming that what the State is protecting is the mere ‘potentiality of human life…’The whole argument of abortion opponents is that what the Court calls the fetus and what others call the unborn child is a human life. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its ‘balancing’ is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human. There is of course no way to determine that as a legal matter; it is in fact a value judgment. Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so…” Casey, supra., at 982

Judges do not make laws, but they do strike them down as unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean that public opinion cannot or should not be taken into account, but it does mean that judges cannot be influenced by unreasonable emotions or the ever-changing tides of public opinion. For every issue to which emotions run high, the people have marched upon the steps of the Supreme Court; they have rioted and peacefully protested in the streets; they have petitioned their government and rallied together for their common cause with others of like belief. And this is their right. But the courts, as the last bastions of freedom, must protect that freedom; must protect the spirit of the Constitution lest it become meaningless for all. The emotions or personal beliefs of any one group cannot rule society. Even if a group is in the majority, certain boundary lines cannot be crossed. Where abortion is concerned, some believe so emphatically that it is murder that they engage in their own holy wars against it by committing acts of terror, harassing women that visit clinics and by becoming belligerently outraged over the mere mentioning of the subject. It is what it is. The State must have a legitimate reason for restricting abortion and likewise take into account the needs of women and children post-natally if abortion is to be curtailed. Pro-life groups never come that far in their way of thinking, which is why they cannot be allowed to write the laws or impose their will upon the courts.

One of the many marks of genius that our Constitution bears is the fine balance struck in the establishment of the judicial branch, avoiding subservience to the supposedly more vigorous legislative and executive branches on the one hand, and avoiding total institutional isolation from public opinion on the other. The performance of the judicial branch of the United States government…has shown it to be remarkably independent of the other coordinate branches of that government…

…We want our federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, to be independent of popular opinion when deciding the particular cases or controversies that come before them. The provision for tenure during good behavior and the prohibition against diminution of compensation have proved more than adequate to secure that sort of independence. The result is that judges are responsible to no electorate or constituency. But the manifold provisions of the Constitution with which judges must deal are by no means crystal-clear in their import, and reasonable minds may differ as to which interpretation is proper… William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, 209, 210 (2001)

There has never been a general consensus in any society for when life begins that has held steady across different groups of people nor geographical boundaries nor will there ever be. Nor can it truly be legitimately considered the place of the average layperson to stand in judgment of the hypothetical future emotional or psychological state of women who choose to undergo abortions. Women’s sexuality and debates surrounding abortion have plagued every society in the same way religion always has and there is no reason to believe that the fate of humanity in this regard will ever be changed. When life begins is a debate that was here yesterday, is still present today, and will remain with humanity yet even tomorrow and for the rest of time lest it truly be that science will ever have a definitive answer for what mankind has only but speculated about since the beginning of time.

IV. The Role of the States

Regulation of abortion is the province of the states, except where Congress has seen fit to try to regulate in by means of its Commerce Clause powers. See, eg., The High Court Upholds the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act http://www.pewforum.org/2007/06/06/the-high-court-upholds-the-federal-partial-birth-abortion-ban-act/ See also Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S._ (2007)

Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.

I dissent from the Court’s disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman’s health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman’s reproductive choices. Id.

The courts do not make the laws, but they do, rather, strike down legislation when it is deemed to be in violation with the Constitution. If an appellate court decides to hear a case, it then examines the merits of the petitioner’s claim, finding if there has been any violation of the Constitution of the relevant jurisdiction involved. In the issue and controversy surrounding abortion, the judiciary has been careful not to define a precise time-point at which life begins.

It is also imperative to note how much power has been granted to the federal government in areas of personal and family matters that used to be deemed as local concerns that the federal government had no jurisdiction over. Alarming enough that more and more society gives no regard to the peculiar needs and circumstances of females and passes legislation that gives no regard or preference to the life and health of females that would have never been upheld even in more conservative and family-oriented times. What, precisely, does this say of our society then and of the Republicans and special-interest groups who have wielded their influence over the legislatures and courts of this land?

To be sure, special interest groups have proposed amendments to the Constitution defining life as beginning at conception, but no such amendment has ever made it into the Constitution. Surely, either an Amendment defining life as beginning at conception would be just as dangerous as an amendment or act of the legislature granting an undeniable right to abortion on demand. Neither position takes into account the complexities of life or the special needs and circumstances of human beings nor the current state of society and the family. No judicial body or act of the legislature has ever given to any woman the right to “abortion on demand” as some like to claim. See Casey, supra, at 887. “Even the broadest reading of Roe, however, has not suggested that there is a constitutional right to abortion on demand…Rather, the right protected by Roe is a right to decide to terminate a pregnancy free of undue interference by the State… (Id., at 887. Citations omitted). And even dissenting Conservative justices have historically framed the issue by 1) looking at tradition to find attitudes on abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and American’s historical attitudes on abortion. See, eg., Roe, supra., at 177 (Rehnquist, dissenting) and 2) by ruling on abortion by means of jurisdiction, if there is a Constitutional “right to privacy” or “due process” where abortion is concerned, and, if not, then states may regulate it as they wish, either by liberal or restrictive abortion laws.

Indeed, abortion would simply be an issue then left to the states if the Supreme Court were to rule that no fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution is impinged upon when a State (or, as is increasingly the case, Congress) chooses to enact legislation limiting the right to abortion under whatever circumstances it chooses.

This is how it works: if the Federal government does not have the jurisdiction to regulate a field, then the jurisdiction falls to the states- and the states cannot be forced to criminalize behavior of any kind. The Constitution speaks in negatives, laying out rights the government may not infringe upon. It doesn’t lay out any right or benefit that the government owes to its people nor does it speak of any behavior that must be outlawed. Constitutions simply place limits that governments may not breach. Likewise, each state has its own Constitution and the states are free to grant even greater rights to their citizens than what the Federal government grants, and increasingly many states do just that.

National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress before Roe v. Wade was decided. Profound disagreement exited among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level…Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since…keeping us in the abortion-umpiring business…Casey, supra., at 995-996. (Scalia, dissenting).

Perhaps it would be remiss to believe that these decisions would be best left up to the states to decide. There is no way to determine such a thing for sure, of course, but perhaps if the federal government were to get out of such matters as family affairs, and intimate issues such as sexuality and abortion that were once considered local concerns for the states to govern, elected officials at the federal level could then focus on issues of significant national and international concern, instead of every presidential or midterm election being more akin to something that resembles a circus.

V. The Role of Men
“I hesitate not to assert that most of this crime of child murder, abortion, infanticide, lies at the door of the male sex…”- Matilda Joslyn Gage, 1868.

The very real and undeniable fact that abortion politics have split this entire nation in two, making Supreme Court appointments and presidential nominations almost entirely revolving around it should showcase loud and clear the importance of females and female sexuality to society; that nations have always placed such great emphasis on females and that all civilizations (if indeed they are civilized) are decidedly gynocentric. And absolutely no discussion revolving around females nor abortion could ever be complete without involving this nation’s men in it. Feminists have not always been wrong with their grievances, but they have largely been wrong in the results and conclusions that they reach and the policies that they advocate for.

Most assuredly, men have business here. There is no evidence to be found that men will not operate in the best interests of women and children when society calls upon them to be responsible and to lead. Embedded deep in this nation’s history and into this nation’s founding and embedded in the very common-law traditions of England and the colonies that held in various respects for nearly two centuries after the Constitution was ratified was the idea that husbands and fathers are to be providers for their wives and children, making the important ultimate decisions in the women and children’s best interests (as opposed to in the man’s own selfish interest) and seeing to their welfare. Firstly, that fathers must protect their daughters, especially from males that would take advantage, and that husbands are to protect their wives.

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything…The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and if she contracts debts for them, be is obliged to pay them: but for anything besides necessaries, he is not chargeable…If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound afterwards to pay the debt; for he has adopted her and her circumstances together…

These are the chief legal effects of marriage during the coverture; upon which we may observe, that even the disabilities, which the wife lies under, are for the most part intended for her protection and benefit. So great a favorite is the female sex of the laws of England. William Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. I, 442-445 (1765)

The Supreme Court has ruled that state laws requiring married women to notify or obtain the consent of their husbands prior to obtaining abortions, are unconstitutional. The very reasoning and logic behind finding such laws unconstitutional, again, strikes right at the heart of feminism in rejecting the aforementioned common-law views of marriage and women that “…are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution…” Casey, supra., at 929. (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)

In keeping with our rejection of the common-law understanding of a woman’s role within the family, the Court held…that the Constitution does not permit a State to require a married woman to obtain her husband’s consent before undergoing an abortion…

The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices…A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common-law status of married women but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage…Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. Id., at 897-898.

Surely if the law no longer imposes the common-law obligations upon husbands in marriage then neither would it be logical for it to grant to husbands the authority and dominion over wife and children that was also once to be found therein. With rights must come responsibility. Absent responsibility, there can be no justifiable rights.

Not only in our own traditions, but around the world as well men were called upon to be providers. Only in the quest to make the sexes equal and the same to one another and obliterate any social or legal distinctions between them have the true rights and welfare of women and children been cast aside in the name of “gender equality.”

‘The truth is, this is more a man’s issue than a woman’s issue…Men are called to be providers and protectors of women and children…We are calling for fathers to be fathers and take responsibility. If men were taking responsibility and standing with mothers then the majority of women would not feel like abortion is their only option…’ Outside A Clinic In Charlotte, 600 Protesters Claim Abortion Is ‘A Man’s Issue.’ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/outside-a-clinic-in-charlotte-600-protestors-claim-abortion-is-a-mans-issue_us_593c1dffe4b0c5a35c9ffe69

Yes, fathers should more than have a say in the abortion process, but only when held to their rightful duties, and only the married father. But surely in the times today, where marriage is nearly socially and legally irrelevant and the law is blind to sex, mixing the duties and rights of males and females together and where most children are born outside of the state of marriage either to parents who cohabit, parents who are not together at all, or “parents” who are of the same sex it would be simply irrational, absurd and set downright dangerous legal precedent to grant to fathers, especially in the times of easy divorce on top of all the aforementioned social ills, a legal right to either veto or receive notice of the mother’s intention to have an abortion.

And if the married father is given this right, surely society would also hold him to the duties- only so recently forgotten about in our supposedly “enlightened” and “progressive” times- to nourish, protect and maintain the body and being of the woman that carries his seed within her womb? If he seeks rights over the womb, should he not also be responsible for it as well? If he has not such a duty and responsibility to the mother of his unborn, then why should he be granted a right over the unborn? He has only marginal (and not always fully enforced) shared responsibility with the mother after the child is born -not before- therefore it would be absurd and the worst of all transgressions to give him any right or say before birth.

Politics in modern times revolve around whatever the government can do or provide for the individual. If one group has a right, surely it would be sacrilege to deny that same right to another group then? Even when individuals are not similarly situated is it logical to treat them the same solely as a matter of principle whether or not there is a legitimate and justifiable reasoning for doing so that serves the best interests of society and all individuals involved? Personal responsibility goes right out the window, and surely the nation is divided now more than ever by the various groups and sects that separate themselves one from the other based upon status, political affiliation and belief, crying like immature children about being “discriminated” against or treated like “second-class citizens” because the law would dare take into account logical differences between groups of individuals (based on age, sex, marital status, legitimacy, wealth, position, etc…) in the pursuance of creating law and order.

But surely the government and administrative agencies regulate behavior now more than ever and impose obligations upon individuals and between parents who have made no choice to contract with each other or have duties the one to the other. Is that not too oppression of the worst kind?

In reaching out to find a due process issue in this case, the Court seems to have misapprehended the entire thrust of the State’s argument. When explaining at oral argument why Illinois does not recognize the unwed father, counsel for the State presented two basic justifications for the statutory definition of ‘parents’ here at issue…First, counsel noted that in the case of a married couple to whom a legitimate child is born, the two biological parents have already ‘signified their willingness to work together’ in caring for the child by entering into the marriage contract; it is manifestly reasonable, therefore, that both of them be recognized as legal parents with rights and responsibilities in connection with the child. There has been no legally cognizable signification of such willingness on the part of unwed parents, however, and ‘the male and female…may or may not be willing to work together towards the common end of childrearing.’ To provide legal recognition to both of them as ‘parents’ would often be ‘to create two conflicting parties competing for legal control of the child…’Stanley v. Illinois. 405 U.S. at 668. (1972). (dissenting opinion of Burger, J., and Blackmun, J.)

The discussion about men and abortion only rests on how any individual man “feels” about abortion, or that if women have a “right,” then men should have an “equal right” too, as if the government should hand down rights to individuals based upon emotion or sentiment, rather than reason and logic and it has become quite the fad in the modern era to decry about supposed “reverse discrimination.” Surely knocking down sex distinctions and pure unbridgeable “equal rights” between the sexes and a legal system that turns a blind eye to sex distinctions sets, once again, dangerous legal precedent that has led to the lawless times we have today where “every conscience is a law unto itself” Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S., at 890 (1990). (Scalia, J. Delivering opinion of the Court).

It should not be an issue about men and women fighting to be “equal” where they are not equal in their unique roles in life, nor similarly situated in areas of major concern to society (such as childbearing ability, sexuality and physical strength and endurance). No discussion around men’s role in reproduction issues should focus on “equality,” but rather on men’s and women’s roles and responsibilities in life. To be sure, both sexes have always been able to pursue the path they wish in this life, but marriage, childbearing, family life and issues of sexuality are important and must be regulated in one way or another by the government. No time period- not even our own- can or has ever been able to escape such reality. The focus on men’s role in the abortion debates should focus on man’s role to provide for and protect women and children, which secures to a father the right to participate in the upbringing of his offspring as much as it protects a woman’s most precious right to bear, nurse, nurture and raise those offspring in a stable, secure and safe environment by means of her close relationship to, and ability to depend upon, the father for her support and protection. And no discussion of abortion can escape the inevitable topic of woman’s unique and undeniable role, in which every part of her being was so clearly designed for, in the nurturing and care-taking of her children.

Part VI: Conclusion

Perhaps in this there can never be any real and true conclusion, but perhaps what is prayed for here is no more than a mere consideration for the circumstances that face and burden the fairer sex and perhaps a reconsideration of the role of women and of her status as the weaker vessel in society. Perhaps it is still yet no more than the calling and yearnings of a woman’s heart as regards the preciousness of her sex and of her sexuality. So wondrously made, no matter which god one happens to believe in. It is perhaps no more than that hope in the heart of a woman that she be looked upon as she is made, as precious and weaker, yet of infinite value, by the men and lawmakers of this nation. Perhaps may the society and men of this nation find it within their own hearts once again to reconsider the error that was feminism and take it upon themselves once again that duty to provide for and protect their own and to be yet again the guardians of women.

Advertisements

The Wake-Up Call

Sometimes in my spare time I like to watch old classic and vintage movies and TV shows. A while back I was watching a show called The Real McCoys. In one of the episodes, Grandpa and all of the guys were sitting around talking and one of the men starts chiming in about how he “runs his house” while all the men praise him as some sort of hero for it and it seems, at least on the outside, that what he’s saying might be true as it appears that his wife is doing what he’s telling her to do. Then one evening, however, the men are sitting around at his house (the guy who was doing all the talking about how he “ran his house” and “ran” his wife) drinking beer and playing cards when his wife comes home and they go in the bedroom and start arguing, with the wife complaining about the men being there and the husband then apologizing to her and everything. Meanwhile, all of the guys have their ears pressed up against the door listening to the whole conversation and hearing the wife berate the husband for having the guys there so late at night in the house. The guys then back off when they hear the couple coming out of the bedroom, look at each other kind of disappointed-like and say they better be getting home. Later on in the episode when they’re all alone, Grandpa tells his grandson, Luke, that all that talk about him “running” his grandmother was a load of hogwash. He then confesses that it was only true half of the time, and the other half of the time she “ran” him. Not only that, but he also confesses to his grandson that “…The truth is, I guess I just kinda miss it.” He says all this to his grandson and tells his grandson that he has a good and sweet wife, and he just didn’t want to see him go and ruin his relationship with her.

The truth of the matter is, a man’s authority is never 100%. A man is only given authority to fulfill his responsibilities to provide for and protect his wife and children or anyone else that is depending on him. A man also must have standing in order to assert authority; meaning, a man must be operating in his rightful role and fulfilling his responsibilities in order to be able to claim any kind of genuine authority over a woman (or anyone else).

To put it another way, consider how the courts consider if a person’s “rights” have been violated. A person must first have some sort of standing to be able to make a claim to some sort of rights or violation of rights. Take the instance of, say, a claim of an “unreasonable search or seizure.” An example would be when law enforcement come and search you or any property you have in your possession or a place where you are staying. An individual would first have to make a showing to the court that they not only had a right to be in the place that they were at, but also that they had a legitimate interest in or right of ownership to the property. If the individual doesn’t own the property, live there and maintain it, isn’t lawfully occupying it (long-term or temporarily), or has simply disposed of the property and shown no further interest in it, then the individual has no standing in regards to the property and thus there has been no violation of rights- because the individual had no right to the property in the first place or was only using or occupying it for unlawful and illegitimate purposes.

A woman is under no obligation to obey her husband if he is in the wrong. Also, sometimes a man may not realize the consequences of his actions and sometimes he falters, as well. In such a case it is up to his wife (or in some cases perhaps even his children) to tell him that he’s in the wrong and that he’s hurting them or depriving them of some legitimate need that they have a right to (a “legitimate need” being any physical need that is his responsibility to provide- food, shelter, clothing- or, in some instances, a true psychological need such as affection or love). As well, sometimes a man simply doesn’t realize that his actions are harming his family, harming his wife, or even that there’s a problem in the first place. In this case, if a woman never stands up for herself then nothing is ever going to change. No matter what men like to say, the truth of the matter is that most women have to make men grow up and take responsibility or else they never really will.

I think there was a true wake-up call for my husband yesterday. I didn’t go out and take on paid employment or anything like that, but I have been doing a lot of work to help my husband with activities and responsibilities that rightfully fall within his domain. Last night, however, the stress of it all was just getting to me too badly and my husband sat there at the table and watched me cry my eyes out. I was stressed, I was hurting, I was deprived of rest, angry towards him, and simply couldn’t take any more. Not only that, I’m a woman and deal with female issues too that were hitting me pretty hard. It was at that point that things changed, especially after a text message that was taken the wrong way. I was telling him how stressed I was and then the next thing I know I had a message come across with him telling me how he was going to come home and pop the cork on a bottle of wine and have a drink.

I began to get belligerently angry at that point and told him he was an idiot (YES I said those exact words), slammed down the phone, dropped everything I had been doing to help him and went right back to what I should have been doing all along- my duties as a wife and as a mother.

When he came home he said that it was taken out of context and that he just intended for us to relax together that evening, but nonetheless, I took it as him saying he was going to come home and start drinking while I sat there doing work that he rightfully should have been doing. I told him, plain and simple, that I had duties to fulfill as a wife and mother and those duties did not include fulfilling his responsibilities while he came home and sat around drinking! Though that was never his intention to do and it only came out wrong, it nonetheless got me thinking that there are a lot of women who deal with this exact same thing (as well as many other issues with their men). And guess what? Things will never change unless a woman makes it clear to a man that his behavior is not acceptable and refuses to go along with it. After I went off on him and refused to touch his responsibilities, guess who stopped watching television and started doing what he should have been doing in the first place?

Inside of marriage or outside, men just simply aren’t going to grow up if women are not making them do so. They aren’t going to marry, they aren’t going to be responsible husbands or fathers or ANYTHING unless women start demanding it of them. And it doesn’t matter one bit what men say. There’s such a thing called “talking shit”- and men- all men- do a lot of it. But in the end, women DO have the power to make men act better and change their ways. A woman does this with her love, a woman does this by being chaste and being a dutiful wife and mother and clearly communicating her needs to a man. Most of all, a woman does this by refusing to participate in activities that harm her, that go against what is right, and by refusing to submit to a man who is not operating within his rightful role or assuming his rightful responsibilities.

Also, a wife and mother has authority over her children as well as certain aspects of the household, which also means she has certain responsibilities therein. If she must do the man’s duties, then she must neglect her own responsibilities or else do both while her health and well-being suffers and the man is given free rein to act immature and irresponsible. I put down what I was doing for him, refused to touch it again as it had been consuming too much of my time and putting unnecessary stress on me and went to do my own duties. Ultimately, most men would probably much prefer it this way anyway, as it means the feminine things are taken care of.

I relaxed this morning. Even though I didn’t get all that much sleep, I still oddly felt like I had rested enough (probably because a lot of the strain was gone) and I laid in bed a bit longer while my daughter was up getting ready for school until it was time for her to leave. If nothing else, I was psychologically more at peace. It’s unreasonable, especially when I already deal with feminine issues that really hit me hard to also deal with male responsibilities. (My husband used to think things like “PMS” and the like were just women exaggerating- until he got married. Now he sees first hand, EVERY MONTH in symptoms that last for at least one to two weeks, how hard those things really do hit women and how much of a stress it is and what women actually go through- including a lot of physical pain and emotional strain- on account of our biology.)

I spent the morning doing all the girly things I do and taking care of the home. Nothing is neglected in the home now as it’s all pretty and clean and smells nice. He bought me a pretty shaded up-lamp yesterday and I put it in the kitchen for decoration and to give some soft lighting and I like to light up candles, spray freshener in the room and keep some flowers on the counter-top to make things all pretty, as well as make sure the floors are freshly swept and mopped. I like to take my time in making my own home in my own soft and feminine ways and always smiling while I do so.  As a wife and mother, even after many years, I’ve still kept my beautiful figure, pretty long hair, still stay freshly showered and wear makeup and pretty clothes, still act feminine and girly, and keep the house fresh and clean and everything organized. I like all the girly feminine things. He keeps me, loves me, protects me and has sheltered me for all these years so I get to remain all soft and fragile-like and feminine. It’s also the best anti-aging regimen one could ask for.

There’s nothing more wonderful than keeping a beautiful (even if only a simple) home and having a loving family. So always pass such wisdom on to your daughters and teach them the ways to be feminine, chaste, and keep a good home and love their husbands and family with all their hearts.

Not All Women Are Like That

I know that I have challenged you men to tell me that I was wrong about it all, to tell me that I speak untruths about the reality of life and the world around me, yet not a one of you have done so. Yet instead you call me one-in-a-million, a rare gem and flower in a world of evil, greed and superficiality. I’d like to think that it were true, as all humans would, that I was truly something special and different, yet I can nonetheless guarantee that I might well be able to assemble a battalion of women who think as I do; who feel as I do; who believe and love as I do.

What many do not realize is that even in a court of law, an expert witness upon the stand- even where generally accepted as reliable forensic evidence is concerned, is only stating an opinion. It is then up to the trier of fact alone to take in the totality of the circumstances to draw a rational conclusion as to whether or not said testimony and evidence presented is reliable, accurate, factual, relevant or likely to accurately shed light upon the truth of the matter asserted.

Take your cult leader who says to the world that All Women Are Like That and put him upon the stand to testify. Is he rational? Is he competent? Does he bring his own biases and prejudices to the witness stand? Does he have a personal interest in the outcome of this search for the truth? Does he have motive and reason to falsify his testimony? Would a rational and competent judge impeach him from the stand and instruct the jury to disregard his testimony as being overtly biased and likely false? Does he have a reputation and history for speaking untruths?

Though the universe is yet bound by the laws of physics and mathematics- laws which are universal truths and which none can escape- scientific theories are just that- theories. They are tried and tested and retried and retested in succession- year after year- by human beings wishing to shape the world to their own beliefs and perceptions and further understand and explore the mysteries of the world around them. This is done for a multitude of reasons, such as perhaps mere curiosity all the way up to the bettering of life for all of humanity. The trier of fact- that trier of fact being you, that trier of fact being me– must look carefully at the research, the methods, the individuals in question and the chain of custody for which the research or evidence has gone through in order to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the research and the individual(s) testifying to it can or cannot be trusted- whether or not it is likely to be truthful.

For many men, all women really are like what the manosphere claims them to be. This would likely be so because in their world all women really are like that, because like attracts like and these are the only women that they go around chasing, thus confirming- at least in their minds- their own biases. They don’t know any other kind of woman exists, because they’ve never met one, because they form their opinions based upon their own biases and then apply those biases to the world around them. They chase a certain type of woman and then legitimately believe that nothing else exists.

But a woman is more than capable of loving deeply and truly. Yes, I love ****- but only because I love the man that it is attached to. So wondrous, so beautiful, I think during the act that he’s so good, he feels so good; could anything feel better? My mind is filled with the thoughts of him being inside of me, of him taking all of me in the most beautiful and wondrous way that I am made as a woman. Promiscuity is damaging- the very thought of it- because of the wondrous way in which I am made. Valuable and precious it is, which is why the taking of it via force, lack of consent, or by some other form of deceptive means is psychologically devastating to the point that some women can never heal from such abuses.

I don’t think of partying, bar-hopping, of being used or abused or living a life “wild and free.” A cold beer or wine holds no appeal unless I have him by my side to love and hold me. I’m attracted to his strength, his dominance, the feel and weight of his body, the solidness of it and the way I feel so full inside of me- full because he’s inside of me, knowing he’ll never leave me, that every inch of me is beautiful, loved and cherished. It’s better if he errs on the side of seriousness than foolishness, hardness rather than softness, for I am not happy if I feel as though I cannot hold him tight and depend upon him.

But sex is more, it is about that emotional connection, about that closeness to him that cannot be replaced by any other relationship, whether in the form of friendships, relatives or acquaintances. If he’s inside of me, then all thoughts disappear to be replaced by him and only him. He is my protection, my provision, there is an economic basis, need and responsibility, but I can go back to many years ago and produce documentary evidence showing my love for him and my written and verbal testimony to that love.

It is that love, for without it life is bleak and holds no appeal. It is that need not to be alone and to be complete inside. It is that love for which even the most damaged modern woman or man still longs for on the inside. It is that love that only grows stronger through the hard times, the fights, the everything, because he knows me inside and out, as I know him. It’s the kind of love that endures over decades because none other could ever love or know me that way. Don’t discount me as a bitch when I speak of responsibilities, for humans create these responsibilities out of love and a need for one another. If I tell him that he is my one and only one, that my love is true, it is because I am his, as he in return is mine. It is the same beauty of humanity that has endured and remained unchanged throughout all of time. Not all women are as you perceive them to be, if only you were looking in the right places with the right intentions, you’d see that a woman’s heart could be pure and true as the finest of all treasures.

My Covering

My Covering

I try to do my best every day to obey my husband and do what he tells me to do. Inside I feel like God has favored me by giving him to me as my covering; my provision and my protection. He shields me from the world, keeping me there under his wing and in his love. He is my choice. I chose him so long ago whenever I was young. Even in the times that I didn’t want to follow him, I still did, because I didn’t always have much of any other choice. I went with him, as he is my only source of provision in this life so I followed where he led. If he doesn’t listen, then he causes me pain and suffering. If he doesn’t understand, I hold that resentment inside. That’s why he must listen to what I say to him, to the things that my heart needs inside. He must listen to me with love and understanding as he was called to do, putting me above all others, as I do with him in return.

But there is love unimaginable. Whenever I’m lying there with him in the night, I know that I’m safe. It’s safe to let him inside of my body. I can take every bit of him in with love, as I know I’m safe to do so. He’s my covering and I don’t have to fear his abandonment come the morning. I can’t describe that feeling nor that joy whenever he’s inside of me. Sometimes I wonder how anything could ever feel or be so good. To be filled physically by one and only one man that I love and rely on, I know it’s safe to simply open up and relax. There’s something wonderous in the way my female form was made. I love the feel of it, to relish in it.

I don’t feel degraded when I’m lying there under him. In some sense I do feel inferior, but it is only in a good way; inferior in the sense that I know I’m subject to him, yet I have worth and value beyond compare, value that goes far beyond just the physical. All I have to do is ask and he’d give it to me. I know that I am cherished above all other women, beloved above all others. My position is important. There’s something so precious about it, to know how he invades me on the inside, and how I long for him to do so. The most private and intimate of things that I delight in in wonderment, that I would be horrified beyond words to just share with anyone. It’s beautiful beyond words the way my body was made. I have no reason to be scared or sad after the act is over, as it is an act of love, and not of temporary perversion, of the man that I love, of the only man who has ever lain with me, the same man who I have relied on for years.

The way I love him when I’m scared or in danger, the way I come to him. Many times has he picked me up in his arms and carried me; many times have I rested my head against his chest and let him protect and hold me. So easy is it for him to overpower me, but I know he would never hurt me. I delight in the feeling and strength of his arms. The few nights that I have ever been without him were nights of loneliness, pain and fear. If I left him temporarily, it’s like his covering was removed from me, and I was extremely frightened. I’ve always depended on him for my livelihood, knowing no other life but a truly patriarchal one. Yet I know I’ve never been oppressed. I have been favored and loved. I pursue my dreams and passions, yet I do so there under his covering. And I do know the power he has over me in that I have no means to provide for myself. And it’s OK. If I’m depending on him then I need him. If he is providing for me, then I know I am secure. When there is no mixing of the roles, then there is no confusion or contempt. I ask him for the things I need. I feel happy and free. Free to be soft, feminine, devote myself to my home and family and focus on being a woman. His covering allows me to be a feminine woman who doesn’t have to toughen up to focus on advancing in the work world. I don’t have to devote my time to hardening myself and focusing on moving up the career ladder.

Coverture has protected me from being out in the world to be raped, abused, harmed or harassed by other men, or by others in general. Sometimes when I have gone through hard times I’ve stopped and wondered, asked, that if there was really a God out there, then what am I supposed to do? How am I supposed to be? For the last few months I’ve felt this voice inside of me, perhaps an intuition trying to guide me, that speaks to me. But that voice has never told me to be independent, to go out and conquer the world or anything of the sort. The only thing that I hear inside is this voice telling me just to be a woman. And there is something precious inside. My very feminine essence I feel is so precious. And it’s precious when I’m with him, most precious of all the way I feel when he’s inside of me, most precious when he kisses me. I’m odd for the times we live in today, but I am no different than the women who came before me. Above all, I was made to be a woman. I was made to be loved and to be delighted in, that feminine essence inside of me so powerful and unique.

 

Recommended:

The red pill philosophy in action

 

 

A Woman Through and Through

A Woman Through and Through

I woke up this morning with the sweetest of all songs written upon my heart
My thoughts from the night having stayed with me even when the sun arose in the sky
Oh husband, oh lover, oh dearest friend of mine
Allow me to persuade you now with my words so pure and true
With this heart that is so tender and breaks so easily
This heart that gives and loves oh so faithfully
With this body that is small, yet tender, soft and yielding
I am soft on the inside, like the gentle wind that blows across the land at night
Let me take your worries and all of your fears
Come lose yourself deep within my depths
Let me sway you with the pleading in these soft green eyes when a gentle tear does fall from my face
I could never hurt you, only love you
My body is full and ripe, every curve made to receive your love
My soul does bleed so easily, when harsh words rip it to shreds
So I plead with you not to hurt me now
Be easy with your words and actions towards me
Even though I do persevere, I do still break so easily
With your arms that are so strong and sturdy, come wrap them around me
Run your fingers gently through my hair
Kiss me softly upon my cheek
Calm and protect me with your strength and abiding love
I cannot always know this mind of mine
But I do so well know my heart inside
My breasts are so soft and supple, caress them lovingly with your rough hands
Your touch brings a wave of pleasure so sweet and warm through me
My stomach is flat and smooth, my waist indented in the most poetic and beautiful way
My legs and back are strong
My feet are bare; their soles calloused from running across the rocks
My hair is scented to entice you, come inhale deeply of it
I let it grow so long; I have never cut it
But I think I understand it all now
My body and mind have matured
I am neither man nor child, but woman through and through
My mind, my sweet smell and my being all exclaim that it is indeed true
And a woman is what I’ll forever be for you