SoCS — The Circle of Life in New America

Linda G. Hill has asked us to use “product” and “produce” in today’s Stream of Consciousness Saturday prompt.

The United States Supreme Court yesterday overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman’s right to obtain a legal abortion, thus allowing states to criminalize the act of terminating a pregnancy.

When I saw the two words Linda wants us to use for our posts, it made me think about how, in the eyes of six conservative Supreme Court justices, the majority of Republicans, and most Christian conservatives, the primary role of women in America is to produce a product, and that product happens to be babies.

They believe that women should have no choice in the matter. Women should not be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to produce the product. If they happen to get pregnant, no matter the circumstances, they must produce a baby.

But once the “products” have been produced, the Vu six conservative Supreme Court justices, the majority of Republicans, and most Christian conservatives don’t give a shit about what happens to those products. The producers are on their own. They are expected to feed, clothe, shelter, and nourish the products that they produce. But those that demanded that they produce these products have moved on to other righteous battles, like banning contraception, gay marriages, or whatever other personal and private human “rights” their narrow-minded, fundamentalist views wish to take away.

But on the bright side, if every woman must produce babies, all these babies will create a larger market opportunity for the producers of firearms, enabling them to sell even more of their products. Then the products that these women produce can be more easily shot and killed by the products these gun manufacturers produce.

This is the circle of life in New America (or maybe the Divine Republic of Gilead).

38 thoughts on “SoCS — The Circle of Life in New America

  1. donmatthewspoetry June 25, 2022 / 3:15 am

    I’m glad you ended on a bright note…….

    Wasn’t Trump responsible for promoting 3 Republican judges to the court?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Nope, Not Pam June 25, 2022 / 3:33 am

    I am so mystified by these rulings. Should women now deny sex so they dont fall pregnant, or alternatively buy a gun so they can shoot anyone who wants sex.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Fandango June 25, 2022 / 11:48 am

      Maybe women should go on a sex strike until abortions are once again legal.

      Liked by 2 people

    • rugby843 June 25, 2022 / 10:02 pm

      I imagine you were joking??and I did laugh at the paradox

      Liked by 2 people

      • Nope, Not Pam June 26, 2022 / 4:05 am

        Was I? 😡

        Liked by 2 people

        • rugby843 June 26, 2022 / 5:17 am

          I don’t know – I have a temper and used to get so mad about things- I still do, I’m just too tired if it all now I guess. Too discouraged to fight.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. Gr8BigFun June 25, 2022 / 4:20 am

    Unfortunately there is a flaw in your logic Fandango. The ruling may produce more babies but make no mistake the product is women, and as a commodity for men to buy, sell and trade they had better produce or I suspect the laws on marital rape will be the next to fall. A bit extreme but thats the slippery slope the US Supreme Court has decided to step out onto in setting reproductive rights back 4 generations.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 7:48 am

      The laws against rape already have been hardly enforced or prosecuted. And rape kits sit unanalyzed. Some were put through labs to determine who the woman was, though, in order to follow through on suspecting the women of crimes just because. Ah, and marital rape; that one hadn’t come up in my mind in this relation, but you’re right.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. willowdot21 June 25, 2022 / 5:17 am

    By his Hand! Oh! Yes you have it, forgive me I mean no offense but America is becoming Gilead! There is no longer a land of the free there.
    It’s a case of breed, never mind inset, rape or illness. Breed so there will enough to go round after more mass murders by the good old firearms boys! …rant over.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Fandango June 25, 2022 / 11:51 am

      You’re right. This is so demoralizing for those of us who live in the U.S.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. newepicauthor June 25, 2022 / 6:07 am

    Have you been reading The Handmaid’s Tale? America should be hanging its head in shame for what we allowed the court to do yesterday.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Fandango June 25, 2022 / 11:52 am

      I read it a long time ago, but I never imagined it becoming real.

      Liked by 2 people

      • rugby843 June 25, 2022 / 10:04 pm

        I posted about this months ago. It seems to be coming

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Marleen June 25, 2022 / 8:01 am

    Don’t fall for DNC or old blue dog fundraising — Pelosi, Manchin… instead, find how to give directly to progressives, especially during primary season. That is a message for anyone inclined to make political donations (and don’t do that if you can’t afford it). It might not be obvious, at first, but the reflex to fundraising and campaign season and imploring that you elect more Democrats isn’t helpful at this moment. Nancy campaigned for an anti-choice option this last time around, and the DNC often runs against progressives. Don’t trust the establishment. The kids are more progressive, and we need to pivot. The current set of Democrats have looked for whatever excuses they could to hamper themselves even though we voted them in a majority. They act like they are placeholders until Republicans can get back in.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 4:51 pm

      Hillary regularly down-played what we think of as democratic stances. But if you crossed the corporate neo-liberal/neo-conservative ideology (which leads to greater and more inequality), you were out.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 7:21 pm

      Twitter, apparently, has to be more brief not only in characters but in video clip length; I liked the longer footage on this discussion too. [Scrolling down to other entries is where I first saw the story, first-hand, of the police officer assaulting a pro-choice candidate for office recently.]

      … failing to lead … “She went and campaigned for Henry Cuellar against a pro-choice Democrat…don’t give me your poems. We know what you did with your actual power and it was advancing the same mission as these Republicans.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 7:40 pm

        Los Angeles Times “California legalized abortion in 1967, years before the Roe vs. Wade decision. Those protections have since been expanded by the Legislature, the California Supreme Court and a 1972 voter-approved state constitutional amendment [to expand values for women because they had a will to protect] privacy rights.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 8:28 pm

        Excerpt: In that landscape, it was possible for Gov. Ronald Reagan, of all people, to sign California’s Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, which extended the number of circumstances in which the procedure could be performed legally. The most notable thing here isn’t Reagan’s role—in Defenders of the Unborn, Williams shows that the future president was ambivalent about the law and reluctant to sign it. (He wanted to ensure abortions were available in the case of rape and when necessary to save the life of the mother, but he still worried, in Williams’ words, that the bill “might be too permissive” and that the lack of a residency requirement could make his state an “abortion center.” The day the state Senate voted for the legislation, he publicly vacillated about it.) No, the most notable thing here is the background politics. “Many Republicans in the state legislature, including members of the conservative wing of the party, supported [the law],” Williams writes. Meanwhile, “Many of the opponents of the bill were Democrats who would never have supported Reagan under any circumstances. Some of the strongest attacks on the bill in the Assembly came from the liberal Democrat John Vasconcellos, whose impassioned statements against the bill also included a denunciation of the Vietnam War and the death penalty.”

        It’s not that left and right were reversed; it’s that they were scrambled. The bill’s sponsor was also a liberal Democrat, and the forces pressuring Reagan to veto it included conservative Catholics who had backed his campaign.

        Two years later, when Richard Nixon became president, he strained to remain neutral on the issue. In practice, he was making abortion easier in modest ways, not on freedom-of-choice grounds but because he was worried about population. (His vice president, the combative culture warrior Spiro Agnew, wasn’t a likely pro-life icon either: As governor of Maryland, he had signed a liberalization bill in 1968.) But the grounds were shifting. When Ed Muskie, running in the Democratic presidential primaries, started stressing his pro-life bona fides, the man in the White House worried that the liberal Maine senator would pick up support among the Catholic voters Nixon needed. So Nixon moved further in an anti-abortion direction as the 1972 race proceeded.

        Nixon’s eventual opponent, George McGovern, is widely remembered as the party’s most left-wing presidential nominee, a man whose foes famously derided him as the candidate of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” But McGovern’s running mate, Sargent Shriver, was the last pro-lifer to appear on a national Democratic ticket. Shriver wasn’t McGovern’s original pick: He replaced the Missouri senator Thomas Eagleton after it came out that Eagleton had received electroshock treatments. But Eagleton was pro-life too. Indeed, that “acid, amnesty, and abortion” slogan was a slightly modified version of a quote that Eagleton himself had said anonymously to a columnist during the primaries. (McGovern’s own position was that the question should be left to the states—the same outcome the bulk of the anti-abortion movement is rooting for now. In those pre-Roe days, this was not an innately pro-life stance.)



        • Marleen June 30, 2022 / 12:34 pm

          Why Do Conservatives/Libertarians Want
          FEWER Rights? ~ Briahna Joy Gray

          Liked by 1 person

      • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 8:58 pm

        The most telling example of conservative indifference to the abortion issue occurred in California. In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion. At the time, Mr. Reagan was troubled by the passionate lobbying against the bill by Cardinal Francis McIntyre. But on the advice of two of his most conservatives advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, Mr. Reagan signed anyway. He persuaded himself that the measure would have little impact. Instead, it prompted a surge in abortions.


        • Marleen June 25, 2022 / 9:08 pm

          And: Rep. Hyde, too, had been indifferent when initially confronted with the abortion issue. As an Illinois state representative in 1968, he was asked by a colleague to cosponsor a bill easing abortion restrictions. “I had never thought about the issue,” Mr. Hyde says. The bill led him to study the matter and consult abortion opponents. He decided to oppose the bill, though not vocally. But when it came up for a vote, “I sat there and nobody rose to speak in opposition,” Mr. Hyde says. “Almost by default, I spoke against it.” The bill was defeated. Elected to the U.S. House in 1974, Mr. Hyde quickly concluded that the pro-life cause wasn’t popular in Washington, including among Republicans. But ….


  7. rugby843 June 25, 2022 / 9:45 am

    Some days it’s not worth getting out of bed is my horrid attitude. As a woman with a daughter and granddaughters and now even a great granddaughter, I am discouraged and disappointed about women’s futures. Is it really 2022 or am I in a time warp?

    Sent from my iPhone


    Liked by 2 people

    • Fandango June 25, 2022 / 11:55 am

      The pendulum has swung back by about 100 years. Next women will lose the right to vote.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. paeansunplugged June 25, 2022 / 9:46 am

    I am so far away from America and yet this news made my blood boil. One small step for SC, one giant backward leap for America!!!

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.