Two years ago, I wrote about my reservations toward Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the future I was afraid of if she was appointed to the Supreme Court. Today, many of these fears have become a reality. On June 24, 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, federally eliminating the right to abortion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas writes a concurring opinion on this case stating his intention for the court to revisit Griswold v. Connecticut which provides the right to contraception, Lawrence v. Texas which made same-sex activity legal and Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized gay marriage. Reproductive rights and being queer are on the chopping block exactly as I feared. I wish I could blame this all on Justices Barrett or Thomas; however, it is not one justice’s doing. The judicial system is flawed and our perception of it allows the harm to continue.  

   The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It consists of nine judges who are tasked with interpreting the law, determining the constitutionality of the law and its application to specific cases. This is an immense power to bestow on people who are not elected by the American public, but rather by presidential nomination and confirmation of the Senate. This is meant to save the justices from partisan pressure. However, as both the President and the Senate are partisan and the Senate has historically confirmed justices based on political leanings, this may be for naught. However, I have found that the idea of an impartial Court and unbiased justices is widespread. 

   On my initial article, commenter Eric said, “it [the Court] interpret’s the laws as to constitutionality and legality brought before it and nothing further.” Eric says “nothing further” as if this is some small part of our government, not a massive undertaking where bias and prior beliefs play a role. “Ridiculous. Supreme Court Justices don’t impose their personal agenda on the country. Hasn’t happened since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and it’s arguable if it occurred then,” commenter Gerry added. 

   Plainly, the Justices have historically been and currently are partisan positions. Compare Justice Thomas or former Chief Justice William Rehnquist to former Associate Justice William Douglas or former Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall. Respectively, these justices are the most and least conservative that have ever sat on the Court. They have been looking at the same Constitution but have been handing down rulings differently because it is not just the law they are looking at. They are influenced by their biases and beliefs about what the constitution is. UCLA law professor Richard Hansen writes about his fears that the current Court has taken pro-partisanship to the extreme. 

   With this knowledge, a recent New York Times article by Larry Buchanan fills me with dread for the American public. The article shows how the Supreme Court has carefully crafted their image to be that of their building, not of the people who make up the court. Every article about their decisions includes a photo of a building marked with the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” The culpability of their decisions is not on the people who make them, because they are protected by a facade of impartiality and infallibility. Eric and Gerry are not alone in their idea of the Supreme Court, because of the propaganda we are fed about the Court.

In this past term, the justices have ruled on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen which deemed a century-old New York law limiting the public carrying of guns unconstitutional. They have also indicated their influence on Medicare and Medicaid programs through Biden v. Missouri, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation and, most recently, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. They also had a hand in the climate crisis through West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency where they ruled that the EPA could not cap emissions.

   The Supreme Court makes decisions that will shape every American’s future and they are but nine people. They have many believing that they are infallible while they support their beliefs just like the rest of us. The New York Review’s David Cole says it clearly, “Compromise, consensus, and the rule of law are out; the radical exercise of power is in.”

   I thought I couldn’t get more scared than I was when the barrage of negative comments reached my Barrett article. But my fear of Eric calling me “Poor little Penelope,” Heartland Patriot saying I’m “absolutely hyperbolic and ridiculous,” A Catholic telling me to “Please repent” or even Dylan calling my writing “sexist garabage” is nothing to how it feels now. Everyone should be terrified at how reproductive rights and simply being queer are up for debate along with healthcare, gun reform and environmental regulations. Whether or not the law protects us is being decided by an extremely partisan group that obfuscates who their intentions behind their neutral rhetoric. V.L. Seek said it perfectly in Roxane Gay’s “Not That Bad,” “We are trapped in a legal system that has never favored women and has never believed survivors.” 

When I was in high school I volunteered at a hospital. One day, when I was working at the ICU desk, I witnessed a man wake up from a coma. Upon trying to pull out his intubation tubing, he promptly vomited into his tubing, choked, and almost died. Yet, the most harrowing thing I have ever witnessed is an anti-choice protest. Just this year, bills banning abortions have been introduced in thirty states and both sides of the issue are fighting harder than ever. In spirit of this, I want to elaborate why I find the anti-choice movement so unappealing.

   First of all, the anti-choice movement’s belief that it is acceptable to go as far as personally intervening in each person’s attempt to enter a reproductive health clinic is absurd to me. I don’t see anyone harassing gas stations for selling cigarettes for the half a million people who die from smoking each year. Physically blocking people and screaming at them should never be one’s method of disagreement. Instead of spending time holding posters and shaming others, take the time out of your day to write letters to State legislators. Fight with clinic managers for all I care, but do not obstruct the individual patients. When you do that, you are directly and publicly degrading a human being, and not helping the cause at all.

   As a clinic escort at Planned Parenthood, the behavior of protestors, particularly during Respect Life month, shocked me. At clinics besides my clinic location it is even worse; I’ve seen escorts and patients have mutilated dolls thrown at them and be showered in slurs I wouldn’t dare repeat. This technique is abysmal and it’s pretty horrific that anyone would act this way towards another human being, especially those they claim to respect so much. 

   In my time volunteering as an escort, I learned of a newer tactic of the anti-choice movement. Posing as clinic escorts, protesters wear neon vests similar to the old Planned Parenthood ones, and have an iPad to “check-in” the patient. Not actually checking anyone in, they use this to collect information to later harass the patient further. Though they claim to only use the contact information to share resources about crisis pregnancy centers and other options, it’s still so horrifying to see patients trust this person, only for them to be a fraud. 

         The lying and spreading of misinformation by anti-choice groups is rampant; as a matter of fact, I even believed some of the lies. In all the books I’ve read, something that really seems to aggravate doctors is the term “partial-birth abortion.” The term itself is not medical; it was created by the National Right to Life Committee as a fear tactic. Anti-choicers have a tendency to give out misinformed literature to passersby. “The Making of Pro-Life Activists” by Ziad Munson provides some examples of common falsehoods shared by protesters: “You’re immature for this, clinics are performing abortions for profit, abortion will cause depression, you’ll gain weight and lose your sexual appetite following the abortion.” None of these have been proven by any reputable source. Rather, they use individual stories and claim it’s fact. 

          Recently, I’ve seen a lot of movies and alleged documentaries about abortion which exaggerate and sensationalize an already sensitive topic. The movie “Unplanned,” for example, has enough false information to power a whole campaign. They also only present the story of the outliers. As a matter of fact, 95 percent of those who have gotten an abortion do not regret their decision. There was an entire movement in 2015, #ShoutYourAbortion, which later culminated in a book that consisted of those 95 percent sharing how happy they were with their abortions and how their lives have been bettered. The 5 percent that regretted their decision are still valid in their feelings, but only presenting their stories for agenda fuel isn’t fair. As Amelia Bonow shares in “Shout Your Abortion,” “The anti-choice movement terrorized us into silence decades ago, and they filled that silence with lies.” 

        In the media, abortion is so villified that the strength women have in doing what is best for them and embracing their autonomy is powerful. No matter what anti-choice people say, you are not selfish, you are not immature, you are strong and I stand with you. In the book, “Shout Your Abortion” there are a few lines I will leave you with that hopefully make you feel as powerful as they made me feel. Viva Ruiz said, “I am completely unbothered by the health care I chose, and I wouldn’t do anything differently. Abortion is normal. Autonomy is joyful.” Miki Sodos said, “My abortion was the first empowering choice that I had made for myself in a very long time. I was drowning. I believe that my abortion was a major catalyst for me to get my life together.” 

   Abortion is such a complicated issue with so many circulating beliefs, but we can prove our points in front of politicians, not in front of the person struggling with pregnancy outside of a doctor’s office. Don’t fill conversations with shame and condescension; people who have abortions aren’t immature or selfish. 1 in 4 women in the United States have had an abortion and 95 percent of them are glad that they did. Choose your words wisely and stop lying.

I am perpetually in awe of the women who paved the way for me and for all American women. Whether it be Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who fought for my right to vote, or Mary Bruemmer who was the first woman on the University News staff, I am forever indebted to these women and their legacies. However, it is Alice Paul’s work, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), that we must finish for her now. The ratification period for states from its original passing in the House and Senate has long elapsed, and as a result, the amendment should be reintroduced so we can ratify it correctly.

   The ERA was originally introduced to Congress in December 1923 by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. The feminist movement garnered support throughout the 60s and Rep. Martha Griffiths brought it back before the House in 1971. It was twice approved in Congress by March of 1972. Within the following seven years, 38 states needed to ratify it. By 1977, 35 states had ratified the amendment. However, during that time, Phyllis Schlafly took matters into her own hands, stoking the fears of conservative women that they might be drafted or lose alimony. This influence caused five states to revoke their ratification. Following this period, President Carter extended the deadline for ratification, but no states moved to ratify during that time. In the 2010s, three states showed enough interest in the amendment to ratify it far past any deadline. Now, lawsuits are occurring regarding the revocation of ratification and late ratification proceedings. The next step would be to reintroduce the ERA in a new era of feminism and political action. 

   When I first saw the ERA, I thought of the Fourteenth Amendment, which I had thought meant people of any gender had equal rights. However, that is not the case; in Bradwell v. The State, the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect a woman’s right to practice law. The origin of the Fourteenth Amendment was for former Black male slaves to have equal rights and protections, but not women. We have various acts protecting us still like Title IX, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, but additional laws can erase those protections. If there was a definitive statement put into our constitution that directly targets equal rights for all, it would protect the lives of countless individuals. 

   Some concerns surrounding the ERA are that it would lead to problems with Title IX and other legal protections for women, but the ERA would arguably make Title IX stronger. Some worry that the ERA may erase a judge’s predisposition to grant mothers primary custody, which I see as a good thing because each parent would have to prove themselves as competent caretakers in the eyes of the law. While the ERA will likely lead to women being drafted, women have been successfully serving in all branches of the military for decades now and I don’t see this as a problem. In regards to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it would help ensure parental leave for all. A nuance that people associate with the ERA is that it might create a legal basis for genderless bathrooms, locker rooms and dorms, but if everyone implements boundaries, this would not pose a problem. The most valid complaint I have seen is that the ERA might serve as a way for pro-choice organizations to ensure equal, safe access to abortions. However, if you’re afraid that equal rights would ensure people have access to abortions, then you agree that the issue you have is not with the unborn fetus but with the person carrying it. 

   People who don’t understand the breadth of discrimination that women experience might think this is a symbolic amendment or that it won’t do anything. But, even as a symbol, it would be a powerful statement  for Americans and for the rest of the world.  I, for one, would have been less terrified during Trump’s election and Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination if I had known that I wouldn’t be stripped of my rights and protections. To know that, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” would be a constant comfort. 

   I know that the historical women who inspired me suffered because they didn’t have their rights protected, but we can do this for future Americans; for the Eleanor Roosevelts and Betty Friedans who could’ve done so much more if they had the rights and privileges that their male counterparts did. 

Ever since I can remember, when my sister, mother and I get together, we watch Amy Sherman-Palladino’s “Gilmore Girls.” I have cited it as my favorite show for most of my life. I always wanted to be just like Rory; I even had the extra drawers full of books just like her. I joined my high school newspaper to continue on the road she paved. It wasn’t until my recent rewatch that I realized Rory is actually the villain of the story. Watch out – spoilers ahead!

It always felt odd when she lost her virginity in a spur-of-the-moment decision with her married ex-boyfriend Dean. That disregard for fidelity can be dismissed on the fact that she was just nineteen. Later, in the reboot “A Year in the Life” Rory would fly to London regularly to help another ex-boyfriend, Logan, cheat on his fiancée while she is in a relationship with a man named Paul who she consistently forgot existed. She was 32 and should know right from wrong and that cheating is not a good and noble act.

   Maybe she just doesn’t have relationship know-how or the relationships she saw her mother participate in gave her less respect for others in relationships. However, she can take zero criticism in any aspect of her life and won’t take responsibility when she does recognize it as bad behavior. 

   In the very first season, Rory is late for school because she hits a deer and misses a test in the process. The class did not allow for a make-up test and Rory heard “no” for maybe the first time in her life and practically threw a fit. The town of Stars Hollow practically revolves around her and the nosy town members are constantly interested in her life and never blame the perfect Rory. When Jess crashed her car, Rory was a helpless victim. When Rory recommends moving inappropriate movies to a higher shelf, she is praised beyond belief and gets a sign in her honor. 

   In her college newspaper, she had to write interesting articles in order to be on staff. She resorted to making fun of a dancer’s weight to make a compelling article and mocked a poor girl relentlessly, even calling her friendless. Later, when she got an internship at a newspaper (from her boyfriend’s dad I might add) she hears for the first time that she might not be perfect for this career and she goes on a destructive rampage, blaming everyone but herself. She steals a yacht, gets arrested, drops out of Yale, and refuses to talk to her mother who worked very hard for her to have the opportunity to attend Yale. 

  At her sentencing for the robbery, she expected 20 hours of community service, which is startlingly light when she could’ve been charged with a felony. When she was sentenced with 300 hours of community service over six months, she acted like it was a full-time job. Had she worked 40 hours a week, which is considered a full-time job, she could’ve gotten it done in two months. Or if she wanted to spread it out over the six months, that would’ve been a mere 10 hours a week. 

She has wealthy grandparents and has always lived comfortably. She always had the cushion of her grandparents to fall back on. She was able to go to Chilton, her private high school, and Yale free of cost except for a measly Friday night dinner with her grandparents. When her friend Paris loses her family’s support and has to work to live and stay at Yale, Rory is ambivalent. She acts innocent and humble, however she’s been to Europe multiple times, has graduated from a prep school and an Ivy League school, has always had a roof over her head and gets take-out most nights shown in the show. Her whole act is nothing but fake and annoying. I regret idolizing her for so many years when in reality she is a bad examoke for young girlse. Seeing another bookworm who has a good relationship with their mother, and who I so strongly related to, make horrible decisions and not recognize their privilege is such a let down. When you rewatch or reread something you loved as a child in an adult perspective, you can see flaws that you may not have realized.

Just outside of St. Louis City is Missouri’s Second Congressional District where Representative Trish Gunby is running for election. Rep. Gunby has served Missouri’s House of Representatives 99th district since 2020 and on August 2, 2021, she announced her run for the second congressional district’s United States House seat. “I was, and am, very happy to serve as a state representative. But I will tell you after January 6, what happened at the capital, that event sort of shifted everything,” Rep. Gunby mentioned as one of her reasons for running. 

Both the insurrection and Michael Brown’s death in 2014 changed a lot for Rep. Gunby. During these events, she did not feel represented by incumbent Representative Ann Wagner, who has held the seat since 2013. “I haven’t felt a sense of representation,” Rep. Gunby said. “Part of this job is to represent everybody and we all aren’t going to agree, but to close off that option in terms of face-to-face communication or even phone call or email communication. People just want to be heard.”

My attempt to reach out to Rep. Wagner received no response. Rep. Gunby shared how she receives calls and emails from people who need federal assistance, but can’t get through to Rep. Wagner. In comparison, on her website, Rep. Gunby has a Google Form anyone can fill out. Despite not having the same resources as Rep. Wagner, Rep. Gunby still makes an effort to read through the responses. Upon securing a potential election win, Rep. Gunby said that the first thing on her agenda would be to hold a town hall where members of the community will be heard. “We may not agree on everything, but I still will serve them,” Rep. Gunby said.

Rep. Gunby strives to represent her constituents; however, she stands by her principles. On her website there are five major issues that she focuses on which include universal, affordable healthcare, good wages and good jobs, social equity and racial justice, constitutionally-endowed voting rights and a transparent, functional government.

One of the first issues I talked to Rep. Gunby about was racial justice. She took the time to educate herself since the shooting of Michael Brown and even led a church seminar on diversity and social justice. “A lot of what we do is legislation. We’re in D.C. 100 days a year, but you’re at home 265 days a year. I think a big part of the job is to set up events and opportunities to bring in experts to deal with tough subject matter and to educate and inform your constituents,” Rep. Gunby said.

From there I inquired about other issues important to me, starting with gun control. “Many times Democrats get labeled as ‘we’re gonna take your guns,’” Rep. Gunby shared. “We advocate for common-sense gun solutions and a reduction in gun violence. I believe what that looks like in this region is universal background checks, what they call red flag laws where individuals who have been convicted or suspected of domestic violence would not have access to weapons.” As a state representative, she supported the idea of individuals receiving tax credit upon purchasing a gun safe in order to incentivize gun safety. 

Climate change is another large issue for me, and Rep. Gunby elaborated  on where she stood.“It’s happening!” Rep. Gunby exclaimed. “I’m tired of living through hundred-year floods that happen every five years. It’s obviously happening and the U.S. needs to be a leader in it. We need to see things happen sooner rather than later.”

With all the talk right now about abortion rights, as a woman I also wanted to find where she stood. “I am a pro-choice candidate. I believe in a person’s right to choose,” Rep. Gunby stated. “I am worried about the legislation that I see moving through state legislatures trying to undo Roe v. Wade.”

Even if Rep. Gunby’s beliefs don’t align with yours, you should still consider supporting her because of her ability to listen to opposing viewpoints. This same engagement is not reflected with Rep. Wagner, who has shown to be virtually absent.

Missouri’s second congressional district is very competitive and mixed, which highlights the extra work she must put forth to flip the seat. “I’m two months in and we are already doing the work necessary. We did it at the state level and we will ramp up and require more volunteers, more money, more engagements, more digital ads, everything is more,” Rep. Gunby said. “We have already started door knocking. We have door-knocked over 2,500 doors.”

She emphasized that “A lot of the students may not be from the St. Louis area but they are wanting to do stuff and certainly during election time next November, you’ll all be back in school and we will need more people than ever to help us in this effort since we will likely not know the boundaries for this district until late winter next year,” Rep. Gunby said. “I’m excited that you’re interested and I would love to have as many SLU students as possible on my team. They can go to my website trishgunby.com and sign up to volunteer and members of my team will reach out.”

Last semester, I signed up for a special topics night psychology class on applied behavior analysis. It seemed to be an interesting type of therapy and I needed another psychology class. After the first two classes, I had a horrible feeling. 

Applied behavior analysis therapy, or ABA, is the leading therapy for children with autism who experience self-stimulating behaviors, also known as stims. Stims are behaviors ranging from biting nails, cracking knuckles, leg bouncing and twirling hair. We all do it. I, for one, am a knuckle cracker. For people with autism, stims can even escalate to headbanging and hair-pulling. These actions are meant to calm, give a sense of control and make distractions easier to manage. Yet, applied behavior analysis therapy uses a reward and punishment system to stop neurodivergent people from doing this natural human function. They do this by teaching to mask rather than teaching to cope. 

Masking is when a neurodivergent person tries to act like a neurotypical person. My sister does this by scripting when she would say “um” in a conversation and colloquially put it as “It feels hella weird.” More professionally, “It takes a lot of time and it is very stressful just trying to sound normal.” According to Healthline, it’s hiding who you are and how you feel to avoid mistreatment. It’s faking eye contact (something they often train you to do in ABA therapy), minimizing interests and mimicking gestures, all to go unnoticed. 

Patients should focus on the development of coping strategies to deal with their stims, while ABA therapy simply covers it up with a reward rather than solving the problem. Though it may be the most efficient way to stop the self-harming behaviors,  positive reinforcement is how you would train your dog, not how you help a child. In my sister’s words, “It’s kind of crappy treating humans like pets.” Instead of developing the necessary coping strategies, caretakers spend 10-40 hours a week (usually 2-3 hours a day) teaching children to mask. Neurodivergent children shouldn’t be taught how to mask their way into the neurotypical world. They should instead be learning how to best make the world work for them. Also, for me, therapy once a week is completely draining, let alone for hours every day.

In this type of therapy, the child’s hunger, thirst, need for attention or a certain calming toy will be completely ignored until they do or stop doing whatever behavior they are exhibiting. What if your roommate wanted you to do the dishes and wouldn’t talk to you until you did? That would make you feel worthless and hurt regardless of their intentions. It might also teach that it doesn’t matter what you want to do with your body, you must stop and do what they want or tell you to do. That seems a lot like ignoring consent and not teaching bodily autonomy as it should be. 

It’s unethical to force kids to undergo hours of intensive work where they have no control. According to Brené Brown, a Professor of Social Work,  “Part of trauma is a situation, an environment, over which we have no control.” That sounds like ABA therapy to me.

As a psychology major, I am always interested in learning different facts and hearing stories about people’s experiences with therapy. My TikTok For You Page can sense it. As such, I get many #abatrauma TikToks, which talk about how the use of rewards rather than intrinsic motivation created long-term negative effects and left the creators unable to do basic tasks without a therapist there to give them a piece of candy. 

In the book “Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes” by Alfie Kohn, who lectures widely on psychology and education, writes: “behaviorism is by its very nature dehumanizing… the human self has been yanked up by its roots and the person reduced to a repertoire of behaviors.”

ABA therapy dehumanizes the patients and their behaviors to something that needs to be “fixed” so they can “fit in.” I am vehemently against this type of therapy as well as the continuation of training new ABA therapists. In the class I eventually dropped, we watched a video of a neurodivergent child stim, which was a private event, should not have been recorded, and is not educational. We also learned how a therapist used applied behavior analysis to stop this non-harmful stim using positive reinforcement or giving a reward when the child stopped the behavior, thereby teaching the child to mask. 

I dropped the class because at the time I couldn’t handle fighting a teacher every class period, but looking back, I regret not fighting and allowing this class to get indoctrinated with these ideas. SLU has a whole masters program for teaching people to spread this traumatizing and damaging therapy and it needs to be stopped. SLU had no problem dropping several majors and minors, why should they have a problem stopping the support of something that has a high potential to be harmful? 

I am an allistic (non-autistic) person, and that means I should not be leading this conversation. Listen to the voices of those who have negative experiences with ABA and remember that regardless of what an ABA practitioner says of their therapy, autistic adults that have been through it call it abuse, and I listen to survivors.