The Roberts' Court's zealots weaponized the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is gross malpractice intended to please The Federalist Society (click here for image below).

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens.  The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is  "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights),  Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination),  and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). 

The Fourteeth Amendment

Section 1

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.

Women are citizens of the USA. Women have the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th Amendment (click here).

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Well, women are counted in the USA Census that creates the number of US Representatives in the US House of Representatives. So, far I don't see where the Supreme Court has found new enlightenment to treat women as second class citizens.

Women has been serving this country in the military since 1948 (click here) and in combat since 2015 (click here). I am nto finding the fantasy that Alito wrote yet.

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I am still not seeing Alito's dreamscape.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Alito has continued his delusion. 

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Roberts' Court is guilty of gross malpractice for the purpose of instilling a theocracy for political purposes. Clarence Thomas makes if very, very plain the focus of the six incompetent member majority will destroy the rights of Americans until the population and it's IDENTITY matches the value system of the White Evangelicals that have paid mightly for it.

I see no competency here for the six rebellious justices with their only allegiane to the Christian Evangelical Bible. 

It is time for the US Congress to hold hearings. This is malpractice of the law and the Roberts' Court believes they are above the US Constitution.

We currently have an Attorney General that should have been sitting on the Supreme Court today.

The clinics that remain open in the country, may want to consider "Hot Lines" for victims of the Supreme Court.

June 24, 2022

By Caroline Kitchener

The phones started ringing, (click here) as they always did, moments after Houston Women’s Reproductive Services opened for business at 9 a.m. on Friday — with patients in need of abortions calling to secure a spot on the schedule.

Then, 12 minutes later, it all came to a stop. The Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade.

“Can we still do abortions today?” asked patient advocate Marjorie Eisen, thinking about the 20 women they had booked for appointments.

Several were already in the waiting room, scrolling through their phones as they waited.

“No,” said Kathy Kleinfeld, a co-owner of the clinic. “We’re done.”...

The arrogance is simply disgusting.

Yesterday, I thought if my 87 year old mother calls about this she will be overjoyed. That is what I sincerely thought simply because she is a woman that is a Catholic that attends mass daily and has since she retired in her early sixties. She takes a few plastic baby bottles every year during the annual fundraising for underpriviledged youth and fills them with loose change.

So, when the phone rang and it was her shortly after the VERDICT was announced I simply listened and she said, "What do they think they are doing to women and children?"

It turned out to be a rather interesting conversation from a woman I never expected to be that open minded about abortion. So, basically, with a very clear mind at that age, she stated, "They are judging people and not the law." I explained to her it is a political ambition and nothing more and she stated clearly to me again, "But, sweetheart, they are judging people. Even in the strickest terms of religion and politics it isn't anyone's place to judge others. No one has to endear every person to themselves as if their best friends, but, as Americans we do have to accept each other and elevate each other to live a good and decent life."

So, there you have it. My family is rather incredible. We are a large Irish-American family that values life and the comforts of liberty. We are educated folks. Yesterday's VERDICT by the Supreme Court was complete and absolute arrogance for personal and political directives and has absolutely nothing to do with quality of life.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court passed judgement on the women of this country. As a result there will be mental health problems with women and with children. Adoption is not a substitute for abortion. There are lingering shadows to adoption and those shadows plague women and children all their lives. We are also not short on citizens. We have a healthy population and growing. Sometimes it grows more than other times, but, there is no reason to believe abortion was hindering the country, quite the contrary, it was allowing the people of this country to be fulfilled and prosperous.

There will be more government spending now. More women and men will be impoverished. There will be need for more government services and the Foster Care system will be over populated. Women will have babies and convince themselves and/or their families they can do a good job raising them, but, ultimately they will end up in poverty collecting welfare and food stamps and then when the children finally start to go to school an arrogant teacher will make a referral to social work and the circus of the Foster Care system will begin.

The Robert's Court is arrogant, lives in a world separate from mainstream America and is grossly affording themselves the highest form of malpractice of the laws of this country.

May 3, 2022

By Katheryn Joyce

Less abortion, more adoption. Why is that controversial?" (click here)

That was the response of Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, to Politico's bombshell revelation Monday night: a leaked Supreme Court majority opinion suggesting that we face the imminent reversal of Roe v. Wade.

About halfway through the 98-page opinion, which was authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito — and which Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged on Tuesday as genuine — came a familiar argument: that "modern developments," including the availability of "safe-haven" laws, which allow parents to anonymously relinquish babies without legal repercussions, have rendered abortion unnecessary. The opinion noted that "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home."...

The the demonstrating begin, it is as it should be.

 

June 24, 2022
By Jason Green

San Francisco - Chanting for “legal abortion on demand,” (click here) thousands of people took to Bay Area streets Friday night to protest the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade.

Across San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, protesters decried an end to nearly fifty years of legal precedent that had allowed women to safely seek an abortion across the United States since 1973. In doing so, they joined abortion rights advocates across the nation in grieving the end of one era in American life, while vowing to win back those rights in the years to come.

As many as 3,000 people participated in a two-mile march across San Francisco on Friday evening, chanting “not the church, not the state — women will decide our fate,” while holding signs declaring “I dissent,” and “keep your rosaries off my ovaries.” At least two other protests against the Supreme Court’s decision also sprung up in the city — a show of solidary that stifled traffic as marchers crisscrossed downtown.

Honey Mahogany, a candidate for the San Francisco District 6 supervisor’s seat, vowed “we will not stand for it” before a crowd at the Phillips Burton Federal Building....