The Pale, White Truth About Injustice

The 2021/2022 Supreme Court (official photo)

Within minutes of last week’s Dobbs ruling, I wrote the words which have haunted me for days since: “There is nothing ‘Christian’ about giving the government the authority to look up a woman's cooter and make decisions about her medical treatment.” I meant this statement to argue against the religious justifications for overturning fifty years of American abortion protections. I thought this was a statement of complete and utter fair-mindedness.

Almost immediately, good friends reminded me that America has been looking up women’s dresses for years. We subject poor, disabled, Black, and Brown women to “welfare checks” and have massive carve-outs for their medical privacy whenever they get pregnant. We pester women constantly for their prenatal medical decisions, both officially and unofficially (many women recall having waiters and baristas self-righteously deny them coffee). Micromanaging pregnant women’s choices isn’t new.

What’s new is subjecting White women to these standards. Women who share my skin melanin levels will, for the first time, find their privacy constantly invaded, their gynecological records scrutinized by bureaucrats, their diaries and period tracker apps made public record. These actions always have moral, frequently “Christian,” justifications. The situation isn’t new for millions of American women; we’re just forcing White women to endure this treatment now.

(Aside: I’m using the word “woman” very loosely. Broadening gender definitions, difficult cultural gaps, and a long history of state medical malpractice against Black and Indigenous women make this word loaded. Please accept this nuance as written; I’m trying to stay concise.)

There is nothing "Christian" about giving the government the authority to look up a woman's cooter and make decisions about her medical treatment.

— Kevin L Nenstiel (@KLNenstiel) June 24, 2022

The rulings trickling from this session’s heavily conservative Supreme Court have followed this pattern. The very fact that Miranda rights are named for Ernesto Miranda recall how heavily racialized American criminal justice is, but this court made such rights virtually unenforceable. But they’ve always been unenforceable anyway, unless one could afford a competent civil rights attorney, which those targeted by law enforcement generally can’t.

Likewise, the ruling making it difficult to sue federal agents simply puts White Americans on equal footing with Black and Brown Americans who’ve watched those who target their communities go unrestrained for years. Nobody’s ever been held responsible for the deaths of Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, or Michael Brown. Now, nobody will be held accountable when federal sweeps catch White people in traps long set for Black and Brown people.

One could continue down the line. Though these rulings are nominally colorblind and apply to all Americans equally, they simply codify treatments the government has applied to poor, disabled, and BIPOC Americans for decades. The only difference is that the state no longer needs flimsy euphemistic work-arounds, and therefore can start applying them to everybody, ahem, equally. The Court simply invalidated the euphemisms which law enforcement no longer needs.

The U.S. Supreme Court Building

Justice Clarence Thomas caught heat for his concurrence in Dobbs, stating that the Court should now reconsider precedent in Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. That is, he disagrees with the 14th-Amendment reasoning that the state can’t place limits on contraception access, gay or extramarital sex, and same-sex marriage. But again, that isn’t new to Black or Brown Americans, who have their sexual choices strutinized, officially or unofficially, all the time.

Following Dobbs, Texas Senator John Cornyn posted a tweet which ambiguously appeared to challenge desegregation. Cornyn’s defenders hastily utilized that ambiguity to defend him against charges of racism. Because of course they did. That ambiguity, and the defense it justifies, are the very definition of dog-whistle politics: say the thing without saying it, so you can deny it later. It’s good to know that at least one euphemism remains necessary.

Progressives complain that this week’s rulings signify disappearing standards, unwritten rules that have circumscribed governance for generations. Maybe. But the longer I watch, the more I realize the largest standard disappearing: the standard of invading people’s privacy under standards of “welfare” and “public safety.” Six years ago, bureaucrats needed to formulate justifications to invade private space. The Court has signaled that such dissembling is no longer necessary.

Under these rulings, the federal government can invade White Americans’ homes, invalidate our 4th- and 5th-Amendment rights, and overrule our medical decisions, all with impunity. Just as the government has done to BIPOC Americans since before I was born. The only difference now is that, with the veil of euphemism lifted, White people have to see it for the first time— and, just as importantly, have to live with it.

We can’t legislate ourselves out of this. We Whites can only pause our egos, give BIPOC communities the lead, and simply listen.