Time and time again, we see American judges – from the Supremes on down – twist the definitions of words to suit their activist, political, and often Woke agenda. Not that so-called “conservative” judges do not act the same way.

The latest example is in Wyoming.

Now, Teton County is the most “liberal” county in Wyoming. Its county seat is Jackson, filled with wealthy and generous Hollywood elite types. Generous to political friends, cronies, and bootlickers that is. The only county in the State to vote for Harris this year, it not only makes life miserable and expensive for “lower-class” people, it tries to dominate State politics. (And fortunately, usually fails.)

For good or bad, the current power to define “health care” is one of State government. Wyoming voters and their elected representatives in Cheyenne have made it clear that murdering children (in or out of the womb) is not “health care” but this one woman (and those who brought the suit to her – a very, very tiny minority of Wyoming citizens) sees fit to override the very concept of one-person-one-vote and dictate to the other 500,000 citizens of the State they have to let a few oath-broken doctors and other medical personnel murder unborn children.

Many of us who love liberty fail to understand how “health care” can be twisted to demand the death of another person. Not a matter of someone voluntarily giving up their life for another person, but killed for the convenience of another person.

All Wyoming judges — including Wyoming Supreme Court justices, district court judges and circuit court judges — are originally vetted and recommended by the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission. The governor then selects and appoints jurists from those nominations. Then, during the first general election after the appointment — and then every eight, six or four years after that, depending on which court they serve on — voters determine whether a judge or justice should be “retained,” i.e. keep their job. This is fairly common throughout the West.

But retention usually amounts to “keep ’em” because most voters know little about the day-to-day actions of the judges. Obviously, the original appointment is highly political, and we understand they are highly influenced by powerful local interests. Even if counter to the vast majority of the State’s people. And there is no recall, and not much of an impeachment process. (There is a judicial ethics commission.)

But the key here is whether or not God-given human rights extends to all humans. Or whether a judge – or a legislative body – or a majority vote of people or the imperial decree of an executive – can deny the most basic of human rights – life – to a certain class of humans. Just as human rights were denied to people based on their condition of servitude (often based on skin color and ancestry) in the past, so the various States and much of the FedGov denies fundamental human rights to certain people. Despite the fact that the person involved did nothing at all to find themselves in that condition.

To put it bluntly, the child in the womb had no say at all about being conceived, being alive. Even if the father of that child made the baby by raping the woman who is now the mother. Even if the baby results from the sickness of incest. (Apparently viewed, at least for now, as a greater evil than killing a child.)

Many libertarians and neo-liberals (whom we call regressives) are fond of this quote: “The truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free.” (Maya Angelou). Babies in the womb are part of “everybody” – demonstrated by science and supported by most religious teaching.