“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The United States Constitution, 14th Amendment,Section I.
There are 5 million more females than males in the United States. Girls and women are 50.8 percent of the U.S. population in the 2020 census compared to 49.2 percent who are men and boys (without getting further into contemporary gender issues this is what the Census reported).
The Supreme Court draft opinion on the issue of the Mississippi law to severely restrict abortion would apply only to women, can apply only to women.
Thus and obviosuly, only women would be prevented from obtaining termination of pregnancy in such states if the Roman Catholic majority on the Supreme Court tells the states they can do that.
And let us not pussyfoot with niceties. The five justices ready to do this are not doing it based on law, but based on the religion into which they were baptized and by which they were indoctrinated. That this is about the law or the Constitution is a total lie. It is about theology.
Abortion ban laws would not apply to the male 49.2 percent of the population because males, adolescent boys and men – men like Samuel Alito – can’t get pregnant, can’t carry a pregnancy and will never have to terminate one in a circumstance in which their personal choice determines the decision.
The decision is not about everyone. It is about girls and women. It applies only to girls and women. Do the math. On its face that is not equal treatment under the law, not when it has no application and no consequences for nearly half the population.
So, if the court does what Samuel Alito, who should be wearing not a black robe but the red robe of a cardinal of his church – if it does what he writes and turns the issue over to the states, more than half of which are poised to ban abortion, then that is a ruling that applies only to 50.8 percent of the population.
The other 49.2 percent, the males of the United States? They get off scot free, they are protected by their physiognomy – they don’t have ovaries, they don’t have a uterus, they don’t have a birth canal.
So is it, how can there be equal protecion under the law when nearly half the population can’t be protected unless the law extends to them the same protection that nature confers on the other half?
No, it damned well isn’t.
So everyone should have, as they say, skin in the game, no?
Oh but absolutely yes and, as you’ll see, literally
Here then a proposal.
Every state that passes a law outlawing abortion, or so limiting opportunity to obtain the procedure that it has no practical medical use and application in the same statute should adopt the following provision.
A mandate that in every instance in which a woman comes forward to say that but for the legal prohibition against abortion she would terminate the pregnancy, that the man who impregnated her, under any circmstance, with no exceptions for marriage, engagement, going steady, and notwithstanding any expression or intention of parental involvement, face two unalterable consequences:
- For the first 21 years of the life of the child produced by such unwanted pregnancy he will be assessed one-third of his income to support that child -whether or not he resides in the same home as the child; with those funds payable every pay period, every paycheck, from every bonus payment to the mother.
- That such man shall, upon the certification of a mandatory paternity test, be castrated.
How long do you think men in this country would proclaim their right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, if men knew they would lose their testicles in the bargain. It’s a rhetorical question that does not need the punctuation mark. It contains its own answer.
There is not a single man in the world who could endure childbirth, not a one and certainly not Samuel Alito.
This sensible proposal to be faithful to the Constitution, to its declaration of equal treatment by and under the law, really demnds that both genders be treated the same.
So, either allow women their choice in human reproduction, the same one men have, which is to bear no burden in it if they so choose, or interfere equally in the control of everbody’s body, female or male.
(With the usual homage to Elia, aka Charles Lamb)
Peeling the Onion 