Topical Talks!

2022: “Stop overreacting, they won’t overturn Roe.”
They did.
2023: “Stop overreacting, they won't let women die rather than get an abortion.”
They did.
2024: “Stop overreacting, they won't arrest women for miscarriages.”
They did.
2025: “Stop overreacting, they won't turn women into incubators.”
They did.
2026: “Stop overreacting, they won't attack mifepristone.”
They did.
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote “In future cases we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)”. This case established the constitutional right to contraception. “
Now: “Stop overreacting, they won't go after birth control.”
They will.

Let’s position this for what it is. After the fall of Roe v. Wade, the legal architecture did not stabilize—it exposed a trajectory. When a Supreme Court justice openly suggests revisiting the right to contraception, the pattern is no longer ambiguous. It is directional.
At what point does a pattern become policy? At what point does policy reveal motive?
This is not a series of isolated decisions. It is not a cultural disagreement. It is a sustained reassertion of control over women’s bodies, autonomy, and legal personhood. Call it what it is: a structural campaign, not merely against rights, but against the premise of female self-determination.
And beneath it, an older, less examined question persists. What is being protected here—life, or hierarchy?
Do men, collectively, actually value women as autonomous beings—or primarily in terms of function? Our future as women depends on our willingness to examine and act upon our conclusions. If women were not necessary for reproduction, would they be granted recognition at all?
If that question feels extreme, consider the above. Then ask why.

NB. This is a women only event. In the future, if this topic is of interest to enough men, Robert will host an event for men on this topic at a future date.

***