Two Questions I have for SCOTUS in the latest Roe v. Wade Challenge
I am a layman who listened to the US Supreme Court’s arguments on the latest challenge to Roe v. Wade, a Mississippi abortion case. Common sense has just whispered in my ear: “The High court has turned into Simple Simons v. Three Blind Mice on the issue of abortion.”
I am a pro-life conservative. Not because I subscribe to the pro-life rhetoric I hear from today’s holier-than-thou conservatives; my pro-life beliefs were formed by both sad and inspirational stories told to me by my late father.
I am number 7 of the 9 children my parents had together, but I have three additional siblings. And I thank God for all my siblings, with a special affection for my father’s daughter by another woman, and the two siblings I have never met.
My father told me that after he and my mother had 3 boys and 3 girls, he said “That’s enough.” Then a tragedy over the sky of Denver, Colorado changed all plans.
November 1, 1955, was, “The night a Denver man blew up his mother’s flight.” My mother just so happened to be looking up in the sky when she saw a plane and then it blew up. In telling me the story, my father softly ended by saying, “She was never the same since.” A year later I was born with a birth defect, which prevented me from ever walking. Then a sister and my youngest brother were born before we all packed up for California.
One day my father came home only to discover his wife and our mother had left for Chicago, for good, where she had family. She was admitted to a mental hospital where she spent many years in and out, giving birth to 2 additional children as a patient.
I am also a homosexual who believes that it is ludicrous for a man who has sex with a man should be telling a woman what to do with her body. Does that mean I am pro-choice? Not exactly. The main argument of “My body, my choice” made by most pro-choice believers makes me uneasy.
Sure, it’s not my body. And I do not believe a woman should be forced to give birth on the mere fact, she’s pregnant. But hold the phone: life is not as simple as my body, my choice. I would argue, your body, your responsibility but that too should include wise counsel. Proverbs 28:26. If that counsel says it is best to terminate the pregnancy, I might offer a second opinion, but will always respect and support the final decision as I have done when asked for my opinion.
Admittedly, during oral arguments of the Mississippi case, I heard very little wise counsel. One justice Simple Simon had the nerve to suggest, adoption could remove the burden of pregnancy. Even if true for pregnancy, and with all due respect for adoption, adoption offers an entire set of burdens placed on the adopted as well as the long-term psychological effect on the mother. But none of the Blind Mice justices challenged this Mississippi adoption hope called, “Safe Haven” laws.
Question 1: Safe for whom?
When my father came home to find he was faced with the possibility of raising his kids all by himself or giving them up for adoption, he knew he would have to split us up. That was a burden he was not going to put on his kids. So, he kept us all together and out of adoption.
Additionally, Justice Simple Simon should have been pinned by her blind colleagues on her staunch conservative adoption beliefs: Was she announcing her support of same-sex adoption too? If not, as I suspect, the asinine adoption option remedy of her argument melts away.
Another Justice Simple Simon, who has been on the current High Court the longest, has maintained for years that abortion has nothing to do with the interpretation of 14th Amendment’s “Right to Privacy” reasoning.
Reading of the 14th Amendment demands a Supreme Court justice apply common sense. I could see how a simple interpretation of that amendment makes it clear, the writers/founders were not thinking of a woman’s body. But none of the blind colleagues were bold enough to challenge the interpretation of the right to privacy of a pregnant woman, let alone the privacy rights of millions of other Americans with non-criminal family/personal secrets. A few members of Congress were forced by duty to share their own abortion secrets in part because a couple of Simple Simons on the High Court have conveniently narrowed the interpretation of right to privacy as defined in the 14th Amendment.
Question 2: is the subject of masturbation more private than abortion?
Over the years, the Supreme Court has had to deal with many subjects concerning a possible right to privacy. Personally, I think it is hilarious to argue homosexuality as a privacy issue before the court. But the Supreme Court has on several cases. Common Sense also told me: “If the blind mice on the Supreme Court would simply rhetorically challenge their simple Simons colleagues concerning their personal sexual habits, period, never mind abortion, only then might they gain a lot more respect for a person’s right to privacy.”