I’m really juiced by the recent Dobbs v. Jackson decision by SCOTUS.

I am a 70 year old male, so I have no direct skin in this game, yet I feel as though my rights have been trampled, along with the rights of my family members, my friends and my neighbors.

The First Amendment protects each U.S. resident – even me — from the whims, passions, and/or tyranny of a few.

It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson[i], rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, is an egregious example of horrible judicial judgment, likely resulting from an apparent violation of our First Amendment.

The census of 2020 reveals an America much different from 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and when our enumerated U.S. population was >3 Million people residing in 13 states (colonies).

Today, we have fifty states hosting a population of >329 Million people.

Many Americans today seem to believe that our nation was established under a Christian doctrine—that we are a “Christian nation” and that we should operate accordingly.

Yet, it seems quite clear today that the founding fathers were prescient in their observation(s) about religion.

The collective wisdom of our founding fathers likely derives from their disparate – yet harmonious – spiritual beliefs. Some of our founding fathers — Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe and others — practiced a faith called Deism, a philosophical belief that human reason is a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists generally believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate by natural laws.  This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating Church and State from encroaching on each other.

The evidence is abundant:  Our founders were adamant that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government, and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance. They had no intent to found our nation according to Christian doctrines, yet it seems quite clear that this exclusion was not intended to devalue the importance of the Christian religion itself.

Christianity – in many iterations — continues to thrive in America, as does Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, and dozens of other religions. And, according to our 2020 Census, about 25% of Americans affiliate with no religion at all.

I’ve read and heard reports from some media sources that no honest religion could permit or encourage the termination of a pregnancy, leading me to believe that the continuing evolution of religious practice and belief in America may have been missed or ignored by some media sources.

A few media sources seem to assume that members of all religions endorse the views of a small minority of ultra-conservative Christians who are fixated on a theory that life begins at conception, rendering abortion akin to murder.  But this isn’t the consensus of all Christians, and very few Jewish or Muslim congregants share this belief. A majority of leaders within all three religions affirm the ethics of abortion in controlled and objective situations.

In fact, Jewish law requires abortion in some situations, most consistently in cases where a pregnancy endangers the life of the person carrying the embryo.

Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs III, the man whose name became synonymous with the Supreme Court decision to let states ban abortions, had virtually nothing to do with the landmark case.

Ironically, the case began in 2018 when the Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed a lawsuit against the State of Mississippi challenging a state law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy[ii]. The original lawsuit named the Mississippi state health officer as a defendant, and at the time the lawsuit was filed, that health officer was Dr. Mary Currier.

When Dr. Currier retired in late 2018 after 34 years of service, she was replaced by Dr. Dobbs, who then became the Mississippi state health officer, and the individual in charge of regulating the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Dobbs himself has distanced himself from the case.  He is an infectious diseases physician, working at the intersection of public health and patient care, with specific expertise in HIV, tuberculosis and health equity.

Alliance Defending Freedom {ADF} [EIN 54-1660459] is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization based in Scottsdale, AZ which was instrumental in defending the Dobbs case, leading to the overturn of Roe V. Wade.  ADF primarily is a well-funded legal organization with annual revenues of $65 Million, and net assets of $42 Million, employing 319 individuals, 69 of whom earn in excess of $100,000.

  • According to a 2020 analysis from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ADF was “Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right (as) a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.”
  • Apparently, the ADF has now expanded its focus to help support several other ultra-conservative Christian positions.

Whenever people bring their personal religious beliefs or values into any public debate, they risk imposing illegal, unwanted or restrictive religious practices and beliefs on others who have been granted the Constitutional right to pursue their own — perhaps different — beliefs.

The great majority of published public opinions opposed to open unrestricted access to comprehensive reproductive health care over the past 4 decades — including both contraception and abortion — center on personal ethical, moral or religious issues, with the loudest voices opposing open access emanating from a small minority of predominantly college educated white evangelical Christians.

Facts confirm that restrictions imposed on open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services have disproportionate adverse economic impact — and direct deprivation of human rights — on:

  • Young women (<25 years of age);
  • Low-income women; and
  • Women of color.

These are socially and economically disadvantaged women, frequently members of a protected class.

The longitudinal negative social and economic impacts on women who are denied access to a voluntary abortion — and onto the children who are born as a result — are devastating. The spillover of these social and economic impacts into our larger society is chilling.

I’ve read the U.S. Constitution several times.  Each time, I have seen clear evidence that our Founders intended to follow the core foundations of our Declaration of Independence: Ensuring equal rights and equal treatment to all individuals regardless of their address or other socio-economic variables.

Somehow, the current Religious Right – enabled by this tax exempt entity known as Alliance Defending Freedom together with other undisclosed dark money sources — has bamboozled the U.S. Supreme Court, allowing a small but very vocal minority to impose their religious morality on the rights of all women residents in the U.S., depriving them of unfettered access to comprehensive reproductive health care, regardless of current residency; education; economic status; age; disability; religion; national origin; pregnancy; race/color; sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

I believe – as a nation and as a society — we can and should do better.

The Judge Alito opinion in this case is flawed, and the consenting opinions of Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett must be recognized as religiously and politically tainted.


[ii] The fight against a woman’s right to choose continues to be highly political. The Gestational Age Act is a Mississippi law that purports to ‘protect unborn children, the health of pregnant mothers, and the integrity of the medical profession by protecting life after 15 weeks in gestational age’. The Act apparently was inspired by false prophets and funded by dark money contributions from Christian Nationalist sources.  The 15-week marker has no footing in scientific research, yet it tends to evoke a highly emotional response among skeptics. The highly regarded American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to maintain its position that “Safe and legal abortion is a necessary component of woman’s healthcare; is one of the safest medical procedures, 14 times safer to the patient than undergoing childbirth.”


[i] The full name of the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade is “Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al.

First Amendment Rights

June 26, 2022

Hey, SCOTUS!

You just imposed the religious will of a small group of Fundamentalist Christians onto our entire nation.

Did you not know the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all?

The Supreme Court of the United States is currently embroiled in one of the most divisive cases of the 21st century.

I offer some comments to them.

REF:    Docket No. 19-1392:  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Honorable Justices:

I’m a retired man of European ancestry who has enjoyed a great life in America. I was raised in a family which celebrated equal rights among women and men; valued the importance of education; encouraged everyone to work to their potential; and gave our neighbors an opportunity to live their lives to the fullest.

I have lived in 3 states, and I’ve always thought that one of the great benefits to all who are residents of the United States is the breadth and depth of the 10th Amendment, which strives to ensure equal rights to all U.S. residents regardless of which state they were born in, or where they currently reside.

That said, I am extremely alarmed and disappointed by recent media reports which indicate a high potential for The Court to negate the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision (410 U.S. 113), in addition to reversing a subsequent and related decision from 1992 — Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833).

A variety of research surveys over time have found that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. When religion has been included in the demographics of survey participants, the vast majority of white evangelical Protestants say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

The 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Whenever people bring their personal religious beliefs or values into any public debate, they risk imposing illegal, unwanted or restrictive religious practices and beliefs on others who have been granted the Constitutional right to pursue their own — perhaps different — beliefs.

The great majority of published public opinions opposed to open unrestricted access to comprehensive reproductive health care over the past 4 decades — including both contraception and abortion — center on personal ethical, moral or religious issues, with the loudest voices opposing open access generally emanating from a small minority of predominantly college educated white evangelical Christians, an economically privileged cohort.

Restrictions imposed on open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services have disproportionate adverse economic impact on — and directly deprive basic human rights to — young women; low-income women; and women of color. These are socially and economically disadvantaged women, frequently members of a protected class.

The longitudinal negative social and economic impacts on women who are denied access to a voluntary abortion — and to the children who are born as a result — are often devastating. The spillover of these social and economic impacts into our larger society is chilling.

I urge you to reject the religious, ethical and moral arguments embedded into the Dobbs case, and to instead codify the right of all women residents of the U.S. to unfettered access to comprehensive reproductive health care, regardless of current residency; education; economic status; age; disability; religion; national origin; pregnancy; race/color; sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

Sadism in Tallahassee

March 5, 2022

Elected Officials Running Amok

Today, Florida is the third most populous state in the U.S.:   21.5 Million and growing.

Florida has an elected, part-time legislature that seems to evoke the historic governance needs back when Florida had a post-WWII population of 2.5 Million.

How can it be that a particularly malignant cabal of ignorant, callous and wicked creatures was elected to state office in Florida in 2021?

Satan apparently had a mission for them:  Enact atrocious legislation to further torment Florida residents who are poor and/or downtrodden.

The Florida Legislature meets in session every year for sixty consecutive days. That’s it.

In contrast, Tennessee has a population of about 7 Million, with an elected legislature that meets for 90 session days over a two-year period.

Arkansas, with a population of 3 Million, closely mirrors the Florida model, except it has a much broader scope of representation per capita.

The Florida Legislature managed to propose and pass a number of specious bills during their 2022 Reign of Error.

One of the most egregious bills passed by the Florida Legislature in its 2022 session – known as CS/HB 5: “Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality” – is a clever ruse orchestrated by hard-core religious zealots which will primarily have adverse impact on socially and economically disadvantaged women, generally members of a protected class.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, so it seems clear he is aware of the focus Harvard Law has placed on Reproductive Rights.  Through his legal education, he has been exposed to a deep and intimate knowledge of Disparate Impact, the legal theory which helps to examine the effects of laws or practices which appear on the surface to be nondiscriminatory, but which have in practice a disproportionately negative effect on members of legally protected groups.

Certainly Gov. DeSantis is entitled to embrace his own personal values, beliefs and opinions.  But, he is not entitled to use his position as an elected official to impose his personal values on the people of Florida.

We would expect that if CS/HB 5 <or a similar bill> should come to him for approval, he would veto it.

Yet, as of this writing, media sources predict that Gov. DeSantis will sign the bill into law.

It’s no secret that open access to comprehensive reproductive rights – including birth control and abortion – has evolved into an extremely acrimonious and hostile issue across American society.

The 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  When people bring their personal religious beliefs or values into any public debate, they risk imposing unwanted or restrictive religious practices and beliefs on others who have the right to pursue their own – but different — beliefs or practices.

I have no interest in debating religious or cultural positions on contraception or abortion.  My interest is to encourage a deep look into how and when restricting open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services becomes an economic and human rights issue. When a small group of people — highly committed to their own religious beliefs – engages in persecution of others who do not share their religious beliefs and practices, that results in a violation of the 1st amendment, each and every time.

A recent Pew Research survey found that the majority of Americans (61%) say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. When religion is included in the demographics of survey participants, 77% of white evangelical Protestants say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Recent Gallup polling found similar results.

In fact, the loudest voices opposing abortion and open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services in the U.S. seem to come from a +/- 20% minority comprised of predominantly college educated white evangelical Christians.

Yet, the vast majority of people who are adversely impacted by rules, laws or practices which restrict access to the full range of reproductive health care services are socially and economically disadvantaged women, almost always members of a protected class.

The longitudinal negative social and economic impacts on women who are denied access to a voluntary abortion — and the children who are born as a result — are devastating. The spillover of these social and economic impacts into the larger society is chilling.

I’m truly surprised that the current debate on open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services remains centered on religious grounds, when in fact, citizens of the United States have an ironclad guaranty in the U.S. Constitution to freedom from religious persecution.

The Florida bill which would severely impact the ability of women to make personal choices about their own reproductive health (known as HB5) passed its first House committee hearing on January 19, 2022, and it is now heading to new committees for further discussion.  (The companion bill in the Florida Senate is SB-146).  Among other things, the bill will place severe restrictions on women’s access to abortions in Florida.

Florida Representative Fentrice Driskell (D-Tampa) perhaps said it best, “This bill is terrible for all Floridians, particularly for those who are low-income, live in rural areas, or are people of color who have historically faced inequitable access to quality healthcare, or low-income people who cannot afford to travel out of state for a safe abortion. It is not the government’s place to interfere with one of the toughest decisions a person will ever make. That private decision is one of faith, healthcare, personal freedom, and protecting the emotional and physical future of women and their families. Tallahassee politicians should not be involved.”

Kudos to Rep. Driskell for speaking out clearly and eloquently on basic human rights.

HB 5 will be presented in the Florida House ‘Professions & Public Health Subcommittee’ on January 19, 2022.

This proposed bill has a very clever title.

The real purpose of the bill is to codify into Florida law, “A physician may not perform a termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 15 weeks.”

HB 5 is a direct affront on the rights of all women to make personal decisions relative to their own lives.

Whenever arbitrary restrictions are imposed on open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services, the actual outcomes have disproportionate adverse economic impact — and direct deprivation of human rights — on young women; low-income women; and women of color.

These are socially and economically disadvantaged women, almost always members of a protected class.

The great majority of published public opinions opposing open and unrestricted access to comprehensive reproductive health care over the past 4 decades – including both contraception and abortion – center on personal ethical, moral or religious values.

Nationally, the loudest voices opposing open access to comprehensive reproductive health care services come from a small minority of predominantly college educated white evangelical Christians.

When people bring their personal religious beliefs or values into any public debate, they risk imposing illegal, unwanted or restrictive religious practices and beliefs on others who have been granted the Constitutional right to pursue their own – perhaps significantly different – beliefs.

I am aware of no rational person who considers abortion to be a primary means of family planning or birth control. Abortion is a last resort, a means to be employed only when all other options have failed.

I’m hopeful that you will reach a conclusion similar to mine on this Bill:  Florida’s government should focus on supporting our residents and improving health care, not taking away their rights, especially rights that can materially impact their health, livelihoods, and futures.

I encourage you to join me in asking members of the Florida Legislature to carefully and objectively examine the broad implications of HB 5 prior to taking a position on the Bill.