Roe v Wade and our Miranda rights

Are we covertly returning to the days when pompous old farts dictated what women should or should not be either entitled to, or are capable of accomplishing without the explicit consent of the male of the generation.

The 'SUPREME' court has overturned Roe v Wade.

The people who make up the supreme court are mostly dinosaurs who are already past their prime. Already made their mistakes in their young days, and now have the temerity to be telling modern, independent women what they can and cannot do with the life that was given to them with free will as an addendum to their constitutional rights.

Do women really need their blessings to make whatever decision is tantamount to her well being or freedom of choice in relation to her own body. Even when we make decisions and maybe regret them later, it is our choice to make. Not the courts, not her family or friends, but hers to choose without boundaries, censor or challenge to her intelligence quotient.

Wrong or right should be determined by the individual. We do not get the right to compel a person to make one decision or the other. We may offer advice or counsel, but in the end the decision is the individual's alone. Each person answers to their own higher calling.~

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum the Supreme court has changed the ruling on the Miranda rights:

Miranda Rights

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

In Vega v. Tekoh, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a plaintiff could sue a police officer under §1983, based on the allegedly improper admission of an “un-Mirandized” statement in a criminal prosecution.

Under the new ruling by the Supreme court, failing to Mirandize a person is no longer legal grounds for anyone to sue law enforcement.

In her article entitled "You have to say the magic words", Tami Abdollah, USA, writes:

"The change also makes it easier for police to obtain coerced confessions – by continuing to ask questions even if someone doesn't want to speak – and lets them play with what wiggle room their positions of power already give them, legal experts said.

"The courts are not generous in how they interpret people interpreting their rights. You have to say the magic words," Galvin-Almanza said. "This decision is really damaging because it says the courts don't have to tell you what the magic words are. You better come in knowing your rights."

She pointed to a recent Louisiana case where a suspect in an interrogation told detectives "just give me a lawyer, dawg" and the state's Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was asking for a "lawyer dog" and not actually invoking his Constitutional right to an attorney.

Those magic words, legal experts told USA TODAY, must be affirmatively and explicitly stated as, for example, "I want my lawyer and I want to remain silent" or "I want my lawyer and am invoking my right to remain silent." And then you should stay silent". Unquote.

In my humble opinion, the lawyer dog, given the chance, could probably have aptly represented his or her client quite expeditiously. Maybe a few lawyer dogs are needed to help the judiciary system along.

As usual decisions are made by people, mainly men in power, purely on political time tables and political agendas than what is actually best for everyone involved. We seem, as usual, to be moving backwards instead of forwards on all issues.

These issues, coupled with gun woes and gun laws or lack thereof are bringing tempers to the proverbial boiling point.

The patience of the people are wearing thin. The world is burning hot, both literally and figuratively. People in authority need to wake up and listen to the voices that they choose to represent.

Do not wait for civil wars and general discontent, although discontent is now rampant in every part of the globe.

N.A.