Today, the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional right to an abortion that has been in place for half a century, overturning Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 vote and clearing the way for dozens of states to ban the procedure while throwing the country into uncharted political, legal, social and medical territory. The laws against body autonomy are the dream of the technocrats — the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a trap. Eventually, we will all learn that our genetic selves are all under the control of the state. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis talks with attorney and legal analyst, Sandra Spurgeon about CHILDREN OF MEN – FROM FREEDOM TO FREEMARTINS.
As everyone has heard, the Supreme Court revoked the constitutional right to an abortion that has been in place for half a century — overturning Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 vote, clearing the way for dozens of states to ban the procedure and throwing the country into uncharted political, legal, social and medical territory.
It has to be addressed, but of course, people will already assume that I will have to pus some political tirade lie to everyone else and that is unfortunate because there is more to the story — and while many people listening to me can savor the victory while others re fearful of the concept of back-alley abortions and coat hanger nightmares — I have to offer a bigger picture of what this all means for you and the future.
Indeed this decision will upend elections across the country as governors, attorneys general and other state and local leaders gain new powers to determine when abortion will be permitted, if at all, and who should be prosecuted and potentially incarcerated when bans take effect.
Certainly there will be violent protests and perhaps clinic bombings — this is all supposed turn ugly and it definitely will.
Again, pushing us closer to civil war — and we wonder if this is just one more shot that will be heard around the world.
The high court’s vote to overturn nearly five decades of court rulings upholding a right to end a pregnancy won the support of five of the court’s six conservative justices, while Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices opposed overruling Roe.
The court’s liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, joined together in a single fiery dissent warning that the action by the court’s majority was deeply unwise and disruptive.
“Withdrawing a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy does not mean that no choice is being made. It means that a majority of today’s Court has wrenched this choice from women and given it to the States,” the Democratic-appointed justices wrote. “Women have relied on Roe and Casey in this way for 50 years. Many have never known anything else. When Roe and Casey disappear, the loss of power, control, and dignity will be immense.”
The court’s liberals also predicted that the Republican-appointed majority’s willingness to overrule a nearly half-century-old precedent bodes ill for other decisions regularly relied upon by Americans and for respect for the legal system.
And while Alito’s opinion insisted that overturning Roe and Casey endangered no rights guaranteed by other past court decisions, Justice Clarence Thomas’ view of what that assurance meant seemed certain to fuel fears that rulings many Americans rely on could be next on the chopping block.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in a solo concurrence — referring to a 1965 decision finding a right to contraception for married couples, a 2003 decision that overturned criminal sodomy laws and a 2015 decision requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Thomas went on to write that the rights the court discerned in those cases might still exist based on other rationales: “After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
The court giveth and the court taketh away — I’ll bet by now there are many out there have lost faith in justice and due process –while others see this as a gift horse.
I say that it is a Trojan Horse.
Caught up in the heated debate over the legality of abortion, we’ve failed to think about what’s coming next. Get ready, because it could get scary, ugly and overwhelming really fast.
Thus far, abortion politics have largely revolved around who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy in one’s body, sexual freedom, and the rights of the unborn.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides for a “right to privacy” that assures a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy within the first two trimesters.
Since that landmark ruling, abortion has been so politicized, polarized and propagandized as to render it a major frontline in the culture wars.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Roe when it prohibited states from imposing an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
Life is an inalienable right. By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights. The abortion debate—a tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—lays the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights: the disabled, the aged, the infirm, the immoral, and the criminal as we execute the criminal — the death penalty of course is pretty much in the same bin as abortion.
.If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection. There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others. Out of that mindset is born the seeds of eugenics, genocide, slavery and war.
I have always seen abortion as a slippery slope –a eugenics operation that first of all appears to be a necessary evil. I know that when it comes to abortion no one really wants an abortion but the choice has to be there.
The choice is that of the woman.
This is the hard choice but again, it has to be said that creating this wedge about body autonomy has to be consistent in order to enforce medical laws where you can be forced into medical procedures that you do not approve of.
Stopping one ugly procedure opens the door for mandatory ugly procedures in the future.
To suggest that the end justifies the means — for example, that abortion is justified in order to ensure a better quality of life for women and children is to encourage a slippery slope mindset that could just as reasonably justify ending a life in order for the great good of preventing war, thwarting disease, defeating poverty, and preserving national security.
Such arguments have been used in the past to justify such dubious propositions as subjecting segments of the population to secret scientific experiments, unleashing nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, and enslaving fellow humans.
Overturning laws that protect the rights of women to choose — is going to get ugly vey fast and this has no bearing on what your political or spiritual views are about life.
The fact is that for the most part most humans today do not hold life sacred. We can say that we value the life in the womb but as soon as a child is born, it has to go through barbaric procedures.
Including over vaccinating, genetic profiling, and eventually as it enters the system is pipelined from education to the system of what can be the prisoner system.
In the case of abortion, we say that all life has value, but what we should say is that all life has potential but value is in the eyes of the beholder and certainty in the eyes of the state..
Yes, abortion is an ugly topic — with even uglier repercussions no matter what the Supreme court dictates.
The eight may see the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a victory but I see it as a way by which the state can overturn the double standard,
Think about how the furor surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
It illustrates clearly that debate over bodily autonomy and privacy goes beyond the singular right to abortion.
When vaccine mandates were rolled out, long-held positions have been reversed: many of those who historically opposed the government usurping a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and privacy have no qualms about supporting vaccine mandates that trample upon those very same rights.
Similarly, those who historically looked to the government to police what a woman does with her body believe the government should have no authority to dictate whether or not one opts to get vaccinated.
This is yet another way our government is mocking and gaslighting us. They want control over everything — including who has life, choice, bodily autonomy. cognitive liberty and the right to defend themselves with weapons.
Speech is being abolished, gun ownership is being abolished, the fourth amendment is being abolished, due process is being abolished, and the right to choose what you do with your body is being abolished.
Yes, that includes abortion.
We are now allowing the the state to define life — to define what rights you have with your body.
This discussion needs balance and the forethought of what the big picture holds in the medical police state.
The government has always wanted to play god. Now they have all but sealed the deal. It wants the power to decide who lives or dies and whose rights are worthy of protection.
Delve beneath the rhetoric and spin that have turned abortion into a politicized, polarized and propagandized frontline in the culture wars, and you will find a greater menace at work.
Abortion may be front and center in the power struggle between the Left and the Right over who has the right to decide—the government or the individual when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy, sexual freedom, the rights of the unborn, and property interests in one’s body, but there’s so much more going on here.
The Left would suggest that unborn babies do not have constitutional rights and the only right that matters is a woman’s right to privacy in choosing whether or not to abort a pregnancy. The Right, while fixated on saving the lives of unborn babies, seems less concerned about what happens to those lives from birth to death.
Humanity itself hangs in the balance.
Remaining singularly human and retaining your individuality and dominion over yourself—mind, body and soul—in the face of corporate and government technologies that aim to invade, intrude, monitor, manipulate and control us may be one of the greatest challenges before us.
The battles over COVID-19 vaccine mandates got the ball rolling The groundwork being laid with the mandates was a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings genetic, biological, biometric, mental, and emotional of the human race.
This is all about the science again — it is the slippery slope to eugenics directives, it is the subjugation of women and eventually men will have to decide if they want to continue to be men or evolve into the effeminates and when the time comes to devalue both men, women and children we will all look back and wonder how did we get to the point where we become sexless. soulless, mannequins of the state.
We will be forced to transgender ourselves into freemartins where babies will be made in a factory with epigenetic wizardry.
In the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World, a “freemartin” was a woman who has been deliberately made sterile by exposure to hormones during fetal development; in the book, government policy requires freemartins to constitute 70% of the female population.
The laws against body autonomy are the dream of the technocrats — the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a trap. But the conservatives can enjoy their victories and the left will again riot in the streets in protest but eventually we will all learn that our genetic selves are all under control of the state.
Many times, I have talked about “the science” as opposed to science. I hear all the time that it is our patriotic duty as citizens of the United States to follow “the science” when it comes to our health and well-being and when some political pundit rages about the fate of the planet when it comes to Climate Change.
“The science” is becoming an Orwellian term that can easily be seen as a cover word for “the party” which in our case is becoming a technocratic cult that is behind what is called “bioethics.“
I have been reading statistics that the newfound faith of the youth is not faith in God or even a spiritual path of self-discovery and ascension — it is the blind belief in “the science.”
Younger generations in the United States, Canada, and Europe are becoming more secular. Recent polls have indicated that there seems to be a majority of college-aged young adults that have rejected their faith in favor of using science to explain many of life’s mysteries.
The technocracy is boasting that the United States has achieved maybe even surpassed its goals of becoming a secular nation. While the Christian-Right is very vocal about a belief in God in the United States, the secular tsunami is taking over as we edge closer to the idea of A.I. singularity and the scientific establishment’s promoting of transhumanism,
Sociologists have suggested that the reason this is becoming a trend is because of the fanatical ideological extremes that are now invading the social network of our country. There appears to be a schism that is forming where people with fresh ideological perspectives don’t follow the lines of the two major political parties.
Those that are becoming secular are rebelling against the left and right paradigm. They are rebelling against organized religion – they believe that all of the established groups alienate the order of things and do nothing to establish peace and harmony with the environment.
The truth is that spiritual health is important in finding respect for human life. From that standpoint, we launch into a form of religious affiliation which eventually becomes the most central form of civic engagement…from there, people place themselves in various collectives and develop political views.
Now we are seeing a disengagement taking place; a disengagement from, religion, then the disengagement of traditional civil engagements, disengagement from civic duty, traditional political beliefs and eventually an amoral attitude about human life and the plight of others.
The future generations are stick with all sorts of ugly ethical dilemmas.
Putting the power to determine who gets to live or die in the hands of the government is just the beginning of what can go wrong and how women and children will end up dying at the hands of mad science to further the reset and guarantee technological slavery.
This all should be held with a bit of reticence and caution.
SHOW GUEST: SANDRA SPURGEON
Sandra Spurgeon has been a practicing trial lawyer since 1990, having litigated thousands of matters, of which 120+ cases were tried through verdict in state and federal jurisdictions. She represents victims and families who have suffered catastrophic losses and has collected settlements and judgments in excess of $50M. In 2017, Sandra released her 1st book titled, “Courage To Stand” for lawyers seeking to understand trial strategies and techniques in the Courtroom. Since that time, she has served as a Consultant and Guest Speaker in the legal field. Sandra’s 2nd book, “Surviving Greatness” is scheduled for release in June 2022. Her website is sandraspurgeon.com.