Tag Archives: the vote

The Rule of Law

Did you vote for the president as a result of the political “issues” of the day? Did you vote for him because you are “pro-life” or pro-Second Amendment? But did you know that the president doesn’t actually control these issues? Nearly every president in history has campaigned on a promise of “hope” or “change”- but did they deliver? Do you hate a president you once endorsed because he didn’t deliver on his promises? But perhaps he never delivered on those promises, not because of some flaw or malicious intent, but rather simply because he can’t.

By far and large, apart from all of the other branches of government, the Congress was designed to be the most powerful branch of the Federal Government, holding the ability to even strip the other branches of government of their power. Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts (including the Supreme Court) for whatever reason it chooses, or if Congress simply feels the Court(s) has/have gotten out of hand and run amok too far into the arena of judicial activism, control and limit the number of justices that are to sit on the Supreme Court, abolish all of the inferior Federal courts beneath the Supreme Court and pass legislation to ordain and establish an entirely new system of Federal courts as well as outline their jurisdictional boundaries. Congress may yank the purse strings on a rogue president thereby denying him the funds he needs to carry out any operations, completely ignore him if he gets too belligerent, override any of his attempts to veto legislation that is passed and require him to cease any military operations or otherwise give a full account of his actions to Congress. Congress may also impeach, convict and remove from office any Federal judge (including Supreme Court Justices), as well as the President and Vice-President, declare war on any foreign nation, coin and print money, raise and support an army- and more.

America, in a way not seen since the days of the Civil War, however, is split in two based upon party lines, with the president being placed front and center in the eyes of the people and voted into office largely on account of the issues they believe that he can change, while Congress is barely even mentioned in any scenario- despite wielding all the power behind the scenes. The jurisdiction of a rogue Federal court can be stripped and a rogue president can be put in his place. A united- and determined- Congress, on the other hand, would be virtually unstoppable. But does the average citizen truly know how important and powerful the United States Congress truly is? Do they know, in the words of Woodrow Wilson himself, that the “Senate always has the last word?”

I am an independent, sitting somewhere on the fence of the political spectrum, but I do not vote. I do not vote for several reasons, the forefront of all of them being that I simply do not believe in the vote for women[i], because I believe that men should be taking care of women and also because I believe that it should be the purview of men alone to both have the civic rights and obligations in the arena of war and politics. With this said, I do not mention the president in this posting as a way of throwing dirt on him in an attempt to discredit him in some way on account of hating him[ii] for issues he ultimately does not have the final say over. I also realize that no amount of civics education is going to ever change the fact that democracies do not work in the long term and that the average, ordinary citizen in any country will simply never acquire the understanding of politics or deep, intellectual reasoning ability to be able to see the real issues at play behind the smokescreen. I mention the president in all of this as a way to make a point. This nation, as previously mentioned, is divided in half based largely upon political party lines and hot-button issues such as abortion, immigration, and gun rights. This is not new. Though everyone always likes to believe that new and novel ways are being devised to deprive citizens of their rights and tear down the system of government, nothing either new or novel is in actuality taking place that has not happened before throughout our history.

This nation and the rule of law has been in peril many times throughout United States history- yet the nation nonetheless survived on through it all. The reason for this is that the system of government created by the drafters of the United States Constitution- that all famed “assembly of demigods”– works. This nation has pulled through various wars, rogue citizens’ militias intent on overthrowing the established government, violent warfare between citizens and a nation so split in two that half of the states ignored the established government to completely secede from it entirely, thereby refusing to acknowledge the superiority of the Federal government to preempt State action. Consider the words, below, of Abraham Lincoln in his special address to the United States Congress on July 4, 1861. On the outset, history must be given here that the rule of law was not being followed by the nation’s citizens, the Southern and border states were rebelling, and Lincoln’s address came in part because Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Roger B. Taney had sent a letter to Lincoln declaring his order to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to be Unconstitutional, as only Congress had the power to suspend the writ[iii]:

…And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic, or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or can not maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask, Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence...?

So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation...

This would be disunion completed...It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation to maintain the Union; and while very many who have favored it are doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect...

This authority [suspending habeas corpus] has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" should not himself violate them... The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion...Whether there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and, if any, what, is submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress...

The forbearance of this Government had been so extraordinary and so long continued as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if they supposed the early destruction of our National Union was probable. While this on discovery gave the Executive some concern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States are now everywhere practically respected by foreign powers, and a general sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world...

In a word, the people will save their Government if the Government itself will do its part only indifferently well...

It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in and reverence for the history and Government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice...

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State--to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union...

Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has...

This relative matter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole--to the General Government--while whatever concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the National Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to be questioned. We are all bound by that defining without question...

As a private citizen the Executive could not have consented that these institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own life in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he has so far done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who have been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration to them under the Constitution and the laws…

…And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God and go forward without fear and with manly hearts.


Lincoln had acknowledged in his address that he had “been called upon to “‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ and not himself violate the laws.”[iv] The president is not a lawmaker; his job is rather, as the very name of the branch he heads implies, to enforce the law[v]. Notice also that Lincoln in the above scenario did not reply to Taney directly but rather called Congress into a special session to address Congress personally to explain his actions and properly seek Congressional approval (as soon as was safely possible to do so). While the Supreme Court may hand down decisions, it ultimately has little power to enforce them.

Right now something akin to what is stated above can be seen in society- the rebellion of the states, the Supreme Court refusing to reopen cases regarding issues recently decided upon. Now the Supreme Court may refuse to pick up a case for a number of reasons (it does not have to say but rather can dismiss petitions for certiorari or appeal without comment), but sometimes the Court will refuse to hear a case solely because it does not wish to create new precedent during a sensitive time where the nation is either at war (and civil liberties will naturally be restricted beyond normal boundaries) or because the nation is undergoing a form of political upheaval where the Court’s decisions are either being ignored or the rule of law is not being followed. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, the States are nonetheless passing legislation in defiance of Supreme Court case law and they are largely doing so under the pretense that the current president will simply not enforce the laws that he or his political party doesn’t like. In other words, the States (most all of which are curiously Southern) are passing legislation because they believe they have a president who is “on their side” in a rebellion of sorts against the established order.

Lincoln’s aim was to preserve the Union and the rule of law. Though many in the Union were debating simply allowing the Confederate States to secede peacefully, history teaches that the Confederate force’s attacks on Fort Sumter started the war, and Lincoln, whose entire presidency was overshadowed by war, took the actions necessary to faithfully enforce the nation’s laws, preserve the spirit of law and values embedded in the Constitution and preserve the Union along with it. Although he ended up being the final casualty in the bloodiest war to be fought on American soil, the Union was nonetheless saved, the Rebel States and their citizens welcomed back to the Union, given a permanent place in the nation’s history, and the country moved on. The Constitution was amended to protect civil liberties. The checks and balances implemented by the Framers from the beginning worked, and the rule of law prevailed.[vi]

But what happens if the system stops working? The Supreme Court may hand down decisions, but it cannot enforce them. The law is the law (although it most certainly is not always just and there are many laws that should, in fact, be struck down and new legislation crafted to overrule those laws), but what if the President refuses to enforce it or follow it? Congress may stop him, compel him through various means or pass legislation to address any grievance or serious issue that society faces, but what if Congress, split in two on account of the country’s division, is too weak to act? If Congress cannot act, the Executive must make quick and decisive action to save the Union and rule of law- but what if he won’t? What if he- and a majority of his party- believe he himself is the law?

I will make a summary here, and that summary is that there are too many people making decisions. America was created as a Republic. It was left to the individual states to decide how the electors of the Electoral College should be chosen. It was left to Congress to make the laws, an independent judiciary, set apart from popular opinion, to wisely interpret their legality and a single unitary executive– at least partially at the command of Congress- to enforce them. But what if the president doesn’t believe in an independent judiciary[vii] and political upheaval, civilian rioting and ultimately war cause the civil courts in their entirety to vacate and cease to function? The question is, what happens then? Nothing lasts forever. The very fact that the United States Constitution has held intact for over two centuries is a world record, but what would succeed it? Democracies always commit suicide in the end, because it is a fact of life that majority rule cannot for long uphold the rule of law nor can the majority of the citizens of any given population truly sit in reasoned judgement on the issues and reason rationally about them. As I have always said, there’s a reason why the number of citizens in any given population will always far outnumber the amount of wise judges-who will always be few in number.


[i] I have a tag titled “the vote” on this site, to be found here https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/tag/the-vote/ where I talk about the vote for women in numerous postings, in all of which I have rejected the idea of female suffrage on grounds explicitly stated. In particular my former posting Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/thoughts-on-coverture-suffrage-chivalry-patriarchy-and-the-natural-order/ says it all the best. More than anything, it is my belief that the involvement of women in politics and women’s “advancement” is part of the problem of this country’s division. I also should note that Republican women are by far the most feminist in my opinion, only sparring with feminists on the other side of the political spectrum as regards abortion politics yet hardly anywhere else. Far from making things better for women, the only thing that I have yet to see is women engaging in war against other women while men simply become passive bystanders, emasculated with victim complexes and a fear, hatred and distrust of women in general. I propose that the relations between the sexes in the modern era are part of the problem as to why the rule of law is ultimately breaking down and why the checks and balances in the American system of government are something that society can no longer take for granted.

[ii] I’ve talked about Trump before and how I am not a fan, but I simply understand too much about the inner workings of the law and political system to bother to get into any kind of “hot debate” over the president- no matter who holds office. https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/the-appearance-of-impropriety/

[iii] This issue is explored in depth more fully by two books by the former late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist: See generally, William H. Rehnquist, All The Laws But One, Civil Liberties in Wartime (Vintage, 1998); William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court (Vintage, 2001).

[iv] Quoted from The Supreme Court, supra, p. 67.

[v] See Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952). This case also demonstrates the remarkable way the rule of law still works when Truman complied with the mandates of the Supreme Court. This and other instances in United States history showcase the brilliance of the “checks and balances” built into the system of government and its remarkable ability to withstand the test of time. See also The President and the Snowflakes https://whatswrongwithequalrights.wordpress.com/2018/04/17/the-president-and-the-snowflakes/

[vi] There was rebellion and Congress used its remarkable powers to coerce the rebel states to fall in line with its mandates, from denying representation to the states who refused to comply, to using its Enforcement Powers https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/14/essays/175/enforcement-clause to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 against the South. The fact that the Reconstruction Amendments were largely passed despite Southern resistance (and even resistance from president Andrew Johnson himself) also shows the inherent powers of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government whenever it is determined and united on an issue. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes ; https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

[vii] See Preserving the Courts https://protectdemocracy.org/preserving-courts/ for discussion about current president Donald Trump and former presidents who have defied the Supreme Court on the preservation of an independent judiciary.


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.

Woman’s Worst Enemy 

It’s often a mistaken belief among women that women can represent the interests of women the best; that a woman will be more sympathetic to another woman’s plight. The feminist movement has always promoted the theory that women can only have true representation by other women and that more women as lawyers, judges, and congress members will be a good thing for women because women can best legislate for other women. The reality, however, is often far different. Take the abortion debate, for instance. Women often say things like “if only men could get pregnant abortion would never be illegal” or something of the sort, but the reality is that men have been constantly shown to be more “pro-choice” than what even women are. This has held steady for decades. It is women that oppress other women. It is women that destroy the security of other women. Look at any other issue such as military duty of the draft for women. Once again, women are more likely to want women to be forced into war and into the traditional duties of men while men are more likely to be against it. When you put women in charge everything simply becomes one big b*tchfest. 

The reality is that women are often each other’s worst enemies in nearly every area of life. A woman would do best to plead her case in front of men than in front of women or both men and women. It is true that men do not always act as they should towards women, but most of these problems originate from the emasculation of men in our society. In the past if a man did not act right towards a woman, that woman could seek the protection and help of other men to straighten him out, but no such protections exist today because the men have all stepped back out of the way to let women run things. The results have been disastrous not only to women and children but also to men and all of society.

I have seen very often in life that women often turn to a fellow woman thinking she will be more sympathetic to her situation (because, after all, she’s a woman too and she would “understand” whatever it is that she’s going through or how she feels) just to find that the women are much worse than the men and often are simply bent on their destruction. Women often think “another woman would understand!” But another woman often will not understand nor care. My mother once pleaded to her mother-in-law for help and got the door slammed in her face. Where was her father-in-law? In the background, apparently, while his wife took charge of the situation to disastrous results. She just couldn’t understand how another woman and a fellow mother could be so insensitive to her- and she is not alone. Millions of women look to other women, other mothers, other women “just like them” who will “understand” and help them. We are taught all our lives in the post-feminist world about “sisterhood” and that men being in charge and in power in all areas of life leads to the oppression of women. But that is simply not how human nature works. 

There is this book by Taylor Caldwell called “Melissa” that I have always really liked because it showcases human nature very well. Melissa was an odd sort of woman who, after her mother’s death, marries a man for his money. She never fit in well with others in society and was regarded as strange by everyone else. Upon arriving at her new husband’s home her sister-in-law is determined to destroy her and break her down. Her sister-in-law has a bunch of guests staying over and Melissa notices that the men give her sympathetic looks while the women look at her with amusement and an evil gleam in their eyes. She remembers that her mother told her one time that women are a lot meaner that what men are and she starts to suspect that her mother might have been right. Towards the end of the book her sister-in-law has succeeded in breaking her down and putting enmity between her and her husband and has caused so many problems that Melissa plans to simply leave. Melissa’s sister-in-law calls upon Melissa’s brother and brother-in law for a conference about Melissa’s “behavior” trying to convince the men that Melissa is an immoral woman. Meanwhile, Melissa thinks to go to her sister for help (because surely it’s only natural that a sister would understand and help her more than a brother would?) but upon arriving at her sister’s home her sister screams at her, calls her a slut and slams the door in her face. Meanwhile, Melissa’s brother, sitting in conference with Melissa’s sister-in-law, is very suspicious of what the woman is saying and doesn’t really believe a word of it. After the conference he goes to find Melissa to find out what’s really going on. Of course, according to feminists, he would be very chauvinistic as earlier on in the book he slaps their sister across the face and tells her to sit down and shut up so he can talk because he’s the man of the house now. 

Me and a friend of mine were talking about this movie from 1945 called “Frontier Gal,” starring Yvonne de Carlo and Rod Cameron. At the end of the movie when Lorena is coming to her husband because she wants to live with him and take care of the home and their child it is another woman who convinces her husband to leave the house that way they might talk “woman to woman.” The woman then convineces Lorena that it is best if she is out of her daughter’s life forever because she would be no good for the girl. Once again, her husband stepped out of the way to let the women make decisions and disaster ensues (although the misunderstandings are cleared up in the end). 

If I close my eyes and think about any potential oppressors that I might have I always see the faces of other women. It’s true that sometimes women have to band together against a man who’s acting insensitive, but once the man is acting as he is supposed to he will be the better protector of the interests of the woman that what another woman will.

It is a bad thing for our society and a very bad thing for other women when men step back out of the way and let women take charge of things. Women are often each other’s competition. I see every day in the world that we live in that men are just stepping out of the way and letting women run everything. What women really need is for men to be the ones in charge of everything. A world where women are not allowed the vote or to involve themselves formally in politics would be the best for women. A world where men are in charge within the family and hold the political power in society is the best thing for women. A woman who finds herself in a bad situation would be best to turn to another man to help her. The worst thing she can do is turn to other women or try to manage on her own. Turning to another woman might be an intermediate step if she is in a bind but she is still better off having the help and protection of another man. If a woman puts herself under the protection and authority of a man (a man that is moral and masculine) her best interests will be served. In addition, I believe that most men will step up to the plate and be responsible if women are depending upon them to be so. 

There is really no other way. I see it as a very bad and depressing thing that there are a record number of women in congress and women as lawyers and a ten-fold increase in women being breadwinners over the last couple of decades. The longer this continues, the worse things will get. 

Thoughts on Coverture, Suffrage, Chivalry, Patriarchy and the Natural Order

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make of man and woman beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things – their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, “Deomocracy in America,” Chapter XII)

I believe it is the obligation of men to be chivalrous to women. I believe this duty to be unconditional. That means even if the woman acts bad I still believe it is the duty of men to protect and provide for women. I believe that women have special circumstances in life and the differences between the sexes warrant special consideration and protections for women. I believe it is the duty of men to elevate the interests of women above their own and the responsibility of adults to elevate the interests of children above their own. Women are inherently more vulnerable and weaker than men and are in need of special protections and guardianship in marriage. I believe it to be the duty of the husband to provide for his wife and be responsible for her. I do not believe this duty to be reciprocal. Marriage was never meant to be an “equal partnership.” The purpose of marriage is for the provision of women and children. Love is important and I believe it is good that everyone can choose who they wish to marry and spend their lives with and be happy. But marriage is more than that. It is more than how one feels at the moment and more than just “mutual benefit.” Marriage is about masculinity, femininity and the provision and guardianship of women and children. Now that society has lost sight of what the real and true purpose of marriage is the institution of the family has been destroyed and we have such perversions like “gay marriage” and cohabitation and epidemics of single parenthood and divorce and “blended” families that do nothing more than confuse children about their family identity. Once the legal obligation upon men to be providers for a wife and children (if there are any children, even if there aren’t it shouldn’t change his role to provide for the wife) was erased it didn’t take long at all for the family unit to be destroyed.

Although I’ve never come out and straightforward said much about my beliefs, I do believe in God, although I don’t have any particular religious affiliation. I never really talk about this much because I want my site to welcome those of all religious beliefs as well as atheists to the cause of traditional sex roles and traditional marriage (I don’t believe one can have a traditional marriage without traditional sex roles and the obligation of husbands and fathers to provide). I believe men and women were made for certain roles in this life and men have a moral obligation to to care for women and children and put women and children first. Man has always tried to pervert the natural order of things and go against God, there is nothing new or unusual about that. I guarantee any crazy thing one can think up of some society somewhere has tried it, somebody has done it. But that doesn’t mean that we should. We have thousands of years of history to show us the consequences (both good and bad) of different human behaviors and different laws and policies.

The sex act itself reaffirms traditional gender roles. The man is dominant, the woman submissive. The man gives, the woman receives. The man is powerful while the woman is often helpless. The man covers the woman with his body and penetrates into her most intimate places first with his own body and after the act is completed with his seed that lives inside her in the most intimate and precious place where all life begins. The man controls and leads the act while the woman follows and submits. The sex act depends upon the man’s ability to achieve. He must give to the woman, he must work to bring fulfillment to the woman and put her needs before his own or he has failed and is incompetent, impotent and dysfunctional. This is the order that traditional gender roles take, with the man giving to the woman and being dominate over the woman, while the woman receives and accepts what the man gives and submits. The woman is precious and weaker and it is the man’s job to protect and provide for her.

Although I’ve alluded to it before, I don’t believe that women should participate in politics and I am against the vote for women. The world may hate me for what I believe but I don’t care. I will not change what I believe in to fit what modern society tells me is right. Right now I may be hated and be in the minority viewpoint but in time the tables will turn. I will state what I believe no matter who is against me. If I have to change myself for someone to follow or like me then what is the point of writing? As a traditional woman I don’t want to deal with external affairs and problems in the community and society at large. I take to writing to speak out against what I see as wrong. Women have always done this, vote or no vote. If women have the right to vote then we also have the obligation to participate in politics and other duties that traditionally fell only to men. As it stands traditional women have no choice because if we back out and don’t participate in politics there will be a huge imbalance as non-traditional women will get everything they want and traditional women will be outnumbered and our voice ignored. If women have the right to participate in politics that means they also have the obligation, and a woman cannot just mind her own business at home and remain under her husband’s authority and be at peace.

“We are sometimes told by politicians who wish to press this matter on us, ‘You women will not be forced to vote.’ But our conscience speaks otherwise. If, in spite of our remonstrances, we have political obligations forced upon us, we shall feel it to be the first duty to vote every man out of place who has abused his lawmaking power thus to oppress us, and also to counteract the votes of bad women-and here is the appalling danger. While conservative women may stay at home the infamous women of our cities, numbering thousands, will be brought to the polls as a unit, and every such vote bought by some scheming politician. What legislation will this vote ask for? Surely nothing less than a social disorganization. Women of this hitherto happy land, reflect. Are you prepared for such consequences.” (1)

Under coverture the woman’s husband spoke for her. He represented her. Men cared more about the interests and well being of women because they were responsible for women. They knew they had the moral duty to elevate the interests of women above their own. They knew they had to think of women and children first. Now men don’t care about the interests of women because many modern women and the feminist movement has insisted that women can speak for themselves, protect themselves and support themselves and they have no need of the protection or support of men. But women do have need of male protection and guardianship. It is not degrading to women. It signifies that women are precious and loved, favored even. I don’t believe America has been a true patriarchy since the mid-19th century when coverture started being repealed. Patriarchy entails male headship of families and the legal dependence of wives and children as well as male guardianship of women and men in charge of the overall social order. Many societies have adopted aspects of patriarchy but if the social system does not involve chivalrous ethic on behalf of men towards women I don’t believe it to be patriarchy. For instance, I don’t believe a tribe that acknowledges fatherhood and descent through the male line yet has the women own all the property and do all the drudgery work to be a patriarchy, patrilineal perhaps, but not truly patriarchal.

“It may not be altogether easy to determine the exact difference in function between the sexes; in minor details those functions may differ in differing civilizations. But speaking broadly, it may be said that the work of battle in all its forms, and all the work that is cognate thereto, belongs to man. Physically and psychically his is the sterner and the stronger sex. His muscles are more steel-like; his heart and his flesh are alike harder; he can give knocks without compunction and receive them without shrinking. In the family, therefore, his it is to go forth and fight the battle with Nature; to compel the reluctant ground to give her riches to his use. It is not for woman to hold the plough, or handle the hoe, or dig in the mine, or fell the forest. The war with Nature is not for her to wage.” (2)

It is important to note that although men in general hold authority over women in general, a woman is not under any obligation to obey just any man. In fact, a man attempting to assert dominance over a woman where he has no authority is often subject to punishment, sometimes by the woman’s husband (or father) himself. For instance, if the man is holding out his hands wanting the woman to feed him or he is trying to order her around or he pushes himself on her sexually then he has committed a serious offense. In patriarchal societies men were often put to death for raping a woman. It was an offense not just against her but also against her husband/father because the woman was under guardianship. Even the Bible itself gave a husband the right to punish a man who brought physical harm to his wife. Not because women were “property” but because they were under guardianship and her husband was responsible to protect her. (As a side note no in the Bible and in other ancient societies women were not “damaged goods” if they weren’t virgins. Women were only punished for adultery and her lover was punished equally. Widowed and divorced women frequently remarried and the man had to marry the woman if they were intimate and she was not already engaged. In the Bible the man would have to pay the bride price (dowry) anyways if the woman’s father wouldn’t agree to the marriage).

I have been a supporter of automatic father custody, but only under the principle of coverture. I do not support men’s or father’s rights groups because these groups are abusive. They do not elevate the interests of women and children above their own interests. Their interests are purely selfish. They are about asserting their dominance over women but in a way that harms women and gets them out of responsibility. They want men’s rights without men’s responsibility attached to it. The only time they care about fatherless children is to show that they and not the mother should have custody. Family breakdown is only really a problem when they can’t get whatever they want out of divorce or when they have to support illegitimate children that they don’t want (at least that they don’t want until the child support gets to be too burdensome, at which point they all of a sudden become dad of the year and start pulling out the custody card and claim to be victims). No, I support father custody under coverture. For the father who is married to the children’s mother and is responsible to provide for them. I support this because it brings more security to women and children in ways I can’t completely explain in one posting. Under coverture the wife and children are already under the husband’s custody. Divorce should be rare in this instance but if divorce or separation does occur it should not change the rights nor the responsibilities between husband and wife (for instance, she shouldn’t automatically be responsible for being a co-provider nor should the husband’s authority now have to be shared with the wife over the children as in her getting equal rights to them over the husband’s objections). As long as she hasn’t been adulterous he should still have to support her, so him wrestling the kids away from her won’t get him out of responsibility.

This is what I believe. I’ve always felt that it was right to let my husband support and protect me and I always felt it was right to obey him. I was just innocent and naive when I first married. I had never even known the words “women’s liberation” and I knew I felt inside that men should protect women and love them, not harm them. It is particularly damaging when a man exploits, abuses and abandons a woman much more so than if he abused another man just the same as it is particularly more damaging if an adult abused or exploited a child than if an adult did the same to another adult. It is very damaging when the natural order is perverted and women are given no special consideration as being the weaker and more vulnerable of the two sexes. Men are stronger than women and always inherently more powerful. Feminists tried to put women on an equal level to men by erasing laws that protected women but doing so didn’t make women as powerful as men, it left women desperate and vulnerable and liberated men from their responsibilities. It shouldn’t be this way. It is man’s duty to protect women, not declare war on them.

“For until she had been unsexed, until she had ceased to be woman, she could not play the part which her destiny and her ambition assigned to her. For like reason society exempts woman from police functions. She is not called to be sheriff or constable or night watchman. She bears no truncheon and wears no revolver. She answers not to the summons when peace officers call for the posse comitatus. She is not received into the National Guard when bloody riot fills the city with peril and alarms. Why not? Is she not the equal of man? Is she not as loyal? as law abiding ? as patriotic? as brave? Surely. All of these is she. But it is not her function to protect the state when foreign foes attack it; it is the function of the state to protect her. It is not her function to protect the persons and property of the community against riot; it is man’s function to protect her. Here at least the functional difference between the sexes is too plain to be denied, doubted, or ignored. Here at least no man or woman from the claims of equality of character jumps to the illogical conclusion that there is an identity of function.” (2)

Why I, as a Woman, Do Not Want to Engage in Politics

“I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations.”
~ Queen Victoria

As a woman, I do not wish to engage in politics. I know this may be very shocking to our modern post-feminist world. But I just do not believe that women were meant for this job. In reality, where has engaging in politics gotten women? We are certainly not better off than our ancestors were in previous generations. It’s a common belief today that more women in the higher paid jobs and more women in in politics will guarantee women greater rights, protections or status in society and lift women and children out of poverty. But this is just not the reality. The more women move up in the career world and engage in politics the worse off we are. Treating a married women the same as a single woman is causing hardships within our marriages. It is no coincidence that as soon as married women started entering the workforce in record numbers that divorce rates started rising. This was true even before the advent of the first “no-fault” divorce laws. The feminists say that education and better employment opportunities will lift women out of poverty, as if it is the solution to all of society’s problems to push women into the workforce. Yet, they are never concerned about the causes of poverty among women and children. The biggest cause of poverty is broken apart families yet even the most conservative of lawmakers and individuals become hostile at the thought of strengthening the bonds of marriage, making divorce harder to obtain and making the husband the authority figure within the family. Men and women are so confused over their roles today. They have so many problems coming together in marriage and staying together. If women would look more to find our identities within our families instead of competing with men in the job market, we might find greater happiness. For even the woman who does stay home feels the pull of society on her to get up and enter the workforce and society does not value her contributions and her unique abilities. As such she is no more happy than the woman who works. It’s a common thought that women lawyers, judges and politicians will be more sensitive to the needs of women. Yet, oftentimes the exact opposite has been proven to be true. A woman would often do better if it were a man to decide her fate than if it were to be a woman. The end result of women making political decisions is that it becomes a war between married women and single women, or more realistically, traditional women versus non-traditional women. Single women are now the largest growing voting bloc thus the woman who is a wife and mother gets disadvantaged once more as the needs she has are never considered. Women have no voice within our families today, the only voice for women is centered around the workforce. Once more this leaves traditional women in an even greater bind. For if she lets go of current events and depends upon her husband to act on her behalf, the career-minded feminist woman gains even greater power, and thus the needs of the traditional woman are pushed even further into the background. I do not wish to be here engaging in political discussions. I wish to live a happy, normal and peaceful life only concentrating on the needs of my husband and children and caring for the home. But I feel as if I have no other choice. For if I do not speak up on behalf of traditional women (and really speak up, as in work to change the law) then will anybody ever?



© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.