Could there be a more graphic illustration of the differences between the two major American political parties than their reaction to the leak of a draft opinion regarding the probable fate of Roe v. Wade?

Someone on the U.S. Supreme Court staff likely leaked the document to Politico, which then revealed it to the world. The draft, written by Justice Samuel Alito, suggests the court is ready to overturn the landmark January 1973 ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.

Conservatives have hailed the opinion. Liberals (such as me, your friendly blogger) have condemned it.

The back-story reaction, though, is most telling. Conservatives want the leaker’s head on a platter. It’s the thought that someone would violate the court’s privacy that has the right-wingers all worked up. Liberals, meanwhile, are less concerned about the leak than the contents of the opinion. I’m on the libs’ side.

Of course, I was surprised that it became known via a leaked document. It’s never happened before.

But, geez, there weren’t any national secrets revealed! Indeed, the privacy invasion strikes many of us as ironic, given that the SCOTUS’s conservative majority doesn’t seem at all concerned about a woman’s privacy in determining whether to end a pregnancy. But leak a draft document? The world is coming to an end!

I realize this is just one example of the chasm that divides the two major parties. It’s just too damn bizarre to ignore.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Pay attention, folks, because I have something to declare to you that needs to be said.

I am appalled at the draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that suggests that the court is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that legalized abortion in the United States. I am less concerned about the source of the leak and more concerned — indeed fearful — of the contents of the draft opinion.

My declaration is this: My pro-choice position on abortion does not make me pro-abortion.

I hope we are clear on that. You see, my concern about what the SCOTUS might do deals with the intent to deny women the right to govern their own lives, their own bodies and deny them the right to make painful decisions.

The court appears to be leaning toward giving that authority to sanctimonious legislators in states that want to ban abortion, only excepting pregnancies that put the mothers’ lives in danger. Rape victims? Or those who are impregnated by a family member? Forget about it! They have to remain pregnant for the full term and then give birth to a child.

The trend is being set in states everywhere. Republican-led legislatures are set to pounce on what the SCOTUS might decide in a few weeks when its term ends. They will enact what they call “trigger laws” that take effect if the court tosses Roe v. Wade aside.

Only women who are pregnant should be able to make these decisions. They can consult with their loved ones, their clergy, their physician. Indeed, the idea that is being kicked around to make receiving an abortion a felony is beyond belief.

Could I counsel a woman to get an abortion? No. I could not do such a thing. That, moreover, is not even close to my call.

If the high court goes through what the draft opinion suggests, then women all over this nation are going to face a dark and frightening future.

They deserve the right to make these difficult choices on their own.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Donald J. Trump told us brazenly before his term as president and during it as well, that “elections have consequences.”

We are now witnessing how those consequences play out.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just confirmed that a draft opinion was leaked to Politico in which the justices in a narrow 5-4 poll among them have determined that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. If the draft opinion becomes law, then we can say “goodbye” to a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

The consequence occurred when Trump was able to nominate and win confirmation by the Senate of three justices.

First came Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated after Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama’s nomination in 2016 of Merrick Garland to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump won the election that year and McConnell then paved the way for a Senate confirmation.

Then came Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump nominated to succeed the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Finally, we saw the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump nominated just weeks before the 2020 election to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump told the nation he wanted to end Roe v. Wade. He said he would select justices who would follow his edict. So much for judicial independence, eh?

All of this serves to remind Americans concerned about the power of presidential appointments to the federal bench. This is a consequence of a presidential election that give many millions of Americans cause to worry about our nation’s future.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com