News

Supreme Court overturns federal abortion rights

Lawmakers express dismay; Stanford law professor analyzes potential impact of ruling

By a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe V. Wade decision on abortion rights on June 24, 2022. Courtesy Getty Images.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed the court's Roe v. Wade decision granting women the federal right to an abortion in the United States. The 6-3 decision sends authority to regulate abortion back to the states.

The final opinion, which upheld a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, was an expected but nonetheless stunning end to 50 years of federal abortion rights for women throughout the country. The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court wrote.

In justifying its decision, the majority wrote: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," the decision continued. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Reaction was swift to the court's opinion.

"An ultra-conservative Supreme Court, far out of touch with the American people, just took away the rights of millions of women to control their own bodies. We will steadfastly protect the right to abortion in California. This is a dark day in America," state Assembly member Marc Berman wrote in a tweet.

State Sen. Josh Becker also posted an emotional video on Friday morning.

State Sen. Josh Becker reacts to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.

"This is a depressing day in American history, indeed. The thought that my daughter and her generation may grow up without the protections that we've had the rights that we've had for the last 50 years, is really, really a tough moment.

"California will be a sanctuary state both for our residents, of course, and we're working on access and cost but also for the women who are coming — the tens of thousands of women that we know are going to come from other states," he said.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

On Monday, the legislature passed SCA 10, a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to abortion services and the right to choice in the state constitution, he noted.

"And now we are going further with a package of bills by the Women's Caucus — and I'm proud to be a principal author of one of them — to address cost and accessibility, including growing the abortion workforce. We're going to have to do that. We have to prepare for the tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of women that we know are going to come. We will keep fighting," he said.

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo speaks about rights at stake following the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion on the future of Roe v. Wade, at a press conference outside City Hall in Mountain View on May 6, 2022. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo also weighed in through a written statement.

"Today, for the first time in history, the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right. This decision is cruel. With Roe gone, Republicans will now charge full speed ahead with their plans to ban abortion nationwide, arrest doctors for offering reproductive care and criminalize contraception, including in-vitro fertilization and post-miscarriage care. I'm devastated that today my daughter has less freedom than I did. The Court has put itself on trial. Democrats will not stop fighting to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law, and voters will not let this stand come November," she said.

Stanford Law School Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, predicted during an interview just prior to Friday's decision that the court would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and say there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion rights are "a corpse whose ventilator will be disconnected" in the coming year on a state-by-state basis, he said.

"States like California … will probably make it easier for people from another state to come in. States like Oklahoma and Texas and Mississippi, but also some of the Upper Midwest, some of the Midwest states will ban it and make it illegal," he said.

Greely said it's likely that there will be a workaround through the use of abortion pills.

"I think that we will see a growth in the use of the abortion pills. But those aren't supposed to be used after about 10 weeks of pregnancy, although that's the most common period for women to have abortions; a substantial chunk of abortions happened after 10 weeks. Very, very few happened after 20 weeks, 1% or so.

It's not clear how safe it is to use the abortion pill after 10 weeks, he said.

"I must state that some of the states with the most stringent laws may end up modifying them to include, say, rape and incest exceptions or make clear the health of the mother exception or maybe even establish early time limits like 10 weeks or six weeks instead of zero weeks," he said.

But passage of laws might be limited in their overall effectiveness, he said.

"I think it's very easy for legislators to pass very, very stringent laws that they know won't go into effect, that make the 20% of their constituents who are strongly pro life happy and don't really change the world in any way. The pill makes enforcing a ban much harder on the states that will ban it. And some of the states that have banned it may loosen their laws a little bit," he said.

Stanford Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Law School's Center for Law and the Biosciences. Courtesy Eleanor Greely.

Socially and politically, Greely said he it's unclear how the Supreme Court decision will play out but predicted that the most passionate advocates will become even more politically active.

"This is one of those issues that minorities (of people) on both sides care very, very deeply about. Most of the population will have a view one way or the other, but it's not something as important to them as the price of gasoline. I doubt that there will be major political swings based on this," he said.

But there could be political consequences. Empowering or mobilizing a small number of people can end up having major political effects, even if most of the people don't feel strongly one way or the other, he said.

"I don't feel confident making any prediction about what the long-term political effects will be. Short term, the pro-abortion forces will be very motivated, and will work very hard," he said. Exactly how that would play out isn't clear, but they would likely work on state legislatures and maybe Senate seats.

"But it's hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It took the anti-abortion people 49 years to overturn Roe. I think the pro-life people, the anti-abortion people, will feel empowered and emboldened by their success, which is an impressive success," he said.

"But I think they're also going to be faced with the question, 'Where do they go from here?' And for many of them, they probably don't go anywhere. For many of them, the goal was ending abortion if they've ended abortion in their state, or at least passed laws," he said.

"Even if the practice of abortion ended, given the availability of the pill, I think they'll say OK, good, mission accomplished. Go back to something else. But there will be some, some people who will want to continue, continue to push the borders: of protecting embryos, of protecting fertilized eggs, and who will push farther. So I think there'll be small groups — small but not trivial groups — of people who will be strongly motivated by this result in opposite directions," he said.

Greely said thus far he doesn't see a law that would effectively make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state to receive an abortion, while some bills might be introduced.

"I think they would run into a lot of political resistance to that and particularly from relatively well-off people who think that their spouses or partners or daughters might want to go across the border from Missouri to Illinois to have an abortion," he said.

There are substantial constitutional questions to trying to enforce a law that would ban an activity done in another state where the activity is legal.

"I would have said over the last 50 years that those (laws) probably would be held unconstitutional as violating the rights of Americans to travel from place to place and do things in one state that they can't do otherwise. Nobody has ever tried to punish their citizens for doing gambling that would be illegal in their state if they do it in Las Vegas. So I think there would have been serious constitutional questions. I think there are still serious constitutional questions," he said.

But he didn't know how the current Supreme Court would react if such laws were passed.

"I don't know of any way to know how these five — the five most conservative (justices) — would react to it. I think the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice Roberts would be very sympathetic to the view. You can't constitutionally criminalize in one state something somebody does in another state," he said.

In a statement on Friday, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone praised the Supreme Court's ruling.

"'The arc of history is long but it bends toward justice.' Never have the words the Rev. Martin Luther King, the great prophet of human rights in the 20th century, rung more true. This historic Supreme Court decision would not have happened without 50 years of patient, loving, hard work by people of all faiths and none, in diverse fields including social service, religion, law, medicine, culture, education, policy and politics. But our work has just begun. The artificial barriers the Supreme Court created by erecting a so-called constitutional right out of thin air have been removed. The struggle to demonstrate we can build a culture that respects every human life, including mothers in crisis pregnancies and the babies they carry, continues. We must redouble our efforts to accompany women and couples who are facing unexpected or difficult pregnancies, as well as to offer mercy to those suffering the after-effects of the abortion experience. Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, pray for us."

In a statement on Friday morning, Stanford University School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor and Vaden Health Services Executive Director Jim Jacobs said that as a university and academic medical center operating in California, Stanford abides by California state laws, which require that comprehensive reproductive care is available to patients and provide legal protections for those seeking these services.

"We want to affirm that today's Supreme Court decision does not impact any of the campus health or well-being resources available to our students, faculty, or staff. Our programs and services will continue unchanged. The same applies for patients seeking comprehensive reproductive care services at Stanford Medicine's hospitals and clinics throughout the Bay Area. We continue to abide by California laws and will keep providing these services in support of women's health and health equity for all those who rely on this access regardless of identity.

Minor and Jacobs acknowledged that this is a time of significant change.

"We expect there will be passionate debates in the days ahead and that many of you will participate — and lead — these discussions. Every member of our community has the right to participate in the civic process and express their opinions. We also want to encourage all to engage with empathy and grace during this time. While this landmark decision will have far-reaching consequences, it does not change our community's fundamental values, nor our commitment to our missions of research, teaching, and patient care."

The statement also included resources for mental health and well being for individuals and families in the face of the decision.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Sue Dremann
 
Sue Dremann is a veteran journalist who joined the Palo Alto Weekly in 2001. She is a breaking news and general assignment reporter who also covers the regional environmental, health and crime beats. Read more >>

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you political news. Become a member today.

Supreme Court overturns federal abortion rights

Lawmakers express dismay; Stanford law professor analyzes potential impact of ruling

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 10:55 am
Updated: Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:51 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed the court's Roe v. Wade decision granting women the federal right to an abortion in the United States. The 6-3 decision sends authority to regulate abortion back to the states.

The final opinion, which upheld a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, was an expected but nonetheless stunning end to 50 years of federal abortion rights for women throughout the country. The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court wrote.

In justifying its decision, the majority wrote: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," the decision continued. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Reaction was swift to the court's opinion.

"An ultra-conservative Supreme Court, far out of touch with the American people, just took away the rights of millions of women to control their own bodies. We will steadfastly protect the right to abortion in California. This is a dark day in America," state Assembly member Marc Berman wrote in a tweet.

State Sen. Josh Becker also posted an emotional video on Friday morning.

"This is a depressing day in American history, indeed. The thought that my daughter and her generation may grow up without the protections that we've had the rights that we've had for the last 50 years, is really, really a tough moment.

"California will be a sanctuary state both for our residents, of course, and we're working on access and cost but also for the women who are coming — the tens of thousands of women that we know are going to come from other states," he said.

On Monday, the legislature passed SCA 10, a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to abortion services and the right to choice in the state constitution, he noted.

"And now we are going further with a package of bills by the Women's Caucus — and I'm proud to be a principal author of one of them — to address cost and accessibility, including growing the abortion workforce. We're going to have to do that. We have to prepare for the tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of women that we know are going to come. We will keep fighting," he said.

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo also weighed in through a written statement.

"Today, for the first time in history, the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right. This decision is cruel. With Roe gone, Republicans will now charge full speed ahead with their plans to ban abortion nationwide, arrest doctors for offering reproductive care and criminalize contraception, including in-vitro fertilization and post-miscarriage care. I'm devastated that today my daughter has less freedom than I did. The Court has put itself on trial. Democrats will not stop fighting to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law, and voters will not let this stand come November," she said.

Stanford Law School Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, predicted during an interview just prior to Friday's decision that the court would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and say there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion rights are "a corpse whose ventilator will be disconnected" in the coming year on a state-by-state basis, he said.

"States like California … will probably make it easier for people from another state to come in. States like Oklahoma and Texas and Mississippi, but also some of the Upper Midwest, some of the Midwest states will ban it and make it illegal," he said.

Greely said it's likely that there will be a workaround through the use of abortion pills.

"I think that we will see a growth in the use of the abortion pills. But those aren't supposed to be used after about 10 weeks of pregnancy, although that's the most common period for women to have abortions; a substantial chunk of abortions happened after 10 weeks. Very, very few happened after 20 weeks, 1% or so.

It's not clear how safe it is to use the abortion pill after 10 weeks, he said.

"I must state that some of the states with the most stringent laws may end up modifying them to include, say, rape and incest exceptions or make clear the health of the mother exception or maybe even establish early time limits like 10 weeks or six weeks instead of zero weeks," he said.

But passage of laws might be limited in their overall effectiveness, he said.

"I think it's very easy for legislators to pass very, very stringent laws that they know won't go into effect, that make the 20% of their constituents who are strongly pro life happy and don't really change the world in any way. The pill makes enforcing a ban much harder on the states that will ban it. And some of the states that have banned it may loosen their laws a little bit," he said.

Socially and politically, Greely said he it's unclear how the Supreme Court decision will play out but predicted that the most passionate advocates will become even more politically active.

"This is one of those issues that minorities (of people) on both sides care very, very deeply about. Most of the population will have a view one way or the other, but it's not something as important to them as the price of gasoline. I doubt that there will be major political swings based on this," he said.

But there could be political consequences. Empowering or mobilizing a small number of people can end up having major political effects, even if most of the people don't feel strongly one way or the other, he said.

"I don't feel confident making any prediction about what the long-term political effects will be. Short term, the pro-abortion forces will be very motivated, and will work very hard," he said. Exactly how that would play out isn't clear, but they would likely work on state legislatures and maybe Senate seats.

"But it's hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It took the anti-abortion people 49 years to overturn Roe. I think the pro-life people, the anti-abortion people, will feel empowered and emboldened by their success, which is an impressive success," he said.

"But I think they're also going to be faced with the question, 'Where do they go from here?' And for many of them, they probably don't go anywhere. For many of them, the goal was ending abortion if they've ended abortion in their state, or at least passed laws," he said.

"Even if the practice of abortion ended, given the availability of the pill, I think they'll say OK, good, mission accomplished. Go back to something else. But there will be some, some people who will want to continue, continue to push the borders: of protecting embryos, of protecting fertilized eggs, and who will push farther. So I think there'll be small groups — small but not trivial groups — of people who will be strongly motivated by this result in opposite directions," he said.

Greely said thus far he doesn't see a law that would effectively make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state to receive an abortion, while some bills might be introduced.

"I think they would run into a lot of political resistance to that and particularly from relatively well-off people who think that their spouses or partners or daughters might want to go across the border from Missouri to Illinois to have an abortion," he said.

There are substantial constitutional questions to trying to enforce a law that would ban an activity done in another state where the activity is legal.

"I would have said over the last 50 years that those (laws) probably would be held unconstitutional as violating the rights of Americans to travel from place to place and do things in one state that they can't do otherwise. Nobody has ever tried to punish their citizens for doing gambling that would be illegal in their state if they do it in Las Vegas. So I think there would have been serious constitutional questions. I think there are still serious constitutional questions," he said.

But he didn't know how the current Supreme Court would react if such laws were passed.

"I don't know of any way to know how these five — the five most conservative (justices) — would react to it. I think the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice Roberts would be very sympathetic to the view. You can't constitutionally criminalize in one state something somebody does in another state," he said.

In a statement on Friday, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone praised the Supreme Court's ruling.

"'The arc of history is long but it bends toward justice.' Never have the words the Rev. Martin Luther King, the great prophet of human rights in the 20th century, rung more true. This historic Supreme Court decision would not have happened without 50 years of patient, loving, hard work by people of all faiths and none, in diverse fields including social service, religion, law, medicine, culture, education, policy and politics. But our work has just begun. The artificial barriers the Supreme Court created by erecting a so-called constitutional right out of thin air have been removed. The struggle to demonstrate we can build a culture that respects every human life, including mothers in crisis pregnancies and the babies they carry, continues. We must redouble our efforts to accompany women and couples who are facing unexpected or difficult pregnancies, as well as to offer mercy to those suffering the after-effects of the abortion experience. Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, pray for us."

In a statement on Friday morning, Stanford University School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor and Vaden Health Services Executive Director Jim Jacobs said that as a university and academic medical center operating in California, Stanford abides by California state laws, which require that comprehensive reproductive care is available to patients and provide legal protections for those seeking these services.

"We want to affirm that today's Supreme Court decision does not impact any of the campus health or well-being resources available to our students, faculty, or staff. Our programs and services will continue unchanged. The same applies for patients seeking comprehensive reproductive care services at Stanford Medicine's hospitals and clinics throughout the Bay Area. We continue to abide by California laws and will keep providing these services in support of women's health and health equity for all those who rely on this access regardless of identity.

Minor and Jacobs acknowledged that this is a time of significant change.

"We expect there will be passionate debates in the days ahead and that many of you will participate — and lead — these discussions. Every member of our community has the right to participate in the civic process and express their opinions. We also want to encourage all to engage with empathy and grace during this time. While this landmark decision will have far-reaching consequences, it does not change our community's fundamental values, nor our commitment to our missions of research, teaching, and patient care."

The statement also included resources for mental health and well being for individuals and families in the face of the decision.

Comments

roaksinri
Registered user
another community
on Jun 24, 2022 at 4:11 pm
roaksinri, another community
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 4:11 pm

This is why I do not support the Voice or Spotlight- the lack of fair and balanced reporting. We are basically served CNN and MSNBC "lite". You do not even pretend to offer the "other side's" opinion, preferring to just be a mouthpiece for the West Coast Liberals and Progressives. The lamentations of "the end of democracy" is laughable. Too bad you're not print media- you are perfect for lining birdcages and shredding up for the cat litter box...


Leslie Bain
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:24 pm
Leslie Bain, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:24 pm

This decision is pretty scary stuff.

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion,"

It does not make reference to corporations, computers, or iphones either. Apparently if something did not exist in 1788, forget about constitutional protections today. The Constitution is supposed to be a Framework, not detailed and itemized legislation.

"any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.'"

Define "deeply rooted". And see my first point. Apparently if something did not exist in 1788, forget about constitutional protections today. 50 years of legalized protections is "deeply rooted".

Dred Scott decisions live on ... I am horrified, but this is what happens when BOTH PARTIES, Red and Blue, slowly march to the right.


LongResident
Registered user
another community
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:30 pm
LongResident, another community
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:30 pm

It's a bad thing on the face of it, but it is likely to lead to Democrats taking over in such states as Florida and Texas. They will reform those states' (christian fundamentalist) religiously inspired over reaching limits on abortion, which is a tradition that has existed for centuries, despite the ignorant Supreme Court opinion author's misinformation.


Leslie Bain
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Jun 24, 2022 at 6:06 pm
Leslie Bain, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 6:06 pm

Great post by David Sirota about this decision. Web Link

"It Is Time For Dems To Fear Their Own Voters

We’re here because GOP politicians fear their base, while Democratic politicians don’t. That must change."

snip

"While Republican normie voters were being radicalized by Fox News and talk radio, Democratic normie voters were being anesthetized by NPR, The New York Times, The Atlantic, and MSNBC, which taught them to believe that an extremist like John Roberts is a lovable moderate, Mike Pence is an American hero, George Bush is a decent guy, and an operative who installed Sam Alito on the court is a warrior for democracy."

"That media machine convinced Democratic normies to believe the highest calling of citizenship was to simply line up behind party-approved candidates, crush progressive challengers in primaries, and “vote blue, no matter who” in general elections — and then do nothing more, even when “electable” conservative Democrats lost and the few winners produced no change. The worst thing anyone could do, they taught viewers, was criticize, pressure, or protest Democratic leaders to try to get them to do anything."

snip

"So here’s the bad news: Because this dynamic allowed Democratic leaders to never feel the heat of accountability, they never wielded their power to make a serious effort to avert the current nightmare. In many cases, they did the opposite."

The Dems have a brand of being the party of the people. The branding remains, even though the Dems are NOT THAT PARTY ANYMORE - Web Link

The exact wrong thing to do is just go to the polls and "Vote Blue No Matter Who". That is essentially rewarding the Blue Team for not actually FIGHTING for those who put them into office. I've watched as Joe Manchin D-WV became a darling of the party, and helped anti-choice politicians gain power. It's been absolutely maddening to watch. But it kind of happens in slow motion, and most people don't pay attention until something awful happens, as it did today.


Richt
Registered user
Rex Manor
on Jun 26, 2022 at 7:29 pm
Richt, Rex Manor
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2022 at 7:29 pm

"The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California."
Right there lies the problem. The reporters and politicians see our rights as being "granted" by the government TO We the People rather than belonging to We the People in the first place. People really need to read the full Constitution and the Amendments. Those who support abortion, as i do, should see that the 13th Amendment by itself protects abortion rights. Problem is nobody has argued that in a court case so the SCOTUS has never had to address that. NONE of our "rights" have been "granted" to We the People by act of government. Acts of government can only recognize or violate our rights. Government cannot create rights. Only privileges can be "granted" by an act of government. And once the government does grant a privilege to one citizen the 14th Amendment requires that privilege must be granted equally to all citizens. Gay marriage for example. As long as the media says "granted" or implies our rights come from the government we have a major problem. Anyone else get that?


Johnny Yuma
Registered user
Blossom Valley
on Jun 27, 2022 at 10:16 am
Johnny Yuma, Blossom Valley
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 10:16 am

This nation insists on marching backwards. Do the unimaginable: beat the GOP at the midterm elections.


Steven Nelson
Registered user
Cuesta Park
on Jun 28, 2022 at 4:46 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
Registered user
on Jun 28, 2022 at 4:46 pm

Let me see, Justice Thomas wants, in his concurring opinion, to roll back such privacy protection as marriage rights? Oh, when repeal of "Loving v. Virginia" brings back anti-miscegenation law? Won't his best friend "Ginnie" be sad/mad?


Richt
Registered user
Rex Manor
on Jun 28, 2022 at 5:00 pm
Richt, Rex Manor
Registered user
on Jun 28, 2022 at 5:00 pm

Yes, Thomas by himself did far more damage to his own agenda than the ruling itself. He has been his own worst enemy. Something many people...do.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.