I write about ghosts, but sometimes I write about witches.

While historians once claimed the estimated death toll for people (mostly women) convicted and executed for the charge of witchcraft over the centuries was in the millions, recent studies have brought those numbers down to about 60,000 with 80% being women. While not in the millions, it’s still chilling.

One of those infamous Witch Judges—the one whose ruling set the foundation for the Salem Witch trials—was Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th century jurist. As a judge he had two innocent women executed after he charged them with witchcraft. How do I know they were innocent? Because there are no such things as witches.

While people today may claim to be witches, the witches Matthew Hale went after were the ones he believed were in league with the devil, cast spells, and could visit people in their dreams. (Or as Danielle of Haunting Danielle calls it, dream hop.)

How did Hale help set the foundation for the horrifying Salem witch trials? They used his legal opinion which recommended allowing spectral evidence. That’s basically when the witness says they had a “dream” about the accused cursing them. 

I suspect if one looks up misogynist in the dictionary, you’ll find a picture of Hale. He condoned marital rape, basically claimed the husband owned his wife’s body. Hale also encouraged husbands to beat their wives. He said they needed it.

Why am I bringing up Sir Matthew Hale? It’s because our SCOTUS seems to think his legal opinion has value. 

The “eminent common-law” authorities cited in the SCOTUS recent draft to overturn Roe VS Wade includes Hale. They are using the opinions of some 17th Century misogynist who participated in witch trials to help justify their ruling. Seriously? Is this where our supreme court is headed?

The fact Hale openly based his legal opinions on his religious beliefs should be enough for our SCOTUS to toss out anything Hale had to say. After all, isn’t our First Amendment supposed to keep the church out of our government?  I guess not. Not with this court.

Those two women Hale had executed—during the trial he reminded the jurors that witches existed—the Bible told him so. It’s also his interpretation of the Bible that led him to condone marital rape and encourage beating of wives.

I find it appalling that when justifying their ruling, the SCOTUS majority believed it acceptable invoking the opinions of someone who not only based his legal opinions on his religious beliefs, but someone who clearly hated women.

Oh, I forgot to mention, and this has nothing to do with witches. But the draft had another disturbing passage that jumped out at me. 

“…the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”

My first response, WTF?  Are newborn infants now a commodity? And do they seriously expect women who don’t want a baby to act as brood mare and supply the shortage? Sounds a little like human trafficking to me. I don’t know why they included that bit of information in the report unless they do believe vulnerable women, such as those brutalized, traumatized, and pregnant from rape, can now be forced to fill this shortage. Like I said, sounds like human trafficking to me.

Considering we have over 400,000 children currently in foster care, shouldn’t we be getting them adopted? 

Rather than looking for who leaked this chilling brief, I think we need to have a closer look at what our justices are basing their rulings on. From this brief, it seems they find it appropriate to use someone who clearly loathed women and who was willing to execute a woman because her neighbor had a bad dream about her.

13 comments on “We aren’t going back to the 1950s; it looks like we might be heading to the 17th Century…

  1. mariadato

    I just had a really bad dream with SCOTUS in it. They were spitting out horrible things as part of the reasons for their rulings. I think they are cursing women, and should be dealt with accordingly.

  2. Wen

    So far I have read two of your postings. First, let me say I love, love your books. I appreciate your feelings and hope you appreciate mine and others who do not feel as you do. Perhaps it would be best to keep politics out of your ability to write awesome books and my ability to continue to purchase them. Passion is running too hot in this country for this and other things. Let’s not live with dividing lines. Thank you for your passion.

    1. Bobbi Holmes Post author

      Thank you for your thoughts. I respect and understand them. In fact, over the last few years there have been a quite a few times I wanted to express my opinion on something political, but I bit my tongue and told myself to keep politics off my blog.

      But I wasn’t always able to do this. Occasionally, something would touch a little too close to home. For example, the debate over the Affordable Health Care Act aka Obamacare. As a three-time cancer survivor it quite literally saved my life, and I felt I needed to share, so I wrote about it.

      Once again, something has hit me with such a force that I’m not able to be a polite little girl and sit in the corner and hold my tongue. I am quite passionate in my belief that everyone has a fundamental right of autonomy over his or her body. And frankly, I was utterly horrified to realize the SCOTUS felt any of Sir Matthew Hale’s opinions deserved the respect they gave them. Hale certainly never showed respect to women.

      I hope to keep you as a reader, but I understand if my passionate feelings on women’s rights—something I may occasionally write about—stop you from reading my books. But at the age of sixty-seven, I no longer have the patience or inclination to sit quietly and not speak my mind, especially when I feel it’s something of vital importance. Life is simply too short. I wish you well.

    2. Erica L Alderman

      I think this is more of a religious topic that has spilled into politics. People in power are trying to force their personal religious beliefs onto the rest of the country. This isn’t “passion running hot”. This is the majority of Americans terrified of what our future may hold. The more people who speak out and educate others who may not fully understand what is happening, the better.

    3. Elizabeth

      I can understand how and why you feel the way you do. That having been said, please understand how and why I feel the way I do. Abortion is not a right, it’s a choice. Life is a right that women, like you, remove from the innocent. I have read every one of your books, however I can live with never reading another one of your books. I cannot live with knowingly contributing to the lifestyle of a public personality who supports murder.

      1. Bobbi Holmes Post author

        I totally understand that. If I sincerely believed removing 1/2 ounces of cells from a woman’s body before it developed into a body was murder, I would feel the same way. In fact, if someone advocated forcing rape victims to carry the fetus to term, or denied abortions to women who might die if denied the surgery, I could not buy their products either.

        1. Wen

          This 1/2 ounce belongs to God. He is the creator of life. Who is “man” that we end its life?

          1. Bobbi Holmes Post author

            I understand your feelings, in that they reflect your religious belief. But as you know, in the USA we are supposed to have freedom of religion, which means our opinions on how all this works will vary. For example, it is my understanding that in the Jewish faith they support an abortion to save a woman’s life, while some Christian faiths do not. My opinions on how all this works is different than yours, yet it doesn’t mean I value life less than you, it just means I see it from a different view. Be well.

  3. Donna Farrell

    My personal opinion, and only that. 50 years ago something needed to be done to make what is called an elective d and c more available. Many states didn’t want to or had a very short window from knowing to having to do to make a informed decision. ( also elective so not covered). Roe was written with out a close date on what is to long of a pregnancy to terminate. An elective d and c today isn’t the only option. The big one is Plan B that is available over the counter at any pharmacy and you don’t need parental permission to receive. I am against the thought of someone terminating a pregnancy after 12 weeks never mind giving birth and then deciding to make the baby comfortable till the parent decides what to do. I am also personally uncomfortable with anyone making money off the cells a baby that has been aborted. As such adoption shouldn’t be as expensive as it is. A loving family doesn’t always have a lot of money.
    Thank you for your books I always wait anxiously for their release in both kindle and audio. I read them for a simple dose of unreality.

    1. Wen

      Just a comment on the time being spent on this abortion angst, are you all aware of the vote that is being considered to remove our sovereignty. The vote is May 22-28. Nothing else matters.

  4. Wen

    There is one God who will judge the world, we are held accountable for taking ANY life….as I said, our country is in a crisis that takes precedence….consider reading on the WHO vote next week. Be blessed one and all

Leave a Reply to Donna Farrell Cancel reply