For almost eight years since 2016, the MAGA Republicans have subjected the public to constant and deliberate lies about so many things. But eight years are too long for lying without harm. At the time one may have thought that MAGA Republicans would have a second thought about lying, they shot the public with another lie, a big and blatant one.

The senator from Alabama, Katie Britt delivered the rebuttal to President Biden’s State of The Union address. Was she so designated by the Republicans because the senator was beautiful and charming, or because she was willing to deliver another lie? It was refreshing to see a female politician deliver a political speech, not in a Thatcherite manner, direct, straight to the point, but with a soft murmuring voice accompanying every word with a smile. She was totally beautiful and charming.

And she knew she was beautiful and charming. The thing she did not know was how to use her smile, beauty, and charm to make her speech coherently effective and believable. She smiled, a lot, at the wrong sentences or words. She oozed her charm constantly like a schoolgirl trying to impress her teacher and classmates with her smile and charm so that they would not know how bad her speech was.

It was not just bad. The speech was harmful to the nation, and in particular to the American children. And she had to know it was harmful to them because she knew it was a lie. She came from a rural family in Alabama and was elected to the U.S. Senate. Her success was, and is, an American dream. And on camera to the public, that living example of the American Dream declared that the American dream is dead.

She accused the President of creating the southern border crisis then immediately recounted the story of a sex trafficked victim she spoke to in Texas, so that the listener could not lose the connection between Biden’s horrible policies and the rape.

The whole story of the traumatic experience of the victim as told by the senator was a horrific lie.

“I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartel at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped everyday but how many times a day she was raped.” It was graphic and a detailed accounting for a girl of 12 to remember.

“The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoebox of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end. We would not be ok with this happening in a third world country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time that we start acting like one. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.” Horrific! The Biden Administration be damned!

It turned out to be a big lie told by the senator with gusto, fake indignation, and fantastic imagination. The girl was sex trafficked not by the cartels but by a pimp. It happened not in the U.S. but in Mexico. And it happened while George W. Bush was in the White House, 20 odd years ago.

The lie was roundly denounced even by Republicans, but it was too late. The children, probably including Senator Britt’s, had already watched it. They were traumatized by her story: after Trump had left the White House, the evil Democrats let the cartels into the U.S. to set up a shoebox room for a horde of their members to rape a 12-year-old girl “over and over again for hours and hours on end”.

She was passionate about the story. “Over and over again” is not enough “For hours and hours” must be added to describe her outrage.

But it was a lie. And she knew it was a lie because she talked to the victim.

Before the children could recover from their psychological wound, they were struck with another blow, much harder: a parent was lying. Her story was fake, invented and intentionally delivered with the beautiful and sweet smile of a concerned mother.

It would not be hard to imagine the children of a MAGA parent would leave the house in the evening when she came back from work. She would ask where are you going? They would answer a friend’s house. At this hour, she would say. Are you lying to me, she would ask. The children would adopt a Democratic response is it appropriate for you to ask the question? (The question Hunter Biden should have asked “Is it appropriate FOR YOU to ask me that question, Mr. Gaetz?” But he was too self-controlled and laudably non-confrontational to address the question to Mr. Gaetz directly and pointedly. If he did, the MAGA Mr. Gaetz could not have responded “Absolutely” with a straight face.)

That question would naturally pop up in the mind of the children when their parents lied to them. And that would be the real relationship between parents and children in the world of MAGA.

The American people understand the need to save, preserve, and strengthen the Republican Party for the good and stability of the country. But lying blatantly and abandonedly? And publicly supporting those congenital lying politicians?

We have seen a lot of people getting quick fame and even fortune by lying with the MAGA crowd and forget who they are and what they have said. They are politicians, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect the country. How can the Constitution and the country be protected when the very foundation of Democratic America is rotten from within by their deliberate lies. They profess to fight for Christian values and traditions, but do they remember what they are? Do they remember Truth, Goodness, and Beauty? Do they remember the story of little George cutting down his father’s favorite cherry tree?

It is doubtful that individual MAGA Republicans just lie separately and independently. The lies must be part of a well-orchestrated campaign to seize power one way or another including driving the country to chaos and destruction of cherished democratic institutions inspired by Christianity. Non MAGA Republicans need to look beyond their reelection or plum jobs after political life and speak up. One wonders why Republicans with a sense of right or wrong prefer to be passive and silent. The Paul Ryans, the Mick Romneys, the Jeff Flakes seem to have left the fighting arena and left it to the Liz Cheneys, the Cassidy Hutchinsons to fight for the Republic.

Take a very careful look at who would be waving from the White House balcony. If the MAGA Republicans’ wish were fulfilled, we would see in January 2025, a long row of cabinet members, and possibly even Republican members of Congress, raising their right arms slanted upward shouting Heil Leader to pledge their loyalty NOT to the Constitution, Democracy, or the Nation but to the leader, who would be smiling benignly until he shouted to his secret service to arrest a reporter on the lawn for asking a question he did not like. The American Dream, Senator, would definitely turn into a nightmare then.

Once upon a recent past, our beloved Republican leader (I am a Republican) thunderously demanded “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” So eloquent, so right, and so righteous.

President Ronald Reagan stood tall and lifted the country to a lofty height to demand the Berlin Wall be torn down because the wall stood for isolationism, anti-freedom, us-against-them, clannishness, the world being not a community for all but separated into tribes, suspicious and hostile to one another.

The Republican Party, which had vehemently demanded and got the Berlin Wall  torn down, now demanded, even more vehemently, to build a wall on our southern border with Mexico. Forget about the irony, which to the extremist Republicans including some of the once ardent followers of the late president, might just be a word spoken on a planet in a faraway Goldilocks zone that they don’t know what it means. Forget about the moral and ethical ramifications of a wall between people and countries. Forget about the irony and selfishness of those immigrants, children, and grandchildren of immigrants who forcefully and shamelessly advocate their immigration position that “We are in, now close the door.” They load their call for a wall with so much fake patriotism, duties to the country, and duties to protect American values and traditions that crowd out the obvious result of building a wall: everyone would want their walls.

Starting with Mexico. Why would they not build a wall on their southern border? Canadians would want to build a southern border wall too because they were fed up with the American antics. Walls in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, walls between Eastern European countries and Russia, and between Russia and China. Walls between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. Egypt and Turkey would want their own walls. Little Monaco would build walls too because they reasoned, every country has walls, why not us? Everyone has reasons to build walls at their borders.

Then the Kari Lakes of American Republican politics would want Arizona to build a wall on its west border to block woke Californians from going into Arizona. In no time, we would have walls all over the country. The governor of Texas would want a very long wall SURROUNDING itself because he did not want immigrants, or anyone without his approval, to sneak into Texas. Florida would definitely want walls to block not just immigrants but anyone who worked for Disney.

From outer space looking down you would see little boxes like beehive cells covering Earth, suspicious and hostile toward, and isolated from, other cells. In a short time, the Republicans would be so exhilarated because they were not bothered by anybody. But little things would start happening: prices of strawberries doubled; grass in the middle-class lawns two feet high and no one to cut it; swimming pools turning green with algae. Then the lives of the privileged would be affected: limousine services stopped because no driver would be available; yachts moored rusted alongside jetties, going nowhere.

Then, big things: Tesla and other electric cars would become obsolete because cobalt was too scarce for building batteries, and computers could not be built because of insufficient silicon supplies. In their own cell-like countries, people would spill CO2 into space at will. No commerce in any international waterways, only pirates and terrorists. Oil would not flow, and food would stay in one place. Travel would be suicidal.

People armed to their teeth would start looking over their shoulders when they walked out of their cell, always on the alert to unfriendly others. Tired of suspecting everyone all the time, the billionaires would confine themselves inside their fortified mansions. Or waking up from their factories’ floor to find themselves alone with their idle machines, and hear nothing but their own cursing “What the f—k is going on?”

That would be the possible future of the US and the world if somehow, the Republicans, against all reasons, could manage to build an American southern border wall.

Would America then have the shamelessness or temerity to admonish, “World, it is getting ridiculous. Tear down your walls.” Of course, one could imagine the answer – an uproarious laughter.

Everyone certainly wants to hear the rationale for building the wall other than the racist theory of the poisoning of the American blood pushed forth by the extremist elements in the Republican Party and the twisted and demagogic arguments by those who know that building a wall is not right or necessary but clamor for it to be built to ingratiate themselves with the people, who they think could benefit them.

The Republicans’ answer to the argument that a border wall is hideous, counter-productive, and outright harmful, is, “Impeach the Secretary of Homeland Security!”

Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis know very well that the Republican Party will stick with former president Donald Trump because without him and his base, the Party would become a junior party or worse, splinter into two junior parties one formed by the Trumpers and another of rudderless undecisive Republicans who just can’t stand Donald Trump but are powerless to wrest the Party from the Trumpers.

So, they wait, ostentatiously supporting Trump but looking up to Heaven every night to pray, fervently, that he would be convicted or at least disqualified for the presidential run, making them the only two viable Republicans vying for being the Republican presidential nominee.

Is it statesmanship? Could either one of them lead?

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is not worried about former President Donald Trump getting reelected in 2024, saying, “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”  New Jersey ex-Governor Christ Christy does not believe former President Donald Trump would win the Republican primaries. Neither does Nick Mulvaney, his former chief of staff. Mitch Mitchell, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate has had only critical words whenever he has anything to say, and he rarely has anything to say, about the former president. We don’t know if they passively wish the former president not to run or actively work to prevent it from happening, but they represent a segment of the Republican Party that looks somewhere or to somebody else to find their candidate in the upcoming presidential election. Someone such as Governor Ron DeSantis.

The Republican Party has been in a difficult situation with at least two powerful forces pulling in opposite directions: Mr. Trump’s loyal supporters working fiercely against those who don’t want him to be nominated, among many reasons is the fear of losing the election to the Democrats. In the current political climate with the force against Mr. Trump within the party growing, it is a real possibility. Trump’s supporters see it. The Republicans see it and they work feverishly to find a solution, hopefully a winning one.

Some influencers in the party pin their hope on President Biden’s age, and his mental and physical weaknesses. Sean Hannity played that angle by telling California Governor Gavin Newsom with exaggerated concern for the Democratic Party, and the nation, that President Biden is mentally and physically incapable of being the president of the United States. Ironically, he inadvertently polished the governor, who came out of the interview shinier than before. That will contribute to the dynamics of American presidential politics as discussed below.

The solution for the Republicans is right in front of them. They have probably thought about it but still waiting for the horse-trading deals to be completed before they announce it: A Trump-DeSantis ticket. It seems unthinkable and strange. But such a ticket makes a lot of sense in many terms: huge campaign money, no distraction regarding ideology, an enlarged voting base, a presidential candidate looking good on TV and drawing huge crowds at rallies who would compensate for the rough-edged, somewhat unlikeable but young vice-presidential candidate with vast executive experiences and a forceful character. It is not just a promising solution; it might be a winning solution. I have said that Mr. DeSantis’ presidential candidacy did not make sense in this presidential race with Mr. Trump also a candidate. But a DeSantis vice-presidential candidate makes a lot of good sense. Even if the former president’s legal problems prevented him from running, the Republicans should use the same formula.

That possibility is something the Democrats must consider carefully and be prepared for. Loyalty dictates that President Joe Biden will secure the Democratic nomination regardless of his weak knees or feeble mind. But how can Joe Biden beat a formidable Trump-DeSantis ticket? The answer was indirectly provided by Mr. Hannity. Once in a while, Mr. Hannity provides good service to American politics and to Democracy. By putting Gavin Newsom on his show, he gave the governor a vast forum (the Republicans of course watched Fox News, and the Democrats flocked to the show to see how Newson performed) to convince the Democrats that he is the DeSantis antidote. That leads to the obvious slogan: Gavin Newsom for vice president.

A Biden/Newsom ticket is not just food for idle thought or banter at a sushi bar but is worth serious consideration for the Democrats. How to effectively counter the Republicans’ attack on Mr. Biden’s health issues? How to convince the populace that if something happens to the octogenarian president, the nation will be in good hands?

Vice President Kamala Harris has achieved a remarkable political career and leaves a tremendous legacy. But the Democrats must not forget that Mr. Trump got 76 million votes only three years ago. The 2024 election is the ultimate fight in American politics. It will not be a musical chair game where a Republican Bush as president would not steer the country toward a direction drastically different from a Democratic Gore as president. 2024 will see changes much more radical and extreme than what we have seen since 2016 if the Republicans win again. If the Democrats feel they must win the battle, that means the heart and mind of the voters, they cannot afford to go with symbolism. They have to go with substance that requires a Democratic slate that represents stability, steady hand policy-wise, and experience. That is Joe Biden, who needs a young enough and experienced enough vice president who can take over on short notice the helms of the country. That should be Gavin Newsom who has extremely successfully run the largest state of the United States for two terms and possesses a formidable brain, a big heart, and good common sense.

The power that be in the Democratic Party only needs to convince the vice president to spend more time with her family, and in a year or two she would be appointed to the presidency of a university, such as the UC system.

With Trump/DeSantis versus Biden/Newsom, the 2024 presidential election would be a historic political fight. The divide between Republicans and Democrats is so deep and their hatred for each other has risen to unprecedented levels, the 2024 presidential campaign election would be a political Foreman-Lyle slugfest.

But we the people, the American people including politicians of both parties, need to find a silver lining in this political storm. The 2020 election result with the loser garnering 76 million votes, reminded the winners, the Biden-Harris team, that the governed are not just the Democrats or liberals but also the Republicans, mainstream conservatives, and extremists. That meant everyone’s voice should be heard especially when it was vocal and loud. The Biden administration has listened to and adjusted the Democratic Party’s policies, especially with respect to immigration and dealing with China and Iran, and did it smoothly and effectively.

Should the Trump (or another Republican)-DeSantis (or another Republican) ticket win the 2024 election, they should do the same by looking closely at the number of votes going the other way and tempering their racist and discrimination tendency, especially the myopic and dangerous thinking that once they gain power, they can do anything and will do everything to retain and solidify power.

JOHN P. LE PHONG.

 

Lies by people of responsibility, lies everywhere, repeated again and again in public with relish without shame or thought of the consequences.

A candidate who lost an election is determined not to concede for almost two years, claiming voter fraud without proof. She has lost all her lawsuits but continues insisting that she won the election and asked, and is still asking the court to install her as governor of Arizona or order a new election.

A Democrat said this: “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” he continued, adding, “We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.” The paper says nothing about the Chinese being less receptive to the virus. It did not say anything about targeting the virus.

In response to the critics, he twitted that the United States is “developing ethnically targeted bioweapons”. That was what he said on the video, repeating the Russian propaganda that the United States has collected D.N.A. in Ukraine to make bioweapons to target Russians.

What is all this about, spreading false claims and repeating them without any facts to support any of them, even when the facts clearly contradict them?

One way of explaining it is that nowadays, it is the easiest way to make a name for the proclaimer and who knows, to gain a governorship or even a presidency. Much easier than showing competency.

David Weiss, a Republican prosecutor, was appointed by former president Donald Trump to serve as the Delaware U.S. Attorney, who Mr. Trump said shared his vision for making America safe again. Mr. Weiss stated many times, including in letters to Congress he had absolute authority to probe the Hunter Biden affair, no restriction, and no interference from the Department of Justice.

No matter. A Republican congressman went on CNN to declare that David Weiss had sent three letters to Congress in which “he (Weiss) corrected himself each and every time” about his level of authority in the Hunter Biden investigation. He did not, and there was no follow-up letter where Weiss corrected himself.

Lies have become an accepted mode of behavior by mostly the Republicans who resort to them abandonedly and wildly. For those who pursue personal gain, it could be argued that it is not against the law. For the Republicans, their excuse is even loftier to fight to save the party from a political quagmire.

In the time we live in, lies don’t matter, no consequences. We are back to the primal time when everything goes with no distinction between good and bad behaviors, which must be scorned. All the efforts to build a civilized society seem for naught and senseless. Is it acceptable to destroy our hard-earned Democratic institutions and a civilized nation so that they can take power? What happens to the Christian sacred belief in Truth, Goodness, and Beauty? “Say It Ain’t So, Joe” sounds odd.

1. Edward Hoover once wrote that the “purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the Black Panther Party and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge … the Bureau feels … that disruption can be accomplished without facts to back it up.” The Republicans take this wisdom to heart. Their fierceness and rigidity put them at odd with the Christian tenets they vow to follow and protect. In their fight against the Democrats, they are willing to break the rules and norms of a civilized Christian society, ready to discard decency. They have tried to disrupt not just the Democratic Party, but seem inclined to shatter the Democratic Institutions, the country and even the Christian civilization.

If we insist on lying with a straight face and shamelessly in dealing with our fellow Americans, and our fellow human beings, little Jimmy and his generation will learn the lessons and create a new world.

And this will be the world they will live in:

-Teacher: Jimmy, everyone has turned in their homework. Where is yours?

-Jimmy: I have already given it to you.

-Teacher: No, you have not.

-Jimmy: Yes, I have.

-Teacher: Don’t lie to me.

-Jimmy: You have to talk to my father. Dad!

-Jimmy’s father: If my son says he has turned in the paper, his paper has been turned in.

-Teacher: He lies. There is no proof that he has turned it in.

-Father: It doesn’t matter if he lies or not. He said he has turned it in. I say he has turned it in. You must accept it, or you will find yourself in a fight. Jimmy will not give up. I will not give up.

-Jimmy: Yeah, yeah. I will get a congressman to say that you have written three letters saying that you corrected yourself time and again that you did receive my homework. I will get a senator to release an FBI memo containing UNVERIFIED allegations that you received my homework, so the public can see for themselves. I will sue you. I will sue the school. I will sue the Board of Education. I will sue the state. I will see you all in court. I will pursue the suing for years until I get a judge to declare that I have turned in my homework.

 

JOHN P. LE PHONG

Ron DeSantis has bet the house on MAGA. The Trump wave was invincible, clearing all debris on the conservative beach, leaving only the MAGA crowd with its menacing energy about to take control of the U.S. He had prepared himself to inherit the empire, standing behind the leader, faithfully echoing his many positions including the risky ones to say the least. A presidential life lasts at most eight years, and at the end of the expected Trump presidency, he would be still under 50, still in the prime of his life. He could wait – with a plan.

Of course, many have seen the MAGA trend and thus many pretenders emerged. How to be standing apart from other pretenders was the question. Every pretender knew the answer: showing the MAGA world that he or she was as, or even more MAGA than the MAGA leader. But action speaks louder than words. Others could only talk. Mr. DeSantis alone had the incredible luck of being in an exceptional position at the right time to act because he was (and still is) a state governor. And he did not hesitate to prove himself to be dictatorial, uncivilized, (calculatedly) whimsical, and practicing to-your-face (as opposed to the traditionally civilized and gentlemanly American) politics to his political opponents. He charged forward like a hurricane in Florida trying to show that he was more royal than the king himself.

Then, Mr. Trump did not win in 2020. No matter. Mr. DeSantis would plunge forward (he had) because he had to take the MAGA banner and run. He was now the front runner and the heir apparent. The king, still a formidable force in American politics, would back him because he had shown that he was the king’s devoted follower. He could not see how his destiny would not be sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. His plan worked so well and so smoothly.

Until November 2022.

The former president, the MAGA dear leader, announced his candidacy for president of the U.S.A. The news was a bombshell inside the Florida’s Executive Office of the Governor. It was a disaster. In politics, the worst punishment for a politician is being irrelevant. And that’s what he is now that the real deal, the original king of MAGA, is standing in the room.

But Mr. DeSantis must make a choice to protect his political future: he could have openly supported the king and tried to preserve his heir apparent fortune, which is now not a choice anymore because he has declared his own candidacy. So, his only choice is to fight, truly fight for his candidacy, meaning the inevitable attacks against other candidates including the king. That would be very awkward and, truth be told, unwinnable approach with the MAGA crowd. And without the MAGA crowd, his candidacy would make no sense.

Legend has it that the women behind the scenes in the Orient, in China and the Ottoman Empire, had excellent ideas to assist the rulers in governing. Mr. DeSantis may have learned something about that wisdom and may win in the end.

JOHN P. LE PHONG                                                                                                            June 3, 2023

The time for women to lead the country and a woman to claim the presidency of the U.S. is now.

All the capable men, Republicans and Democrats alike, for the last several decades have chosen the good life by pursuing money and sex. When they are exhausted, instead of reading it as a sign nature sends to them telling them to stop, that’s enough, they weirdly resort to chemicals to enhance their performance and get deeper into non-political endeavors. The last several years have revealed the decaying of the sense of patriotic and civic duties in American men. Their political behavior has been unfocused, presenting a danger not just from the outside, the Putins of the world, but also internally such as the January 6 riot.

Look at those billionaires. Many say strange things such as taking back the right of women to vote, betraying a shallow understanding of American politics because they do not care to try to understand it. Others choose not to roll their sleeves to get involved in the running of the country but standing aside playing the wise men once in a while giving occasional advice to people in power in order to have access to power. They let the country run by less than sufficiently competent people or by the people who pursue money by way of politics.

Over the years, the competency of women in politics have been proved. Their brain is as brilliant as men’s, but their emotion is many cuts better, much calmer and much steadier. After sex on a yacht (so many male politicians want to have sex on a yacht) men just don’t want to think. They don’t want to act but because they are in important positions, act they must, but their acts are not guided by clear thinking.

On the Republican side, the choice is almost certain between Florida governor Ron DeSantis and former president Donald Trump. Most of the Republicans probably don’t want the former president to run, not much because he may present a clear and present danger to Democracy and the country, but because they are wearied that he would not be able to win. In 2020, he was riding the crest of political electorate influence, and lost. After years of repeating the tiresome refrain “rigged election”, they would not believe he would win, except for the supporters of the former president whom he himself calls parasites hitching his wagon for fame and profits.

Mr. DeSantis has played the role of an extremist Republican well. He is aggressive, ruthless, and fierce not just politically but personally. That extremism and fierceness may have played well in Florida politics but not in Peoria (I borrow the expression). The term “macho” is still not, politically, an English word nationally, and may put off a lot of voters. Not many people outside of Florida, including Republicans, approve of his arbitrary dissolving the Disney Company’s debt-issuing district, or suspending an elected State Attorney for vocally (not in action) supporting transgender people.

That is how, I surmise, the Democrats look at the Republican 2024 presidential political field.

Then, they look at themselves. What do they find? No male name out there is recognizable, let alone a male potential candidate. But several female names figure prominently.

The first name, naturally, is the vice president, Kamala Harris. The last two years did not do her well. Or more bluntly, she has not done well for herself. One can only guess but doesn’t know for sure whether that is all she is, or a Machiavellian plot behind the scenes pulls her down. She therefore is in a disadvantageous situation.

The second lady is the formidable Hillary Clinton. A lot of Americans especially women still consider her the embodiment of excellence as a woman and as a politician. In 2016, she beat Donald Trump by 2.9 million votes. That is an incredibly large number of voters. In terms of presence in front of the camera, she even beat the popular TV show host and a hovering massive body (Mr. Trump was well aware of it and consciously tried to exploit it) in the debates. So, she can be said first among the three equal potential female candidates.

But there is one big almost insurmountable hurdle that she, and her Democratic supporters, must overcome: the revengeful, efficient, and effective Republicans who have been dead set against seeing her in public life. Unless they could find an antidote, something similar to her husband’s “quick-response” team but more ruthless, the Democrats would probably pass.

That leaves Nancy Pelosi, the grandmotherly twice Speaker of the House, friendly, approachable, no scandal, as familiar with American politics and maneuverings as any politician alive. She has just added some foreign affairs experience to her attributes.

Some may raise the issue of age and health. Female longevity is 82, and male is 76. So, she at 82 years old is as young as the former president and younger than the current president. As to health, everyone can observe that she walks faster and more briskly than both the former president and the president. And more importantly, she has full command of what she is talking about.

Nancy Pelosi for President! It does not sound farfetched. In fact, it sounds desirable.

(You can also read this article on my Facebook)

John P. Le Phong, Esq.

At my very first court appearance in a Los Angeles County Superior Court, I was totally intimidated by my opposing counsel. She was so natural, like fish in water in the courtroom. She was walking about, smiling, and chatting at ease with other lawyers. She was in first-name conversation with the judge’s clerk.

After the lawyers’ routine identification of themselves, the judge said, “What do we have here?” and my opponent jumped the gun, “Your honor, Mr. Le Phong is so wrong …”

I was so nervous shuffling the documents in front of me waiting for her to tell the court what was wrong with my motion that I almost missed what the judge said, “Counsel, I have not made my ruling yet so you can’t say he is wrong. But you can say that you disagree with him or his argument.”

He saved me from my nervousness and enlightened me of the courtroom decorum.

That was in the lowest court in the judicial hierarchy in the U.S. It was a matter of faith for me that the higher up you go, the judges or justices would be more gentlemanly, courteous, benign. The Supreme Court, in my thinking, was the bastion of deliberateness and calm. Their debates were well controlled, their language polished, and their words carefully weighed.

Judges do differ in a lot of issues. The Supreme Court justices are no different. Reading their opinions, majority decisions and the dissents, I always feel awe and marvel at the institution, which has been built, maintained, and preserved to command deep respect from the public. Crude force, uncontrolled emotion, fighting words, discourteous language, were never to get into the justices’ debates. Not even a hint of any of those was detected from their decisions.

I used to hear, and love it very much, “I respectfully disagree” when a judge in a court of appeals or a Justice in the Supreme Court does not like an argument or decision.

So, when Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson called Roe v. Wade “egregiously wrong”, I felt saddened with these chosen words.

Roe v. Wade had been scrutinized, reviewed, critiqued for 50 years by subsequent Supreme Court cases. Again and again, they re-affirmed its decision. In my mind, if Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong”, that means all those cases were egregiously wrong and the Justices who wrote it and those later affirmed it were all egregiously wrong. It should be noted that the Justices who approved Roe included Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the court’s majority opinion of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey re-affirming Roe.

She went to Stanford Law School, a former Republican majority leader of the Arizona Senate, a judge in the superior court and the court of appeals of Arizona, and a Chancellor of The College of William and Mary, a post also held by fellow Republicans Henry Kissinger and Robert Gates. She was one of the most respected SCOTUS Justices (I can’t go through the bios of other Justices who wrote and supported Roe v. Wade over the last fifty years. Rest assured; their credentials were as impressive).

Justice Samuel Alito did not just disagree with Justice O’Connor. In his opinion, she, and her brethren and sistren who supported Roe were not just wrong but “egregiously wrong”. That should bother a lot of people.

Even the chief justice, John Roberts, who joined the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson, did NOT agree with the majority’s decision to overrule Roe. In fact, the State of Mississippi, represented by Thomas E. Dobbs did not even ask the Court to overturn Roe. It only asked the Court to reconsider the bright-line viability rule (when abortion should not be allowed) and stated that a ruling in its favor would not require the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Was Justice Alito arrogant? I don’t know. Is he too political? I am not sure. My guess is he might have been deeply influenced by his Catholic upbringing against abortion, and by the Republican Party’s politics in the last few years. This second part will be essayed below.

In Congress, the work environment was described by a Republican congressman as “toxic”. One Republican called her Democratic colleagues “Jihad squad”. A Republican posted an anime video depicting the killing of another, a Democrat. When he was censured, the Republicans circled the wagon. The discourse is no longer civil but outright uncivil.

The fighting between Republicans and Democrats, always present and healthy, has become bitter and extreme.

The Republicans have harbored deep resentment against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton since the late former president Richard M. Nixon was forced to resign when the impeachment process against him was under way. Hillary Clinton was a staff lawyer hired by the House Judiciary Committee to work on the impeachment. That deep resentment would have died down until her husband, William J. Clinton was elected president of the U.S. and she followed him into the White House, the center of American political power. That was the Muleta waving in front of the Republicans, the lighted cigarette butt thrown in a forest in a dry hot summer. The Republicans started digging and investigating anything connected to her, from the failed Whitewater real estate investment, the Vince Foster’s death, the Benghazi terrorist attack, to her emails.

The Clintons were investigated three times for their alleged involvement in the Whitewater real estate development. The first investigation by federal regulators led to the appointment of special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske who cleared them of any wrongdoing. Regardless, a new special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was appointed to investigate them – again – for the same alleged wrongdoings. For two years, Mr. Starr, a Republican, worked hard to prove that the Clintons were guilty of something in connection with the Whitewater investment. He failed. But he diligently looked around and found a story about an intern in the Clinton White House. Nothing to do with Whitewater but he investigated it anyway that led to the impeachment of the former president for perjury in the intern’s case.

That started a pattern that repeated itself again and again: just hit them hard with serial investigations regardless of whether an investigation had any merit.

The Vince Foster’s suicide was investigated five times including investigations by the same Republicans Kenneth Starr and Robert B. Fisk. They all cleared the Clintons.

The Benghazi terrorist attack was investigated ten times to find if Hillary Clinton, among others, was guilty of a dereliction of duty. The FBI did not find any evidence to support the conclusion that she was. The bi-partisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did not find that she was.

The Republicans ignored both findings. Five of their committees in the House initiated their own investigations and not even one of them could find that she was responsible in any way for the attack or the killing of the consulate staff.

But the Republicans were not done with the Benghazi investigation. A sixth House Select Committee was formed to investigate ad nauseam Benghazi. After two more years of investigation, costing seven million dollars, the committee’s 800-page report did not contain a single thing to help them charge Hillary Clinton with wrongdoing. After Mrs. Clinton testified for eight hours before his committee, a reporter asked Trey Gowdy, the committee’s chairman if he thought she lied, he responded “That’s a word you couldn’t use in a courtroom”. In the culture of Republican politics, it was a resounding “No”.

It should be noted that the person, Hillary Clinton, the Republicans believe to be guilty of something, anything, was willing to come and did come before their committee to testify for eight hours. When their time comes to testify to what they know about the January 6^th riot, they run in any direction but the hearing committee, pleading the Fifth Amendment.

One just wonders whether politics in the U.S. is still a noble call?

The Republicans were not done with Hillary Clinton either. After the FBI announced that its team of career investigators unanimously concluded that no criminal charges were warranted in its investigation of her emails, they issued seventy subpoenas and letters.

Such conduct, even though too excessive, could have been understood as diligent and legitimate work of people’s representatives serving the interest of the people and the national security of the country. But history has other events worth in-depth investigations. If the so-called “Hillary investigations” were juxtaposed with them, it is hard not to see they smacked of petty revenge and retaliation, a stubborn pitbull attack for no reason other than tearing the flesh off its object.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was not investigated that many times. In fact, only one investigative commission was formed, the Warren Commission, to investigate it. During the Trump administration, there were several things, regardless of if they were illegal or criminal, or not, worth investigating. But the Republicans have moved in the opposite direction: they consistently blocked or sabotaged any investigation to get to the bottom of any alleged wrongdoing by the former president or his administration: people’s interest or national security of the country take a hike.

American political debate has degraded to street fighting level, wrestling in the mud. Such words as noble, gentlemanly, civil are no longer applicable. Political discourse has become outright uncivil. The Republican leaders have shouted and led the chant at rallies “lock her up” while they have no more stone to turn and can’t find any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. Lying has become a fad. Accusations are repeated umpteen times without evidence. A pleading “say it ain’t so Joe” sounds quaint. The Cherry Tree is not just a myth but children who can watch TV would think it a ridiculous myth.

The uncivility seems to have been committed exclusively by the Republicans who have directed it even to themselves. Peter Navarro accused his Vice President Mike Pence of treason. Steve Bannon threatened to break his president’s son in law in half.

Is it deliberate?

The Republicans have sowed discord, chaos, and hostility in every political arena including, dangerously, the voting public, a sizable segment of which is still confused by the big lies and intended misinformation.

The fighting language seems to have spread from the Capitol to the building across the street and seeped through the wall of 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC, into the inner sanctum of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The abortion issue is complicated. Both sides of the issue, the women’s right and the right to life, put forth legitimate claims. If the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson said that it did not find any thing clear cut in the Constitution to guarantee a women’s right to abortion, and that the abortion issue should be reserved for each state to decide, and therefore it overruled Roe v. Wade, that would have been understandable even to the abortionists because the fight over abortion was not over and will never be. The abortionists have prevailed for fifty years and should have expected that the anti-abortionists would come back to battle again and probably win. They did win this time because the Court chose to accept their argument.

Judge Alito and the Court’s majority could have just overruled Roe v. Wade and said, “We disagree,” or more desirable,
“We respectfully disagree with Roe v. Wade.”

For the Christian right, it could be satisfying to so declare, but for the Supreme Court Justices (except the Chief Justice) to say Roe v. Wade was “egregiously wrong”, I respectfully, and sadly, disagree.

John P. Le Phong, Esq.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES

(Women Are Mad)

The fate of the Equal Right Amendment is symptomatic of the American women’s struggle to get an equal political footing with men in the U.S.

The campaign to get an amendment to the Constitution, the ERA, to recognize women’s rights as equal to men’s started in 1921. American men no doubt loved their grandmothers, mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. What would be wrong to acknowledge that their rights were the same as theirs? Something must have been wrong because it took 51 years for Congress, which was made up of mostly men, to pass a resolution to approve it. Everyone, at least everyone who favored equal rights for men and women, breathed a sigh of relief: men finally came to their sense. But not for long.

Congress set the deadline for at least three fourths or 38 of the States, to ratify the amendment by 1979. Even though it was supported by the House, the Senate, and three presidents of both parties, the Amendment was ratified by only 35 States by 1977.

Something strange was happening: conservative women did not want it; they did not want to be equal to men. Led by Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative activist who proudly and publicly thanked her husband for PERMITTING her to come to a political gathering, they launched a strong campaign opposing the ERA. Their opposition led to five States revoking their ratification even though many legal experts questioned the States’ power to revoke a constitutional amendment. It has been believed that Schlafly’s strongest argument against the IRA was the draft issue. She successfully convinced women to oppose the ERA for fear of getting drafted into the military, which was of great concern to a lot of women.

As of now, the ERA has not become what would have been the 28^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Men are still in charge and Republican women have dutifully supported, obeyed their men, and enthusiastically sung Tammy Wynette’s chorus “stand by your man”.

But here is the contemporary American political paradox. Since 2016, the Republican men have been on top with sweeping power. And with sweeping power, they have dug a hole, a deep political hole: the imminent loss of women’s support.

The Republican men have not just supported a man uninhibited by moral constraints but behaved as if he is their ideal model of manhood: sleeping with other women while being married to another; lying with a straight face to serve his own interest without regard for the truth but demanding women to be faithful, loyal and truthful; making demands without anything meritorious to show for them except “I want it”; publicly using vulgar and abusive language to talk about women. Women have seen the cowardice of their men who don’t know what is right or wrong anymore but only what is beneficial for them.

Then came the Supreme Court’s decision of Dobbs v. Jackson overturning Roe v. Wade.

It turned out two judges, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh lied without qualm to a U.S. senator from Maine, Susan Collins, so that they could get to be U.S. Supreme Court justices. They told her that they would respect Roe v. Wade precedent, no doubt a precedent highly valued by Senator Collins (or she would not have asked them about it) as it recognized the right of a woman to control her body.

Watching the drama, Republican women would no doubt ask themselves, they have no respect for such accomplished and powerful woman as Susan Collins, how do we expect them to have any respect for us? Are we naïve to the point of trusting that Republican men would not lie to us, our mother, sisters, friends?

They are mad.

Men value their rights, the right to have guns or to play golf on Sunday etc. above all else, and no one can take it from them. But here is the right attached to the women’s own body, their happiness, and their freedom, and the men take upon themselves to debate and decide whether women should have it or not.

Men have sex, unprotected sex, with women all over town without a slightest thought about anything else but their orgasm. But if a woman gets pregnant, men reserve for themselves the right to judge if the woman has or has not the right to carry or not carry their seed.

Republican women got frustrated and felt impotent.

The January 6 saga heightens women’s awareness of the character of Republican men, which has been going downhill. They lie outright or dodge the truth, simple and obvious truth, no longer being ramrod straight standing up against any falsehood or bad behavior, no longer a reliable, good example for their children. So arrogant and macho in public, at the same time stealthily seeking a presidential pardon? What is going on?

Republican women’s concern grows.

Watching Fox News and the women in the Trump administration and around Trump, they worry about another aspect of the current political and social climate. They not only feel shame when their sisters were forced, or worse willing, to lie in public to comply with their men’s demand, but their sisters may have suffered the Stockholm syndrome, blindly obeying their controllers.

They decide to speak up and the House’s January 6 Hearings present an excellent opportunity. They look honest, trustworthy at the witness table. Their testimonies are totally believable. They only state the truth.

But they are savagely attacked by THEIR Republican men, at one time or another their bosses and colleagues, men they loved and obeyed.

They remember another fight, a fight between a Republican woman who ran one of the best and biggest companies on earth and a man who has run everything to the ground including the presidency. The man broke the taboo and ridiculed the woman’s face. And Republican men laughed, applauded, pumped fists and were outright drunk with exhilaration.

A trial balloon has been floating out there in Washington that women should not have been allowed to vote. (The balloon definitely comes out of a sharp Republican brain, not from the lower part of their body that might probably demand secession, that sees the danger of a woman vote when, just like now, women are mad at them).

Is there a choreographed undertaking to abolish the 19^th Amendment? Do Republican men see the women’s vote a potential threat to their dominance in the future and plot to pre-empt the threat while they have a majority of six votes on SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)? Should women trust Justice Amy Barrett to be their ally, or would she just be a Phyllis Schlafly reincarnate, a possible trojan horse sabotaging the women’s causes once again?

There is no doubt that the January 6 Hearings are not the only occasions for the Republican women to speak out. They will speak out again in a more organized fashion. They will be joined by other women to become an effective, and probably decisive voice.

The sign of the times: the era of women’s power and leadership has begun.

JOHN P. LE PHONG, ESQ.

Roe v. Wade is such an important Supreme Court decision that even if it were reversed, it should be a good reading for anyone who is concerned about abortion because the issue is and will be with us for a long time. The case contains an excellent summary of the law throughout civilized societies, and the arguments of both sides of the issue.

Regardless of how the current Supreme Court will decide, completely reversing Roe v. Wade, reversing some parts of it, or in the unlikely scenario affirming it, abortion has given every thinking man and woman a headache and will continue to arouse strong emotion and heated arguments because in this environment of polarization, neither side is ready to compromise.

The Roe v. Wade decision is a tremendous effort to reach a sensible compromise of the two conflicting principles, a moral commandment and women’s rights.

 

For most women, it is unthinkable to abandon their children let alone aborting them. For most people, they would get sick to their stomach thinking that they had done something harmful to a child, any child. And it is not just loving life. We are created with a biological and psychological makeup that we feel mellow and soft in the presence of a child. And life is the emotional thrust of the anti-abortion movement. Their position is that abortion is immoral, equivalent to the termination of life, or more graphically the killing of a child. Their position is therefore straightforward, easy to understand and easy to identify with.

The argument of the abortion right advocates is less emotional but no less valid, because a prohibition of abortion is in fact the taking of a woman’s right, a fundamental right over her own body, and on close scrutiny, her liberty and happiness as well.

The copulation resulting in pregnancy needs two partners, a man and a woman. But pregnancy shines a light on the unfairness against the woman and the tremendous burden imposed on her from the time she is pregnant until, in many cases, the child reaches 18 years of age. She has to endure many hardships including physical discomfort and sicknesses, if her pregnancy and the fetus must be protected. Her male counterpart suffers no such hardship. The college boy just jauntily walks to his class and continues his education fully focused on achieving his dream. The male partner just goes to play golf after sex, nonchalantly whistling without a care in the world. She on the other hand, may have to quit school or her job and lose all hope of a bright future or promotion. The women deeply feel unfair. And they are mad. They are alone making the sacrifice and the people who decide that they make sacrifice are the ones sowing the seeds.

Anti-abortion means demanding that women abandon their rights to control their body and their life. But, if the women insist on such rights, argue the anti-abortionists, they infringe on the life of the fetus.

Faced with such fierce battle seemingly un-compromisable, the Supreme Court stepped in.

 

In Rose v. Wade, the Court did an amazing and thorough review of the history of laws prohibiting abortion, from antiquity to the early American law and found the following:

1. The Roman and Greek eras: their laws afforded little protection to the unborn.
2. Common Law: Common law scholars discussed in depth the question of when life began or the concept of “quickening” that is when the embryo first moves. Christian theology and the canon law, until the 19^th century, fixed it at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female. Under common law, abortion performed before life begins- 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy – was not an indictable offense (not criminal) because the fetus was regarded as a part of the mother therefore its destruction was not homicide.
3. English Statutory Law: English statutes preserved the “quickening” threshold and introduced the exception that abortion of a quickening embryo was not a crime if it was necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman including a serious and permanent threat to the mother’s health. The Abortion Act of 1967 permits abortion, on the conditions that three physicians agree that:

(a) “the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,” or

(b) “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.”

The Act also permits a physician, without the concurrence of others, to terminate a pregnancy where he is of the good-faith opinion that the abortion “is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.”

4. American Law: Until mid-19th century American law followed the English common law. In the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of’ most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950’s, most States banned abortion with the exception, with different wordings in each State, to save or preserve the life of the mother.

The Court noted that at common law and up to the middle of the 19th century in this country, “abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century.”

That means “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion, or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin.”

Why so?  – The answer was the influence of the Hippocratic Oath, the oath taken by medical doctors, and the Christian teachings.

5. The Hippocratic Oath. The Oath states that “I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.” It was written by one man, Hippocrates, and according to Dr. Ludwig Edelstein, the German foremost authority on the Oath, only one school of philosophers, the Pythagoreans stuck to the Oath and opposed abortion of a fetus from inception. Most Greek thinkers, Dr. Eldelstein said, commended abortion at least before viability, or “quickening” (when the pregnant woman feels the movement of the fetus).

Then, the emerging Christian (Catholic) teachings agreed with the Pythagorean doctrine, which made the Oath popular and “became the nucleus of all medical ethics” and “was applauded as the embodiment of truth.”

In Dr. Edelstein’s opinion, it was a “manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct.”

6. The Position of the American Medical Association. The AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion indicated in its report to the Association that it “deplored” abortion calling it a “general demoralization”. That position had great influence on the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation in the late 19th Century.

And the causes of “this general demoralization”? The report found three:

a. The first was a wide-spread popular ignorance, according to the Committee, that the fetus was not alive until after the period of quickening.

b. Second, the (medical) profession was frequently careless of fetal life.

c. The third reason was “the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being”

In 1871, the Association adopted a resolution, recommending legislation to outlaw abortion “without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child if that be possible…”. It called “the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females -aye, and men also, on this important question.”

But the Association took no other action until 1967, when it publicly opposed abortion with the exception of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that the child “may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency,” or that a pregnancy “resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of patient…”

In 1970, a reference committee of the AMA noted the polarization of the medical profession, division of opinions among doctors as well as among AMA councils and committees, the changes in state laws and in judicial decisions that made abortion more freely available. The AMA’s House of Delegates then adopted resolutions emphasizing “the best interests of the patient,” “sound clinical judgment,” and “informed patient consent,” as opposed to “mere acquiescence to the patient’s demand.”

It further recommended that abortion be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consultation with two other physicians, and that no party to the procedure be required to violate personally held moral principles.

7. Then, the Court reviewed the position of the American Public Health Association and its five Standards for Abortion Services.
8. Finally, the Court discussed the position of the American Bar Association and its approval of the Uniform Abortion Act.

 

It was an exhausting examination of not just the history of the abortion laws in the Western civilization but also the emotional and religious aspects of the issue. In such polarized environment, especially in the U.S., like the two faces of a coin inseparably bound by fate but the two sides were unable to see eye to eye, the Court must let the nation know what it thought about the opposite arguments and how it would decide Roe v. Wade, a case by a pregnant woman against Texas claiming its criminal abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The anti-abortionists cited three reasons to justify prohibition of abortion:

a. To discourage illicit sexual conduct.

-The Court noted that this reason was not considered seriously by any other court and commentators.  Texas did not use this argument.

b. The medical procedure used in abortion was dangerous for the woman.

-Modern medical advances had changed the situation. But, the Court noted, the State had a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion would be safe for the woman especially when an abortion would be performed at a late stage of pregnancy.

c. The State’s interest or duty to protect prenatal life.

-It was argued that that a new human life was present from the moment of conception. So, the State was obligated to protect prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail.

The pro-abortion advocates strongly disputed this contention that anti-abortion laws were to protect prenatal life, because there was no legislative history to support it. They pointed out that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. Furthermore, they argued, the adoption of the “quickening” distinction “tacitly recognizes the greater health hazards inherent in late abortion and impliedly repudiates the theory that life begins at conception”.

 

In the midst of such fierce debate, Roe, the pregnant woman Plaintiff in this case, brought forth a remarkable argument in her lawsuit against Texas that its laws prohibiting abortion except when the mother’s health was at risk, were unconstitutional. In other words, she asserted that her right to abortion was protected by the Constitution.

The case landed in the Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case and must now decide if she was right. But the task of the Court was much more than answering with a simple yes or no. Because of the charged political climate and the high emotion involved in the issue of abortion, it was difficult for the Court to take side. And each side expected a total vindication.

As a matter of case laws, the Court recognized that a right of personal privacy encompassing the right of a woman to decide if she wanted an abortion, did exist under the Constitution, either in the Fourteenth Amendment or the Ninth Amendment. It was the law.

But here was the problem: The issue of abortion was such a heated issue that both sides were fierce, emotional, uncompromising, and willing to resort to violence.

The abortionists adamantly maintained that a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion could not be interfered by the State. The anti-abortionists represented by Texas were no less adamant in pulling the other way that the State had a compelling interest to protect the health of the mother and the prenatal life from and after conception, because, according to Texas, life began at conception and was present throughout pregnancy.

Each side wanted the whole enchilada.

The Court’s solution was to give a little to each side.

It rejected the abortionists’ argument, stating that the right of abortion decision was not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.  “It is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.”

The Court also rejected Texas’ position because regulation limiting “fundamental rights” (including right to abortion decision) might be justified only by a “compelling state interest,” and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.

That ruling of “narrowly drawn” centered on the most sensitive and crucial issue of when the State’s interest became “compelling”, that is when a fetus became viable or a “person”.

After noting that the Constitution did not define a fetus as a “person”, the Court went through several theories on “viability” that varied widely from Aristotle’s theory of “mediate animation” (a male fetus obtained a soul – ensoulment – after 40 days, a female after 90 days) to the position of the Catholic Church, which is now its official position, that life began at conception, the Court made two determinations:

a. Viability was when a fetus could survive on its own outside a woman’s body after 28 weeks, or earlier 24 weeks with the help of medical technology.

b. The “compelling point” (based on “the now established medical facts”) was the end of the first trimester.

And the Court ruled as follows:

a. After the compelling point, “a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health”.

b. Before this “compelling” point, “the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.”

c. “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life (life of a fetus), the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.” “If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

One could not help empathizing with the Court’s incredibly difficult situation and reluctance to come down on one side or the other. The case was not purely legal but heavily involved or dominated, by emotion and political pressure. One side wanted to protect life, the other, especially women, fought hard for their right of privacy, the right to absolute control of their body. It was a tug of war, a deeply emotional war.

For an issue such as the women’s right to vote, it would be easy for the Court to come out and announce the winner or Congress to vote yes (it did vote yes to pass the 19th Amendment).  But Roe v. Wade was not that simple. So, the Court’s decision was obviously a compromise, a sensible political compromise.

Because both sides were equally unyielding in their conviction and fierce in their tactic, no compromise would be possible, and the fight was bound to move back and forth. The abortionists seemed to have won with Roe v. Wade. Sooner or later, the issue would come to the fore again. This time, in the year 2022, the anti-abortionists may have their winning chance with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.