This opinion was written and submitted by Jack Wright.
My wife and I are frequent visitors to Cape Charles, and we have always felt that this quaint town on the Chesapeake offered a welcome respite from much of the seemingly endless, highly charged, emotional posturing found so frequently in the news and in towns and cities across America.
Cape Charles is a wonderful, beautiful place, especially for families with children, and it is perhaps uniquely well suited to provide those families with many memorable experiences. The pace of life in the town and the surrounding area, even during the summer, is measured and refreshing. The shops and restaurants welcome their patrons with pleasantness and consideration.
However, as we were walking down the Mason Avenue today, we were confronted by something that seemed to us a direct assault upon all that we had come to expect from Cape Charles.
The assault to which I am referring came in the form of a store front’s, crude, vulgar, self-indulgent rant about abortion rights which, among other things said “ Supreme Court my ass, “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries”, OMG GOP WTF, and My Body My Choice displayed upon purposely ghostly, disturbing images.
I instantly recall a statement made over 2000 years ago by Aristotle “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.
It was obvious to me that these people had no interest in either entertaining ideas or in looking after the best interests of the Cape Charles community. The effect these images might have upon children or upon what should be a commitment never to privilege emotion or bias over reason, at the expense of mature dialogue about important social issues, is obviously no concern of theirs.
As Christopher Hitchens once said of those who advocate so fiercely for the abortion on demand position that they “can’t or won’t see the essential dignity of the right-to-life position”
The privately held opinions of the people who are the authors of these irresponsible and inappropriate displays would legitimately be part of a public discussion about abortion, but choosing an appropriate forum for that discussion is of vital importance and clearly, they do not care about that.
It is worth noting that these same individuals, who are so contemptuous of life-affirming attitudes, have themselves enjoyed the great privilege of having been allowed to be born and are living in this country where they now have the freedom to develop and express their opinions.
That they engaged in their juvenile grandstanding at the expense of their fellow citizens should not go unanswered.
I sincerely hope that the town takes a stand against this sort of thing, for if this proliferates in the future, the wonderful character of the Cape Charles of today will soon disappear into the past.
Or, just throwing this out there………
Let the 1st amendment do it’s work, for without it we wouldn’t know who the evil ones are.
I may or may not agree with this person’s position, but, this is what is known as freedom of speech. I see no problem with someone stating an opinion on signs at a property which HE owns. Who told you to stand there and read them all? If they were so offensive to you, you should have just moved along!
No woman has a right to kill their babies….period. You common woman can do anything you want to ‘your’ bodies. You can not do anything you want to another living human using you as a life support system.
You people do not ‘own’ your babies or kids….Owning another human that you can do anything you want with….well, that went out with slavery.
I’m not sure why you chose me to respond to in this manner. I never stated my position on this issue. I am merely saying that an individual has a right to say what he thinks My college History professor once said, “Everything that is legal is not moral and everything that is moral is not legal”. But we all have a right to speak up and give our opinions. I woke up in America this morning, not Russia.
Much like you have done? Like, over and over again? And just what was false? I think you mean I don’t bow to your way of thinking.
You will be ok…
Dear Jack White – welcome to the United States where people, including capital S capital P Sole Proprietors have a right to express their opinion. Take your red hats to a place where opinions are intentionally stifled please.
Pedro, first of all you made no attempt whatsoever to address the substance of my evaluation and the criticism that followed.
I am committed to advancing what I regard as being in the best interests of all healthy and flourishing communities throughout my beloved United States.
Additionally, your presumption of my political leanings, which by the way are incorrect, ( I consider myself an independent rationalist – being neither a Democrat or Republican) and the amusing attempt to discredit my remarks by virtue of your presumptions represent little more than shallow pandering to emotion.
As I said in the open letter, the people responsible for the storefront display have every right to express their opinions about the issue of abortion, but being responsible enough to choose a proper forum, such as this on- line newspaper provides, would require a mature commitment to engage in a robust, intelligent discussion about a deeply divisive moral and philosophical issue instead to what amounted to juvenile posturing.
Such a discussion would no doubt unearth some common ground between both sides which could prove to be the fruitful reasoning that could produce a balanced compromise on the issue.
Another gentleman who responded to my letter, Stuart Lee Oliver, like you, did not address the substance of my concerns, rather he was content to indulge his feelings and false assumptions instead.
Both of you will have to invest yourselves more fully if we can have a meaningful discussion.
Jack Wright
Dear Jack
So you are the type to fight with strangers on the internet? OK I’m in. Let’s have a discussion. I say the owner of the store had a right to put whatever they want in his window. And you say … what? You are an independent (ok), you are on some sort of purification crusade (not sure why but ok) and as a result of your crusade you are marching across the US writing Op/Eds critiquing our aggregate lack of purity? Or are you just pro life? Don’t obfuscate – get to the issue. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
A “meaningful” compromise on abortion?
Pray tell what would that be?
More to the point, what on earth could that be?
Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, but it is still a matter of a pregnant mother ending a human life, period.
As I understand in NYS, that can be done right up to the moment the babies head is about to enter the world, when if the mother wants it, the doctor rams a scissors mor scalpel though the soft part of its skull and le voila, got a miscarriage that can then be disassembled and parted out, including for use in developing mRNA “vaccines.”
Where’s the “meaningful” compromise there?
If there is one, I’d be curious to hear about it.
As to a woman’s “right” to abortion, it used to be common knowledge at the high school level back when high school was intended to cause people to have to think, as opposed to obeying without question, that Native American women caused abortions with natural herbs that Mother Nature provided them for the occasion.
Abortion among women in the country, including white women and Native Americans, before the Declaration of Independence, was a commonplace that was not questioned.
UConn has an excellent and informed scholarly article on the subject titled “Abortion in Colonial America: A Time of Herbal Remedies and Accepted Actions” by Kimberly Phillips on August 22, 2022 @: https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/abortion-in-colonial-america-a-time-of-herbal-remedies-and-accepted-actions/
Exotic abortifacients and lost knowledge – The Lancet https://www.thelancet.com by L Schiebinger · 2008 · Cited by 7 — We know very little about how and why native Americans developed abortive techniques.
Herbal infusions used for induced abortion – PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov by C Ciganda · 2003 · Cited by 169 — The components of Carachipita are pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), yerba de la perdiz (Margiricarpus pinnatus), oregano (Origanum vulgare), and guaycuri (Statice …
Plants used as means of abortion, contraception, sterilization … https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
by P Arenas · 1977 · Cited by 53 — PIP: Plants used by indigenous Paraguayan groups for contraception, abortion, sterilization, and fertility are identified by species and listed by
Drink Me and Abort Your Baby: The Herbal Abortion Tea https://academicworks.cuny.edu PDF by M Lewis 2016 · Cited by 2 — Slaves and Native American women used a similar herb, the peacock flower, trying to spare their unborn children. Egyptian Pharaohs had written …
Jack Wright: As I said in the open letter, the people responsible for the storefront display have every right to express their opinions about the issue of abortion, but being responsible enough to choose a proper forum, such as this on-line newspaper provides, would require a mature commitment to engage in a robust, intelligent discussion about a deeply divisive moral and philosophical issue instead to what amounted to juvenile posturing.
Such a discussion would no doubt unearth some common ground between both sides which could prove to be the fruitful reasoning that could produce a balanced compromise on the issue.
********************************************
Uh, Jack if I read your letter correctly, what the dude is saying is quite clear and succinct: “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
I’m curious as to how you see a balanced compromise on that.
And what kind of a robust, intelligent discussion can you have with a dude who has made it incandescently clear that he doesn’t want anybody’s rosaries anywhere near his ovaries, let alone actually touching them.
Do you think you can change his mind somehow, get him to rethink his position?
Maybe get him to make exceptions?
It would make for an interesting conversation, of course, if you can get the dude in here to open up about why he feels that way, which some might say is extreme, but hey, somebody’s ovaries are their ovaries and I guess somebody else shouldn’t be trying to touch them without explicit permission, which in this case does not sound forthcoming, but hey, give it a go and we’ll all see how it turns out for you.
I was not responding to your letter Mr Wright. I was responding to Nioaka Marshall’s comment, where she had the audacity to discuss what was “moral” or “right”. I have been on the receiving end of her tirades, and i perceive that very few of her postings reflect much in the way of “morality”or anything approaching the facts.
Thanks for speaking up.
The only thing more common than a woman who kills her own babies are the ones that feels filthy dogs are her babies/children. God made wolves, jackals, foxes, coyotes ect….Man multitailed His work and made ‘dogs’.
Stay Hydrated….
Freedom of speech does not mean you are allowed to say everything you think. You have made abusive comments to people on this forum that were vicious and patently false. You deserve any criticism you get.
Exactly what was vicious? And what was false? You are an overgrown schoolyard bully and you just hate on anyone who doesn’t bow down to you and agree with your opinions.
Implying that someone you know nothing about, and have never met, has murdered their spouse is a start. In my opinion,you are in serious need of psychiatric help.
Maybe you are projecting the circumstances of your own husband’s demise upon others?
You are beneath contempt.
Which husband? I can think a lot of things. I NEVER even once said anyone murdered a spouse. My husbands died of cancer and heart disease/stroke. Not exactly murder. And they were both under a doctor’s care. Moving on from you, you big bully! You aren’t really worth a moment of my time. I have a life. I suggest you go get one also instead of trying to bully anyone with an opinion different from your own.
I suggest you look back on some of your old comments. You know very well what you accused me of. I did an asset search on you and found nothing of significance. Otherwise you would have been defending yourself in a libel suit. You probably wouldn’t have been so loose with the truth in a court of law.
Freedom of speech is still protected here
Freedom is not free, but The United States Marine Corps will pay for most of your share…
I have never seen the place open to sell ANYTHING. Even when the stuff in the window was more balanced and sometimes funny. If that’s how he wants to spend his money, have fun.
He?
The same dude who is saying “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries?”
Where did he get ovaries from?
Does his sign say?
Or is that yet another unexplained mystery of the Old West?
Not only is this store owner exercising a constitutional right to free speech, he or she is expressing an opinion shared by a majority of Americans. Most Americans support a woman’s right to choose. Most Americans were opposed to the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The majority of Americans support, at least in part, the sentiment of this store display. Instead of fretting over the hypothetical children who may wander down Mason Avenue and be “assaulted” by the idea that a woman should have control over her own reproductive health, perhaps you should reserve some of your outrage for the actual children (girls) who will now be forced to endure pregnancies for which they are not mentally or physically prepared, and for the pregnant women who will be caught in the legal conundrum of whether they are sufficiently close to death to permit their medical care providers to intervene. There are many more people that support and appreciate this display of support for women, than those who would oppose it.
Uh, Susan, you seem to be clued in on these things, and the tribal jargon or code being used by these people to express their outrage, which tribal code quite frankly flies right by my head uncomprehended, and here I am talking specifically about “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
Since you are in the know here, perhaps you could take a moment to give us a dissertation on what exactly that means.
WHO is it out there that has their rosaries on this dude’s ovaries?
WHO out there has their rosaries on anybody’s ovaries?
HOW is that even done, given that the ovaries are inside the body, not outside.
Do you think the dude is maybe confused?
I can see him not wanting somebody touching his junk with their rosaries, although I don’t know why they would do that, but ovaries?
What’s your vote, Susan?
Help us out here, if you can.
Keeping one’s legs closed is not an option?
I’d proffer if one is not ready-mentally or physically- for parenthood, then the precursor to parenthood should NOT have been initiated.
And do not put forth the ‘rape and incest’ defense. No one supports that to the point of forced birth.
And Susan? I support people right to choose. Especially at the State level.
Perhaps instead of shaming women to keep their legs closed we can kindly ask men to keep their d@cks in their pants.
You are not right are you? It take a woman to make a man aroused.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but why are you using my moniker here?
Susan, you sound nice and you sound sincere, but my goodness, you have yourself so worked up and emotionally distraught that you are waxing quite hysterical here.
Have YOU ever bothered to actually READ Roe v. Wade, word for word for word?
And hey, why don’t you and I and Jack Wright, who also seems nice, and sincere like you, read it together, to see if it comes anywhere near to what you seem to think it says about the supposed “RIGHT” to an “UNQUALIFIED” abortion on demand, to wit:
Jane ROE, et al., Appellants,
v.
Henry WADE.
No. 70-18.
Argued Dec. 13, 1971.
Reargued Oct. 11, 1972.
Decided Jan. 22, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1973.
See 410 U.S. 959, 93 S.Ct. 1409.
Syllabus
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.
A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene.
A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife’s health.
A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies.
Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs’ Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The court ruled the Does’ complaint not justiciable.
Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court’s grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.
Held:
1. While 28 U.S.C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclose when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical.
2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not.
(a) Contrary to appellee’s contention, the natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not moot her suit.
Litigation involving pregnancy, which is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated.
(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688.
(c) The Does’ complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s QUALIFIED right to terminate her pregnancy.
Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation MUST be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, MAY, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are REASONABLY RELATED to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, MAY, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
4. The State may define the term ‘physician’ to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court’s ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional.
Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We really view you all as murderers, it is just as simple as…
Exodus 20:13
“Thou shalt not kill.”
Given more thought, I think it takes an enormous amount of nerve for Mr. White to waltz into Cape Charles and criticize one of our own tac payers for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Mr. White – as you may or may not have realized, this is the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our soil has some history. Blood has been shed here in the name of freedom – in more than one century.
Your opinion is exactly that – your opinion. Its meaningless here.
Buenos Dias señor,
Pedro
If you care so much about this “meaningless” opinion at least have the brains to get the authors last name right LOL
In response to all the comments of my expressed opinions, I offer the following:
1. Of course, the storeowners in question have a constitutional right to express their viewpoint! That is not the issue. It is all about the appropriate packaging of the message and what is in the sustainable, best interests of Cape Charles.
2. All citizens have a constitutional right to their freedom of expression, but in this case, the manner in which these opinions are being expressed is at best questionable.
3. All people have a right to be inconsiderate and offensive, but it is generally not a responsible, nor intelligent route to pursue. I would find it hard to believe that most Cape Charles citizens and those thousands who visit the town, would regard these displays as enhancing the quality of life in the community.
4. Suppose other storeowners who harbored controversial opinions, such as those of white supremacists, black nationalists, anarchists etc., etc., or more to the point, pro-life folks who would want to display gruesome pictures of the results of partial birth abortions, would plaster their images and slogans in storefronts throughout the town? Their constitutional right to do so would NOT make it a good idea. Clearly such a turn of events would not serve the long- term interests of the community. Also, I would be more than surprised if those who have railed against my observations would be as quick to lend their unqualified support to the presence of those controversial opinions described above because their free speech demanded that they be supported in doing so.
Cape Charles is not the Berkley college campus.
5. With regard to my having “a lot of nerve” to express my opinions because I am not a citizen of the town, I suppose that all would welcome my thoughts if I expressed nothing but generous compliments, which by the way I strongly stated in the beginning of my opinion piece, instead of my taking the time to confront a serious matter. I am invested in preserving the beauty and character of Cape Charles. My right to free speech would encourage me to express my opinions in any town across America. I think that the hope that people would conduct themselves with a little dignity is not too much to advocate for when anyone addresses any important issue, anywhere in our country.
6. Susan, how you came to the conclusion that most of the towns people and visitors support the storefront displays is a mystery to me, but that is not the point of my concerns. I think you need to re-read my two offerings more carefully. In our democracy, public policy is to be determined by public debate, especially when involving an issue that that is so divisive across our country. In the end, those that have attempted to privilege emotion and bias over reason in the debate can be held accountable for having done so.
7. I have not, during these exchanges, ever stated my position on the availability of abortions for women who feel the need to have them. The opposing sides in this debate, in the extreme, move between advocating for abortions on demand with no restrictions to the opposing position of eliminating all abortions regardless of the circumstances. I am not inclined to prejudge the women who have decided to have abortions, rather I would be very concerned, as are most Americans (by a large majority), that abortions be performed as early as possible in the first trimester. It should never be forgotten that every abortion involves at least two lives. Former President Bill Clinton once stated that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare”. I regard this as a position worthy of the sober consideration of all Americans.
On another note, I want to compliment everyone for taking the time to express their opinions, both those supportive and those critical of my thoughts, but I give a special acknowledgement to Mr. Paul Plante for his consistently thoughtful, well researched, and intelligently presented opinions on a variety of timely and important issues.
Jack Wright
A store and its keeper should be concerned about its customers and the wares they sell….period. Shut up and be a shopkeeper. A basket ball player should shut up and play with their balls. Hollywood should shut up and act. So sick of folks trying to use their jobs as a platform to spew politics. Let us face facts, there was a time in our recent past when an actor was just one step above a prostitute. Now, you people allow yourselves and kids to view them as celebrities and heros.
Roe v. Wade
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring
I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical context. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 71 -72 (1971).
I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion; however, I do not believe that the Court has exceeded the scope of judicial notice accepted in other contexts.
In oral argument, counsel for the State of Texas informed the Court that early abortion procedures were routinely permitted in certain exceptional cases, such as nonconsensual pregnancies resulting from rape and incest.
In the face of a rigid and narrow statute, such as that of Texas, no one in these circumstances should be placed in a posture of dependence on a prosecutorial policy or prosecutorial discretion.
Of course, States must have broad power, within the limits indicated in the opinions, to regulate the subject of abortions, but where the consequences of state intervention are so severe, uncertainty must be avoided as much as possible.
For my part, I would be inclined to allow a State to require the certification of two physicians to support an abortion, but the Court holds otherwise.
I do not believe that such a procedure is unduly burdensome, as are the complex steps of the Georgia statute, which require as many as six doctors and the use of a hospital certified by the JCAH.
I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health.
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
The most famous abortionist was Margaret Sanger. She was for population control and a racist. She is credited with founding Planned Parenthood. Her clinics were to be located in predominantly minority neighborhoods. Roe V Wade was poor law and that’s why it failed. The majority of the country is not in favor of abortion as a method of birth control.These are the facts. I’m not certain how the owner of a store front in little cape charles thinks he or she is impacting the national conversation, because they arent . It seems to be a virtue signal for some other purpose. I’d wager that they and their cocktail party or bbq friends would be appalled and holding rallies if a shop displayed Pro 2nd amendment info or god forbid, a “Donald Trump thank you for a prosperous 4 yrs despite all the fake opposition”sign were erected . The storefront is within its rights ,but is distasteful and evidence of how our political conversation has become classless and bitter. We need to be a little nicer and start talking to each other again. Maybe even agree to disagree and still be friends.