It’s easy to blame the five men and one woman on the U.S. Supreme Court who ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson that women have no right under the U.S. Constitutional to autonomy over their own bodies.

But some introspection also is due. Women left the barn door open.

In recent years, black women have focused on the supposed privilege of white women, derisively labelling white women “Karens,” as if we are the enemy and don’t occupy the same row boat on choppy waters in the open sea.

The fight for equal rights for LGBTQ people has focused on biological men who “identify” as women. Zip about lesbian and bisexual women who get pregnant. Even traditional feminist groups, like The Women’s Sports Foundation, sided with biological men who “identify” as women over actual biological women.

Women made it easier for the religious right to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court’s Hypocrisy

The Dobbs v. Jackson decision reeks with hypocrisy.

To justify treating biological men who “identify” as women as being the same as women, Biden relied on a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County.

A 6-3 majority ruled in Bostock that when an employer fires an employee for being gay or transgender, the employer fires that person because of “sex” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented in Bostock for the same reason the majority prevailed in Dobbs. The Bostock majority argued, correctly, that Congress never intend to include gender identity in “sex “when Title VII was passed in 1964. The Dobbs majority similarly ruled that Roe v. Wade is based upon a premise that was entirely unknown when the founders wrote the U.S. Constitution.

So What?

The first case a student reads in law school is the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review among the three supposedly co-equal branches of government. The Court declared it had the power to strike down laws and statutes that violate the U.S. Constitution. This ruling had no foundation in the Constitution whatsoever. The Court did it anyway because it was necessary.

Is the Dobb’s majority gunning to overturn Marbury v. Madison?

In Dobbs, the Court stumbles all over itself to assure us that Bostock is safe.

The Dobbs majority “sharply” distinguishes Roe v. Wade from cases like Bostock, rejecting out of hand any argument that Congress or the states (not the Court) should decide whether or not to protect LGBTQ workers from discrimination. Cases like Bostock, writes Alito, “do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.”

It is obvious the Dobbs sympathizes with gay men and just as obvious that they do not sympathize with women who are in crisis over an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy.

Continuing Hostility Against Women

In recent years, women forgot the journey is not over.

When I was a young girl, I was traumatized upon reading the Chinese had practiced female infanticide for 2000 years. They literally threw female babies into the river to drown.

In my adolescence, I was shocked when I watched a black-and-white documentary showing that back alley abortions were a leading cause of death for women in the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973. These back alley abortions included horrendous coat hanger stuff.

When I went to law school in 1989, I was surprised there was not a single tenured female professor on the faculty of my law school.

Now, I see older women suffering in poverty due to a lifetime of sex, pregnancy and disproportionate age discrimination.

My generation worked tirelessly to open the doors of opportunity to women. But the job is not done.