human rights Marjorie Cohn Roe V. Wade Supreme Court

Self-Determination Wrenched from Half US Population

There is no reason, in fact or in law, to erase the constitutional right to abortion.
People embrace during a candlelight vigil in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to denounce the court’s decision to end federal abortion rights protections on June 26, 2022, in Washington, D.C. BRANDON BELL / GETTY IMAGES

By Marjorie Cohn / Truthout

For the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court has retracted a fundamental constitutional right. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of five right-wing zealots on the court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They held that “procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.”

Since the day Roe v. Wade was decided nearly 50 years ago, its opponents have executed a methodical campaign to overturn it. There is no reason, in fact or in law, to erase the constitutional right to abortion. The Constitution still protects abortion, and there have been no factual changes since 1973 that would support abolishing it. The only thing that has changed is the composition of the court. It is now packed with radical Christian fanatics who have no qualms about imposing their religious beliefs on the bodies of women and trans people, notwithstanding the Constitution’s unequivocal separation of church and state.

Alito was joined by Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett in stripping protection of the right to self-determination from half the country’s population.

In their collective dissent, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said the majority “has wrenched this choice from women and given it to the States.” They wrote that the court is “rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes for the first time in history.”

Noting, “After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had,” the dissenters conclude: “With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.”

During the December oral argument, Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern about how the Supreme Court would “survive the stench” of the overtly ideological overruling of Roe. It will show, she said, that the Court’s rulings are “just political acts.”

By overturning Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court’s majority confirmed the significance of Sotomayor’s query. While purporting to shift the restriction or abolition of abortion to the states, the court has engaged in a political act. It delegated the fate of a right that had been moored in the Constitution to the political process.

“This conservative court defers to the political process when it agrees with its results,” Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “but the deference vanishes when the conservative justices dislike the states laws.”

As Chemerinsky notes, “there was no deference to the political process earlier this week when the conservatives on the court declared unconstitutional a New York law limiting concealed weapons that had been on the books since 1911 or struck down a Maine law that limited financial aid to religious schools.”

Brett Kavanaugh insisted in his concurrence that the Constitution is “neither pro-life nor pro-choice.” Arguing that it is “neutral” on abortion, he claimed that the issue should be left to the states and “the democratic process.” But partisan gerrymandering and the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act to the detriment of Democrats and people of color belie the court’s purportedly “democratic” and “neutral” delegation of abortion to the states.

The court held in Roe that abortion was a “fundamental right” for a woman’s “life and future.” It said that states could not ban abortion until after viability (when a fetus is able to survive outside the womb), which generally occurs around 23 weeks. Nineteen years later, the court reaffirmed the “essential holding” of Roe in Casey, saying that states could only place restrictions on abortions if they don’t impose an “undue burden” on the right to a pre-viability abortion.

Alito wrote in Dobbs that since abortion is no longer a fundamental constitutional right, restrictions on it will be judged under the most lenient standard of review — the “rational basis” test. That means a law banning or restricting abortion will be upheld if there is a “rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.” 

At issue in Dobbs was Mississippi’s 2018 Gestational Age Act, which outlaws nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, well before viability. The law contains exceptions for medical emergencies and cases of “severe fetal abnormality,” but no exception for rape or incest. 

The majority said that Mississippi’s interest in “protecting the life of the unborn” and preventing the “barbaric practice” of dilation and evacuation satisfied the rational basis test so its law would be upheld. The court accepts the notion of protecting “fetal life” but nowhere mentions what the dissenters call “the life-altering consequences” of reversing Roe and Casey.

In both Roe and Casey, the court grounded the right to abortion in the liberty section of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that states shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The court in Roe relied on several precedents saying that the right of personal liberty prohibits the government from interfering with personal decisions about contraception, marriage, procreation, family relationships, child-rearing and children’s education.

The Dobbs majority said the Constitution contains no reference to abortion and no constitutional provision implicitly protects it. In order to be protected by the Due Process Clause, a right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” According to the majority, there is no liberty interest because the law didn’t protect the right to abortion in the 19th century.

To his credit, John Roberts did not vote to overturn Roe and Casey, writing that the majority’s “dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.” Mindful of the threat this “serious jolt to the legal system” will pose to the legitimacy of the Roberts Court, the chief justice sought to split the baby, so to speak. He discarded the viability test and upheld the Mississippi law, leaving the issue of the constitutionality of abortion to a future case. Purporting to be a supporter of abortion rights, Roberts said women in Mississippi could choose to have an abortion before 15 weeks of pregnancy.

In order to justify their rejection of stare decisis (respect for the court’s precedent) to which the members in the majority had pledged fealty during their confirmation hearings, Alito wrote that Roe was “egregiously wrong.” He and the others in the majority had the nerve to compare abortion to racial segregation, drawing an analogy between the court’s overruling of Roe and its rejection of Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education.

Nearly half the states have laws banning or severely restricting abortion. Almost one in five pregnancies (not counting miscarriages) end in abortion, which is one of the most frequent medical procedures performed today. Twenty-five percent of American women will end a pregnancy in their lifetime. Now that Roe has been overturned, it is estimated that 36 million women and others who can become pregnant will be denied the fundamental right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy.

The dissenters observed that under laws in some states (like Mississippi) that don’t offer exceptions for victims of rape or incest, “a woman will have to bear her rapist’s child or a young girl her father’s — no matter if doing so will destroy her life.”

Alito wrote, “The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

But the dissenters were not convinced. “No one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” they warned. The dissent noted that the right to abortion enshrined in Roe is “part of the same constitutional fabric” as the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage and intimacy. “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

Thomas didn’t pull any punches in his concurrence. He said that the court “should reconsider” other precedents based on substantive due process, including Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to contraception), Lawrence v. Texas (the right to same-sex sexual conduct) and Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same-sex marriage). 

In Alito’s draft opinion, which was leaked to Politico in May, he wrote that the rights protected by Lawrence and Obergefell are not “deeply rooted in history.” But the final majority opinion didn’t go that far. Kavanaugh would not have signed onto it. He wrote in his concurrence, “Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of [GriswoldObergefellLoving v. Virginia (right to interracial marriage)], and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

The dissenters frame the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationruling as a gross attack on the right to self-determination: “The Court’s precedents about bodily autonomy, sexual and familial relations, and procreation are all interwoven — all part of the fabric of our constitutional law, and because that is so, of our lives. Especially women’s lives, where they safeguard a right to self-determination.”

It is that right to self-determination that the five ultraconservative members of the court have wrenched away from half of the people in the United States.

Marjorie Cohn

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio.


  1. I support abortion rights, but this disingenuous. Where were you when the Biden government was ignoring the self-determination and bodily autonomy of those who did not want to take an experimental medical procedure? Where were you when people were losing their jobs because they refused it?

    1. @Linda Hagge
      I agree. It’s totally hypocritical, or at least self-conflicting, to claim that you support a person’s bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to forcing or coercing them to have drugs injected into their bodies. But guess what? The large majority of people are hypocritical on this issue. That’s what idiotic tribalism is: people identify with Blue or Red, and mindlessly stake out their positions based on that alone.

      1. Don’t see the connection. Government is not forcing any woman to have an abortion.

        And I bet your parents all got you your MMR, DPT and other shots.

        So much for America coming together for the common good.

        1,000,000 dead, mostly 65+, probably your parents age.

        Way to go.

      2. Yikes. America coming together for the “common” good? Get real, and, yep, my body, my self, and if only, if only we had real debates about experimental vax X and experimental drug y, and, shoot, all those experimental economic prescription, and, well, coming together with supporting Nazi Regime X, or Fascist Regime Y, and that water, man, that Flint water, and lead, and, darn, judge X says, yes, there was a crime, but then, DA Y can’t muster enough, so Supreme Courty Z, says, no, Rick Scott and the others are not liable for the prescriptions they doled out that killed people, and are killing people through Death by Ten Thousand Cuts.

        A million dead, and then, what, how much money went into “the system,” from private hospitals, to the billionaire class, to the Big Pharma and Little Big Man Pharma, and all the tangential X and Y companies and app and middle men and middle women who made off like bandits.

        Oh, that coming together, AmeriKKKa. And, so, that open debate, shut down, with a million other people with so much more to say than the, well, Follow My Science X and Y crew.

        And, how many shots do those babies get, and by the time they are 10 years of age, how many total? No look deep at that concept, that other side of the coin.

      3. I see you dodged the question. Did you and your children get your childhood disease shots?

        I’ll bet you and they did.

        Prior to vaccinations the infection rate of chicken pox and measles was about equal to the birth rate in America. It was a very uncomfortable disease but death rates were low but everyone got it.

        Vaccinations have virtually eradicated both diseases in America. When I was a kid, I don’t remember any of this “my body, my freedom” ideology going on. My parents thought it just made sense and is now mandatory for school attendance and I hear hardly any objections to it.

        Was there any greater medical discovery than the polio vaccines?

        I’ll bet you and your kids got that one too.

        So, we had a disease that killed 1,000,000 Americans but quickly developed a vaccination and medicines that could prevent almost all of those deaths.

        75% of those deaths were people over 65. Your parents, grandparents, maybe even your self who worked all their lives to give us a better life.

        And the answer of some? “Screw you, I don’t care how transmissible the disease is. I have a freedom to get sick and transmit it to you and I don’t care if you do die.”

        I guess there is a lot about a lot I don’t understand……… including people who spell America with a K.

      4. Oh, those drug dealers, and now, another AmeriKKKan, citing bunk. It’s difficult to get someone like you to see that your stats are, well, bs: Yet, more stats, for you to chew on.

        The latest data from the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System shows a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines. This includes 23,149 deaths and 183,311 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022. Vaccine makers including Pfizer cannot be held liable for injuries and deaths following vaccination with EUA vaccines.

        The letter to VRBPAC and health officials, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky and acting FDA Director Janet Woodcock, points out the following:

        A large study conducted in Germany showed zero deaths for children under 5 and a case fatality rate of three out of a million in children without comorbidities.

        A Johns Hopkins study monitoring 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID showed a zero mortality rate in children under 18 without comorbidities.

        A study in Nature demonstrated that children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death.

        Data from England and Wales, published by the UK Office of National Statistics on January 17, 2022, revealed that throughout 2020 and 2021, only one child under the age of 5, without comorbidities, died from COVID in the two countries, whose total population is 60 million.

        Another study in Nature from April, suggests children’s bodies clear the virus more easily than adults.

        A study published in December in Nature demonstrated how children efficiently mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses to COVID.

        The general public should contact VRBPAC and public health officials with their concerns on granting EUA status for COVID vaccines targeting infants and young children.

        “If the vaccine does attain EUA status, it will be an important milestone on the pharmaceutical industry’s path to the ultimate goal of getting COVID shots on the federally-recommended childhood schedule,” said Holland. “This will then ensure immunity from liability for injuries and deaths in perpetuity to manufacturers and healthcare providers. Our children deserve better.”

      5. I’m not sure I understand this response to a comment I made but I do notice that many people who post on this site don’t really respond to an argument under discussion or facts cited.

        Instead they claim you are parroting a line or are brainwashed or are an AmeriKKKan. I don’t know what an AmeriKKKan is.

        Anyway, my point is simple. 750,000 senior citizens, to whom we all owe a debt, died from Covid. Many would had lived had others masked more frequently and gotten vaccinated in greater numbers.

        A substantial segment of America decided to put these, indeed all other Americans at risk because they had a freedom not to wear a mask and not take a safe vaccine that would have also protected themselves.

        VAERS reports do not determine a causal connection between a vaccine and an adverse event. I’m sure you know that.

        There are deaths caused by the administration of every medicine and medical procedure. However, deaths that can be determined to have been caused by the Covid 19 vaccines are virtually statistically non-existent.

        I remember reading of a woman who around Christmas took her husband, age 55, to the hospital with Covid and then 8 days later took her 30 year old son, also with Covid.

        She had been vaccinated they had not. Sadly, she never saw them again. Unfortunately there are hundreds of stories like this.

        Yes, I guess freedom is not free.

      6. @ WDD:

        No, the government isn’t “forcing” women to get an abortion. Anti-abortion states will be FORCING them to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, and care for and be responsible for a child until the age of 18. None of these things is risk-free. And for poor women who already have children to support, the burden of having additional children to support will be enormous.

        Similarly, the government isn’t “forcing” people to take the Covid shots. But they want to FORCE them to choose between refusing the shots and keeping their jobs, being able to travel freely, go to concerts and restaurants, keep their children in school (preferably without the ludicrous face diapers), and participate in the social life of their communities.

        Most of the million people in the US who lost their lives to, from, or with Covid (a number that is debatable, given the CDC’s propensity to fudge the numbers to stoke the fear-porn and increase vaccine uptake) might have been saved if they’d had aggressive, early at home treatment, avoiding the hospitals and ventilators and infusions of Remdesivir which were death traps.

        Ironically, the anti-abortion folk would claim that banning abortion would save millions of “babies,” though of course at 6 weeks of pregnancy, the embryo is pea-sized and hardly a “baby.” The woman who seeks an abortion, on the other hand, is a living, breathing, sentient being whose life is being thrown into turmoil, with doors of opportunity closing all around her.

        My body, my choice? Sorry, but anybody who doesn’t see “a connection” or glaring parallels here is a hypocrite.

        This is not about the common good, and never was. It’s about control.

      7. I see your point but the analogy between “no abortions allowed” and “you must take shots” is too attenuated and lacks proportionality in my judgment.

        I don’t disagree with your maternal rights positions. Everything about Dobbs and all its implications are bad.

        But as for Covid vaccines, they have been proven to be successful and safe, by any commonly used medical and scientific metric, beyond any doubt.

        I just don’t see how the Covid example does not squarely fall into the measles mumps, rubella, polio example. Shots by all for all. Nearly universally accepted. What was so different about taking A Covid vaccine.

        I suppose if they invented a vaccine to protect against cancers and heart attacks some significant proportion of society would refuse. But the mandatory Covid vaccine requirement always rested in its communicability.

        Finally, your criticism of DOH, FDA and CDC regarding their failures, and there were some, Don’t forget Trumps leading Covid adviser Dr. Scott Atlas, a radiologist if I’m not mistaken. He downplayed vaccines and argued for herd immunity. Predicted deaths would probably not top 10,000.

        Sadly, the wealthiest nation earth had such a dismal response to such a deadly disease.

        Atlas was off by over 990,000 and counting.

        Please send evidence the CDC numbers were forged. Not in error or mistaken, forged. Didn’t all their numbers come from the States? How about JohnsHopkins numbers, forged too?

      8. @ WDD

        There’s a lot here to unpack.

        I don’t believe I said forged. I said fudged. [To evade the truth, to elide or misrepresent something, to be unclear or ambiguous in order to achieve a certain outcome or allow a certain impression?]

        So it’s the attribution of “Covid” to deaths according to particular criteria that skewed things. What this means is that anybody in hospital who dies from any cause, and may incidentally have tested positive with those lousy PCR tests, is counted as a Covid death, thereby amplifying the horror story and mass hysteria — even if someone dies following a car crash or gunshot wound. I’m pretty sure the states were following CDC guidelines in defining and reporting “Covid deaths”.

        The problem is that part of the federal response was to shower hospitals with funds when they started losing business as a result of the lockdowns and deferrals of elective procedures. The way they were remunerated had the possibly unintended consequence of incentivizing hospitals to increase “Covid” admissions, Covid treatments, with additional payments for using mechanical ventilation and, after being granted EUA, handsome payments for the preferential use of the drug Remdesivir to the exclusion of any others with comparable effects and better safety profiles, regardless of what clinical care physicians might want to try.

        If the bureaucrats in the corner office could issue directives on what could or could not be given to a patient, this was completely counter to the idea that the physician at the bedside is best placed to prescribe appropriate therapies for HIS or HER patient. This created a terrible conflict of interest, and opened the door to unethical and corrupt practices. I’ve read some of those directives. Mind-boggling how they were putting physicians in a straitjacket in order to bring in the dollars, with proscriptions based loosely on the false narrative that certain repurposed drugs were ineffective and even harmful. Tell that to the myriad patients who came through Covid safely with those off-label medications! (I am one of them.)

        It was not in the interest of hospitals’ bottom line to forego these funds. Early outpatient treatment was not rewarded, but in-hospital care turned out to be very lucrative. You were supposed to stay home until you couldn’t breathe and your lips turned blue, and then rush to the emergency room. Every Covid death also brought in cash, so death certificates used “Covid” as a default cause of death if a PCR test proved “positive.”

        The total medical bill for Medicare patients was exorbitant, and it’s estimated that the average cost was $100,000 per patient. Compare that to early treatment at home costing less than $100.

        I say lousy PCR tests because first of all they were never designed for diagnostic purposes, and secondly they are run at 45 cycle threshold values, which is way higher than intended. The net effect is to create a “whole” virus out of background viral debris that we all carry with us, producing a slew of false positives. How many people who supposedly were asymptomatic never were infected at all? Just askin’ …

        In fact, historically, the presence of disease has never been determined based on this kind of test as the first step in diagnosis. Disease diagnosis starts with symptoms (or something like an X-ray or biopsy). People who had no Covid symptoms simply did not have Covid.

        So how many people in hospital who may have “tested” positive and died for any number of reasons were actually infected and died from Covid? Did we really lose 900,000 people to SARS-CoV-2 in the United States?

        Other countries were doing the same thing — at least for a while. Italy finally came clean and revised its “Covid” deaths downwards significantly after separating out those people who had significant comorbidities. The point of this exercise I believe was to distinguish between people who actually died FROM Covid, and ONLY Covid, and those who happened to test positive and may even have had symptoms, but died because their other health conditions worsened their situation. Or somebody may have been admitted for a stroke or heart attack or cancer unrelated to the virus, yet ended up with a positive Covid test that may not even have contributed to their death.

        Actually Italy was not trying to admit to a flawed methodology. This was not a mea culpa. The researchers were interested in determining what contributory factors led to the deaths of “Covid” patients. From this it was possible to subtract the number of patients who died from other causes from the total count, leaving patients who had no other conditions that might have contributed to or hastened their deaths. The result was a significant reduction in deaths FROM Covid and nothing but Covid.

        Covid is for the most part potentially lethal only to the very old or very unhealthy, those with two or more comorbidities like hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and especially obesity. Or those who were immunocompromised. The survival rate for everyone else is so high that getting the shots and repeated testing and wearing masks makes no sense whatsoever. Especially as the shots do not prevent infection, do not reduce viral count, and therefore do not prevent transmission (the spread), and are not necessary for people to stay out of the hospital, because other, less risky and much cheaper treatments are available.

        And as a British analysis showed, the elderly who died from or with Covid in the UK had already exceeded their life expectancy. I’m not saying they are expendable, by no means! But did they really die of Covid, or did they die of old age, with Covid tipping them over the edge? No clear-cut answers, but it’s a fair question.

        Scott Atlas’s numbers may have been off, but not nearly so much as projections from Imperial College in London on the basis of which the whole world went mad. In fact, Neil Ferguson, whose baby this was, has never EVER been correct in his modeling for any situation, including Covid-19.

        And you have to look at Scott Atlas’s numbers against true Covid deaths, not the ones with a false Covid attribution. Then you have to deduct from what’s left the hundreds of thousands of patients who might have survived had they been given early treatment and been kept off ventilators and Remdesivir. That 900,000 number is dropping fast!

        Atlas may well be a radiologist, but he’s not necessarily a dummy. It wasn’t radiologists but three highly qualified infectious disease epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford universities who drafted the Great Barrington Declaration proposing that the elderly and very vulnerable be protected, but that the rest of us should just get on with our lives as through any flu season.

        I’d like to see someone unbiased run these death numbers in a serious way, though unfortunately we may never know how many people might have been saved if they’d been accorded appropriate care, instead of the one-size fits all approach that demonized alternative therapeutic strategies, and bizarrely advocated NO at home treatment in anticipation of the rollout of the injectable biologics, which are not even true vaccines, but more akin to medical devices.

      9. Sorry spell check, fudged to forged.

        There is a lot of hindsight wisdom in your criticisms.

        I witnessed the Covid epidemic rise from the vantage point of NYC.

        With front line responders treating people in hallways wearing garbage bags for ppe and refrigerator trucks in hospital Parking lots to hold the dead.

        I think the medical professions efforts were heroic and can find little room for criticism of how they treated patients when little was known about best practices.

        We’ll get pretty good statistics eventually when the excess death numbers are computed with good back up data and I will bet you a beer the numbers are actually higher than lower than what we are using now.

        Even if the U.S. death numbers are inflated by 100% for reasons you suggest that’s still a lot of deaths and still a very poor comparative performance by America.

        I saw one study that compared the Covid outcomes for nations controlling for variables as best they could. Turns out that it didn’t matter how wealth a country was or what form of government it had. The two factors that predominated were how much people respected their fellow citizens and how much trust they had in their governments.

        As for Dr. Atlas he was the government spokesperson who was leading the charge, even if there were others saying the same thing. He may not be a dummy but how does a radiologist get put in charge of a pandemic response.

        Answer, he was put in charge because he adopted the party line, was willing to disregard the science and had no ability to speak truth to power

      10. @ WDD

        OK, the 4th of July holiday is behind us, and I have to call you out on a number of things.

        Here’s Part I of my response, since you raised a lot of issues.

        First of all, regarding “proportionality”: It’s both callous and presumptuous in the extreme to suggest that the life, health, and future prospects of a woman who is ACTUALLY pregnant, and the well-being of her EXISTING children, are less worthy of concern and protection than somebody who MIGHT catch the virus, and MIGHT pass it on, especially as the survival rate for most of us is something like 99.7%. You are adopting a utilitarian standard (the greatest good for the greatest number) which completely disregards the challenges faced by individual women. (And here I’m only talking about CONCERN, not even purported effectiveness.)

        Besides, if you’re going to use that standard, then you should know that in 2020, (the last figures reported by the Guttmacher Institute), the number of abortions performed in the US was 930,160 (the CDC has different numbers, but the order of magnitude is pretty much the same).

        Guttmacher’s abortion ratio for that year was 206 per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15-44). That’s about 20%. You do the math for the entire US population, and then do the math for the population of the 26 states that either have banned or are on the verge of banning all abortions with few exceptions.

        So comparing bans or severe restrictions on abortion with the obligation to take the shots in order to prevent (sic) hospitalization or death from Covid-19 with its low risk of death and availability of other therapies is hardly “too attenuated” or lacking in “proportionality.” That’s 930,000 women who for one reason or another decided not to carry a pregnancy to term in JUST THAT YEAR — reasons which include a woman’s own severe health problems or a non-viable fetus that would not survive.

        How many impregnated 13 year olds does it take to meet your standard for proportionality? How many non-viable fetuses, for example without a brain? How many women for whom pregnancy is a health risk? How many women living below the poverty line? How many pregnant women displaced by hurricanes and tornadoes and wildfires? How many women traumatized by a rape or domestic abuse? How many high schoolers or college students who will have to drop out and constrain their future prospects? How many women who never planned to have children at all and were having a rewarding and productive life without them?

        Every woman has a story!

        But hey … spoken like a man who’s never walked in the shoes of a woman who faced an unwanted or problematic pregnancy.

        More at Part II …

      11. @WDD

        Part II

        Secondly, as regards the Covid response, I would make a distinction between the medical profession and public health technocrats. And I would further distinguish between frontline health care workers (physicians and nurses and pulmonary technicians) and hospital bureaucrats in the corner office.

        Frontline workers were heroic indeed, but were cast aside when they wouldn’t take the risky shots. Who better to know what the risks are than medical professionals whose own health and even lives were on the line? People who could see with their own eyes what was happening to family members, friends and community members, as well as patients turning up with bizarre health conditions that emerged in mid 2021, after more of the population became eligible for the shots?

        As for in-hospital treatments, it’s true that in the early days nobody knew very much about the progression of the disease, and all kinds of assumptions were made. By March or April 2020, and certainly by the summer of 2020, it was already known that intubation and mechanical ventilation were killers, but the protocols (and incentives) were in place, and patients who should have been treated at home to avoid overwhelming hospitals nevertheless ended up there, and were immediately put onto ventilators when one became available. Most of these people were elderly or in very poor health to begin with. Early treatment with repurposed drugs with a long-established safety profile might have given them a chance. But the protocols followed were based on a misconception about what hypoxemia (low blood oxygen levels) meant. It baffled physicians, because the condition defied biology. Patients’ low levels of oxygen should have rendered them unconscious, yet here they were often breathing and talking.

        The phenomenon of severe hypoxemia without signs of respiratory distress is also known as silent or hidden hypoxemia. In the normal way, readings below about 90% or even 92 are concerning, but it turned out that a lot of patients didn’t after all need any or much oxygen supplementation (via nasal canula), let alone intubation and mechanical ventilation which just destroys the lungs, yet this was standard procedure once the oxygen levels dropped.

        But Covid-19 is not ARDS or regular pneumonia — a point made by critical care physicians not locked into group-think. It wasn’t a shortage of oxygen that was the problem; it was that the release of oxygen to the tissues was being hampered by some mechanism which was not then understood. Automatically ventilating these patients may have been an understandable error initially, but there’s so much inertia in our health care system that anybody who wanted to propose alternatives was regarded as nuts, or not following “the science.” Even as patients were dying unnecessarily from well-meant interventions.

        More at Part III …

      12. @WDD

        Part III

        Thirdly, about Scott Atlas. You have it completely backwards. The Trump administration, malevolent and incompetent as it was, did, through its Task Force at least, somewhat adhere to the idea of lockdowns and other physical mitigation measures — or didn’t initially do much to challenge them. And of course launched Operation Warp Speed. But the federal government does not have the police powers to regulate health care that states have. So there was a lot of noise and bluster, and occasionally you’d hear about sending off a hospital ship to New York or California, or the need for the private sector to produce more ventilators and PPE. (You talk about being informed by the situation in NYC, but fewer than 182 patients were treated on the hospital ship Comfort before it was sent on its way again.)

        Our avuncular Fauci was doing what he does, which is to pontificate and flip flop all over the place, but he was not center stage, contenting himself with rolling his eyes or scratching his head diplomatically when Trump took the microphone and proposed light therapy and bleach. Deborah Birx and Robert Redfield, then CDC Director, also had to grit their teeth, but were team players. Leading the Task Force was Mike Pence, who of course is a lawyer with no medical training at all.

        Scott Atlas is not just a radiologist. He has a degree in biology and is an MD. The fact that he specialized in radiology subsequently is neither here nor there. He is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution, where he investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access, quality, pricing, and innovation in health care.

        Atlas caught Trump’s eye during the former’s many appearances on Fox News, during which he questioned the response to the pandemic from his vantage point as a health care policy expert. This is why he was invited to join the Task Force. In fact, far from toeing the party line, Atlas butted heads with the other members of the Task Force who wanted to continue the existing strategies, even as these were failing miserably. Atlas was so much out of step with the others that he resigned four months later, despite being Trump’s darling, precisely because he was a controversial figure.

        Yes he’s a Libertarian at heart, and he and I would no doubt disagree on major public policy issues, like introducing a Single Payer system, but while that may inform some of his thinking, one shouldn’t conflate party affiliation or ideology with the willingness to think outside the box and ability to connect the dots. His proposed strategies were already being implemented elsewhere (notably in Sweden, which initially suffered more deaths than either of its neighbors Norway and Finland, but today has a much lower case rate than either, and did not have to go through lockdowns, loss of employment, business closures, and children shut out of schools).

        These strategies were formalized in October 2020 in the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter which proposed pretty much what Atlas did: protect the elderly and the vulnerable, and let everybody else get on with their lives. He may be a radiologist, but the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are respected epidemiologists at Stanford, Harvard and Oxford universities. In their panic to control the narrative, Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins tried to belittle these eminent professionals academics as “fringe” — that’s what you do when you don’t have a good answer. You resort to name-calling, or retract their peer reviewed papers in medical journals.

      13. @WDD

        Part IV

        Fourthly, you ask: “What was so different about taking a Covid vaccine”? You mention this in reference to the many vaccines routinely administered, especially to children, and suggest that because we may have had them as kids, it follows that the Covid shots are safe and effective and NECESSARY. But that is to beg the question, in two regards:

        (a) that the Covid shots are “vaccines” — they are not, Merriam-Webster’s shiny new definition notwithstanding. What you have with both mRNA and viral vector injectables is more akin to a medical device delivered into the body and transported via a nanolipid envelope to set up a spike factory. Indeed, until recently, with a change perhaps dictated by marketing considerations, Moderna referred to its product not as a vaccine, but a technology platform. I believe it’s only because it was seeking formal approval for “Spikevax” from the European Medicines Agency that it started using different language. This technological and biological reality immediately uncercuts your argument that if we took or gave our kids a variety of vaccines for measles, polio, etc, then we should accept these new injectable biologics without question as just another such vaccine. What nonsense!

        (b) your argument is premised on the belief (BELIEF) that getting the Covid shots is a GOOD thing. Yet if the risks outweigh the benefits for any individual, demographic group, or the entire population, how can they be classed as good or beneficial? You dismiss VAERS data by parroting the line that a report in VAERS is not proof of causation. But reporting in VAERS since the rollout of the shots is wildly at variance with the pattern of reporting on ALL vaccines combined administered in the US over the past 30 years. Why the spike in reports (no pun intended), if this was just same old same old?

        And no, these are not fake reports spewed out by anti-vaxxers. The VAERS reporting system is so onerous, that only the most dedicated physicians, injured individuals, or family members will take on this burden, and underreporting by a factor of 41 has been estimated by researchers, mathematicians and statisticians who understand how to make these calculations. Moreover, the CDC not only removes duplicates and keeps a general eye on the reports, it’s actually against the law to file a fake report.

        In fact, there is a presumption that an adverse event following an intervention in the course of a trial (and we are still in the Phase IV post-marketing surveillance period, even if it’s being conducted population-wide) is attributable to the intervention if it meets certain criteria. In 1965, the English statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill put it like this: “In what circumstances can [one] pass from [an] observed association to a verdict of causation?”

        He proposed a set of nine criteria to provide epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect. (For example, he demonstrated the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.) The list of the criteria is as follows:

        STRENGTH (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.
        CONSISTENCY (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
        SPECIFICITY: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.
        TEMPORALITY: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).
        BIOLOGICAL GRADIENT (dose-response relationship): Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.
        PLAUSIBILITY: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).
        COHERENCE: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that “… lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations”.
        EXPERIMENT: “Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence”.
        ANALOGY: The use of analogies or similarities between the observed association and any other associations.

        A 10th criterion has since been proposed, which is REVERSIBILITY: If the cause is deleted then the effect should disappear as well. Of course in the case of the Covid shots, they are irreversible. You can stop taking a toxic drug with side effects and may revert to your previous condition, but once you’re injected with these biologics, that’s it. Multiply the risks by two and then by all the serial boosters to follow.

        There is remarkable consistency between the kinds of reports coming out of VAERS and the Bradford Hill principles. The preponderance of the evidence is that with few exceptions, the VAERS reports show more than a coincidental association with the Covid shots.

        For its part, the CDC has wriggled out of having to address any of the reports or any of these criteria, by setting up arbitrary goal posts. So you’re not considered “vaccinated” until two weeks after your second shot. If you have an adverse event before those two weeks are up, it’s not the “vaccination” that caused it, not even the first shot. And if it’s more than 28 days, then it’s not the “vaccine” that caused the harm either. Hmmm. The CDC compounded this by willfully (in my opinion) refusing to order autopsies on those who died in order to determine cause of death, and to attribute or rule out the role played by any of the shots. So the CDC plays games. It can continue to blather on about “a report in VAERS does not demonstrate causation” but it really doesn’t want to know either way. This is a passive aggressive response to the mounting evidence of harm.

        Here’s an example of how the criteria are applied to the AstraZenica product:

        [Professor Raina MacIntyre (MBBS Hons 1, M App Epid, PhD, FRACP, FAFPHM) is Professor of Global Biosecurity at the Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney]

        More at Part V …

      14. @WDD

        Part V

        The WHO had long taken a similar approach to Bradford Hill, known as the Brighton Classification.

        What interests us here is not how drug adverse events are categorized more generally, but adverse events following immunization specifically (AEFI), which is not reversible. According to a 2018 (pre-pandemic) peer reviewed critique of the WHO’s revised criteria published in 2013 (largely under the influence of representatives of the pharmaceutical industry), the authors of the critique (Jacob Puliyel and Pathik Naik) set out the following considerations:

        Adverse events following immunization

        “Vaccines are drugs used as a preventive measure, given to entire cohorts of healthy persons. As they are administered in the absence of any disease, there is very high expectation that they will produce few adverse effects. But there is low tolerance for serious adverse events and deaths. Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) must be monitored more carefully than other drugs. A credible immunization safety evaluation and monitoring system is essential for the success of immunization programmes. The WHO developed the ‘Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI): Causality Assessment’ otherwise known as the Brighton Classification. It is very similar to the WHO-UMC causality categories for ADR. Until recently, this was the touch-stone used by WHO experts when AEFI were reported (see Box 1).

        “One measure of the sensitivity and responsiveness of the WHO-UMC causality categories (which preceded the Brighton classification) is the alacrity with which the rotavirus vaccine RotaShield was withdrawn in 1999 after 12 cases of vaccine-induced intussusceptions were reported. About 1 in 2000 children younger than 2 months of age develops intussusception from other causes. Based on the results of the investigations, the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that one or two additional cases of intussusception would be caused among each 10,000 infants vaccinated with the RotaShield vaccine. After about 100,000 infants were immunized, the vaccine was withdrawn 11. In 2013, the Brighton classification was abandoned and replaced by the revised AEFI classification. The reasoning that prompted the switch away from the Brighton classification has not been stated explicitly in the revised AEFI manual 12.”

        So the WHO abandoned Brighton and introduced a new scheme which provides for convenient ambiguities.

        “On page 170 of this 193-page document, under the heading Notes for Guidelines, it is stated IN SMALL PRINT: ‘If there is adequate evidence that an event does not meet a case definition, such an event should be rejected and should be reported as ‘Not a case of [AEFI]’. Such evidence is considered adequate, if an exclusion criterion is met, or an investigation reveals a negative finding of a necessary criterion (necessary condition) for diagnosis. Such an event should be rejected and classified as ‘Not a case of [AEFI]”.’ 13”

        (Yet the purpose of the exercise is not to “accept” or “reject” an AEFI explanation — to simply dispose of the issue — but to assess what happened and continue looking for safety signals and patterns.)

        “On page 36 of the revised manual for AEFI 12 is the example of acute flaccid paralysis in a child after oral polio vaccine, who had had a fever 1 month prior to onset of paralysis. The stool culture showed vaccine strain polio virus. It was classified as ‘Consistent causal association with immunization’ as it is a known reaction after polio vaccination and the paralysis happened within time window of increased risk.

        “It was also classified as ‘Inconsistent causal association with immunization’ because the fever, 1 month prior to paralysis had not been investigated completely. This ambiguity, which admits diametrically opposite conclusions simultaneously, is a hallmark of the new scheme.”

        This kind of ambiguity is what allows the CDC and pharmaceutical industry to dodge the issue, furthered by the failure to actually investigate each case. Another instance of “fudging”?

        But in any event, if there’s anything plausible in reports of adverse events associated with the shots, the precautionary principle should be triggered, and the product pulled from the market for further investigation or reformulation, as happened with the Rotavirus vaccine that was withdrawn based on projected harm to 2 children out of every 10,000, a projection based on just 12 reported cases of vaccine-induced intussusceptions.

        How many serious adverse events or deaths associated with the Covid injectables can we tolerate before everyone wakes up to the carnage?

        So let’s see just what Moderna and Pfizer have to say about Adverse Events during their trials.

        On November 4, 2021, a study came out in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Efficacy of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine at Completion of the Blinded Period” (Moderna referred to it as mRNA-1273, but has since named it Spikevax). Just over 30,000 participants were enrolled, roughly half in the treatment and half in the placibo groups. The data cutoff date was March 26, 2021.

        Ostensibly this is a study of the product’s efficacy, but tucked away in the appendix are the safety data. More people dropped out of the trial due to death after the 2nd shot in the treatment group than in the placebo group (page 22). Even more stunning, are the Serious or Severe Adverse Events data on page 61: there were 4 in the placebo group, and 12 in the treatment group during the study observation period. But about 28 days after the second shot, there were 31 Serious or Severe Adverse Events in the placebo group, and 83 in the treatment group. The differences held in all age groups, even in the 65 and older demographic: 11 in the placebo group, and 24 in the treatment group.

        Why were more participants in the treatment group experiencing Serious or Severe Adverse Events after getting the shots than those who’d received a saline solution placebo? A lot more!

        * On page 65: 2.7 times more incidents of facial paralysis (Bell’s Palsy) in the treatment group
        * On page 66: 1.4 times as many Thrombotic/Embolic AEs in the treatment group
        * On page 67: 16 deaths from all causes in each of the treatment and placebo groups, calling into question the benefit of the shots given their risks.

        And then what about Pfizer’s findings for BNT162b6 during their trial? Again buried in an appendix, is paragraph 5.3.6: “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Events Reports.” You will find at the link below 9 densely packed pages of “Adverse Events of Special Interest” set out continuously (no bullets or line breaks) in alphabetical order, from “1p36 deletion syndrome” and “… Acoustic neuritis and Acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency” to “Young’s Syndrome” and “Zika virus associated Guillain Barré syndrome.” That’s 1,291 discrete conditions reported after reception of the Pfizer shots.

        Pfizer did not release these data voluntarily. This appendix was part of the first 55,000-page batch of documents (totalling 300,000+ pages) released under a court order subsequent to a FOIA request, which the FDA wanted to release at a rate of 500 pages a month, which would have taken 75 years — during a public health emergency?

        The purpose of post-marketing, or post-authorization surveillance and reporting, is to detect safety signals that might not have presented during the observational phases of a trial involving a restricted number of participants. The VAERS data clearly show that Adverse Events following the shots available in the US take the form of “unexplained” illnesses of various kinds as well as deaths (athletes collapsing left right and center on fields and near-drowning at swim meets). Unexplained of course because NOBODY WANTS TO KNOW. Indeed, public health agencies like the CDC (and WHO?) and the manufacturers of the products have deliberately undermined this effort of safety signal detection by ignoring and even vilifying the vaccine injured, shielding behind the “doesn’t prove the vaccine caused it” mantra. Of course they never offer an alternative explanation that is temporally plausible.

        So much for the army of paid “fact-checkers” who put their stamp of disapproval on ANY discussion about vaccine injuries. Meanwhile the mainstream media continue to regurgitate the “safe and effective” slogan. Of course, they are paid as well … by the federal government as part of a social marketing campaign, as well as by the pharmaceutical companies through regular advertising dollars.

        A social marketing campaign is an organized effort to increase consumer awareness, interest, and loyalty to an organization, brand, product, or service (think of smoking cessation). Social marketing campaigns are planned strategically, targeted towards a particular audience, and have measurable outcomes.

        In this case, the desired outcome is increased uptake of the shots regardless of need or of risk for any individual or demographic group.

        INDIVIDUALS matter with regard to both the availability of safe, legal abortions, and freedom to accept or decline certain medical interventions.

      15. Sorry, you might have a lot of,good stuff in here I just do t have the time to read it.

      16. @WDD

        Sure, it’s a lot to digest. But we dissenters from the official narrative are always asked to back up our position. That’s what I was doing. On our side, we don’t get actual, researched data from those who adhere to the official narrative, just bald assertions based on what the media are dispensing and the pronouncements of public health technocrats and opinions of “fact-checkers” who are nothing of the kind because they never go back to primary sources.

      17. @WDD

        Well of course I don’t have an “executive summary” and I don’t plan to create multiple versions. Setting things out in bullet points is to reduce it all to sound bites again. Why is it that people who adhere to the official narrative are so averse to taking a deeper dive? Averse to having their beliefs challenged? Because that’s what they are: beliefs.

        I produced a detailed response to refute your arguments, researching multiple sources. Wherever possible, I look for primary sources so as to avoid any filters that may suggest bias.

        If you want to learn something, read what I wrote. If it’s too much trouble, then don’t. It’s quite technical in places, but I’ve broken it all down into 5 parts, which means you can tackle each point at your leisure.

      18. @WDD

        OK, this doesn’t address the abortion question, but it’s a document published by the WHO in September 2019 (pre-pandemic), sent to public health agencies in all WHO member countries, regarding the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (handwashing, masks, isolation, school closures, quarantines, border closures, etc). It related to influenza of course, not Covid-19, but the principles are the same.

        You’d have to download the 91 page PDF from that WHO web page, but you don’t have to read the whole thing if you don’t want to.

        Pages numbered 13-18 (19-24 in the actual file) set out the non-pharmaceutical interventions in a table, with the strength of evidence, and whether or not they are recommended, or conditionally recommended, or not recommended. Note that in many cases, the evidence for the recommendation is low or very low to nonexistent, but nonetheless a recommendation is made because of a “plausible mechanism” — reality on the ground be damned.

        Of special note are the ethical and other considerations for each intervention, like the damage caused by school closures. If these non-pharmaceutical measures are adopted, the recommendation was that they should be very limited in scope or duration. Yet we had massive lockdowns, especially in blue states. Do you think officials in state governments read this document before they imposed such draconian and destructive measures which traumatized and impoverished whole communities?

        So according to this document, Fauci (who would have seen it of course) was correct when he FIRST said that only the sick should wear masks, and obviously they would feel bad enough to be staying home anyway. He LIED afterwards when he said he just wanted to conserve supplies for healthcare workers, and jumped onto the idea that everyone should wear them. Why? There’s no evidence for the whole population to wear masks.

        This was then compounded by the lie that only the unvaccinated needed to wear masks because vaccinated folk would not transmit the virus, with the story changing once again to say that the vaccinated should also wear masks, because … Well just because. The evidence for the need for masks at all is very low, and their effectiveness is seriously in dispute — multiple studies. Yet this is where we ended up.

        And no, it’s not because they learned new things, or new facts came out. It’s because they had to keep us on our toes — stoke fear of the gravity of a disease that is eminently treatable, like most viral infections.

      19. Well, the evidence that mask wearing reduced the public spread of Covid is overwhelming. Anybody who cares to can just look it up. There are multiple peer reviewed studies that support this.

        Accusing Dr. Fauci of lying detracts from whatever argument you are making.

        What was his motive to lie? He had a financial interest in companies that did or din not make masks?

        He has admitted on multiple occasions that when the data changed, the CCC policies had to change.

        Was there some giant worldwide conspiracy to get people to wear masks when they were not needed? What would be the motive for that?

        As for draconian lockdowns, the most severe restrictions were in the Northeast when there was a panic as to how to stop this disease that didn’t fade away at Easter as our president said it would.

        A million dead and most were not vaccinated. What a tragedy. As far as I know, no one did from wearing a mask.

        The liars in this whole episode were those telling us they had a right to not get a vaccine, a right not to wear masks, a right to inject bleach and a right to go to Tractor Supply to get their ivermectin. Many of them are dead too.

      20. @WDD

        So I still get bald assertions from you. “Overwhelming evidence”? You never show me any, just state that this is so. The WHO’s meta-analysis from 2019 is far from dispositive.

  2. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court has painted itself into an interpretive corner that reveals the weakness of originalism as a method of constitutionalism.

    When a bill of rights was first demanded, one objection was that if you start listing rights it could be interpreted to mean that there are no others, I.e. that a person has only enumerated rights.

    Hence, the IX Amendment addressed that by saying “the enumeration of in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The conservative majority of the Court has now invented a rule of interpretation that for an unenumerated right to be of constitutional dimension it must have been in existence in 1787 at the creation or in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted.

    Basically, the rule now is that if a bunch of White guys didn’t think it was a right way back then, then it can’t be a right now.

    So, the dissent in Dobbs correctly points out that the “deeply rooted historical tradition” test would not support gay marriage, interracial marriage, women voting, consensual sex acts, integrated schools, or contraception and certainly not abortions.

    So, according to our Supreme Court, 500 years from now, regardless of the unimaginable changes that will take place, a person’s rights will be fixed by those that existed in 1787 and 1868 plus or minus maybe a decade or two.

    1. WDD drivel
      vast studies show Covid fascism failed—Swedish, German etc…you merely despise freedom and self determination…Rancourt has collected 12 international studies that demonstrate masks, social distancing do not reduce transmission of any virus

      1. Hmm, masks don’t work?

        I wonder why all those doctors and nurses wore masks before and after the pandemic.

        Maybe they should stop washing their hands too.

      2. @ WDD

        Nope, masks don’t work. They may catch a few larger droplets, but the virus is transmitted principally as an aerosol. None of the masks available to the public can prevent these aerosols from escaping the mask.

        St Anthony Fauci, Mr Science himself, declared very early on that only sick people should wear masks, not those around them. Masks, apparently, do not confer two-way protection. So if we’re not ill, why do we wear masks to go shopping or sit in a subway car?

        But hey, even that turned out to be erroneous (because most of what Fauci says is erroneous).

        Doctors and nurses wear masks because hospital administrators require them to, even as they require us to wear them when we enter a medical facility. Maybe they’re requiring masks “in an abundance of caution” to use that hackneyed phrase, but maybe it’s just because they can demand compliance.

        A surgical mask is a SURGICAL mask, worn to prevent spittle, sweat, or nasal secretions from dropping onto a patient with a gaping wound. Not the same thing at all.

      3. And, many operating theaters turn up the O2 in the room during surgery because, well, those masks do restrict O2 and increase Co2 in the lungs of the nurses and doctors.

        And, if this was a real science-orientated country, then, nitric oxide sprays for the nasal passages and supplements like Co-Enzyme 10, D3, Zinc, and, well, on and on, including massive Vitamin C throughout the day for anyone with flu or cold symptomst, would have been recommended and offered.

        Nitric Oxide, man — cheap, really:

        Clinical Study Suggests SaNOtize Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray Is Effective at Preventing COVID-19 after High-Risk Exposure

        And science forbid that we do NOT get to the bottom of DARPA, coronavirus experimentation, etc., NOPE. That’s not science, investigating the true origins of this interestingly designed SARS-CoV2.

        Golly golly, follow that science:

        A list of specious scientific achievements (sic) would be long enough to warrant a ten-part Netflix series. It includes, for example, the Tuskegee Study, mercury fillings, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), veal crates, electroshock therapy, napalm, mustard gas, automatic weapons, sonic weaponry, directed energy weapons, weapons in general, surgical experiments (without anesthesia) on slaves, deforestation, Vioxx, DDT, eugenics, GMOs, fossil fuels, the Milgram experiments, factory farming, the medicalization of the birthing process, vivisection, mountaintop mining, MK ULTRA, conversion therapy, forced sterilizations, pre-frontal lobotomies, waterboarding, deep-sea bottom trawling, Accutane, land mines, and the electric chair— to name but a few of the innumerable options.

        And I haven’t yet mentioned television, cellphones, automobiles (and automobile culture), the Internet, social media, and artificial intelligence!

      4. Sorry, but you’re just wrong about masks. If your standard is “seat belts don’t work” then yes, your correct because seatbelts don’t prevent all car injuries.

        But it is beyond doubt that masks help to reduce the spread of Covid.

        Would you wear a mask to protect your elderly parent in a nursing home? If the mask was just 10% effective.

        Would you fly on an airplane where a broken part created a 10% greater risk of a crash?

        I’ll bet you would not get on a plane where a broken part increased the risk of a crash by 1% or even 1/10th of one percent.

        We all knew how Covid spread in droves. Indoor events with lots of people who were not masked. But there were lots of things that “worked” especially when used in conjunction with each other. Better ventilation, proper mask wearing, more effective masks, social distancing.

        As for Dr. Fauci, who incidentally is responsible for saving the lives of tens of thousands of people from the ravages of aids and who has dedicated his life to public health, he admitted that when the facts changed he changed his opinion.

        Much was not known at the start of this epidemic and he did explain that his earliest statements were meant to preserve masks for front line responders in the face of hoarding.

  3. @WDD
    First and foremost, supposed ideologies like being a strict constructionalist are just ruses for doing what they want. They’re all for states rights unless a state does something they don’t like, then all of a sudden they believe the federal government has precedence.

    Second, life is change. If a fundamental document that rules society, like a constitution, can’t change or be changed with the times, that document should be abolished. Change isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it’s life. Stagnation is death, and that’s what these idiotic constructionalists advocate.

  4. Don’t kid yourself, self determination was wrenched from the US people a long time ago. What is amazing, is they did it with hardly anyone noticing. Most still don’t.

    As economic ruin leave them homeless, as political ruin leaves them subjugated, as military ruins leaves them glowing in the dark, as environmental ruin leaves them without water, or drowning in the river that was main street, the people will blame everyone…..except themselves, their ignorance and lack of action when action was needed.

  5. No aspersions toward bananas, but this is a racist, backward, Zombie Country (sic). Banana Republic at the whim of violent Capitalism and Capitalists.

    “So, over the course of the history of the court, there have been about 116 justices. About six of them have been originalists, have taken this rigid view that the Constitution doesn’t evolve over time. The other hundred-plus justices have all taken the view that, no, the Constitution applies, like any other law, through the application of principles to new circumstances, recognizing changing conditions, so that it can govern the nation for centuries, which is what it has done. If you take an originalist sort of blindered historical approach to the Constitution, you would have to upend virtually everything that the court has decided over the last 200 years. And they — you know, they seem ready to do that, at least in certain cases of this term.”

  6. the US ruling class constitution provides no “fundamental rights”….”the interests of the opulent must be protected from the masses”. Madison
    “of by and for the people means anything everything and nothing”. JAdams

  7. in USA there is freedom to pay huge sums for useless college credentials, pay huge sums for bad medical care, and quit your job to care for a new born child
    in Hungary, Russia and Cuba—no university tuition, universal health care–no co-pay, state paid mandatory parental/maternity leave

  8. Ahh, I see WDD, Weapon of Diseased Dictatoriship, is blasting away.

    Fun stuff. Puffed up, side blow-by masks. All that dirty hair, all that skin, oh that darn SARS-CoV2 is so selective.


    However, llet’s look at that messed up Klanada. Max Forte,

    February of 2022 was a particularly dark month, both in Quebec and in Canada generally. In Quebec, we had the expansion of the use of “vaccine passports” to large, well-ventilated box stores; a curfew had been imposed in January (and was lifted after nearly three weeks); the demonization of the so-called “unvaccinated” reached a fever pitch, first in regime media, then in government pronouncements—a new tax on the “unvaccinated” was promised, and it was promised to be “significant”. Apparently the solution to the problem of Omicron defeating the non-vaccines, was to blame those who spared themselves the useless and potentially harmful injections. By the end of the month, the Canadian federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to crush a popular, peaceful protest—the Freedom Convoy. Bank accounts of hundreds of protesters and donors were frozen; protest leaders were arrested and jailed on trumped up charges, while other protesters were trampled by horses or arrested at gunpoint by policemen outfitted in a manner almost identical to soldiers; and protesters’ private property was seized and/or vandalized by the police. What the dictatorial Justin Trudeau called a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” was accurate only as a description of his own regime, according to multiple surveys (like this one, that one, the other one, and now this). Everyone in Quebec was subjected to a new round of restrictions: the closure of businesses and churches; schools going back online. As mandated by the federal side of the regime, the “unvaccinated” were not allowed to leave the country, and they were banned from travelling by air or rail within Canada—the only country in the world to do that. An Iron Curtain was slammed down on Canada, and parts of that curtain remain intact. And then we all got Covid thanks to Omicron—for everyone I knew at the university, students and myself included, whether injected or not, the sickness was a total non-event and certainly far less severe than the common cold or a seasonal flu, even for those with multiple comorbidities. Some students were forced to quarantine at home with sick family members, and still did not get sick. All of this upheaval was meant to shield us from catching this?

    In this dark, miserable month of authoritarian aggression against Canadians’ human rights and civil liberties, universities remained absolutely silent, because they were absolutely complicit. It is to this point that the following is directed.

    On February 2nd, 2022, Reinfo Covid Quebec (a very large organization of health professionals, scientists, professors and citizens, numbering more than 10,000 members), organized and hosted a press conference titled, “The Collateral Damage of Government Measures” (“Dommages collatéraux des mesures gouvernementales”). The entirety of the professors’ panel in which I participated can now only be seen on Rumble (and Part 1 can be seen here). The event was mostly in French.

    When a Canadian university tells a professor in the natural sciences that, “this university does not recognize natural immunity,” then we have arrived at the lowest intellectual point in the history of our universities. Natural immunity is a basic biological fact. For it to be struck from recognition gives you just one indication of the assault on science and on academic knowledge committed in the name of a “public health emergency” that was used to justify irrational, capricious, arbitrary, harmful, and discriminatory impositions.

    Self-censorship has prevailed in Canadian universities, encouraged by castigating the few who express doubts, and by university administrations that present unsubstantiated monologues that advocate for restrictions and for dubious pharmaceutical products. We are further hampered in Canada by an inadequate number of public intellectuals, while we instead have a surplus of public relations intellectuals with close ties to pharmaceutical companies and to corporate media.

    This is a country which has now purged a wide range of scholars in the natural and social sciences, and the humanities, because they expressed dissenting views and stood by the ethics governing their disciplines. Academic freedom is now, de facto, cancelled. Tenure is also, de facto, nullified. Faced with the first real test to their integrity and their ethics, the vast majority of Canadian scholars failed to stand up and speak out.

    Rather than serve as a source of diverse perspectives and challenging questions, universities instead fell in line with encouraging mass panic. This conformity has not only damaged public discourse, by taking leave of our duties as the critical conscience of society, it has damaged universities themselves, and I think the damage is now irreparable. University presidents have repeatedly produced unquestioning endorsements of the so-called “vaccines,” masking, and social distancing. Universities have internalized the “vaccine passport” system. Professors have been enlisted to police their students by enforcing mask mandates. Faculty unions have loudly advocated for tougher restrictions, such as mandatory inoculation. This is an extremely dangerous precedent, where one’s place in a university can be cancelled at any time based on one’s health status. Just as dangerous is the Canadian university being conscripted by the state-corporate alliance.

  9. Uruguay suspended COVID-19 vaccines for children under 13 after a judge on Thursday issued an injunction halting vaccinations in that age group until government officials turn over its contracts with Pfizer.

    Uruguayan government officials and Pfizer were ordered on Wednesday to appear in court after judge Alejandro Recarey gave them 48 hours to present detailed information on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine while the court considered an injunction request to halt COVID-19 vaccinations for children 5 and older.

    The government said a confidentiality clause in the contract prevents it from producing the documents, The Washington Post reported.

    According to ABC News, the judge received answers to 18 questions about the safety and chemical composition of COVID-19 vaccines, signed by Health Minister Daniel Salinas, but did not turn over the contracts.

    It is unknown whether the answers provided by government officials adequately addressed the questions posed by the judge, who ultimately ordered an injunction based on what was provided.

    Please allow me to introduce the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This law states: “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

    If vaccines are so safe and effective, what are the people who make them so afraid of?

    1. @Paul+Haeder

      Indeed, it’s likely that the reason the shots are being promoted so heavily for children is so as to get them included in the CDC’s schedule of recommended vaccinations for children from which, as you say, the vaccine manufacturers are shielded.

      AND, the vaccine injuries create a nice market for lifelong medications for chronic illnesses, like autoimmune and neurological disorders.

      I hear you about Quebec. My son and his family live there, and we are unable to visit them. They badgered us about getting the shots, but then they all came down with Covid themselves. So much for that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: