\u201cThat\u2019s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Neil Armstrong made that remarkable statement as he stepped off the ladder of the Lunar Lander, and for the first time put a human footprint on the moon\u2019s surface.\u00a0\u00a0It was 1969.\u00a0\u00a0I was twelve, watching the grainy black and white video along with millions sitting in their homes.\u00a0\u00a0We were\u00a0\u00a0awed by the first live broadcast from another body in space.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n In those years in the United States, a woman\u2019s ability to get reproductive care, including abortions, depended on where they lived.\u00a0\u00a0In New York, California, Connecticut; a woman could access care, including abortions.\u00a0But across state borders, in Ohio, Arizona, or almost any state south of the Mason-Dixon line; that same care was a felony, punishable by imprisonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That year my family went on our traditional vacation to an island on the Great Lakes in Canada. We went to the same \u201ctourist\u201d store we always visited, to buy moccasins and Hudson Bay blankets, Viyella flannel shirts and McIntosh\u2019s toffee. My London-born Mom talked to the woman who ran the store. She was also from England, and they had all sorts of conversations about their homeland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But there was always a distance from her husband, the owner of the store. Rumor had it that he was an American who fled to Canada, because he was an illegal abortionist. As a young teenager I\u2019m not even sure I fully understood what an abortionist did, but it seemed to be a bad, even dirty, thing to be. (Full disclosure \u2013I recently did more research into that store owner \u2013 he passed away two years ago at 100 years of age. He was a born Canadian, a World War II veteran, and a noted entrepreneur who did everything from building boats to flying a plane. He was not an \u201cabortionist\u201d. Isn\u2019t that always the way with \u201crumors\u201d).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1973 a lot of those terms \u201cwent away\u201d. Illegal \u201cabortionists\u201d, rumored or true, were no longer applicable. Women could access the health care they needed, including abortions, as a fundamental right under the Constitution, in every state in the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 7-2 decision, found that the Constitution guaranteed a woman\u2019s right to determine what happens to her own body, at least until the time that an unborn fetus could survive birth. The Court, took a huge step forward for \u201chuman-kind\u201d rather than just men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the years that right was re-affirmed by the Court again and again. The same legal logic that led to recognizing a personal right in the Constitution was extended to gay men and women, and to the transgendered. It\u2019s been almost half a century of expanding the rights of individuals to make their own choices on the most intimate issues in their lives, who they love, and what happens to their own bodies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Friday that right was stripped away. Six Justices joined the decision overturning Roe v Wade<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0America took a \u201cgiant step backwards for humankind\u201d, and one step closer to a nation where a single religious or political view determines what Americans can do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are a nation divided, somehow travelling in two opposite directions at the same time. In the last decade, we recognized the hidden toll many women were paying in their jobs and their lives. The \u201cMe Too\u201d movement outed the discrimination and sexual violence many were forced to accept as \u201cpart of life or business\u201d. And the hidden sexism and racism of many of our most important institutions and businesses were revealed and confronted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Our Nation recognized that while gender may \u201clook\u201d binary, it is in fact a spectrum of views. Our kids get it:\u00a0\u00a0they take individuals as they are, not forcing them into a \u201csquare or circle\u201d world.\u00a0\u00a0It doesn\u2019t matter to them.\u00a0\u00a0The important thing is to be allowed to be your authentic self, and live a fulfilling life.\u00a0\u00a0We accepted gay marriage, and allowed the transgendered to come out from the shadows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And all of that is based on that \u201cinherent right\u201d of the Constitution, that calls on the Nation to allow human authenticity.\u00a0\u00a0Unlike the Second Amendment, \u201cthe right to bear arms shall not be infringed<\/em>\u201d, there is no black and white \u201cright to personhood\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0But there are a series of amendments that reference that fundamental privilege:\u00a0\u00a0the Fourth Amendment right to be \u201c\u2026secure in their person\u2026<\/em>\u201d, the Tenth Amendment reserving powers not delegated to go \u201c\u2026to the people<\/em>\u201d, the Fourteenth Amendment preventing states from \u201c\u2026abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that\u2019s all under threat today.\u00a0\u00a0The logic of Friday’s Supreme Court majority doesn\u2019t just ignore an inherent right for a woman to control her body.\u00a0\u00a0It denies the existence of that inherent right at all.\u00a0\u00a0Sure, the author of the opinion, Justice Alito, promises that this re-interpretation will stop at abortion, at the Roe<\/em> decision.\u00a0\u00a0But believing that is like believing Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they promised the Senate that they would respect, \u201cthe long established precedent of Roe v Wade<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0They didn\u2019t, and there is no reason to believe that this Court won\u2019t continue on to strip Americans of their right to be, themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion, laid at all out in the open.\u00a0\u00a0If the\u00a0\u00a0\u201cinherent right\u201d doesn\u2019t work in Roe<\/em>, then it won\u2019t work in Griswold<\/em> (banning the states from regulating contraception), or Obergefell<\/em> (legalizing gay marriage), or Lawrence<\/em> (prohibited bans on gay sex).\u00a0\u00a0And while Justice Thomas failed to mention it for his own personal reason, perhaps even Loving <\/em>(prevented states from banning inter-racial marriage).<\/p>\n\n\n\n If stripping women of their right to determine what happens to their bodies and their lives isn\u2019t already enough motivation to do \u201csomething\u201d, then the resulting domino effect must be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After World War II, German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out\u2014 Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out\u2014 Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out\u2014 Then they came for me\u2014and there was no one left to speak for me.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n This Court is coming for American rights.\u00a0\u00a0They are single-handedly trying to take us back to a time before humans walked on the moon, and before we recognized true equality in everyone.\u00a0\u00a0We can all be angered by how this Court came about, the product of twenty years of careful planning and political shenanigans and deceit.\u00a0\u00a0But all of that is \u201cunder the bridge\u201d now.\u00a0\u00a0They are on the bench, and in the saddle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What can we do?\u00a0\u00a0The Supreme Court acted against the inherent right to “personhood”.\u00a0\u00a0But there is an alternative \u2013 Federal law.\u00a0\u00a0Congress took a \u201cpass\u201d on these difficult issues of abortion and LGBTQ rights.\u00a0\u00a0It made political sense \u2013 the un-elected Justices of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments took the \u201cheat\u201d for those tough decisions, why should the elected politicians in the Congress intervene?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Congress could write Roe<\/em> and Griswold<\/em>, Lawrence<\/em>, Loving<\/em> and Obergefell<\/em> into Federal law, just as they wrote the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.\u00a0\u00a0All that is required is the will, and the majority, to get the job done.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n We aren\u2019t used to Congress taking such political risks. Think of the \u201cgun control\u201d decision just passed \u2013 a decision that did nothing to control guns, but did manage to put some reasonable safety measures on who can purchase them. That was a \u201cmiracle\u201d of bipartisanship, and an all-round good thing. But it wasn\u2019t all that much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Or Congress could add four Justices to the Court, making it a 7 to 6 majority of \u201cliberal\u201d Justices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And, of course, a Congress dominated by Republicans could do the exact opposite \u2013 and make all of these rights against Federal law.\u00a0\u00a0Don\u2019t miss this:\u00a0\u00a0the pro-life movement won a huge battle yesterday.\u00a0\u00a0But they aren\u2019t done \u2013 they want a nationwide ban of abortions, red states and blue.\u00a0\u00a0If they could do it federally, they would.\u00a0\u00a0Sure, a Democratic President would veto \u2013 as long as there\u2019s a Democratic President.\u00a0\u00a0And if they can\u2019t do it federally, then they will try to do so state-by-state.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAbortionist<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
1973<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2022<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Inherent Right<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What Does it Take?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Because I was not a socialist.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because I was not a trade unionist.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because I was not a Jew.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat Now?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Congressional Answer<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
War for America<\/h3>\n\n\n\n