STRIKING DOWN OF TEXAS' ANTI-WOMEN ABORTION LAW - RIGHT DECISION !

The women of Texas can now see their chosen path a bit more clearly

It is with a sense of quiet pleasure that I received the news that the Supreme Court of the United States has struck down Texas's restrictive Abortion Law, which was intended to keep, at least the women of Texas, as the chattel of the religious and conservative bigots in that State.

I am amazed by the effrontery of these Texas law-makers (politicians) who seemingly pursue oppressive measures against women, as if they are their contemporary slaves. I woman has the right to determine whether or not she wishes to or is able to responsibly maintain her pregnancy and bring the baby into what, after all, is not a world with an abundance of 'milk and honey.' Not only does she have the responsibility to feel and nurture her child, but, in times of ill-health, she and her partner, if she has one, can be confronted with crippling healthcare costs. 

If she is poor and living in poverty, then having a child which she did not want to have - different from having a child and then not wanting him/her - can end up blighting her and the child's life.  The United States, after all, is not really a society which is very 'child- and family centred and supportive' of them. It is true that it places a lot of emphasis on the role of the family in bring up children and inculcating them with its values and ethos, but that is not the same as being supportive of families by providing them with state sponsored services which enable parents to work and care for their children.

If you are going to have restrictive and oppressive laws against women exercising their right to have abortion, because some fuddy duddy religious and quirky moral precepts, then you did better put in place for them, free healthcare, child support services while they are working, and support with them educating their children. And, if after you have done all of them, there are women who wish to exercise control over their bodies and not to take a pregnancy to its end, then, within the context of a reasonable law which forbids having an abortion after a specified date of the pregnancy, the state should not interfere with the woman's exercise of her right.  When people are living in societies in which they are already impoverished, another mouth to feed, body to clothed, health to nurture and intellect to educate, can too often lead to further impoverishment.

Not satisfied with passing a law which seeks to deprive women of their right as to whether or not they take a pregnancy to the birth of the baby, Texas, it seems, attempted to live up to its reputation for doing things in a big way, by telling a very big lie, that its oppressive abortion law is intended to promote women's health. How the hell do you do that, by placing the additional stresses associated with having a child, on a woman who does not want to continue with her pregnancy? You can not do it; it is simply a spurious attempt by Texas and the elites whose interests it is serving, to rationalise its attempts to screw women.  It is certainly not what you would expect of law-makers. This is not about making the lives of American women less onerous and stressful; it is about maintaining the conservative and reactionary principles and values which dictate that women should conform to what was expected of them in the past, instead of the past being changed to reflect contemporary living.

And so we have a situation in which the 'law' is no more than 'a legalised' or 'codified' tablet of oppressive practices being perpetrated against women, and which judges, oftentimes the both the sources and the product of such practices, being expected to deliberate and pass judgement on those against whom such 'laws' are used as a weapon of oppression.

It is to the credit of those members of the Supreme Court of the United States that they have struck down this vile piece of legislation.  At the same time, it also begs the question at to, if the Court's deliberations were focused solely or primarily on facts and jurisprudence, why did the 3 dissenting members of the Supreme Court, not join the 5 prudent sagacious ones in making the only judicious ruling?  Could it be that they made their decision more on political instead of a legal basis? 

If you cannot make the lives of reasonable people better, then avoid making laws which are intended to make their lot worse, and risk making 'reasonable and normally law-abiding' people into 'offenders.'

This applies to both the state and churches - of all religions which that commit themselves to become instruments of oppression of women and females -  in all countries; end that social and physical enslavement of your women. Their bodies and mind belong to them and not the state and/or the religious bodies!

Let churches and religions be there for those who are willing receipants, and not as means of oppression of people, especially females.