Written By: Anton Sawyer
Having written about the US Supreme Court and their un-American rulings (i.e., the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales—in which it was ruled that officers are only required to enforce the law, NOT to "protect and serve"), and the utter lack of separation of Church and State in America, I knew it would only be a matter of time before these star-crossed lovers would embrace. That time has come.
Today I am going to dissect the September Supreme Court (non) ruling that will allow the state of Texas to continue their recent, archaic abortion restrictions which are the toughest in the nation. Buckle up pardner, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
In an attempt to maintain complete transparency, all research and statistical fact-checking for this article, and all articles, can be found at our site's bibliography linked here.
Follow on Twitter
To support the webzine, buy me a coffee!
For those who haven't been following the Texas ruling, allow me a moment for a quick refresher. Texas brought about the toughest legislation in America when it comes to getting an abortion in 2021. The law not only provided the smallest window of time to decide to terminate a pregnancy (six weeks, before most women even know they're pregnant), but it also allowed private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban. The case, Whole Women’s Health vs. Jackson, made its way through the courts to the highest in the land. The Supreme Court refused to listen to arguments, thereby affirming the lower court ruling—the restrictions stood. Though technically not a ruling, the lack of willingness by the Supreme Court to listen to arguments in the case did two things. First, it upheld the lower court ruling that the six-week abortion ban is legal and constitutional. Secondly, it has solidified the moral code of the Supreme Court pretty thoroughly. If you are someone who values religious freedom, including the right to not have a faith, then it is a time of great mourning.
I’m not here to bag on religion. Yet, because of how intertwined religion is within the framework of the Texas law, I want to make it clear that I don't care what someone believes. Whether you find comfort in the teachings of Jesus Christ, or if you choose to worship the God you are within the tenets of LaVeyan Satanism, great. Even if you feel the world was created by a loving Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's fine by me; just don't turn those beliefs into legislation that's going to force the hands of many into your way of life. When speaking about Christianity specifically, I do want to give a fair warning. If I ask you something like why it is OK that in Genesis 19, God saves Lot from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, only to have Lot engage in drunken incest with his daughters afterward? And you respond with "we aren't meant to understand everything, but God will show ..." or the like, you aren't going to enjoy this piece.
When reading their decision, the crux of the argument brought about by the majority reeks of absurdity and shows there is nothing real behind the court’s choice to ignore hearing the arguments. In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that while the clinics had raised "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law," they had not met a burden that would allow the court to block it at this time due to "complex" and "novel" procedural questions. This thought process is utterly confusing to me. If the law has so many complex moving parts, wouldn't it make sense to stop bad legislation until the problems have been solved before enacting it?
According to pro-life advocates, they can’t wait to solve those problems because they believe they are saving lives. Often the number one reason given by those who support such extreme abortion laws uses the thought that the baby has no voice and they need to be that advocate. Technically they are correct as according to science, at six weeks, they don’t have a voice or a heartbeat. Per Healthline, a pregnancy that's six weeks along is still an embryo. It's not a fetus until the 9th week after conception or the 11th week after the last menstrual period. Dr. Stephanie Ros, an OB-GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of South Florida, made the case pretty clear. "At six weeks, most women would not have any clue they were even pregnant if they weren't carefully tracking menstrual cycles, and that doesn't even take into account the millions of women with irregular cycles who might go six weeks or longer between periods as a normal part of their life." She continued by pointing out that the embryo is a quarter-inch long. "It's barely noticeable on ultrasound, we often have to use transvaginal ultrasound to be able to see it at all," she said. Ted L. Anderson, MD, Ph.D., and former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also reiterated the science in a 2019 statement. "Pregnancy and fetal development are a continuum," he said. "What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops."
Completely removing the medical and scientific basis for why this SCOTUS decision is terrible, there is also another hypocrisy to all of this that hits home with me and shows that none of the people who agree with these abortion terms are willing to put their money where their mouth is. When I was 18 and my then-girlfriend was 17, she became pregnant. Given the fact that I was in a pretty serious active drug addiction and we were living with friends, I knew the life of the child would begin with major strikes against it out of the womb. The situation came about where we decided to go the route of adoption. Living in Wyoming at the time, we contacted both the Catholic Church and the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) to see about their adoption programs. The issue we had with both is in the fact that we knew our child was going to have a specific faith shoved down their throats for their entire lives. This is fine if you are someone who is already active in that religion. But since my girlfriend and I both believed that the mind is like a parachute and can’t work if it isn’t open, we wanted our child to be raised with perspective and experience. These adoption programs were not fond of us, and we were not fond of them. We eventually came into contact with an attorney in Los Angeles who worked with securing adoptions for gay couples. We met a couple we both liked and went through the process. With it being an open adoption we would get updates as the biological parents if we wanted, and living with them for a month at the end of the pregnancy also helped relieve any tension; everything ended well.
One thing I took away from the entire experience was how restrictive the pro-life people were when it came to assisting couples who are unable to care for a child with finding homes for those children. The level of restrictions, the forced ideals, etc. The entire process almost made it seem like the churches were not an assistant to the process, but rather an adversary. This experience painted my world into realizing that those who have the most moral obligation to stop abortion are those that refuse to do anything past the point of convenience when it comes to actually helping people with the life of the newborn. This is why the SCOTUS ruling isn’t surprising in the least bit.
If you are saving the life of the unborn child, no matter the cost to anyone else, and you do not have a strong legislative stance on allocating money to adoption or other programs to assist the mothers in bringing the child to term, you are the problem.
When researching everything surrounding this debacle, it seems there is one religious group that is going to use the loopholes in the law and ruling to allow access to abortion: The Satanic Temple. I know that I have been a bit hard on them in the past, but I have to applaud their ingenuity. The Salem, Massachusetts-based Temple filed a letter with the US Food and Drug Administration arguing that its Texas members should have legal access to abortion pills. The group's attorneys contend that its status as a non-theistic religious organization should ensure access to abortion as a faith-based right. In the letter, the Temple argues that abortion pills Misoprostol and Mifepristone should be available for its use through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects Native Americans' use of peyote in religious rituals. The Temple says those same rights should apply to the drugs it uses for its own rituals. “I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states—will be proud to see that Texas’s robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion," said Lucien Greaves, the Temple's spokesman, and co-founder. Given that the Temple doesn’t require absurd membership fees or donations, and members can join in a de-facto way … let’s just say it would allow a lot of people access to this procedure without having to literally sell their soul to the Devil.
In our resources section, we have the contact information for both Planned Parenthood and The National Council For Adoption. When I say I’m pro-choice, I mean ALL choices, including helping those who are pro-life. I’m someone who cannot look at the misdeeds I’ve done in my life (both to myself and loved ones) and feel that because of some divine intervention I can tell other people how to live their lives. I know I am in the minority in this thought process, and the consistent dismantling of Roe v. Wade in the courts without providing ANY kind of service to help the mother and unborn child to allow for adoption is nothing short of breathtaking. Sadly, with the Supreme Court being so tilted conservatively, I think this is just going to be the first step of many. The male members of Congress who vote on restricting any women’s rights need to learn something: just because you have a dick doesn’t mean you get to be one.
Follow on Twitter
To help support the webzine, buy me a coffee!