As even those in a coma would be aware, on June 24, 2022 the United States Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision. In the epic global temper tantrum that promptly followed, critics claimed the Supreme Court had "banned" abortion, stripped women of "control over their own bodies" and removed the "constitutional right to abortion."
The Supreme Court did no such thing. A majority of the court simply ruled that the 1973 decision was incorrect, because there is no such thing as a "constitutional right to abortion." And they are correct. The US Constitution says nothing about abortion or killing fetuses - positive or negative. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the fact of the matter is that the US Constitution does not enumerate it as a "right."
If you don't believe me, feel free to check for yourself by reading the US Constitution - something the majority of talking heads and protesters, both within and without the US - clearly have not done.
In an attempt to refute the recent Supreme Court decision, some pro-abortion advocates are citing Amendment XIV, Section 1:
"... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
But again, there's nothing there conferring the right to kill a fetus. What that passage is saying is that the States cannot pass a law overriding the Constitutional rights granted to US citizens, nor can any state kill you, incarcerate you or seize your property without due process of law (i.e. the right to legal representation, a fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, etc), nor can any state single you out and deprive you of the rights that are granted to everyone else.
Witness the manner in which many US states stomped all over the Fourteenth Amendment during the Great Corona Con of 2019-2022. Where was the so-called "pro-choice" movement then?
By deciding that the 1973 panel deferred to a constitutional right that did not exist, all the Supreme Court did was handball the decision to legalize or outlaw abortion back to the individual states of the union.
As the court concluded:
"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."
It is now up to legislators in the individual states of the union to decide what, if any, restrictions they will place upon abortion. Residents of those states wishing to influence the outcome of those decisions will need to lobby their elected representatives (holding noisy protests in places like Adelaide, Australia - a long, long way from the US - will achieve nothing).
A handful of Democrat-ruled western states (California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington) have effectively declared they will go the abortion tourism route, promoting themselves as "a safe haven for those seeking abortions."
At the opposite extreme lies states such as Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana, where near-total bans have already been enacted with no exception for rape or incest. The only exception granted by these states is to protect the life of the mother in a medical emergency.
As the dust settles from the June 24 decision, the end result will no doubt be an array of laws across the US that vary in their degree of restriction.
From my observation, there are three broad stances on abortion:
1. Fundamentalist: Complete disapproval; no abortion, no way, no how. If you've been raped or molested then, according to this viewpoint, too bad. I'm not sure what your God thinks, but to me forcing someone to bear the offspring of their predator is pretty damn callous.
2. Moderate: Allowing abortion for genuine health reasons, but forbidding or discouraging it for matters of convenience or as a method of post-coital contraception. Some may approve of abortion for the latter reasons but only during early-term pregnancy. Adherents of this viewpoint consider abortion as the lesser of two evils in cases of rape, incest or other instances where the pregnancy presents a genuine threat to the woman's physical or psychological health. Adherents of this viewpoint do not see abortion as an unfettered "right," consider the fetus to also have rights because it is not an inanimate lump but a developing human being, and wish far more women and their partners would exercise the right - not to terminate a pregnancy - but to engage in more responsible sexual behaviours. In a world replete with contraceptives, morning after pills, and of course the ever-present option to exercise responsibility and self-control, the practice of killing fetuses because oops should not be anywhere near as widespread as it is.
3. Self-Entitled: Those who don't just approve but actually seem to laud abortion not just for rape/incest/health reasons (the impetus for a minority of abortions), but as a post-coital contraception method. Adherents to this view act as if the fetus is irrelevant and typically support abortion during all trimesters of pregnancy. These folks have been raised on a steady diet of Cosmopolitan, Sex in the City and self-entitlement, and earnestly believe consequence-free sex is a birth right. This is the same crowd who are now angrily protesting and threatening a "sex strike." Most ironic, considering these are exactly the kind of women who should be refraining from sex in the first instance. By doing so, not only would they make the abortion debate largely redundant, they'd learn the wisdom of the old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." They'd discover that they - not the Supreme Court - ultimately have control over their own bodies. They might just find that to be a far more empowering and fulfilling discovery than any sleazy, drunken hook-up could ever be.
A bunch of feral lefties who staunchly believe in their right to screw around without consequence are threatening a sex strike. If only they meant it.
Abortion: Is it Really All About "Women's Health"? Or is it Primarily a Convenience Issue?
For 2019 alone, a total of 629,898 abortions were reported to the CDC from 49 reporting areas in the US. The CDC data shows the vast majority of women who had abortions in 2019 were unmarried (85%). Women in their twenties accounted for more than half of abortions (56.9%).
Researchers from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, found the overwhelming majority of abortions were for reasons of convenience. "Not financially prepared" was a primary motivator in 40% of cases, while "Not the right time for a baby" and "Interferes with future opportunities" were cited in 36% and 20% of cases, respectively.
Health reasons were a major consideration in only 12% of abortions, while "Partner does not want baby" and "Partner is abusive" were each cited as key reasons in 3% of cases.
One of the major entities conducting research into the demographics and motives for abortion is the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Its namesake was a former president of Planned Parenthood, a eugenicist outfit masquerading as a family planning and women's health organization. The Guttmacher Institute is a staunch advocate of abortion rights, yet its 2004 survey found rape and incest were a contributing motive for only 1% and 0.5% of abortions, respectively.
Maternal health problems were cited as the major motive in 4% of abortions, and were cited as playing at least some role in the decision to abort in 12% of cases. The corresponding figures for possible fetal health problems was 3% and 13%, respectively.
Once again, the biggest contributors were reasons of convenience: "unready" and "can't afford baby now" were major factors in 25% and 23% of abortions, respectively, while "concerned about how having baby would change her life" was listed as a contributing factor in 74% of abortions.
Pro-abortion activists incessantly cite women's health, rape and incest to support their arguments. The reason they do this is no secret. Their arguments would appeal to far less people if it were known the primary use of abortion was not to preserve health or to terminate pregnancies caused by sexual predation, but as a method of post-coital contraception. Only the most self-absorbed liberal could flippantly dismiss the notion that, as a method of preventing unplanned or unwanted parenthood, responsible sex and contraception are far more preferable to killing fetuses.
If there's one thing that mystifies and offends opponents of abortion-for-convenience, it's the complete indifference of many abortion proponents to the indisputable fact that terminating a pregnancy involves killing a fetus. You'd think the decision to abort for reasons of convenience would be made with a heavy heart - and in some instances it clearly is. But many abortion advocates seem to hold a perverse joy in their ability to abort. They consider abortion, not an unfortunate last resort, but a celebration of modern woman's right to indiscriminately bonk whoever and whenever she wants. Abortion is actually celebrated by these people.
These people talk about "women's rights," but have little to say about the rights of that human life forming inside a woman's tummy. They're quick to chant "no uterus, no opinion," but what do you think the fetus' opinion might be if it were empowered with a voice?
As the old saying goes, only people who have already been born support the right to abortion.
Canada's Biggest Hypocrite Steps into the Fray
Into this highly-polarizing debate steps the youngest member of the Trudeau oligarchy to rule over Canada. Yep, Canadian PM, WEF Young Global Leader and globalist sociopath Justin Trudeau has weighed in on the abortion debate. Justin rarely has anything intelligent to say, and he's not about to break tradition with his abortion commentary. Here's the silver-spooned idiot commenting on the recent Supreme Court decision:
"No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I want women in Canada to know that we will always stand up for your right to choose.”
Not content with the 2-plus years of physical and psychological abuse he's already subjected Canadians to, Trudeau and his merry band of megalomaniacs are threatening to bring back mandates and change the definition of "fully vaccinated" from two doses of the clot shot to three.
While claiming the new changes are based on science, they've held firm to the Trudeau government policy of not showing just where this alleged science exists (hint: it doesn't).
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic Leblanc, Transport Minister Omar Alghabra and Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the changes were guided by science, but have failed to produce anything to support their claims or disclose the advice from Canada’s top doctors. When asked what has changed compared to a month ago or six months ago, they couldn’t answer with any actual data.
Trudeau and his comrades are so full of shit you can smell them from neighboring galaxies.
Trudeau called the decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow individual states to set their own laws on abortion “horrific.”
What is really horrific is the unrepentant megalomania of Trudeau and the rest of his globalist buddies. These satanic entities have used every method at their disposal - including tyrannical house arrest schemes, 'vaccine' mandates and police brutality - to cajole billions of people into receiving dangerous drugs that don't work in order to protect themselves from a virus that doesn't exist (sorry folks, but dousing extracellular vesicles with trypsin, in order to make them look kinda sorta like coronavirus virions, then exposing this non-existent 'coronavirus' along with kidney-toxic antibiotics to monkey kidney cells and claiming a 'cytopathic' effect, does not constitute 'isolation' of Sars-Cov-2; rather, it is pseudoscientific quackery of the highest order. So too is running a computer program to create an 'in silico' genome of a non-existent virus).
If "No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body," then why are these satanic entities telling females of all ages - including children and pregnant women - to get injected with dangerous pseudo-vaccines?
Where's the "no uterus, no opinion!" crowd when you really need them?
It's okay to kill an unborn child because you can't be arsed using contraceptives, but not okay for a person to just say no to drugs they have no desire or need to take? In this case, a depopulation drug made by corporate criminals?
What a crock!
"No One Has The Right to Tell a Woman What to Do With Her Body - Except Me!"
Not only is Trudeau the same tyrant who imposes draconian COVID and 'vaccine' mandates on Canadians, he's the same self-entitled brat that allegedly groped a female reporter at the Kokanee Summit in Creston, B.C., in August 2000.
When the allegations resurfaced eighteen years later, Trudeau claimed "I don’t remember any negative interactions that day at all.”
As the negative attention intensified, Trudeau's memory suddenly improved.
"I'm confident I didn't act inappropriately," said the touchy-feely one, "but I think the essence of this is people can experience interactions differently and part of the lesson we need to learn in this moment of collective awakening ... people in many cases, women, experience interactions in professional contexts and other contexts differently than men."
Translation: "Arrogant, privileged shmucks like me think there's nothing wrong with aggressively propositioning and touching young females, even when any normal person can clearly identify it as inappropriate and unprofessionial. We live such privileged lives, we simply assume we can do whatever we want. As a result, we never develop the social skills and awareness necessary to understand when a woman is or is not interested in us. Because we come from a position of privilege and power, we just go ahead and harass women we find attractive (we're a little more circumspect with men that tickle our homosexual fancies, because in that instance unwanted advances could result in a broken jaw, or worse). While many a superficial woman of doubtful intelligence has been blinded by our social status and wealth, and my effeminate pretty boy looks, for some strange reason there are other women out there who are not so impressed and not okay with our predatory behavior. Wow, who would have thought?"
When the reporter returned to the newsroom after the 2000 Kokanee Summit, she told two colleagues (her publisher and then-editor) at The Creston Valley Advance about Trudeau's behaviour. Both recall she was visibly distressed by the encounter.
When the female reporter objected to Trudeau's sex-pestery, he reportedly issued an apology of sorts. "I'm sorry," he is quoted as saying. "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I never would have been so forward."
Prior to the resurfacing of the Kokanee allegations, Trudeau told CBC Radio in January 2018 that women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed. Trudeau told the CBC he was confident no one would be able to accuse him of the kinds of behavior that had recently brought down several high-profile politicians.
That didn't age well.
"I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well," Trudeau told CBC Radio.
Yes, nothing shows respect to people's space and headspace than locking them down for non-existent viruses and forcing them to choose between unemployment or reluctantly being injected with dubious drugs.
Declaration of interest: I have a penis, and I have an opinion. If you don't like it, go on a sex strike. Feel free to make it a permanent one.
If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip
This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated.