Guest Commentary: 19 States Support 3/5ths of a Person

By Scott Steward

All of these 19 states are Republican controlled, they will enact abortion bans and already have restricted access to voting.  This state sponsored oppression is an attempt to return women and non-cisgender to the status of property.

Above: 26 states where abortion will be banned or restricted if Roe v. Wade is overturned (picture source May 3, 2022, New York Post, data: The Guttmachher Institute)
Above: “Which US states make it hardest to vote?” Jan 21, 2020, Guardian. Combine these two maps and you get 19 states where the oppression will hit black and brown women and girls hardest.

The fact that forcing pregnancy and removing the vote are open crimes makes it even more deliciously sacred for the zealous operators.  They revel in the notion that only a god would empower them to inflict the majority so mercilessly. And while some, in the majority secular community, hoped that our common hardships would result in a long-awaited awaking to loving fellowship, the US instead faces a modern inquisition.

The (5-3 =2) to 4 Supreme Court decision not only strikes down Roe, but seeks to abolish all concept of privacy from the 14th amendment. The decision makes everyone (who is not male, straight and cisgender) subject to State prosecution.  The “ruling” puts 71 million female and non-cisgender American’s right to vote, to choose when to have children and who to love, at risk of harm. Harm invented by men.

This is the craft of minority control. Chattel slavery is a legacy that the majority of this Court would deny still exists. This from a Court composed of minority religious representation, delegitimized by a President that was elected by a minority and which has three justices that were confirmed by, almost entirely, white male Senators representing less than half the voting population of this country.

This is an attempt to abolish laws that an overwhelming majority have found essential.  Well, you can wear your black robes and have the bailiff call “Hear Ye Hear Ye”, but you can also take a long walk off a short pier.  You’re all wet Supreme Court.  There are only 6 legitimate justices in your ranks.

Biden calls “back to voting.” Empty words. Women, who can access the vote, will find no timely relief from the voting system.  Manchin has already voted against abolishing the filibuster for the Women’s Health Protection Act.  Sinema – no different.  The Democratic Party had a trifecta in 2009 and shunned passing laws protecting women’s rights.  The Party did the same in 2021. More than voting will be necessary to establish equal representation.

This ruling will attempt to force more young women to bring unwanted pregnancies to term at a time when they are too young to have fully understood themselves or their potential. It will attempt to force women out of careers and positions of corporate, military and political power.  A mistake, or a rape, is now a legal weapon to inflict lifelong indenture.

19 states would have you pregnant, closeted and with no chance at the polls, this at a time when to have women in power is a society and planet saving necessity.  The Taliban could do no worse.

To the Courts and the 19 State legislatures that are fanning the flames of 3/5th adult status…. “there will be no peaceful acceptance of delusional power through the oppression of others.

Scott Steward is a Davis resident

19 States Attempting to Reestablish People as Chattel – list below by population.










South Carolina









South Dakota

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


  1. Chris Griffith

    I think we should add a third house, composed of a random sample of people across the entire country. The term is three months, and the only way to come back to the seat is to be (miraculously) drawn again. The job would be to listen to time-limited debates (without involving themselves in the debate), and brainstorming a set of questions they would like answered for the second round of the debate.


    At the end, every law needs a majority vote in this new house in order to pass. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote in order to pass.


    If you can’t convince a random sample (including people of all national origins, races, religions, sexual orientations, etc.) that a law is a good idea, it simply doesn’t pass. The limited term and not being directly involved in the debate (only listening and then X rounds of questions) means that politics and political shenanigans are reduced to a minimum.


    We also give this house the ability to override Presidental veto and Presdiential pardon/commutation. If 2/3rds of this house (alone) agrees that the President should not have vetoed a law or pardoned someone, then the President’s action is null and void (i.e.: law passes, or person still goes to jail for obstruction of justice)


    Would that make all the liberals happy or would that just simply give you a real bad case of constipation 🙃


    1. Edgar Wai

      Compared to majority rule by elected officials, direct majority rule would be better. But depending on the size of random jury, the third house may not provide a good test but enforces a draw of luck.

      I think a more representative third house would consist of voluntary citizens including everyone willing to sign up. No obligation to listen to debates or to vote on every issue. Just vote on the ones you care and the result is shown an modifiable by you in real time until the approval session ends.

      If participation is not anonymous, their the third house is a voluntary citizen council with each member representing only themself.

  2. S Steward

    Is it a liberal or conservative win lose questoin or a basic human rights question?

    I think Tia Will’s treatment of what was argued to allow a woman to chose and the criteria are the same arguments that have been in place since before the ’73 decision and they will be the same arguments that will be in place as long as women give birth.  What those, not bent on warping the electoral system to drive toward control of a woman’s uterus, want is a chance to vote so they can choose.


    1. Edgar Wai

      If you don’t believe in authoritarian determination of what human rights include, then you are left with a reciprocating approach where each person declares their own value and has those values reflected back to them. For example:

      “Anyone who is being forced to serve another entity may solicit and use solicit force as needed to end the enforcement.” (( Right to defend from slavery ))

      A fetus in a womb is forcing the carrier to serve it. If the technology to separate the two unharmed is available, then harming would be excessive. Because a fetus does not object to being transferred to another viable environment, not relocating it when viable is excessive force. Therefore, choosing to end one’s pregnancy is a right, but choosing to do so by harming a fetus is a resort.

      “An entity seeking to obstruct another entity’s path to autonomy may have their own autonomy taken as needed to clear the path.” (( Right of autonomy ))

      A fetus stands to obstruct the carrier’s autonomy as is. The carrier doesn’t stand to obstruct the fetus’ path until the carrier chooses to remove it. Therefore, the fetus is the violator, the carrier may reciprocate against the fetus. Between a government and a woman, a government seeking to disallow a woman from reaching a doctor is the violator, the woman may reciprocate against the government. Roe v Wade violates autonomy because it requires a woman to seek medical approval before getting an abortion.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for