What’s going on?

Writers and their writing process…or lack there of

Pierre Foglia is a retired journalist here in Quebec. La Presse published his Saturday column from 1972 until 2015. My husband and many many others read him religiously because of the caliber of writing, tone, wit, etc.

The thing I found amazing was how this man managed to create such a long and, according to my husband, incredibly well-written piece every week.

While I am no Foglia, I have tried to be consistent in posting. And, up until a few months ago, I was. Then suddenly I had nothing of interest to write about. While my life was good, nothing going on seemed particularly note-worthy or inspirational. And I definitely wasn’t going to talk about Menier’s Syndrome anymore. I tried reminding myself that the original purpose of this blog was to leave a digital, historical footprint for my kids. And yet…still nothing.

When the world makes no sense

Then yesterday I heard something so horrible that I was speechless. Six “neutral” adults with no personal agenda(wink wink) decided that women in the United States were no longer in charge of one of their most important reproductive choices. What the *&%$#!

And if that wasn’t bad enough, a few days prior they had made another “brilliant” decision. This group of “informed, thoughtful” adults(still winking) decided that it’s legal for citizens to wander around with firearms.

Suddenly it didn’t matter if I had anything interesting to write about. I just had to write so my kids would know how I felt about this catastrophe.

What does it all mean?

I suppose it means that the justices were doing their jobs. Albeit clearly following an agenda of their own.

I found the following when searching for the mission statement of the Supreme Court:

 “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”(taken directly from the supremecourt.gov site)

I suppose that seen from their point of view, warped as it may be, the first decision protects the innocent lives of those who cannot protect themselves. Setting aside for a moment the most obvious point of taking away a woman’s control/choices regarding her own body…what about all of the collateral damage?

As for the gun law…what about all of the innocent lives that will be touched by turning the US into the Wild West?

Supposedly the justices came to both decisions by examining the law, precedents, and evidence. After which they would come to a well-thought-out, informed decision. Several justices dissented. Only proving that the same information was viewed through different lenses. Only these lenses feel rather politically colored. These justices are supposed to be the epitome of nonpartisan but the only people who believe that seem to be them.

Too few affecting too many

Probably there are several million people feeling like the right decisions were made. But that doesn’t represent everyone and it doesn’t sound like “equal justice” to me.

Reminds me of a presentation that I saw in 5th grade. The purpose was to prevent us from becoming smokers. Apart from the chunk of diseased lung matter in glass, there was one particular fact that I have always remembered. It only took one smoker in a room of people to make everyone breathe in cigarette smoke.

This feels a little the same. A not-so-small minority has decided that no fetus should die. What about the consequences to the others involved when that choice is taken away? And is this group going to care for all of the unwanted babies or health, family, or financial issues that will also come as a result of the decision?

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion

From personal experience, I know that being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. It is not an easy choice to contemplate much less to make. It is a personal choice that should not be open up to debate or review by others.

While there are other problems in Canada, telling women their bodies are not their own to manage is not one of them.

In reality, if I am living in Texas and have an abortion then there is no direct impact on “Sally Someone”. I am not asking her to perform it, pay for it, or even have one herself. It is the idea of it that offends her religious beliefs and morals. Beliefs often justify actions (good or bad) but why in 2022 must they be imposed on me and my choices? Why should anyone have that power?

And yet they will because now there will be laws because “Sally” has friends in high places and they have taken away my right to choose. That will have a direct impact on me and many others. And ultimately it is all about making her opinion more important than mine. Beyond “winning” the point I don’t envision a lot of assistance with the fallout post-decision. I don’t think that “Sally” is going to raise my baby if I can’t afford to keep it or don’t want it. It feels seriously messed up.

Where do we go from here?

Undoubtedly, there are going to be a lot of articles and conversations. There will be backlash and protests and problems and so much more. And while this issue no longer affects me directly because of my age and address, I cannot help but think that it will take all of us to make this right.

While texting with my sister about all of this she wrote, “I’m very angry and sad too. This is not a country I believe in anymore.”

Says it all….