In June 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned more than a half-century of Supreme Court precedent. Five justices voted to deny constitutional protection for a woman’s right to choose and gutted privacy as a fundamental right. Texas and 13 other states now bar abortions in almost all circumstances. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have enacted six-week bans.
Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly compared the death of Roe to the end of state-enforced racial segregation, 68 years before. Back in 1954, in a landmark ruling, Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous court overruled the doctrine of “separate but equal.” These days, Brown is under attack from Alito’s allies on and off the bench.
In their new book The Fall of Roe, named for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that previously safeguarded federal abortion rights, Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer masterfully lay out how the cultural right and pro-life movement refused to take “no” for an answer, played the long game, and attained the victory for which they had yearned. Dias and Lerer also capture the somnolence of the left and how “intersectionality” came to divide old allies.
Dias is the New York Times religion reporter. A graduate of Wheaton College, the late Rev. Billy Graham’s alma mater, she holds a master’s degree in divinity from Princeton Theological seminary. Lerer, a veteran of five presidential campaigns, covers politics for the Times. The two of them got Hillary Clinton to speak for the record.
The Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 acknowledges that her party underestimated its adversaries, but doesn’t point the finger at herself.
“We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat,” Clinton said. “We could have done more to fight.”
“I just think that most of us who support the rights of women and privacy and the right to make these difficult decisions yourself, you know, we just couldn’t believe what was happening.”
“Our side was complacent and kind of taking it for granted and thinking it would never go away.”
Even as polls show that abortion rights have widening public acceptance, the mechanics of federalism have left legislatures in red states to act as a counterforce to the more liberal national ethos, a point stressed in The Fall of Roe.
“Republicans had the state legislatures,” Dias and Lerer write. “They had a top-to-bottom network. They had the court. They had the power to change American life.”
The Fall of Roe also sheds light on the infrastructure that undergirded opposition to Roe. Libertarian-minded donors didn’t particularly care about curbing abortion access and David Koch personally supported abortion rights. That having been said, Freedom Partners, a Koch-driven industry group, donated almost $1 million to anti-abortion efforts, which could be paired on election day with tax cuts and lower regulation.
Said differently, fetuses weren’t the only reasons large checks were being cut to the Federalist Society, or that constitutional originalism had become the civic religion of the right. FDR’s legacy has to be gutted. Social security may no longer be so secure.
Leonard Leo, the driving force behind the Federalist Society, receives particular attention.
“Who’s this little fucking midget?” Donald Trump once said of Leo, a close friend of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Short answer: Leo helped get each of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees across the finish line. Think of him as the straw that stirs the drink.
“After Alito was confirmed to the court, Leo connected him with ideologically aligned businessmen, some of whom had cases before the court,” Dias and Lerer write.
They add that Leo “spent time with Thomas at… a private lakeside resort owned by a major Republican donor, Harlan Crow. Their visits were memorialized in a painting, hanging inside the lodge.”
Thanks to ProPublica’s Pulitzer-winning reporting, the painting is now well known. The group is shown thoughtfully smoking cigars.
Leo’s connections also helped found a nonprofit, the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), “on the same hallway in a downtown office building as the Federalist Society.”
Which all brings us back to Brown v. Board of Education and where the right goes next.
In Justice on Trial, an examination of Brett Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Supreme Court, conservative talking heads Carrie Severino, of JCN, and Mollie Hemingway, of the Federalist, trashed Brown.
According to Severino and Hemingway, social science wrongly played a role in the court’s calculus. They declared that such decisions “may have been correct in their result but were decided on the basis of sociological studies rather than legal principles.”
Notice the word “may.”
Fast forward to May 2024, when Thomas—who joined Alito’s opinion in Dobbs—turned his fire on Brown.
“Such extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design,” he wrote in a concurrence, sustaining a South Carolina congressional map in the face of voting rights challenge.
As another election looms, abortion and contraception have emerged as campaign issues, to the horror of Trump. On the stump, the presumptive Republican nominee has vacillated over possible restrictions on contraception. Then again, Stormy Daniels testified that Trump did not wear a condom during an encounter Trump still denies, notwithstanding 34 guilty verdicts in the case arising.
As for meting out punishment to women who have abortions, Trump would leave that to the states.
“The states are going to make that decision,” he told Time. “The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”
He also declined to say “no” to states monitoring women, to identify those who terminate pregnancies. Think The Handmaid’s Tale.
In the 2022 midterms, Dobbs cost the Republicans their “red wave.” In 2024, it may lead to another Trump loss and Democrats retaking the House. Right now, things are that close.
15 notes
·
View notes
Justice for Sanda
Sanda Dia (20) was in his 3rd year of college at KU Leuven in Leuven, Belgium when he decided to try and join the studentclub 'Reuzegom', a club almost entirely filled with white kids from rich or elitist families, of which many of its past members now hold a higher status in society.
Sanda was multi talented and very ambitious and hardworking. He dreamed big, wanting to be make a future for himself and make his family proud.
He hoped to become a Reuzegom member to solidify his own future, coming from a lower income household himself.
On December 4th of 2018 Sanda, along with the other two newcomers, would be forced to drink enormous amount of alcohol for their initiation into Reuzegom. Sanda had drank almost 2 bottles of gin and pints of beers, even more than the other two had. When nearly passed out, the members each urinated on him as is custom according to them.
After taking him back to his student room that night, they taped off the faucet in the room to keep him from sobering up.
Unsurprisingly, he did not feel much better the 2nd day of the initation. As seen on camera footage and told by eye witnesses he seemed to be in a bad state already. Even one of the members had pointed out he was completely out of it.
During the next part of the initation on December 5th, Sanda and the other two were forced to dig a hole, which was to be filled with ice cold water. They’d be stuck here for the next 8 hours while being ridiculed and peed on, and forced to consume over a liter of fish oil. Then he’d have to swallow live goldfish, bring it back up, swallow it back down all until it was no longer alive. All of which was laughed about, filmed and photographed by the members of Reuzegom. He eventually passed out, his body no longer able to keep up.
It wasn't until at least 2 hours of him being passed out (speculated that it took even longer) that he was finally taken to the hospital in this critical condition. He fell into a coma due to his extremely low body temperature and insane level of salt intake before his family could even get to the hospital to say their goodbyes.
Sanda was in such critical condition that he died of organ failure less than 2 days later.
In these 2 days the members of Reuzegom were more concerned about covering up their tracks and deleting the evidence than the death they all caused. In recovered messages and statements the members talk about Sanda’s situation as if he was not in critical condition and felt no responsibility towards the situation.
The following 4 years they'd use their family's influence and money to finally end up being convicted to mere community service and a 400 euro fine.
That’s not justice. This is a huge group of rich, influential families wiggling their way out of their involvement in Sanda’s death. They couldn’t know fish oil would kill him, but when you put someone in a cold bath, let them drink copious amounts of alcohol and other substances and they don’t look well, stop being able to respond and pass out… it’s clear that he was seriously not doing well. And their response to that was to let him suffer in this state for hours without giving him medical care. He could have lived, had they brought him in right away.
They get to live on with their name and faces protected and mostly in tact, without real punishment, having the truth twisted to their own advantage.
Aside from the lack of proper punishment, none of them spoke up when Sanda’s father asked for clarification about what happened. The majority of them didn’t even care to show up for the final sentence. They didn’t even do the bare minimum of giving the family of their alleged “friend” any closure.
So why should their name be protected when they took his?
Jeff Jonkers, nicknamed Zaadje
One of the longer standing members and that years president of Reuzegom. In charge of most of it. Along with Alexander he took care to clean up the scene and make everyone delete photos, videos and messages.
His lawyer suggested to write an apology letter early on, in which he took no accountability and did not own up to what happened, or even offer a simple apology.
Alexander Garmyn, nicknamed Janker
In charge of planning the initation and taking care of the pledges that year. He has wrote he did not want this to be just a brutal year; he wanted it to be insanely brutal. He wanted the newcomers to look up to him in fear the night of their initation. (Also mentioned his “good friend Hitler” in this same speech).
He talked specifically about Sanda’s heritage, and seemed to purposely put Sanda through a harder time than the other two newcomers.
He filmed lots of the initiation and was the first to suggest deleting Reuzegom’s groupchat as soon as it became clear Sanda wasn’t going to make it. All the while he still held on to calling it a stupid accident instead of showing any remorse.
Also little fact: he caused one of the other initates permanent eye damage by throwing a full beer can in their face while they were passed out from the alcohol the club forced them to drink. When confronted about it he denied it and put the blame on the other initates, and manipulated them into keeping it quiet.
Leon Lesseliers, nicknamed Strontvlieg
Filmed lots of the scene as well and send the media out to friends.
He seemed to have it out for Sanda more than the other newcomers as he’s made comments about wanting to give him a hard time specifically, and one of the other members pointed out he had said a lot of incriminating things about the situation and was physically aggressive towards them.
He dumped his phone in a body of water as soon as he heard Sanda had passed, claiming later it was out of anger and shock (and not fear of them finding more evidence on his phone...)
Other members present that night:
Bram Lebleu (Rustdag)
Jef Slosse (Flodder)
Jerome Verstraeten (Igean)
Viktor Knevels (Pronker)
Zazou Bindi (Rafiki)
Julian de Visscher (Placebo)
Arthur Geheniau (Shrek)
Maurice Geheniau (Kletsmajoor)
Arthur Versavel (Sondage)
Benoit Plaitin (Protput)
Willem Peeters (Randi)
Pierre Onghena (Wally)
Simon Peeters (Remorke)
Quentin Wauters (Paterberg)
Maxime Peeters (Kelter)
114 notes
·
View notes