Sickening Paternalism
We must understand what Trump means when he says ‘Well, I’m going to do it. Whether the women like it or not, I’m going to protect them.’”
When Trump brags about his appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court he is bragging about the forces unleashed by the Court’s decision in Dobbs, the ruling that overturned fifty years of precedent established in Roe v. Wade. The practical consequences for women and men who respect them are on display in draconian legislation passed in many Republican led states, but nowhere more on display than in our neighbor Idaho.
I encourage you to watch and share this short video from Idaho’s Pro-Voice Project:
Couldn’t happen in Washington State? Think again. The Republican ideologues spearheading state laws like those in Idaho aren’t stopping there. In late October Missouri, Kansas and Idaho filed a new lawsuit in federal court in Texas once again seeking to outlaw nationwide the use of mifepristone, the safest and most commonly used method of early term abortion. You may recall that a review of a favorable decision that would have outlawed the drug, a decision made by U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on a technicality (“standing”)—a rejection widely suspected as a means of delaying a decision on the merits of the lawsuit until after today’s election.
Now that lawsuit, days before the election, is being revived. A Trump/Vance win and/or Republican state legislative wins today would breathe new life into a potential nationwide ban. I commend to you this gift article (no paywall) from the November 4th Washington Post detailing the sickening paternalistic language and patent misinformation contained in this lawsuit:
Click, read, and cast a vote against gross paternalism.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry