Novelist Margaret Atwood has accused the Supreme Court of bringing her dystopian “Handmaid’s Tale” to life—even suggesting that it lead to a return to mass sterilization and the Salem witch-style trials can.
In an op-ed for The Atlantic, the Canadian author recalled for fear that no one would believe her bestseller, which “women had little rights,” was “bible cherry-picked” for restrictive laws. And enslaved slaves were forced to give birth. against their wishes.
“I stopped writing it several times because I considered it too far-fetched,” she wrote of the 1985 fantasy that became a hit TV series, as well as the favorite costume for pro-choice protestors.
“Fool me,” she said in the op-ed published on Friday.
Divine dictatorships do not only lie in the distant past: there are many of them on the planet today.
“What’s to stop the United States from becoming one of them?” He asked about societies forced to live under the laws of a chosen religion.
The 82-year-old novelist hit out at Justice’s expected decision to overturn Roe v. Wade – “the 50-year-old law” because abortion is “not mentioned in the Constitution, and is not ‘deep-rooted’ in our ‘history’.” and tradition.'”
“Half the reality. The Constitution has nothing to say about women’s reproductive health,” she said of the legal argument that Justice Samuel Alito made of his draft to argue the landmark 1973 judgment was overturned. was based on opinion.
“But the original document does not mention women at all. Women were deliberately excluded from suffrage,” he said, adding that “women were non-individuals in American law for a much longer period of time than they were individuals.”
Atwood asked why the justification used to overthrow Roe could not be used to “revoke the vote for women”.
He also ghosted then-progressive laws in the 1920s that gave states the power to “sterilize people without their consent”—noting how this led to “nearly 70,000 sterilizations”.
“Thus a ‘deep-rooted’ tradition is that women’s reproductive organs do not belong to women who have it. They belong only to the state,” indicating that this was later referred to the Supreme Court. can go.
Despite acknowledging that the Supreme Court probably cited legal reasons for eliminating federal protections—which would instead hand the decision over to the states—Atwood later insisted that it was actually a worrying sign of the country Forcing everyone to live under Christian values.
“Not everyone shares such a belief. But it appears there is now a risk of being subject to laws framed by those who do,” she wrote.
“What is a sin within a certain set of religious beliefs should be made a crime for all.”
This, he argued, means that if the Supreme Court’s decision plays out as expected, “the state looks well on its way to the establishment of religion.
“Massachusetts had an official religion in the 17th century. In observance of this, the Puritans hanged Quakers,” she said.
Worse, she insisted that the draft document, which was leaked earlier this month, “relies on English jurisprudence from the 17th century, a time when belief in witchcraft led to the deaths of many innocent people. “
After exposing the derision of the “Salem Witchcraft Trials”, Atwood argued, “Similarly, it would be very difficult to disprove a false allegation of abortion.
“The mere fact of abortion, or the claim of a disgruntled ex-partner, will easily make you a murderer.
She insisted in a more dramatic flurry, “accusations of revenge and malice will rise, as was done for witchcraft 500 years ago.”
He concluded by saying that if the Supreme Court “wants you to be governed by the laws of the 17th century, you should look closely at that century.”
“Is that when you want to live?” He asked.
Atwood continued his argument on Twitter when The Atlantic publicized his piece.
“It’s not an ‘abortion dystopia.’ It’s a theocracy that affects everything, including who can read. Who can’t vote: They’ve ended it. Divorce too.” ” She wrote,
Even before Friday’s op-ed, “The Handmaid’s Tale” has become a symbol for many pro-choice activists, protesters donning white bonnets and red maidservant uniforms in protest.
Many fans hailed the novelist as a “prophet” for her op-ed comparison—while others scoffed at the extreme conclusion she reached.
“In the United States, we have the Second Amendment. There’s no way in hell your poorly written story will ever be here,” conservative writer and pundit Kimberly Morin replied Canadian author.
A writer named Rebecca told her more than 7,000 followers that “There’s so much wrong with this article, it’s shocking.”
“But mostly it made me feel sad, sick and ashamed to admire this woman,” she tweeted.
Conservative radio host Erik Eriksson said his op-ed proved a conspiracy Atwood is “a dolt.”
“Her book is hot garbage. And the people who love it are on the same level as people who think fluoride allows the government to control our minds,” he said.