So ... I read the damned draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health and these are my initial thoughts:
1. Alito asserts that the language of the Constitution itself “offers a ‘fixed standard’ for ascertaining what our founding document means.” (p 9) This is nonsense! If this is so, if the Constitution is self-explanatory then there's been no need for 240 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence. It clearly is not a self-interpreting document (no document is) and it's application to differing and changing times and circumstances requires (and there has always been) a flexible standard: meaning varies as context varies.

2. “[W]e must ask what the *Fourteenth Amendment* means by the term ‘liberty.’” (p 14) The 14th Amendment in and of itself doesn't "mean" anything; it is an object, an "it." Meaning only arises in the interactions between subjects, between "I's" and "thou's" -- the amendment does not determine what it itself means; it is the people who live with and under it, through their political and judicial institutions, that determine what it means.

3. Alito just summarily dismisses the amicus brief of American Historical Association and Organization of American Historians and its discussion of anti-Catholic bias motivating abortion laws (p 28), basically saying that societal context is irrelevant. And then turns around and goes into great detail summarizing the historical and societal attitude to abortion in the mid-19th Century. Either societal context is irrelevant or its relevant. You can't have it both ways.

4. Then there's his notion of “ordered liberty” which he defends saying, “In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be more even more [sic] extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys n ‘unborn human being.’” (p 31) — in other words, “ordered liberty” is not ordered at all; it differs from place to to place. "Ordered liberty" is chaos!

5. The “critique” (more in the nature of a ranting put-down) of the “quality of the reasoning” of both Roe Casey and is scurrilous. He basically insults the authors of those opinions! This is not the way SCOTUS should be writing! (p 41 et seq)

6. The notion that “the most important historical fact” relevant to the decision is “how the States regulated abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted” is premised on the “fixed meaning” notion, above. (p 43) And it contradicts his dismissal of "quickening" rules and his dismissal of the historians' brief: again, either historical social context is relevant or it's not. Which is it?

7. I'm very concerned that this opinion would seem to create a hierarchy of the personal choices and judgments included (or not included) in “the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference.” (p 45) The reasoning through which Alito dismisses and overrules precedent can be used to cancel any of the rights found to be within the penumbra of Constitution. Anything not specifically named in the document is at risk.

8. He dismisses out of hand Roe’s acknowledgment of “the demands of the profound problems of the present day” as “the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body” as if Courts should not consider the current societal context, which is willful judicial blindness. This is the sort of mindset that will give (has given) the court the "stench" about which Justice Sotomayor was concerned.

9. “On what ground could the constitutional status of a fetus depend on the pregnant woman’s location?” (p 48) This statement is made with regard to the quality of hospital care in cities vs rural areas, but isn’t this exactly what “returning” regulation to the States accomplishes? Isn't this what Alito's "ordered liberty" accomplishes.

10. Criticizing Casey, Alito says, “[D]etermining whether a burden is ‘due’ or ‘undue’ is ‘inherently standardless.” (p 53) This is nonsense! What about the Fourteenth Amendment's “due process” clause? The same issue of determining “due” or “undue” is present there And courts do that all the time!

11. The rules of Casey, says Alito, “call on courts to examine a law’s effect on women, but a regulation may have a very different impact on different women for a variety of reasons …. a court needs to know which set of women it should have in mind and how many women in this set must find that an obstacle is ‘substantial.’” (p 54) This is BULLSHIT! If a regulation has an effect on the rights of ANY woman, it's suspect!

12. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” (p 62).This, too, is bullshit. The **reasoning** (if it can be called that) of this decision betrays they “originalist” bias which casts doubt on any of the “privacy right” cases decided within the penumbra of the 14th and other amendments.

13. “This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.” (p 64) This is incorrect in that this precisely the Court’s role, but I predict that this sort of reasoning will be the basis on which it will overturn Obergefell….

14. The appendices are rather dishonest. They purport to tabulate the state of State laws on abortion in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted, but seven of the State laws and seven of the Territory laws listed post-date that amendment.

The state of SCOTUS jurisprudence has certainly bottomed out at a new low.

It's not just about the women. It's about their husbands, their boyfriends, their parents: everyone who supports them in any way. It's about the other children in the family, it's about the jobs that the women will struggle to keep. And of course it's about the women who because of extreme youth/age or health reasons should absolutely not be risking pregnancy and childbirth.

Biden ‘not prepared’ to support ending Senate filibuster to pass abortion rights law

[ . . . . ]

Overriding the procedural filibuster rule, seen as a nuclear option by congressional watchers, would reduce the requirement to 50 - but Biden says he’s not on board. At least not yet.

“I’m not prepared to make those judgments now,” Biden replied to a reporter’s question asking him directly if the senate should do away with the filibuster to codify the Roe v Wade ruling that gives a constitutional right to abortion.


He did say, however, that such a law “makes a lot of sense”:

[ . . . . ]

Father Nathan Monk

A few years back, I found a lump in my chest. When I decided to talk about what was happening publicly, it was terrifying. Somehow that made it real. A friend of mine reached out to me right after that because her cancer had just come back, and she was starting chemo again. She was losing her hair for the second time. We met for drinks to talk about it. She told me about how she didn’t feel beautiful anymore. About how she wasn’t sure she could do this again. “Maybe it’s time to just check out.” Before I could even respond, an acquaintance of ours walks up and says, “Hey, baldy!” And rubbed her head.
We both laughed. It wasn’t funny.

I suppose we laughed because that’s what a lot of us do in uncomfortable situations where we don’t know how to stand up for ourselves.

A few weeks later, right before I got my test results, I was out with Tashina and some friends. They were trying to cheer me up and convince me everything would be okay. A friend of ours walked up and made a joke about how he would probably come to my funeral if the cancer got me. Then he said, “if for nothing else to hit on your newly single wife.”

In both of these situations, I saw red. My heart was pounding outside of my chest. I could feel my hands turning into a fist. I wanted to do something violent.

I didn’t.

But the feeling was there. There have been countless situations where people have made jokes at someone else’s expense that made me want to react. Sometimes I’ve stood up against those people with words. Sometimes I’ve sat silently with fear or anger.

Tonight, as I watched Will Smith go through those range of emotions, I felt a lot of empathy. He laughed at the joke that wasn’t funny. I’ve been there. He made a choice that I can understand, even if I don’t think it was the right choice. I think it would have been better if he had used his words instead of his fist. I think it would have made a bigger impact if he had found just the exact right words to say, but he didn’t.

However, I think if we are all honest with ourselves, we’ve had moments where that’s what we wanted to do, even if we didn’t.

Jada has been open about her health struggles for a long time now. It’s been part of the public discourse, and the joke Chris Rock made was in poor taste. It was ableist and cruel. It was the definition of punching down, and that makes it not a joke but bullying.
As I’ve watched some of the public discourse happening, I think there are a lot of things at play here all at once.

First, two things can be wrong at the same time. Will Smiths' reaction was wrong, but so was Chris Rock’s joke. We can’t lose sight of how wrong what Chris said was just because his wrong was met with another wrong.

When that acquaintance made that joke to my friend, my fear was that she would think this was the final justification for her to choose to no longer life here with us anymore. That was what we were discussing, and then she was met with a cruel joke. At that moment, I was so angry. I made a different choice than Will did at that moment. But we have no idea the conversations that have happened privately between them. Life is not always easy.

I also think racism is playing a huge part in this. I’ve seen so many comments that have made me cringe. You could see it on Denzel Washington’s face; you could see it in Tyler Perry’s reaction, and in the words of Diddy. They knew instantly how public perception was going to be. And I’m seeing it in many of the comments.

I’ve also seen a lot of comments justifying hatred toward Will and Jada because they are open about the non-monogamous structure of their relationship. As if that has anything to do with this? How consenting adults construct their relationship is none of anyone's business. It certainly doesn’t justify cruelty.

Ultimately, they are famous, and people love to imagine that with fame comes entitlement to their existence. But they are just human beings dealing with pain like everyone else.

I wish Will had just used his words, but he didn’t. He will have to deal with the consequences of that, just as Chris must face the consequences of his cruel joke. But I’m really sad to see some of the exterior conversations happening around this unfortunate situation. I think everyone should take a real step back and realize how cringe it is when you use phrases like, “he should have acted like a professional.” Professionalism has been weaponized against the Black community for a long time. I’ve seen folks make commentary about what Jada should do to conceal her baldness. Let me tell you, right now, Black women's hair has been weaponized too. So let’s just not.

Two wrongs happened tonight.

Chris Rock made a cruel and ableist joke.

Will Smith chose hands instead of words.

But one wouldn’t have happened without the other. Be mindful that even though Jada and Will are rich and powerful and will likely never hear your words about them. But someone you love who is struggling with their body does near you. They hear you loud and clear. And maybe it’s time the whole world gets a metaphorical slap to the face as a reminder that punching down is never okay.

In moments like this, I’m reminded of the Terry Pratchett quote, “Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire; it's bullying.”

Vials labeled 'smallpox' found by lab worker cleaning freezer in Pennsylvania
by Elisha Fieldstadt

[ . . . . ]

The frozen vials "were incidentally discovered by a laboratory worker while cleaning out a freezer in a facility that conducts vaccine research in Pennsylvania," a CDC spokesperson said in a statement to NBC News.

The contents appeared to be intact, and the CDC is partnering with law enforcement to investigate, the agency said.

“The laboratory worker who discovered the vials was wearing gloves and a face mask. There is no indication that anyone has been exposed to the small number of frozen vials. We will provide further details as they are available," the spokesperson said.

Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970s, but vaccines still exist in case of an outbreak, according to the CDC. Once a person develops a smallpox rash, the vaccine cannot protect them. About 3 in 10 people with smallpox die.

NBC Philadelphia reported that the vials were found at a Merck facility in Montgomery County, about 30 miles northwest of Philadelphia. Only two facilities in the world are supposed to have doses of the virus: CDC's Atlanta headquarters and a Russian lab.

[ . . . . ]

John Shelby Spong, liberal Episcopal bishop and LGBTQ advocate, dies at 90

The Right Rev. John Shelby Spong, a liberal theologian and former bishop who shook up the modern Episcopal Church, championing the inclusion of women and LGBTQ people in the clergy while promoting a nonliteral interpretation of scripture, died Sept. 12 at his home in Richmond. He was 90.

[ , , , , ]

As a theologian, he was known for questioning some of Christianity’s fundamental doctrines, including the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of miracles. Those views infuriated Christian leaders who labeled him a heretic, although he was part of a long tradition of theologians who argued that taking the Bible literally was to miss the truth behind its teachings.

[ . . . . ]

Bishop Spong later expanded his ministry to encompass the fights for gender equality and LGBTQ rights. Soon after he arrived at the Diocese of Newark in 1976 as bishop coadjutor, a steppingstone to bishop, the diocese became one of the first to ordain women to the priesthood. In 1989, he ordained the first openly gay man to the Episcopal priesthood, the Rev. Robert Williams, who had written to Bishop Spong after reading his book “Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality.”

[ . . . . ]

Before he was consecrated bishop coadjutor, Bishop Spong served for 20 years as a priest in North Carolina and Virginia. As rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond — also known as the Cathedral of the Confederacy because it was where Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis once worshiped — he took down the Confederate flag that flew above the building. In the mid-1970s, he invited a rabbi to speak, leading to a picket line of fundamentalist Christians who insisted he try to baptize his Jewish visitors.