Dear Subscriber,
First, I want to humbly thank all of you who sent me and posted comments of support after my report on declining sperm counts with the June 23, 2022 report. Your warm and kind comments do keep me going to provide time to educate and get a dissenting word out. Thank you.
Next, I got a very thoughtful message from one subscriber on my post in Roe v Wade. I would like to comment on it. I will put her words in quotes “ “, and respond in brackets [ ].
“Dr. Rowen, if in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution protected people from forced vaccinations and gave every individual the right to refuse any vaccination without repercussion, and then that right was yanked away and left to the states (half of which would force vaccinations, including the covid vaccine), would you be writing this same exact article?”
[Yes, truth is truth in my book. Health matters are state matters, not federal matters. I would take my fight to the state, much more local than Washington D&C. In Alaska, in 1990, almost singlehandedly, I was able to persuade the people of the state to rise up and demand of their legislature to pass North America’s first statutory protection for alternative medicine.]
“I believe that all medical decisions should be made solely between a patient and doctor and that the doctor/patient relationship should be free of overreach from the state and federal government. This includes choices surrounding vaccination as well as reproductive rights.”
[My post did not differ from anything you raise in the preceding paragraph. My post addressed ONLY the limitations in the federal constitution. I believe that Roe v. Wade decision was lawfully in error, and I believe the liberal Justice Ginsburg agreed as well based on her comments. I cannot argue with your last sentence. I would prefer the state to stay out of your life. You make such decisions about your body and reproduction, you take the consequences, whether physical or karmic).
“The idea that anyone, either direction, would impose their beliefs on someone else while simultaneously demanding their own bodily sovereignty is hypocritical. Everyone needs to mind their own business. If it’s not your body, then no one else gets a say. Medical privacy is EVERYONE’S right.”
[There is an issue you raise which I will address in a summary below].
“I like your articles. I think you’re compassionate and there are so many things I agree with. But I don’t agree with government regulation(s) that forces anyone to comply with someone else’s idea of what they can or can’t, should or shouldn’t do with their own body when it comes to their healthcare. It goes both ways whether it be vaccinations or reproductive rights. I belong to myself, no one else. I get to decide what is medically right for me and what is not based upon my own beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Brenda””
[Thank you. And please see my commentary below].
And from another subscriber:
“So in the US, guns now have more rights than women do.”
[No, guns have no rights. They are not alive sentient beings. They are objects. And guns are well known to protect households and businesses from serious crime. That seems to be forgotten or deliberately ignored. It is also forgotten that several times in history, including American history, when guns were taken away, horrible suffering ensued. In our history – look at what happened to the American Indians when disarmed. In Germany, looked what happened to Jews and minorities when guns were confiscated after the Nazi’s took power. People foolishly disclosed to the Weimar Republic where their guns were when promised no further government action would happen. However, the Nazis got the information when they took over and you know what happened next. The Nazis even went door to door to round off sharp knife tips. All of us know what happened next.]
The second amendment was not passed to protect hunters. It was to protect the People from abuses of government. That is well known historically. But rewriters of history would rather teach you otherwise. The last school shooting would not have occurred except for police abject NEGLIGENCE. That is now a proven fact by the evidence.]
Now for some of my deeper thoughts on abortion. I have been hit with both scorn and praise for my post from people both close and distant to me. And I only addressed one matter – that of keeping the feds out of matters of the state, which, in my opinion, is what this case was all about.
We are dealing with an unresolvable situation, in my opinion. It is like trying to solve the square root of -1, which does not exist except in the imagination.
I have seen the consequences of back-alley abortions. I have seen where women regret abortions in the past. I have seen the other side raise the fact that some of those aborted might have become Nobel Prize winners and done some remarkable things with their lives. That is absolutely true. But I have also seen many women who rose above their abortion to become physicians, attorneys, artists, musicians, etc, which, if they were forced to carry a baby to term and raise him/her/they, their accomplishments would not have occurred. Maybe we have Nobel Prize winners whose lives would have been chained to child rearing if they were prohibited an abortion. So, there are two sides to that issue of the baby becoming accomplished - the mother (and father) is involved in accomplishment in her life as well. Both sides need to consider this.
Then there is the issue of one of society’s goals in protecting the sanctity of human life. There are those that believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that the conceived life needs to be protected, not differentiating the fertilized egg from a born baby. Then there are those who believe that life begins at birth. The former are indignant that there are not laws to protect the life of real humans (an embryo, a fetus), but yet unborn. The latter may believe that the fetus is part of the mother and may be severed at any time prior to term delivery. Then there are those that argue for a time limit on abortion, say, the first trimester or earlier, and those that argue for or against exceptions for rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother, or for or against abortion for a clearly genetically or physically deranged conception.
I do not agree with imposing my spirituality (religion) on anyone else. I am vegetarian for karmic and spiritual reasons. Ask any of my patients. I have NEVER asked anyone to become vegetarian. That is a personal decision. Similarly, I cannot impose my view on when life begins on anyone else.
I do feel I know more than the average person of modern dumbed down education on the common law and also the intent of the Constitution. I fully agree that health matters were never to be part of the feds. So, that leaves the states, which were supposed to be SOVEREIGN in matters that were not delegated to the feds. That is one of the beauties of our nation. You are free to live in a state where you feel comfortable with its laws and mores. If you don’t like the state you are living in, say a red state, then get out. Vice versa. Liberty to move is guaranteed and enshrined in the Constitution.
I am not happy with the draconian totalitarian legislature of California, and, were I younger, I would get out, as many of you have thoughtfully suggested, in relocating to Texas, Idaho, or Florida. But you know, the Texas medical board was recently ruthless towards alternative doctors, and surprisingly, we have a protective law on the books here in California (which Pan is intent on undermining) which protects me. So, I have to weigh in on the best overall situation.
Abortion is likely to become illegal in many states where the people feel that life begins at conception. That is the right of the people of the state to enact, I believe. They have a duty to protect life, and they choose to see life beginning at conception. And it is the right of those opposed to toss out the elected representatives who vote to so enact. I do believe this must be done at a local level, NOT a federal level. If more people in a state believe that life begins at conception, then they feel the duty to protect that human life. I fully understand that.
That said, I believe that laws prohibiting abortion have potentially disastrous consequences for the woman who will do most anything to end her pregnancy. It is for this reason that I would prefer no laws regarding abortion and permit the laws of karma to determine the outcome/consequences of her choice. However, I also feel that there should be some limit on abortion. For example, I’ve seen laws proposed that will permit abortion up to term. In other words, labor is induced (the abortion) and the products of conception (the emerged viable fetus) simply left to die. I have to ask people here if anyone thinks this is acceptable. I do not. Today I had lunch with an atheist attorney, who is a really good and moral man. He believes there must be some limits on abortion, such as the first trimester, and certainly not when the fetus could be viable outside the womb. He agreed that the Roe decision was wrong but was very concerned about turning over a half century of established law. And at the end of the afternoon I had an appointment with a staunch feminist and defender of women’s rights. She also agreed that the Roe decision was wrong, that the feds should not be in anyone’s’ shop, including her own, and that abortion had to be determined by the conscience of the woman, but felt that there must be limits – again, perhaps limited to the first few months of pregnancy.
Hence, I see the problem as largely unresolvable as irresistible force meets Immovable object. The solution is solving the square root of -1. That is impossible. On the other hand, if the two sides could talk, and not be extreme, not storm away from each other, there might be a workable compromise that both poles could “coexist” with, like the two cold war enemies coexisted in the past. “MIGHT BE.”
There is controversy over LBTCQZYX issues as well. I think the pendulum on abortion went too far in legislating or calling that abortion is fine up to term. That is extreme. I think the LBGTQXYZ community has gone way too far in putting their agenda in the faces of everyone, especially in schools and libraries. I don’t think that society has any right to dictate who your life partner or sexual partner should be, or your sexual identity. I think if you are born XY and believe you are a girl, fine. Just don’t throw it in my face or my child’s face by walking into her bathroom until you go through full transition, including chopping off your external genitals. Don’t try to groom my child. And, don’t demand to compete with her after your body has been graced (doped) with androgens prior to lopping off your testes.
I’ve had open and frank discussions with some very sensible gay and “bi” patients, I have come to the conclusion that the issue of gay “marriage” polarized our society. The issue of marriage is one of a private union by two consenting adults. However, the issue of recognizing that union by the state for survivorship, taxes, etc. is a “civil union”. My gay patients would have preferred for the government to recognize “civil unions” and not call it “marriage” as the latter incensed religious “extremists” on one side, and created lots of stress for them, which could reverberate.
I believe the government has the power to recognize a civil union, and the church, or two consenting adults, has/have the power to call it “marriage” or any other term. I definitely believe in the decision of anyone to take any partner of his/her/they choice and have the same rights of survivorship as Terri and I have (male and female). My lunchtime attorney also agreed that the heat would have been less if the issue were confined to the term “civil union”, which indeed is a matter of contract law enforced by the state, and could have avoided a lot of contention.
Folks, I am trying to be logical here, respectful, and openminded on all this. I don’t have perfect answers, there are none, but I desperately want to try to find common ground, something we are not seeing in today’s fractured society where the left has gone “lefter” and the right has gone “righter”. I could never consider immersing myself in public office. The horror of corrupt personal and corporate agendas, and watching desecration of rights for hidden agendas would simply destroy me. For example, I continue to see “my body my choice” when it comes to abortion. But that cry was raised by people not wanting to be forcibly vaxxed and it fell on deaf ears by the same politician who follow “my body my choice” for abortion. Seems like a double standard to me.
I am convinced that some common ground can be found if searched for before irrevocable actions ensue in particular states. For example, California praises itself in being a bastion for protection for abortion rights. Its knee jerk reaction appears to be a move to enshrine that right in its Constitution by amendment. Fine, but consider limits that the majority of rational people might accept, rather than blanket approval for abortion at any time prior to term delivery, or a law that could be interpreted as such. I think that will ultimately provoke a backlash. Perhaps a defined time limit in gestation for abortion with exceptions to extend the limit for the life of the mother, discovery of a physically or genetically deranged fetus (NOT gender preference), for incest, rape, etc. I believe these things should be openly discussed with respect and tolerance. I do not want to see a return to back-alley coat hangers, and I fear that will happen even in the reddest of states where a religious majority becomes “mob rule” over the minority. Similarly, in California, I don’t want to see a “secular” majority become a mob rule over the feelings of the religious minority. Grab the common ground that will help the other side tolerate what is to come down. The Founders did it between the larger states and smaller stated by creating a two house Congress where the interests of both the larger states and the smaller states would be protected (though it failed in the Civil War).
In closing, consider this. With your current level of consciousness and enlightenment, would you condone slavery if you were living in 1856? I know I would have been a rabid abolitionist. Fast forward to today, where those who feel abortion is murder are abolitionist zealots. I have to respect them as I would have wanted respect in the South for advocating for abolition of slavery. And, I have to respect those who advocate for reproductive rights to include abortion.
My hair cutter came up with the best idea I’ve heard yet. “Make morning after pills available to all women, so we don’t have to worry about abortion at all”. To some, that might be objectionable as it means flushing out a 1-3 day old conception, but it certainly beats a 3 months abortion, don’t you think?
To Your Excellent Health,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD
What a refreshing article from the alt-middle, using reasoning and common sense to navigate issues which aren't black & white. I always respect someone's opinion when it leaves room for growth and development, "I don't have all the answers". This is the kind of table I can sit at and believe there could be a productive/respectful conversations rather than sitting with our backs toward one another, blinded by emotional and irrational rage which leaves no room for listening. Much love, Dr. Rowen. Blessings to you and yours.
All I can say is “Amen” Dr. Rowen. There is a coming together “middle-of-the-road” that could and can be accomplished if the extremists on both sides would just stop the “my way or the highway” mentality. It’s called “working together”. Whatever happened to that?! Even Congress is so divided that they make it worse…along with the media. There are so many people that don’t even understand what exacting the SCOTUS stated. It was “off to the races”. Thank you for your insightful commentary and reasonable understanding injected into this beyond chaotic time.