In the NYT lead article today, Chief Justice Roberts' partial dissent is relegated to paragraph 19, or essentially buried for many if not most readers. I'm frustrated, disgusted, alarmed by this type of reporting. Unfortunately, it's the sign of The Times.
The holding by the majority is a sham. It said that some plaintiffs could sue some defendants, and then appear before the Supreme Court years hence. But Roe v. Wade will be overruled in six months, so the majority's opinion is meaningless. Too bad that the majority's sleight of hand fooled the NYTimes.
Here is the transcript of Gloria Steinem's interview on NPR yesterday, Thursday, December 9, 2021. A powerful, prescient piece. Yet, as you often remind us, we have the power to catalyze change for the better:
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
It was this past September that three members of Congress shared their personal stories of abortion.
(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)
PRAMILA JAYAPAL: I speak to you as one of the 1 in 4 women in America who have had an abortion.
BARBARA LEE: ...To the days when I was a teenager and had a back-alley abortion in Mexico.
CORI BUSH: I was raped. I became pregnant. And I chose to have an abortion.
KELLY: That is Democratic Congresswomen Cori Bush, Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal discussing their abortions before a House committee. They were joined by another woman who shared the story of her illegal abortion in 1957.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
GLORIA STEINEM: After what seemed to be an eternity of confusion and fear, I found a very kind and brave English doctor who was willing to help me.
KELLY: Gloria Steinem - Steinem has been an activist for abortion rights and feminism for decades. But before she became a feminist icon, she was a 22-year-old living in England, pregnant when she didn't want to be. We wanted to know how she was thinking about last week's Supreme Court arguments about a restrictive Mississippi abortion law - arguments that left many believing the court could overturn Roe v. Wade. Gloria Steinem, welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.
STEINEM: Thank you for this great program. Thank you.
KELLY: Thank you. We're glad to have you with us. May I ask what was going through your head as you watched what many, including justices on the Supreme Court, have said is settled law suddenly look not very settled at all last week?
STEINEM: Well, many things - I mean, I guess I was not surprised by this present dilemma because controlling reproduction has always been the first step in any hierarchical or authoritarian government. Those who are authoritarian or hierarchical in their outlook in this, you know, still patriarchal time look to control the one thing they don't have as the first effort in creating a hierarchy.
KELLY: You just called this a still patriarchal time, 2021. You think that's true?
STEINEM: Yes, I think it is. I mean, if you look at the distribution of wealth and salaries, if you look at decision making in the household, which is more democratic than it used to be but not still completely democratic, if you look at naming, though many women keep their own names, some women keep two names. Men don't. You know, I mean, it may seem minor, but it's pervasive.
KELLY: Would you paint us a picture of what it was like to try to get an abortion in 1957?
STEINEM: I was in London because I had a fellowship in India. I was awaiting my visa. So I was living in London, working as a waitress in order to support myself. And, you know, I had all the usual fantasies - maybe if I go horseback riding, maybe if I throw myself down the stairs. You know, our minds race through all possible alternatives. And it was sheer luck of going to a doctor whose name I found in the telephone book. Due to his kindness, due to his looking at me and saying, if you promise never to tell anyone my name, that I will help you. And so he sent me to a woman doctor who actually did the procedure.
KELLY: Wow. If you promise to never tell anyone my name...
STEINEM: Yes.
KELLY: That's how deep the fear ran.
STEINEM: Yes. Yes.
KELLY: You - I mean, you've covered all this as a journalist. What were the attitudes towards women like you who had abortions in the years before Roe v. Wade was decided?
STEINEM: Of course, it still was something like 1 in 3 women, but it was way, way more secret. I mean, women whose mothers had had an abortion didn't tell their daughters, for instance. You know, it was present always as a subculture. But it was a subject of secrecy, illegality and sometimes shame.
KELLY: So I guess I'm curious, for someone like you who's been around long before this became a right in the United States and who are now watching and seeing the right to an abortion in jeopardy, do you think people who support abortion rights have worked hard enough to keep them? Or has that right come to be taken for granted?
STEINEM: It should be taken for granted because if we don't have control of our own physical selves, we don't have a democracy. The problem is not the people who support abortion or who have had abortions. It's the people who oppose it and, therefore, are trying to take the first step in an authoritarian system.
KELLY: I guess the challenge is that many people see it differently, including, potentially, it looks like a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. So I guess I'll ask again, does more need to be done for those who believe in the right to abortion?
STEINEM: Yes. We need to change who's on the Supreme Court so it represents the country. I mean, you know, they're - the mainly men on that court are never going to have to make this decision. It's not their decision. It's not their bodies.
KELLY: Just to come back at you one more time, I'm hearing the voices of people who argue against abortion rights who would be shouting at their radios right now, abortion is controlling reproduction, that...
STEINEM: Well, then they don't have to have an abortion. They just can't tell somebody else what to do.
KELLY: You are - you're 87 years old, Gloria Steinem. Am I right?
STEINEM: Yes. Shocking, isn't it?
(LAUGHTER)
STEINEM: I don't know how it happened.
KELLY: Yeah. Did you think you'd still be fighting this fight in 2021?
STEINEM: You know, I'm not sure that I thought that far forward, but I always knew, because it's so obvious, that this is the first step in every authoritarian system. I mean, you can't look at Hitler or Mussolini or any authoritarian system and not see that controlling reproduction is the first step.
KELLY: Just explain that to me a little bit more 'cause you've said it a couple of times. Why would overturning the right to abortion be a step towards an authoritarian country?
STEINEM: Well, what democracy means is the right to make decisions for ourselves and, in the majority, to make decisions for the country - but first, to make it for ourselves. Freedom of speech is not different from freedom of reproduction.
KELLY: What would you say to the next generation of activists in this country, the ones who will be wrestling with this and other issues of feminism in the years and decades to come?
STEINEM: Well, you know, I'm not sure I would say anything. I would listen to them - you know? - listen and see what they're experiencing and say, OK, I'm here to help. How can I help?
Thanks, Susan. It is astounding that we are still fighting this battle nearly fifty years later. And Steinem is right, we need to listen to the next generation and let them know we are here to help.
Without disagreeing, Robert, let’s never forget for a moment that what is at stake is much more than the right to abortion, or even the right of women to equality. It is nothing less than the fate of a legal system based upon the Constitution. That is what the reactionaries are attacking now.
This decision must be viewed as a declaration of war. Civil War 2.0. Not a gun carrying kind of war. But I feel similar emotions from this ruling as I had on 9/11...and the day Kennedy was shot.
If we do not expand the Court to marginalize these fascist judges, we will be living in Gilead soon. Welcome to the pilot episode of "The New Handmaid's Tale".
Scream at your House Rep and Senators - do it regularly.
I am a 74 year old woman. I begin each morning by reading Heather Cox Richardson, Sheila Kennedy, and you. I greatly appreciate your legal viewpoint and your optimism. I do not believe you downplay our problems, but I need at least one voice that thinks we can overcome them, especially on a day like today. I know what you do must be exhausting, but please know how much it helps some of us to cope. Thank you.
I will address this evening. For starters, we need to (a) flip GOP legislatures that deny women the right to control their reproductive choices, (b) maintain control of Congress so we can pass national legislation codifying Roe, and (c) enlarging the Court.
Dear Rob, Thank you for taking time to write this evening with such focused singular solemnity on this grave issue, with all the trappings of a sideshow when it comes to the legal circumventions by design. Shameful. And certainly not a sideshow in nature. It’s as if you roll the issue in your hand like a stone of chatoyant qualities, providing a variety of relevant viewpoints and vistas, all centered on the core issue which is the stone itself.
Your solemn analysis brings into more cohesive focus our vision of where and how to proceed with unity, strength and a bringing on board of greater numbers for the cause. As always, we are grateful to you for such discerning leadership.
You are of course 100% correct. Opposing Court expansion as a threat to the Court’s legitimacy is absurd; its legitimacy has already been destroyed by Trump, McConnell and, now, the brazen abandonment of basic principle and integrity by the majority of Justices now in control. Expansion would in fact help RESTORE the Court’s legitimacy.
I have long had a nit to pick, with calling the ruling the "right to an abortion." It is, in fact, a right for women to choose the direction of their health care. No such right for men is open to discussion. As you so rightly point out, the (formerly) Supreme Court's ruling relegates women to second-class status.
Well said Robert. A mournful day for the Court, democracy, and our nation. We have lost this hugely powerful and important branch of government to the reactionary minority. Congress must expand the Court!
I LOVE the new audio version of your newsletter! Beautifully read, in addition to your insightful writing! While this morning's content was hard to listen to, you captured the essence of what needed to be said. It is another call for us to ACT! Thank you!!
I am giving a hard copy of our Constitution to all my friends. This is both symbolic and preventative. Every right we have is going to be sorely tested in days to come. We must educate our selves and those who will be the next generation of voters to protect this country and maybe the world from theocratic autocracy. It is so much easier to say it is the will of some deity, than to think for ourselves. It is so much easier to walk on the weak and poor than to find ways to build help for them. We are all born weak and poor. Layers of privilege begin when we take our first breath. In this, all humanity is equal. It is so much easier to believe that some are superior by the will of some deity, than nurture and heal the sick and weak. All humans share the same right to existence by taking their first breath on the planet. We must protect the rights of all humanity live in peace and dignity on this earth. The Constitution wisely protects those rights. It is our responsibility to teach and nurture those human rights and where there is bondage set people free.
Yes! The 1st Breath…the moment when every woman who has given birth holds their own breath…waiting to hear that precious sign of viable life. Well said.
Roberts gets it, finally, at least in part. He sees the viper that he and others who style themselves conservative have nurtured. Sadly, I see none of the reactionary majority learning the same lesson any time soon. So, yes, the court must be changed. Which means the Judiciary Act must be enacted to preserve the Constitution. It must not be a matter of whether, but when.
If it is the Supreme Court's right to enforce the religious preference against abortion as a mandate, must not it also support my religious preference to preserve choice? Couldn't all religions file bills supporting their own religious preference for laws their religion would select?
The Court has selected one religion for special protection. Don't confuse the majority by suggesting that non Christian religions deserve equal protection. They are shameful!
Congratulations Robert! In the opening segment of the #sisters-in-law podcast (my favorite to listen to as I postcard), the topic was self-care. Jill Wynn-Banks said reading your newsletter was one of the things she did (in addition to getting a massage!) and called out your discussion about the Atlantic article. You have made it to the big league!
Robert I love the audio version. I think I have a new routine now. Listening and reading are two very different experiences. This added enhancement gives me a quick start and allows me to later circle back and dig deeper into the links and then head over to comments.
I will send a note on Sunday announcing the new audio version. I will likely only do one or two recordings a week to see whether readers find it helpful. I appreciate your feedback!
All well and good. As Robert et al have said before, the best thing I think we can all do is VOTE and make sure everyone knows how important voting is. Expanding the court is one option. But I fear it will be relegated to the trash heap of committee and debate while the court continues to do irreparable damage. Meanwhile, vote!
The Court can be expanded by a majority vote in both chambers of Congress. We could do that tomorrow but for the filibuster, which can be eliminated by majority vote as well!
In the NYT lead article today, Chief Justice Roberts' partial dissent is relegated to paragraph 19, or essentially buried for many if not most readers. I'm frustrated, disgusted, alarmed by this type of reporting. Unfortunately, it's the sign of The Times.
The holding by the majority is a sham. It said that some plaintiffs could sue some defendants, and then appear before the Supreme Court years hence. But Roe v. Wade will be overruled in six months, so the majority's opinion is meaningless. Too bad that the majority's sleight of hand fooled the NYTimes.
Here is the transcript of Gloria Steinem's interview on NPR yesterday, Thursday, December 9, 2021. A powerful, prescient piece. Yet, as you often remind us, we have the power to catalyze change for the better:
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
It was this past September that three members of Congress shared their personal stories of abortion.
(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)
PRAMILA JAYAPAL: I speak to you as one of the 1 in 4 women in America who have had an abortion.
BARBARA LEE: ...To the days when I was a teenager and had a back-alley abortion in Mexico.
CORI BUSH: I was raped. I became pregnant. And I chose to have an abortion.
KELLY: That is Democratic Congresswomen Cori Bush, Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal discussing their abortions before a House committee. They were joined by another woman who shared the story of her illegal abortion in 1957.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
GLORIA STEINEM: After what seemed to be an eternity of confusion and fear, I found a very kind and brave English doctor who was willing to help me.
KELLY: Gloria Steinem - Steinem has been an activist for abortion rights and feminism for decades. But before she became a feminist icon, she was a 22-year-old living in England, pregnant when she didn't want to be. We wanted to know how she was thinking about last week's Supreme Court arguments about a restrictive Mississippi abortion law - arguments that left many believing the court could overturn Roe v. Wade. Gloria Steinem, welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.
STEINEM: Thank you for this great program. Thank you.
KELLY: Thank you. We're glad to have you with us. May I ask what was going through your head as you watched what many, including justices on the Supreme Court, have said is settled law suddenly look not very settled at all last week?
STEINEM: Well, many things - I mean, I guess I was not surprised by this present dilemma because controlling reproduction has always been the first step in any hierarchical or authoritarian government. Those who are authoritarian or hierarchical in their outlook in this, you know, still patriarchal time look to control the one thing they don't have as the first effort in creating a hierarchy.
KELLY: You just called this a still patriarchal time, 2021. You think that's true?
STEINEM: Yes, I think it is. I mean, if you look at the distribution of wealth and salaries, if you look at decision making in the household, which is more democratic than it used to be but not still completely democratic, if you look at naming, though many women keep their own names, some women keep two names. Men don't. You know, I mean, it may seem minor, but it's pervasive.
KELLY: Would you paint us a picture of what it was like to try to get an abortion in 1957?
STEINEM: I was in London because I had a fellowship in India. I was awaiting my visa. So I was living in London, working as a waitress in order to support myself. And, you know, I had all the usual fantasies - maybe if I go horseback riding, maybe if I throw myself down the stairs. You know, our minds race through all possible alternatives. And it was sheer luck of going to a doctor whose name I found in the telephone book. Due to his kindness, due to his looking at me and saying, if you promise never to tell anyone my name, that I will help you. And so he sent me to a woman doctor who actually did the procedure.
KELLY: Wow. If you promise to never tell anyone my name...
STEINEM: Yes.
KELLY: That's how deep the fear ran.
STEINEM: Yes. Yes.
KELLY: You - I mean, you've covered all this as a journalist. What were the attitudes towards women like you who had abortions in the years before Roe v. Wade was decided?
STEINEM: Of course, it still was something like 1 in 3 women, but it was way, way more secret. I mean, women whose mothers had had an abortion didn't tell their daughters, for instance. You know, it was present always as a subculture. But it was a subject of secrecy, illegality and sometimes shame.
KELLY: So I guess I'm curious, for someone like you who's been around long before this became a right in the United States and who are now watching and seeing the right to an abortion in jeopardy, do you think people who support abortion rights have worked hard enough to keep them? Or has that right come to be taken for granted?
STEINEM: It should be taken for granted because if we don't have control of our own physical selves, we don't have a democracy. The problem is not the people who support abortion or who have had abortions. It's the people who oppose it and, therefore, are trying to take the first step in an authoritarian system.
KELLY: I guess the challenge is that many people see it differently, including, potentially, it looks like a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. So I guess I'll ask again, does more need to be done for those who believe in the right to abortion?
STEINEM: Yes. We need to change who's on the Supreme Court so it represents the country. I mean, you know, they're - the mainly men on that court are never going to have to make this decision. It's not their decision. It's not their bodies.
KELLY: Just to come back at you one more time, I'm hearing the voices of people who argue against abortion rights who would be shouting at their radios right now, abortion is controlling reproduction, that...
STEINEM: Well, then they don't have to have an abortion. They just can't tell somebody else what to do.
KELLY: You are - you're 87 years old, Gloria Steinem. Am I right?
STEINEM: Yes. Shocking, isn't it?
(LAUGHTER)
STEINEM: I don't know how it happened.
KELLY: Yeah. Did you think you'd still be fighting this fight in 2021?
STEINEM: You know, I'm not sure that I thought that far forward, but I always knew, because it's so obvious, that this is the first step in every authoritarian system. I mean, you can't look at Hitler or Mussolini or any authoritarian system and not see that controlling reproduction is the first step.
KELLY: Just explain that to me a little bit more 'cause you've said it a couple of times. Why would overturning the right to abortion be a step towards an authoritarian country?
STEINEM: Well, what democracy means is the right to make decisions for ourselves and, in the majority, to make decisions for the country - but first, to make it for ourselves. Freedom of speech is not different from freedom of reproduction.
KELLY: What would you say to the next generation of activists in this country, the ones who will be wrestling with this and other issues of feminism in the years and decades to come?
STEINEM: Well, you know, I'm not sure I would say anything. I would listen to them - you know? - listen and see what they're experiencing and say, OK, I'm here to help. How can I help?
Thanks, Susan. It is astounding that we are still fighting this battle nearly fifty years later. And Steinem is right, we need to listen to the next generation and let them know we are here to help.
Without disagreeing, Robert, let’s never forget for a moment that what is at stake is much more than the right to abortion, or even the right of women to equality. It is nothing less than the fate of a legal system based upon the Constitution. That is what the reactionaries are attacking now.
I love Steinem’s sentence: “it should be taken for granted”
Why does a law that’s been in place for 50 years suddenly get overturned—driven by the personal beliefs of a HANDFUL of individuals?
When can we stop looking over our shoulders to see who’s going to strip away yet another of our civil rights?
NEVER!
This decision must be viewed as a declaration of war. Civil War 2.0. Not a gun carrying kind of war. But I feel similar emotions from this ruling as I had on 9/11...and the day Kennedy was shot.
If we do not expand the Court to marginalize these fascist judges, we will be living in Gilead soon. Welcome to the pilot episode of "The New Handmaid's Tale".
Scream at your House Rep and Senators - do it regularly.
I am a 74 year old woman. I begin each morning by reading Heather Cox Richardson, Sheila Kennedy, and you. I greatly appreciate your legal viewpoint and your optimism. I do not believe you downplay our problems, but I need at least one voice that thinks we can overcome them, especially on a day like today. I know what you do must be exhausting, but please know how much it helps some of us to cope. Thank you.
I will address this evening. For starters, we need to (a) flip GOP legislatures that deny women the right to control their reproductive choices, (b) maintain control of Congress so we can pass national legislation codifying Roe, and (c) enlarging the Court.
Dear Rob, Thank you for taking time to write this evening with such focused singular solemnity on this grave issue, with all the trappings of a sideshow when it comes to the legal circumventions by design. Shameful. And certainly not a sideshow in nature. It’s as if you roll the issue in your hand like a stone of chatoyant qualities, providing a variety of relevant viewpoints and vistas, all centered on the core issue which is the stone itself.
Your solemn analysis brings into more cohesive focus our vision of where and how to proceed with unity, strength and a bringing on board of greater numbers for the cause. As always, we are grateful to you for such discerning leadership.
You are of course 100% correct. Opposing Court expansion as a threat to the Court’s legitimacy is absurd; its legitimacy has already been destroyed by Trump, McConnell and, now, the brazen abandonment of basic principle and integrity by the majority of Justices now in control. Expansion would in fact help RESTORE the Court’s legitimacy.
I have long had a nit to pick, with calling the ruling the "right to an abortion." It is, in fact, a right for women to choose the direction of their health care. No such right for men is open to discussion. As you so rightly point out, the (formerly) Supreme Court's ruling relegates women to second-class status.
Well said Robert. A mournful day for the Court, democracy, and our nation. We have lost this hugely powerful and important branch of government to the reactionary minority. Congress must expand the Court!
I LOVE the new audio version of your newsletter! Beautifully read, in addition to your insightful writing! While this morning's content was hard to listen to, you captured the essence of what needed to be said. It is another call for us to ACT! Thank you!!
Thanks. More to come.
This is a slash and burn court. Five of them conceive of themselves as
Joan of Arc come again.
Remember what happened to her.
I am giving a hard copy of our Constitution to all my friends. This is both symbolic and preventative. Every right we have is going to be sorely tested in days to come. We must educate our selves and those who will be the next generation of voters to protect this country and maybe the world from theocratic autocracy. It is so much easier to say it is the will of some deity, than to think for ourselves. It is so much easier to walk on the weak and poor than to find ways to build help for them. We are all born weak and poor. Layers of privilege begin when we take our first breath. In this, all humanity is equal. It is so much easier to believe that some are superior by the will of some deity, than nurture and heal the sick and weak. All humans share the same right to existence by taking their first breath on the planet. We must protect the rights of all humanity live in peace and dignity on this earth. The Constitution wisely protects those rights. It is our responsibility to teach and nurture those human rights and where there is bondage set people free.
note I said "first breath," not first heart beat.
Yes! The 1st Breath…the moment when every woman who has given birth holds their own breath…waiting to hear that precious sign of viable life. Well said.
Yes! I have always wondered where the confusion and discussion is. How do we determine when a human is dead? Not breathing.
Roberts gets it, finally, at least in part. He sees the viper that he and others who style themselves conservative have nurtured. Sadly, I see none of the reactionary majority learning the same lesson any time soon. So, yes, the court must be changed. Which means the Judiciary Act must be enacted to preserve the Constitution. It must not be a matter of whether, but when.
If it is the Supreme Court's right to enforce the religious preference against abortion as a mandate, must not it also support my religious preference to preserve choice? Couldn't all religions file bills supporting their own religious preference for laws their religion would select?
The Court has selected one religion for special protection. Don't confuse the majority by suggesting that non Christian religions deserve equal protection. They are shameful!
Congratulations Robert! In the opening segment of the #sisters-in-law podcast (my favorite to listen to as I postcard), the topic was self-care. Jill Wynn-Banks said reading your newsletter was one of the things she did (in addition to getting a massage!) and called out your discussion about the Atlantic article. You have made it to the big league!
Thanks! Good to know!
Robert I love the audio version. I think I have a new routine now. Listening and reading are two very different experiences. This added enhancement gives me a quick start and allows me to later circle back and dig deeper into the links and then head over to comments.
I will send a note on Sunday announcing the new audio version. I will likely only do one or two recordings a week to see whether readers find it helpful. I appreciate your feedback!
All well and good. As Robert et al have said before, the best thing I think we can all do is VOTE and make sure everyone knows how important voting is. Expanding the court is one option. But I fear it will be relegated to the trash heap of committee and debate while the court continues to do irreparable damage. Meanwhile, vote!
The Court can be expanded by a majority vote in both chambers of Congress. We could do that tomorrow but for the filibuster, which can be eliminated by majority vote as well!