An evening on the cusp of the unknown

Dear Cousin,

The clocks have been set back, one of those turning points of autumn. I took the chance to sleep in, enjoying the cozy Sunday morning silence of my apartment. I hardly ever stay there, and I figured out this morning I hadn’t stayed there alone in more than three months — since early August, or Midsummer holiday. Time flies and I rarely leave my photo studio, except to go outside to the Grandmother Land and make a fire. I’ve noticed that I like living in a room full of iMacs and photographs.

For some reason I woke up and had to have popcorn, so I made some and, prompted by something I heard on the news, I called Steve Bergstein to talk about the Supreme Court. In particular, about various sequences of events that could lead to the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that guarantees that a woman in any of the United States and its territories has the right to choose an abortion, early in her pregnancy, if she wants or needs one.

In our prior conversation, I learned that Roe is based on an earlier decision. Griswold vs. Connecticut. You wouldn’t think that you need a ruling by the Supreme Court to ensure that you can use a condom when you’re having sex with your husband or wife, in your own bedroom, without getting prosecuted; but that is what Griswold protects. You would be stunned what laws have been passed that deny you rights in your own bedroom. Until very recently, a locality could, if it wanted, pass a law against two adults having oral sex (thanks to a horrendous decision called Bowers vs. Hardwick, which was recently turned over).

I also learned that the court came close to overturning Roe in 1992, with the decision Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. He said that at the time, just 19 years later, none of the justices had the balls to throw out Roe.

Steve is a civil rights lawyer who writes our Psychsound blog. All of these cases are as familiar to him as the basic planets are to me. The landmark civil rights cases represent a journey from the 1950s through the 1990s where the Constitution was gradually interpreted by the court to ensure, in very slow degrees and with a ew bumps along the way, that we actually do have the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. When government entities (such as a state) violate the Constitution, it is up to the court to straighten things out. It takes time, it requires great effort by the attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants and law clerks — but gradually the process works.

We have a clear Constitution, which has provisions to project basic freedoms (religion, protest, the press, gun ownership); we have the right to not testify against ourselves in a trial; we don’t have to let soldiers sleep in our homes. All of this was common sense when we didn’t have these rights and some people who thought it was important to get religion out of the domain of government figured out that we did.

The thing that makes me the most nervous about McCain is that he is against Roe vs. Wade, and so is his sidekick, Sarah Palin. This is a stated position. Obviously they are saying this to keep their conservative base intact, but the court is hanging in a 5-4 balance right now, with several justices being quite old and ready to step aside.

If you’re a woman and you’re against a woman’s right to choose a legal, relatively safe abortion, I suggest you consider the consequences when abortion is illegal, dangerous and underground. I suggest you consider the implications of women not having control over their own bodies. Once abortion ceases to be a choice, it could become mandatory (since it is no longer strictly a woman’s option; someone else will decide).

If you’re a woman and you’re in favor of your right to choose, I suggest you educate yourself to the point where you are passionate about the issue. You should be, because the right to your biological destiny is the foundation of your right to be a person rather than a member of the second sex.

Personally, I can barely believe that this issue is even up for discussion. But if you factor in 25 years of teaching kids “abstinence” instead of sex education, that could be a factor. That is a product of religion. The ONLY reason sex education is not taught in many public schools in 49 states is a religious viewpoint that has taken over the mentality of the education system. And the only reason it is up for discussion now is because a religious ideology has taken over our government. And that — if you know American history at all — entirely violates the basis of why our country was formed.

I truly suggest you educate yourself, and talk to your friends about who they are voting for, and why. I know a lot of people don’t think it’s possible that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned, but in actual fact, anything is possible, and some things are more possible than others.

Yours & truly,