The Texas Massacre 2

After my last post, I remembered that I had written a story about what it might take to bring about new laws that would reduce the recurring gun violence that is, not just prevalent, but that defines America today.  It was written in July, 2013, after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, after the Senate failed to advance any kind of gun reform.  For me, that indicated that we, America and Americans, were OK with the occasional murder of our children in school as long as we could wave our flags and proclaim we were free. 

I am including it again, today, because I have very little faith that any new laws will result from the horrific murder of 19 children and 2 teachers which occurred in Uvalde.  Why should I think otherwise, when the NRA is holding a convention in Houston, the same state in which the slaughter occurred, and the actual senator from that state, Ted Cruz, and the man who most consider the leader of the GOP, Donald Trump, will appear and give a speech at the convention amidst acres and acres of weapons designed to kill people!

In my last post, I proposed a few common sense adjustments to our gun laws that are supported by a large majority of democrats, a majority of independents, and many, if not a small majority of republicans.  Yet, because of the power of one organization which is basically the advertising arm for the gun industry, and the power of the former president who wields an outside influence over millions of Americans who have long ago traded their humanity for the belief that wearing and wielding a gun allows them to intimidate anyone who expresses an opinion (not to mention looks, worships and loves) that differs from their own, we now demonstrate our exceptionalism by leading all similar countries in per-capita gun deaths by an extremely large margin.   

So, here is The Conspiracy that Changed America, a story which presents one man's reaction to the Sandy Hook massacre and the failed attempt to enact common sense gun laws.  I hope that the "solution" that inspired the lead conspirator is not the only way to address this problem, and I encourage anyone who would like to put forth their own thoughts to comment.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-conspiracy-that-changed-america.html 

Mass Murder in Texas

I recently started reading "A Promised Land" by Barack Obama, and just finished reading the Lapham's Quarterly April/May edition titled Migration, so I assumed my next few posts would concern topics from those literary efforts.

And then came news of the massacre in Uvalde, Texas.

Before starting this post, I reviewed what I had written in the past.  Fortunately, my blog can be researched by topic, so I read the 3 posts which were under the heading Gun Control, two for which I am providing a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/here-gun-there-gun.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/01/tucson-shooting.html

And then I remembered that I stopped labeling these kind of posts as gun control and started using violence control.  Sadly, there were 21 posts under that title.  Here are links to a few of them.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/02/more-guns-trained-guns-no-guns.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-las-vegas-killer.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-local-murder.html

In the beginning, my posts were my thoughts on violence control in the area related to our overwhelming affection for guns, and the glorification of using guns to express our disagreements with each other and our government.  But as time went on, I was often motivated by especially horrendous examples of mass killings, and so there were posts following past mass killings such as those in Tuscon, Arizona, Las Vegas, NV, Sandy Hook, CT, Parkland, Fl, and (unfortunately) other places, and even a post about the murder in DC during a GOP softball game, and after a murder in my own small town. 

Far too many posts concerning a subject that, for me, defies logic. It is not rocket science.  Study after study demonstrates that more guns mean more gun violence and more death, and where gun laws are lax, gun violence is greater.  So, when your state legislature passes open carry laws, or removes the requirement for a permit to purchase a gun, or does not require background checks, or eschews training when a gun is purchased, they are increasing your chance of dying from gun violence.  In other words, you have voted to increase the chance that you or your spouse or your child, will be killed by someone with a gun.  

But what I also noted from my posts, is my emphasis on the belief that stricter gun laws which ban assault weapons and multi round magazines, that require background checks, that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have a history of violence, may reduce, but will not prevent gun killings until we decide that violence is not an acceptable response to frustration, not a solution to bridging the rift between our various religious and political ideologies, not the Christian way to interact with one another.

Until we admit that we are the outliers among those countries that we deem civilized in the way we allow our children to die at school, allow those with mental challenges to snuff out their own lives, and allow the misplaced dogma that links manliness and strength with guns and violence, to continue to be our yardstick.

I would offer the solution that we vote on a binding referendum in the November election with the following 5 questions, but I fear that even if the electorate votes yes on some or all of these laws, there would be endless court hearings on the constitutionality of such an idea or, most likely, court rulings that would even prevent such an act of democracy from occurring.  Can you imagine the outcry from the gun industry and those politicians in their pockets, allowing the American voter to  decide one way or the other to

- ban all assault weapons as defined by weapons that can shoot multiple rounds in seconds

- institute a national background check system which confirms that an applicant has not been convicted or recently been accused of committing a violent crime

-ban all multi round magazines

-require a license for all new gun sales which includes mandatory training and care and storage of the weapon

-require a national registry of all guns and the immediate reporting of the theft of a gun

As I have said multiple times to my wife, friends, relatives, we know what to do, even towards solving the most complex problems.  We just lack the will to do it, even when most Americans are in agreement on a possible way forward, let alone when every single utterance and issue instantly becomes the symbol of some type of political stance, or is countered by the most widely absurd conspiracy theory.  

For the last few years in which data is available, we have been killing each other and ourselves at the tune of 40 to 45,000 people per year through gun violence.  And, while it is true that we will never bring that number to zero, it is the height of stupidity, not to mention, cruelty, to not try to save future American families from the sadness of losing a family member to suicide, or the intense grief from losing someone to a sudden, violent death, or the incomprehensible horror of losing a child after dropping her off at school.

Perhaps we are just caught in the natural pendulum of backlash that occurs when social change outpaces the ability of a large percentage of society to absorb it.  It wasn't that long ago that violence was on the rise after a tumultuous time of social change.  Just look at the amount of unrest and violence that occurred in the 1970's following the changes which marked the Civil Rights breakthroughs of the 1960's. 

Maybe in another decade or two, when the white nationalist rhetoric revival related to the first elected Black President of the United States, has been summarily rejected by those just now coming of age, just as the more base beliefs that marked the early 21st century concerning the inherent inferiority of those without pale skin have been shown to be childish and mean, we will embrace the idea that treating others as we would want to be treated precludes the use of guns and violence.  In the meantime, use your voice and your vote to demand that your legislatures pass laws that protect you and reduce gun violence, not encourage it. 

 

    

 

Student Debt "Crisis"

In my first Abortion post, I mentioned that I had been thinking about a post concerning the recent debates surrounding student debt relief.

First, I did some reading from various sources concerning how this situation developed.  Also, full disclosure, both my children have student loan debt from attending 4 year colleges from 2010-2017, and my wife and I also have debt from funding these efforts, initially borrowing money through the Parent Plus loan program.

There are a number of factors which have contributed to the current situation which finds over 40 million Americans holding student debt worth over 1.7 trillion (that's trillion) dollars, a number that was just about $500 billion only 14 years ago.  All of the articles agreed on some causes, but not on all.

What was agreed upon was that state aid to higher education has been reduced dramatically over the past 20 years causing the need to borrow more.  Some of those cuts can be blamed on legislators and governors who promise low taxes to get elected, then reduce budgets to fulfill those promises, the education budget being on the list of popular choices.  This is especially relevant to the rising cost of state universities where less public tax money has been available.

Another agreed upon factor is that it is just too easy to borrow money for college, both for students and parents.  There are no qualifications, other than filling out the forms.  Now, one might say that by making it easy to borrow, all students, even those from the middle and lower economic classes can now have access to college, but it is still true that since the government backs all student loans, there is no incentive to make sure that the money can be paid back.  Add to the fact as listed above that state assistance has been greatly reduced, and it is clear that more borrowing, student and parent, is required.

And then there is the skyrocketing cost of higher education which has far outpaced both the normal standard of living cost increases and the wages of pretty much every economic class below the very well to do, who generally don't borrow money for college anyway.  (And whose children tend to get into the "better" schools based on legacy and income, but that is another story).

So, you have steeply rising costs, partly attributable to simple supply and demand, as college is still associated with higher future wages, so more applicants mean higher costs can be charged, a sharp reduction in state aid to fund both 2 year community colleges and the 4 year state schools, and am ample supply of loan money.  

Also, a factor that I did not mention above, is that it does cost more to run a university, public or private, as student services have become more popular and costlier, educator pay has increased beyond those of other careers, and there is a need for more teachers and support staff than previously.

All those reasons, plus the fact that student loan interest rates are much higher than that of homes and cars.  For instance, while the Stafford loans for students, loan that are capped at an amount that has not kept up with the rising costs, are in the 3.5 to 5% range, when my wife and I borrowed money through the Parent Plus loan program, the rate was 7.9%. While it has dropped a bit since we employed the program, it is still over 6.25%, a remarkably high number given the historic lows in interest rates that we have experienced until just recently.

Solutions.

Like any problem, it is important to understand the causes while considering a solution.  From that perspective, merely forgiving student loan debt is, at best, a band aid on a limb threatening injury. I don't know if, as part of an attempt to address this situation, there is serious talk about digging deeper to address the root causes, but if not, then this situation will not go away, student debt forgiveness in the short run or not.

That being said, and while I know that my children will benefit from $10K or more being lopped off their debt, I would prefer that the whole idea of student debt forgiveness be rephrased as student loan interest forgiveness.  In other words, once a student has repayed the principle of their loans, the remaining interest should be forgiven.  This rewards the effort to repay, while eliminating the penalty of all that interest that has accumulated, especially since that money has been generated by what most people might consider higher than reasonable rates.  Also, and this is another example of Democrats phrasing an issue poorly, student loan interest forgiveness plays better in the heartland where people can understand their federal tax money being used to reward those who have paid their original debt, as opposed to what some believe is just the elimination of debt without the string of responsibility for paying something back.

This also connects to the idea of a new GI bill that would be created for those who serve, not just in the armed forces, but in the community as well.  Perhaps, in conjunction with the "free" community college idea, the free is only free when service is attached; it is earned, in other words.  Again, I believe that most Americans would be on board with their tax money used to pay for 2 year colleges for those who give back, whether it be in the military or a local assisted living community, or a school, or any other place where young people can provide support for those less fortunate than themselves. Or, if service without direct compensation sounds too much like indentured servitude, then perhaps most (or all) of the pay would be "paid" in a manner by which the student can choose to take a small portion of the money for living expenses if needed, with the vast majority targeted to their choice of advanced education.

And this idea of service, does not just apply to college.  It is very clear that some people prefer to seek their future in ways that do not include college.  We need to find a way to provide blue collar skills training, either through an apprentice type program, or some other way that allows for future electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, etc, to get the skills they need through real life experience without being made to feel that just because they aren't attending college, they are less smart, less important to our society, less worth the trouble to help.

It has been proven time and time again, that money spent in early intervention programs, is recovered 4 and 5 times over, sometimes even more.  What could be better for our national economy than to have a generation of young people who receive solid career counseling which offers the full gamut of possibilities, whether advice that steers the student to academic or trade options, who are encouraged to be involved in their communities while receiving the benefits of government provided assistance if they need it, then who emerge from whatever path they have chosen, partially or completely debt free with the skills that enable them to begin their life with knowledge and confidence.

And to be that much better positioned to become consumers, if I may be so crass, so that the demand for more goods and services will not be hampered by debilitating student debt first.

An investment in our youth to guarantee a growing economy, a trained labor force, and an educated public (educated defined in both the traditional way and as applied to acquiring life skills).

Ah, but that still leaves the actual cost of higher education.  This is where we may need government regulation that freezes tuition costs for a few years, then ties future tuition increases to a rate at or below what the average American worker nets in wage increases.  Had even that second part occurred since I attended college in the 1980's then today's tuition cost would not have been such a huge factor in the current debt crisis. For instance, one report I read calculated that college costs since 1980 have risen 213% at state schools, 129% at private institutions.  In other words, the days when summer income could pay for fall tuition no longer exist.

Finally, since all the reports I read point to falling education investments on the state level as a contributing factor, perhaps we also need to vote for state legislators and governors to increase (in real dollars) education funding.  While higher taxes may be a less enviable choice, a dedicated education tax in combination with some creative public-private partnerships, and an evaluation of where the state tax dollar goes towards prioritizing education, might be worth considering.  

As for easy credit, I can't imagine that Americans want their youth tested in high school to weed out those who should or shouldn't be allowed to go to college.  Yes, encourage each student and their families to make the choice by providing the full range of options, but we must still provide anyone who wants to the opportunity to attend a 2 or 4 year college.  But, with the knowledge that whatever assistance is provided, federal or state, must be repaid through service or money, and that those costs will not balloon above the student or parents ability to pay, and that the reward at the end of the process might be student loan interest forgiveness, but only after the principle is repaid.

Like all of our more complex problems, there are no easy answers, but simple solutions, like student loan debt forgiveness without any further discussion of the root causes of the problem, will not solve the problem.  In the end, it is always about priorities.  Do we want to prioritize the education of our children, or pretend that without support, financial as well as social, our youth, and consequently our country's future will be assured?   

One last thought (for now) on Abortion

Since the leak of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe V Wade and send abortion rights back to the states to control, there has been numerous protests by Americans who are pro-choice.  While I am not a fan of people gathering outside the homes of some of the Supreme Court Justices as I would prefer that they confine their voices of protest to the workplace, in this case the Supreme Court Building, I support their right to advocate for their beliefs, and hope that those who choose to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (that would be from the First Amendment of the Constitution), focus on the word peaceably, unlike those who chose to assemble outside Congress on January 6th, but then went further, attacking the Capitol police, breaking in windows and doors, chanting various threats concerning the elected officials within, and vandalized various offices and public areas of our Capitol building.  

A riot which injures over 140 police officers and damages public property in an effort to delay the peaceful transition of power, a tradition which is one of the main differences between our democracy and those countries which have weaker versions of democracy, is not even close to "peaceable assembly".  So again, I cannot emphasize the importance of those who are engaged in protesting the loss of a right, the first time in our history that such a loss might occur, do so peaceably.  If we (those who believe in a woman's right to choose to bear children or not) do anything less than this, if some among us choose to fall to the depths of those who attacked our Capitol and our hallowed tradition of a peaceful transition of power, then we are no better than they are, and can not pretend that we honor the rule of law.

At this point, most reporting seems to indicate that this opinion will stand.  There has been some rumors that Chief Justice Roberts would prefer a less aggressive ruling, perhaps some type of compromise that maintains a woman's right to choose within the framework of a reduced time constraint, perhaps something similar to the laws of many of the European countries, maybe 15 weeks (like Mississippi's law which is the basis of this SCOTUS hearing), but that seems unlikely unless one of the 5 who have signed onto the current opinion choose to recant.

I don't think it is untrue that the viability of a fetus outside the womb has been altered over the past 50 years due to medical advances.  Still, according to most medical research, babies born less than 22 weeks after conception have very little chance of survival.  And, of course this number drops to virtually zero percent, once we get below 20 weeks.  

Yet, the idea shouldn't be that if a fetus cannot live outside the womb, it should be eligible to be aborted.  Clearly, the fetus is alive, a future human being, and we should acknowledge that, and not pretend that a future person can be destroyed for any reason.  It is this callous thinking that gives fuel to those who are anti-abortion.  By recognizing that the fetus, even at 15 weeks, is a life, we can find common ground with the anti-abortion advocate, then attempt to make our case that the woman is not merely a vessel carrying this life, but also a person who has rights to make decisions about their future as well.

As I said above, I believe there is a middle ground in this controversy.  Not that I think that a compromise will satisfy 100% of the people; that is not possible in any difficult debate, and not something we should expect to achieve.  That is why I am aghast at the possibility that more than half of the states might have abortion bans by the end of summer. But I do believe that the majority of Americans, if asked by binding referendum at the 2022 November elections, would vote to:

Alter, if you like, Roe V Wade to allow abortions for any reason up to 18 weeks, and to terminate a pregnancy as decided by the mother and her doctor, for rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother, and clear indication that the fetus is medically compromised.

Again, I know this does not satisfy everyone, but it does maintain the right of a woman to choose within reasonable constraints, while providing for the protection of a fetus from a capricious decision to cut its life short.

That being said, it would be irresponsible of me not to say two things. First, I am a man, incapable of bearing and birthing a child, so I would defer to a woman who believes my proposal needs tweaking.  My goal is to present a compromise position that enables America to move past this controversy without exposing us to a restriction of other rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution, especially those rights related to privacy such as birth control and marriage.

Second, it is critical that we address the issue of lack of access to health care for far too many Americans.  I mentioned in my first post concerning abortion that, while the abortion rate in America has fallen dramatically since the 1980's, there are many countries in Europe, especially the Nordic countries, that have far lower incidences of abortion.  A main ingredient in that result, and remember, the foundation of preventing abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, is sex education, easy access to birth control methods, and a concerted effort to treat sex as a recreational act as opposed to a procreation act.  To eliminate the deep root of puritanism that views sex as a behind-closed-doors, necessary evil to keep the flock growing, as well as a way to punish and control woman who dare to engage in pre-marital sex, despite the fact that every pregnancy requires a man to participate.  

This issue, like so many of the issues of today, needs real debate, a bit of compromise from both sides, and a decision that reflects the majority of Americans, not that of one side or the other.  Like all issues being debated today, we are all Americans, and should remember that, especially in light of the horror of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the atrocities occurring all over the world where democracy is under threat from autocrats and dictators.  Those kind of people thrive where there is confusion and doubt concerning the institutions of a nation, doubt that they first sow, then take advantage of by providing an easy scapegoat and simple answers to complex problems.  

Living in a democratic country is much harder than under a dictator because in a dictatorship there are no hard choices to make. You just do as you are told, no questions, no debates, no input.  Wouldn't it be refreshing, and empowering, if America could come together, fashion a compromise concerning abortion, and move on to the next big issue.  It certainly would show the world how strong is our democracy, and how better it is to live in a country that respects all opinions while fashioning laws that are acceptable to the majority even when grudgingly accepted by a minority that had some hand in the creation of those laws, those compromises. 

More On Abortion

In my last post, I expressed my opinions on the recent disclosure that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe V Wade and return the  abortion issue to the states.  

In this post I would like to offer comments on what my research has shown in terms of preventing abortion, and why banning it is the least effective method.

But first, the Leaker!

I believe that, in general, those who leak information about how our government acts, or will soon act, is not in the best interest of our country.  There are some things, such as information relating to specific instances of our military involvement in the Ukraine war, that is better left secret until it makes sense to release it.  

However, I must also state that there is far too much secrecy taking place in the halls of Congress, the White House and other federal agencies that should not be "classified", just because a government official thinks so, as too often this justification is not for overriding security reasons but more to hide some type of nefarious activity.  That is why the existence of government watchdog agencies, both within the government such as the GAO, and without, need to be allowed to do their work, without threats or recriminations from those we elect.  It is why I was so appalled at the former president's statements regarding former US Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman who revealed his astonishment at the attempts to link arms to Ukraine for dirt on a political rival.   

In this vein, I truly hope that the Leaker of the abortion opinion has multiple statues dedicated to him or her, especially if it turns out that it is someone from the left who is appalled at both the opinion, its harsh comments for the Supreme Court justices who first created the Roe V Wade guidelines (it was a 7-2 decision, for those who forgot, with 5 of the 7 being Republican nominated judges), and the strong possibility that other non enumerated rights related to the right of privacy may also be "returned" to the states, such as marriage (interracial or gay), and birth control.  Not to mention any rights for the trans and LGBTQ community that have been recognized in the last decade.

This is a monumental ruling, the loss of a "right" for the first time in American history, and frankly, if it has been decided, should have been released immediately upon its adjudication. There is no reason, certainly no national security reason, for a decision like this to remain outside public knowledge for more than a few days, let alone months.

Also, just to emphasize how damaging this ruling could be, and using Justice Alito's own words in which he claims that a right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", it is not hard to imagine any right that is less than 120 years old, a time frame that would certainly not qualify as "deeply rooted", might also be returned to the states.  You know, trivial things like a woman's right to vote, civil rights, and even the right to travel, the right to a fair trial and the right to trial by your peers, all not specifically enumerated in the original constitution (if at all), but which we all believe are sacrosanct.  In other words, all the rights fought and died for by people not born white men.

Ok, enough of that.  

So, let's assume that most Americans, while not necessarily eager to exercise their right to an abortion, understand that such a difficult decision should be left to those involved and their physician, but who also would like to reduce the incidence of abortion.  In other words, most of us would like to see abortion continue to be on the decline, as it has been in America since its peak in the 1970's and 80's.

What does the research show?

First, here is a link to a reasonably recent study on when, where and why abortions happen.  What I learned from this report and other things I have read, is that abortions do not stop happening just because they become illegal, they just become more dangerous for the mother and fetus.  But, once legalized, abortions are not only safer, (we are concerned about the mother, right?), but they tend to decline over time when combined with increased education about birth control, better access to health care services, and other support from the various institutions that are involved in a person's life (political, social, religious, family) which empower woman to take control over their reproductive life.  In other words, if we teach women they have the ability to decide for themselves (along with their partners) when, and how not to become pregnant, we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, hence the number of abortions.  There is no doubt. Sex education (which certainly can and should include abstinence emphasis for those under 18), an understanding of and access to birth control methods, affordable access to health care services for all women, and the understanding that punishing woman for having sex does not prevent abortion, will reduce its incidence.  Anything else is ineffective, and dangerous.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200724/Study-finds-highest-abortion-rates-in-countries-with-legal-restrictions.aspx

To put it simply, we need to devote our energies into strategies that prevent unwanted pregnancies, which means providing all the methods which enable sex to occur without conceiving.  Yes, I said it, sex is not just to procreate and any remaining vestige of that concept that still permeates our religions and culture is itself, one of the obstacles to reducing abortion.  

Speaking of sex, why is it that so much of the responsibility of these unwanted pregnancies, hence abortions, lie at the feet of the woman.  As far as I know, it takes a man's participation also.  Where are the accompanying laws banning abortions that require paternity to be determined and for the male to be at least financially responsible for the care and upbringing of this mandated life?  Or are the legislators from Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc, setting aside state money to pay for these mandated children?  Oh, sorry, I forgot, they only care about the fetus, the baby is not their concern.

Finally, and speaking of Louisiana, I see that there is a law cruising through their house and senate that would declare a fetus a person upon fertilization, thereby placing a woman and her doctor who participate in an abortion subject to a murder charge.

There is just one little thing wrong with that idea; a number of widely used birth control methods (probably used by those very same legislators and their children), prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, such as an IUD.  In other words, this method of birth control would immediately become illegal, a grandfather amendment would have to be passed to allow those who have an IUD inside them to retain it (I guess they will have to be issued an IUD passport so they can't be arrested, although I am not sure what kind of search and seizure procedure would be initiated for those without such a permit), and, I guess, any doctor or pharmacist or health care provider who talks about an IUD could be charged with conspiracy to murder.  But hey, maybe those good old boys who are pushing this law through their hallowed halls aren't up to date on how IUD's work.  Or they just don't care.

Because you see, that is what this is really about; men controlling women.  I wrote a story a while back called The Switchback.  It is not about abortion, but about an event that causes a whole bunch of people to wake up a different gender and sex, how laws were suddenly altered to reflect the new "face" of those now in charge, and what happened when the effect switched back just as suddenly as it had occurred. You can read it by clicking the link below, if interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-switch-back.html 

Along those lines, can you imagine how the abortion issue would change if men could become pregnant?  I would imagine that not only would abortion be legal and that all health care plans would include this service, but that there would be TV ads for abortion medicines.  Kind of like all the ads we see for boner pills for men, but meant to restore a guy's ability to get back in the saddle once that little "problem" is resolved, discreetly and over the phone, arriving in the mail in a brown paper bag.   

As I said in my last post, ask all candidates for their stance on abortion and if they do not support a woman's right to choose:

#Against abortion rights, take a hike

Abortion

I had been contemplating a post about the student debt controversy for a week or so, but will put that on pause for a bit in favor of some comments on the recent revelation that the Supreme Court will be gutting Roe V Wade and putting abortion laws back in the hands of the states.

Surprisingly, I found that I had not labelled any of my past posts with the term abortion, although I did find (3) concerning sex and contraception in which abortion was either prominent or implicit in the posts.  Here they are, if interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/10/birth-control.html  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/03/contraception-and-sex.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/01/pretty-condoms-in-row.html

Like a majority of Americans, I believe that abortion is a complicated issue, just as Justice Alito states in his opinion.  But this complication is not centered around the idea about it being legal, but more about the concern that abortion should be safe and rare, and that while a majority of Americans may believe that they may not access this medical service, they are empathetic enough to realize that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is an extremely personal one, between those involved and their doctor, and should not be controlled by the government.  I dare say that with this ruling, tens of millions of American women (and their partners and families) will now be faced with a mandatory pregnancy, should a situation arise in which they find themselves with an unexpected or unplanned event.

Seems odd that the party that made all kinds of noise about mask mandates, would now be more than OK with a pregnancy mandate, but I guess that is what makes the idea of freedom so strange.  

It is as if personal freedom, for some, only extends as far that person's particular beliefs, regardless of whether someone else's freedom is compromised or limited in some way.  

So, because some people have decided that abortion is not only wrong for them, but for everyone, it won't matter if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incense, a faulty condom or IUD, or even if the mother's life may be in danger if the pregnancy is carried to full term, or if the child's quality of life is determined to be very limited due to deformities.  Of course, some of those states with trigger laws all ready in place may decide to evaluate those laws in time, but since so many of our states' legislatures our controlled by the GOP, this process may take a while.

For instance in the state where I live, Pennsylvania, the current governor has already vetoed a few anti-abortion laws which have been put forth by the GOP controlled legislature, despite the fact that most polls show that Pennsylvanians support some form of legal abortion by about 3 to 1.  In other words, despite what most Pennsylvanians  think about abortion, just as despite what most Americans think about abortion, there is a strong possibility that abortion will be illegal in my state next year should the governor's mansion be occupied by a republican.  

Even worse, Alito's opinion clearly states that the court was "egregiously wrong" in not only the original Roe V Wade ruling, but in the Casey vs Planned Parenthood ruling that upheld what was then believed to be a constitutional right to abortion.  

Curiously, the main reasoning behind this new ruling appears to lie in the fact that the Constitution does not specifically grant this right, despite the understanding that the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes that certain unenumerated rights for the citizens of our country should also be held as sacrosanct.  To me, it was an amendment that says, hey, just because we didn't comment on things that either don't exist or aren't a thing in the late 18th century, doesn't mean that there might be other rights that are implicit in the rights that are specified.  The danger here is that federal laws related to gay marriage, birth control, interracial marriage, the internet, cars, virtually anything that is not directly detailed in the Constitution, could also be returned to the states for control, even if most people believe that without the right to make decision about one's own body, who to marry, how to plan for a family, etc limits our freedoms.

What is scary is that this sounds to me like America's version of the  Taliban.  Laws based on a religion followed by the minority of the people.  Seems like the antithesis to the whole idea of our American experiment in democracy, and especially the concept of separation between church and state.

It also shines a stark light on the idea that our "rights" come from our creator, not government.  Yea, as long as that government respects the rights of people who disagree with them.  If not, as we can see from the current state of freedoms in Russia, some of our "rights" may not be recognized if you live in a state which determines that right to not be appropriate and legal.  

Not to mention Mitch McConnell who orchestrated the stealing of 2 Supreme Court spots, first by not allowing even the consideration of the nominee of Barack Obama, the twice elected president of the United States, only to have that seat given to Neil Gorsuch, one of the alleged majority in this horrendous opinion, and the second by slamming through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett just a few weeks before the 2020 election, who appears to be another justice in the majority.  And, of course, Brett Kavanaugh who pretty much lied to a number of sitting Senators (as well as the American people) when he stated, under oath, that Roe V Wade and Casey V Planned Parenthood represented established laws and precedents that should not be overturned.

Lastly, for now, it might be important to understand just how discriminatory this ruling is against women, an assertion that Alito conveniently doesn't understand, despite the simple fact that only women can become pregnant, and how hypocritical.  It only takes a little time to research poverty rates, maternal death rates, child support collection rates, and any other measure in which the quality of life for children after birth might indicate to see that the states with the most restrictive abortion laws are generally the same states with the highest maternal death rates, highest child poverty rates, and lowest child support collection rates.  

Righteous indignation about abortion followed by policies that result in the death of the mother forced to carry a pregnancy to term, and the malnutrition and death of the baby once it has left the womb.  

At this point, I implore my female readers to make this their one and only voting issue. Fix this in the November election to limit the damage, and to retake the basic right for you to decide when and how you will have a family, not to mention who you might choose to marry to help raise that family.  The Democratic party is far from perfect, but in this one issue, there is no debate who supports your right to choose and who is more than happy to legislate it away.

And if anyone would like to use it, you have my permission to use the following phrase as often and as loud as possible in response to those seeking your vote.

#Against abortion rights, take a hike.