Earlier this month, Maureen Dowd, an op-ed writer for the New York Times, published an essay calling the U.S. Supreme Court "rotten" and "corrupt".
According to Dowd, the Court is "in the hands of a cabal of religious and far-right zealots, including a couple of ethical scofflaws with MAGA wives."
Dowd cites no evidence to back her hysterical accusation. In fact, reading Dows's shrill screed a little further, she makes clear that her main beef is the Supreme Court's decision to overthrow Roe v. Wade, thereby "yanking away women's right to control their own bodies."
Of course, that's nonsense. The Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson shows that a majority of the Justices hold a conservative view of the Constitution. In Dobbs, it ruled that the states, not federal courts, have the ultimate authority to regulate abortion. Millions of people, including Dowd, disagree with that decision, but that's no basis for labeling the Court as corrupt.
I believe most states will eventually pass legislation that closely aligns with Roe v Wade. In other words, women will have an almost unrestrained right to terminate their pregnancies during the first trimester, but that right will become more restricted the closer a baby comes to term.
Some people believe the state should have zero authority to regulate abortions. Thus, if the "birth person" decides she needs more "me time" after the fetus is in middle school, she should be free to put a contract out on little Johnny to ensure the tyke sleeps with the fishes.
I take a more conservative view. If a woman hasn't snuffed her fetus by the time it's in kindergarten, mom should learn to live with the little brat and open a college savings account.
 |
| Little Johnny sleeps with the fishes. |
