'Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property'

[slightlv]

31. Finally, a freaking judge who "gets it!"

this results in different meanings being prescribed to the same words, phrases, and provisions as different minds and sensibilities take their turn discerning that meaning. In other words, the meaning of the Constitution is no more fixed than is the composition of the majority in the highest courts of the land -- especially when formerly bedrock principles such as stare decisis appear to be on the wane.

I really like the way he brought in what has been happening in SCOTUS and other courts today. There is so much in this order that makes common sense of issues that the forced birth people have muddied with their words and religious ideas. That is one area I didn't see the judge address, and I do ding him for that. He even quotes the bible passage that the forced birthers used to justify the Act, but doesn't mention anything about the separation of church and state.

But that is really the only "ding" I can see in this. His language is clear, the footnotes, especially, are extremely valuable. In considering the equal protection clause, I hadn't thought of pregnant vs non-pregnant women as the two classes due equal protection. I'd always just reverted to the male vs female classes, and wondered how you could consider equal protection between those two classes, when men cannot give birth.

Oh, that we would have more judges on the bench like this one! This is a carefully considered judgement, easy to read, and wise in the way Reality actually works. Not according to some Sky God, but according to the state's constitutions and its versions. How so much better a reading than Sam Alito's denial of our rights based on a 16th century witch hunting monk. I think Alito could take some remedial classes from this judge! And to think, this judge is MALE.