1. Thank you, Jill Hasday, for this remonstrance against Alito and his draft opinion:
"On Roe, Alito cites a judge who treated women as witches and property,"
available at www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/alito-roe-sir-matthew-hale-misogynist/
Hale was a 17th century judge and writer. Professor Hasday's conclusion: "Hale was a man who believed women could be witches, assumed women were liars and thought husbands owned their wives’ bodies. It is long past time to leave that misogyny behind." I agree.
2. Thank you, Matt Ford, for this rejoinder to Alito:
"What Samuel Alito Gets Wrong About English Common Law,"
available at https://newrepublic.com/article/166414/alito-roe-english-common-law.
Ford's conclusion: "Conservative legal scholars often thunder against judges who reference or incorporate foreign law in American legal decisions, especially when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. (Pre-1776 English common law is not considered “foreign” by them in this context.) For untold generations of American and English women, the law was always a foreign country. They had no role in its creation, no say in its development, no ability to influence its outcomes, and few protections under its rule. To negate a woman’s right to reproductive self-government because it cannot be found in English common law is like arguing that fish aren’t real because they cannot be found in your bathtub."