Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that in late June the decision of SCOTUS on abortion is delivered, and it is substantially the same as the leaked document penned by Justice Alito. (Presumably including the arguments based on 400 year old jurists who just happened to believe in witches empowering evil spirits in the world). What will they aim for next?
I believe that the religious right thinks itself "on a roll," and that if you are not a heterosexual, cis-gender God-fearer, they are coming for you. So far as I can tell, they have never been shy about making this intention perfectly clear, even though many weren't paying attention.
Thinks like same-sex marriage, the right to make love to the consenting individual of your choice, the right not to have to "join us in prayer," and many more, I believe, will all soon be under threat, because the Religious Right is now smelling blood, and it is hugely energizing for them.
We have human rights which apply to all humans. We have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to name a few categories.
The Left has gone down the path of assigning sub-set rights to some human to get votes, that do not apply to all humans. One such example is women's right. Can you list me any men's rights to balance this off? This specialty subset of human rights that only apply to a narrow voter demographic is where problems begin.
The adults in the room feel a need to act. If specialty rights appear, that do not include all humans, they violate basic human rights for someone else. The unborn is not assigned any specialty rights by the Left. The Right is deemed radical is they suggests the unborn has human rights without any specialty rights.
There is a pattern to all this. If you look at abortion and LGBQT considerations, what they all have in common is they are all various forms of manipulated birth control. All these behavior do not end in children being born. Birth control has been a policy of the Left since the 1960's, when the sky was falling and the world was going to over populate.
The Left would have loved to legislate limiting the number of children, to defend the world against over population. This never panned out but panic works for them. It would have been impossible to use the panic button to regulate the number of children that parents could have, in Democratic countries like the USA, due to our rights. They could not dictate like China did, even though they tried.
The Left came up with various ways for people to choose behavior that would not lead to children, thereby not technically taking away the right to choose, while still limiting population growth. Their minions do not even see how they have been duped. To make this work, the Left taught emotional thinking instead of critical thinking, using buzz words like women's rights, which violate the humans rights of the unborn. Unless you can also define the sub-set human rights for men and for the unborn to balance this off, specialty women rights violate human rights since these "rights" impact others in an adverse way.
In terms of abortion, if you asked all women after an abortion, why they did it, very few would say they feared for their own life or they were a victim of sexual assault. Most answers would be connected to wanting to stay in the game. A pregnancy would be like a season ending injury for an athlete or player. Does staying in the game justify the loss of the right to life of the unborn? It seem like a rather sleazy excuse to take away humans rights.
The sub-set idea of women's rights was invented to make it appear that any excuse would be justified based on some faux legal concept. This was reinforced vey the Left teaching relative morality. It was all about birth control and not over populating the earth with the children of impulsive and self serving women. The religious right still believes in such women, and thinks they can still be a good parent and have good children even if the Left needs them for limited population growth.
