Admittedly, I have not been following the CI discussions on the issue, but has anyone considered that the *timing* of the SCOTUS decision could be driven by Satanic influences rather than those of a Godly sort?  Yes, I realize that nothing happens without the consent of The Almighty.  Still, such events can be orchestrated according to the desires of the Enemies.

There are several aspects that could be interpreted as favoring the overall disintegration of the USSA, while it is also crystal clear the decision is NOT the result of a mass conversion.  What is more, name anything GOOD done by SCOTUS within the last two-plus years?  They did ZERO about The Steal or anything else noteworthy in recent memory, yet they find the brains and balls NOW?  WHY?

Listen you, everybody's equal and everybody's got to be somewhere. Maybe you don't get it?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Alito

syllabus: Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. p.3

Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot
be justified as a component of such a right. p.4

Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that
effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. p.6

opinion: Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. p.6

The “eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like),” Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 7), all describe abortion after quickening as criminal. Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide.” 2 De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae 279 (T. Twiss ed. 1879); see also 1 Fleta, c. 23, reprinted in 72 Selden Soc. 60–61 (H. Richardson & G. Sayles eds. 1955) (13th-centurytreatise).25     p.17

The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. See generally Dellapenna 215–228 (collecting cases). p.21

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. p.25

The largely limitless reach of the dissenters’ standard is illustrated by the way they apply it here. First, if the “long sweep of history” imposes any restraint on the recognition of unenumerated rights, then Roe was surely wrong, since abortion was never allowed (except to save the life of the mother) in a majority of States for over 100 years before that decision was handed down. p.37 

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterizes the "limitless" as evil. Justice and virtue are found in the proper balance, which liberals and fanatics obviously lack.

Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging. Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, Casey perpetuated its errors, and those errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people. Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 222 (White, J., dissenting), the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people. p.44

Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong. p.48

What Roe did not provide was any cogent justification for the lines it drew. p.49

The appendices of the States that follow support his position even more. etc. It's good enough for gubbament work, and as he said, "I'm just trying to do my job".

They did ZERO about The Steal or anything else noteworthy in recent memory, yet they find the brains and balls NOW?  WHY?

It has been rumored that China may attack sometime later this year out of necessity. There is also the issue of midterm elections and the Democrats' lagging popularity. Obviously we saw how badly that fizzled out here, but they could be saving the worst of it for closer to November---the supposed Chinese deadline for attack as well. There are a lot of possibilities here, but it would be most helpful for leftism in the US to suspend the elections in the face of an all-out attack by China or civil unrest here borne from the overturning of Roe and Chinese blockades in Asia. If China somehow manages to take parts of Asia (Taiwan, SK, Japan) without triggering WWIII, then the US supply lines are going to be in serious trouble, and perhaps the goal at home is to create as much chaos as possible for the war begins.

One theory I've heard is that, supposing there was something that made it difficult to get pregnant, thus causing the number of abortions to drop precipitously, the timing of this ruling would help provide a justification for the decrease in abortion numbers.  Instead of blaming an increase in infertility, we can just blame the sex strike by all those fat women. 

Now that we've dealt with the arguments and reflections of children, those of adults are welcome.  Proceed...

  
I have been mulling over this decision, and certainly cannot penetrate to the reality of what has actually happened. But you said you wanted to discuss this intelligently, as you have reservations.

Well so do I.

A week has gone by, and I have seen many priests and laymen jumping for joy, and calling this decision a miracle of grace. They are very sure sure of themselves, and I do not understand why. What can we be sure of?

Let me take up your invitation to discuss this rationally, and in so doing, I will try to bring forward things we really can be sure of.

Firstly, our discernment must begin within the order of principles, which is the highest order, both of reality and of rationality.

I think the highest principle of all is the principle of Divine Providence. By this we know with certitude that all things done by the enemies, all sins and plots and murderous objectives, when they are allowed to materialize, do not ultimately fulfill the will of satan, but the will of God. Absolutely nothing happens that is not within the will of God, either permissive or ordaining. The greatest example of this is the Crucifixion and Death of D.N.J.C., which should have been satan’s greatest victory, but amounted rather to his greatest defeat.

Thus we may take heart that, no matter what actually happened behind closed doors – no matter what sick plot might be afoot – it will backfire, as will every single crime committed under the sun.

The second level in the order of principles has to do with the decision itself. This cannot be too long a post, so a sketch must suffice.

Is the SCOTUS competent – legally and ethically – to hold for the absolute right to life and legal protection, both under God and under the US Constitution, of unborn infants? Of course it is. Anyone who would demand a long demonstration of this certain and self-evident truth is not worthy to hear such.

Is the SCOTUS under a pressing and continuous moral, ethical, and constitutional obligation to rectify the grievous moral and legal wrong perpetrated against innocent citizens of the US, by its rogue government, by the rogue SCOTUS, to be exact? Of course it is. Anyone who would demand a long demonstration of this certain and self-evident truth is not worthy to hear such.

Let me note here that one aspect of this grievous moral and legal wrong perpetrated against innocent citizens of the US, has to do with the schizophrenia encased in US “law,” wherein, under criminal statutes the unborn infant is a person entitled to protection, whilst, simultaneously, under the civil law, the unborn infant is “tissue,” capable of being disposed of at the caprice of its mother. This alone demands rectification by the highest court, even if we were to confine ourselves to legal principles.

I could go on, but the above is sufficient to conclude, that, within the order of principles, this decision is a godless, diabolical abomination, a travesty of justice, and a viable means of continuation of the slaughter of the innocents.

Now, essentially, principles are causes. Effects flow from right actions that accord with true principles, and effects flow from wrong actions that accord with false principles. This is certain; therefore it is also certain that down the road evil effects will materialize as a result of this decision. I cannot foresee exactly what form they will take, but I am certain that they will occur, in accordance with all axioms of truth dealing with true and false principles, as causes.

Many Catholics are at least nebulously aware of the fact that, within the order of principles, this decision is absolutely immoral and unconstitutional; but they look to possible future good effects, such as the “saving of even one baby.” Certainly it is good and rational to consider future effects of actions done, especially actions claimed to be performed in accordance with a set of “principles,” but Catholics must always begin their prognostications with analysis of the principles themselves, now put into effect by tangible action. If the principles are good, then we look for good effects. But if the principles are bad, then bad effects. Thus I’m not sure it is prudent to place so much hope in a decision which is based entirely on a refusal to act in accordance with right principles.
 
Now if anyone disagrees with the above set of conclusions, I wonder if they will bring quiet and rational argumentation to the table, and dispute civilly. And will they keep their arguments confined to the order of principles?

Secondly we can look at this decision within the practical order. What do we see? This is the same SCOTUS that has handed the country over to satanists and perverts. Now, had this new decision been based on upright principles of morality, ethics, law, we might begin to suspect that some kind of cataclysmic paradigm shifting was going on in the judaeo-masonic government. But really what exactly did SCOTUS do? Did these judges act independently, or were they told exactly what they could and could not get away with? I’m not quite sure. I cannot see behind the curtain. What I can see, is what they didn’t do. Hence, my serious reservations.

In the practical order, they have sown confusion and division. Confusion because the decision is superficially wonderful, but deep down immoral and cowardly. Deep down people know it was a massive cop out. Deep down people know that babies are still in mortal jeopardy, and certainly not entitled to any legal protection. Confusion always ensues when you have an apparent choice between monstrous evil and the “lesser of two evils.” Division because those who call out the spades will clash with pollyanna. Division inside the federation of US States. More schizophrenia – a baby is human in one state and a piece of tissue in another. In fact, it is a widening of the schizophrenia, which, by the very nature of the term, is essential division. Being the sowers of yet more confusion and division, we may safely assert that the SCOTUS is just like every other organ of judaeo-masonic control. Again, we can prognosticate - not good future effects, but evil ones.

Thirdly, we come back now to the order of Divine Providence, but especially the supernatural order. It is absolutely certain that a day will come when their time is up. We all sense that their time is short. God will hand them seeming victory after seeming victory – for a time. And then He will overthrow them. Does this decision bode well for us, supernaturally speaking? Is it a sign for us that their time is now very short? For God uses signs, and even their own signs, for His own purposes. God uses actions, even evil actions, for His own purposes. This is where I put my hope. And if this is a sign from God, especially given the date of the decision, then it is a call to Catholics to take serious action. I am morally certain that this action is more prayer and more penance. I believe that if people would only begin to pray the Breviary in earnest, whilst not abandoning their Rosary, we would see quicker results. The Psalms are our greatest weapon, alongside the Rosary.

The Psalms are principles, causes. The Psalms bring about effects. If only Catholics would realize this and take up the sword of the Breviary.

https://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/horas/officium.pl

It’s a baby step in the right direction.  It’s not perfect but it’s better than it was.  It’s a small victory in the larger war but I’ll take it.