By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
A woman’s choice should come before a pregnancy

The abortion decision at the Supreme Court has a lot of folks on the Left worked into a frenzy. But really, what is new?

The overturning of Roe v. Wade virtually changes nothing to restrict abortion access in California since the governor and his Democrat cohorts have done backflips to assure women that they can keep taking the life of the growing child in their womb – and have us pay for it.

But some young women in Turlock –all who looked of college age – got worked up over the Supreme Court’s decision to let states decide and descended on a City Council meeting there. Perhaps if they were a little more knowledgeable about how government works they would know attending a council meeting is about the silliest exercise when it comes to federal issues. They urged city representatives to do what they can to ensure women’s “rights.”  Then Turlock Mayor Amy Bublak limited the number of speakers to two because abortion is not under the jurisdiction of the council (not to mention a needless waste of time away from tending to city business). 

Council members Andrew Nosrati and Nicole Larson objected to Bublak’s limitations. Predictably the ones who wanted to verbally spew their liberal ideology on the council about a national issue didn’t like Bublak’s limitation. One engaged in vitriol, saying it was a “tragedy” that not all could go up and rob the council’s time pontificating about abortion. I say the tragedy is how 629,898 American pregnancies were terminated in 2021, according to the CDC.

The same speaker claimed to be “pretty conservative” but still believed “I want them to have the choice.”

Another woman claimed: “This is going to negatively impact people with a uterus everywhere and I strongly urge you all to not further restrict access in Turlock.”

No, it certainly won’t affect “people with a uterus” (people with common sense call them women) just the ones who engage in unprotected sex as a means of birth control. She also believes (rather naively, I say) that “more comprehensive sex education in our schools and free and accessible birth control” would result in a decline in the number of abortions.

Our sister paper’s coverage of the story resulted in calls of protest – pro and con. Particularly the picture that accompanied the Turlock Journal story, which showed a young woman (whose mother didn’t abort her) holding a sign that read: “I’d call you a ‘p***y’ but you wouldn’t have rights,” drew the most reader protest. A young lady (whose mother also didn’t abort her) standing next to her held a sign that read: “Women decide when they want to have babies!!!”

Perhaps women could exercise their decision with measures to prevent sperm from meeting egg.

Women do have control over their bodies. The problem is the baby growing inside them is somebody else’s body.

We’ve come a long ways since the days of Bill Clinton, who seems like a Republican compared to the modern Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren types. While Clinton did veto an abortion ban, he declared in the 1990s that abortions should be rare and said “I believe that if you can’t make up your mind in the first six months, you don’t have the right to have an abortion.”

I think it’s particularly sick that barbaric partial-birth abortions are still allowed in many states.

* * * * *

I’m always surprised when we hear from someone who asks if we have to get permission to publish someone’s name in the newspaper. I bet he was referring to a crime story. I guess this ignorance is a symptom of a failed education system. You would think Americans would know their freedoms outlined in the Constitution – the document that progressives would like to tear up to significantly re-write.

The First Amendment explains: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

With that right come responsibilities. We always strive to be accurate in our reporting.

And in case you need further explanation, police reports are public record.

* * * * *

I still believe that the vast majority of our country is basically conservative and holds onto time-tested values like hard work, family, God, being helpful to their neighbors, trying their best at parenting. The unpopularity of the current regime, I believe, is a rejection of failing progressive principles. They see the direction of the country as going off the rails because their policies are hurting our ability to just make it.

There are a lot of folks out there who agree with me and I daresay they are the wiser, older Americans who value old fashioned values.

I received an email last week from a gentleman named Mike who gave me some props for my column. “I just wanted to send you this email to let you know how much I appreciate your articles in the Ceres courier paper. My wife and I were both born in Modesto and moved to Ceres in 2009 purchasing our first home. We enjoy Ceres being a smaller community than Modesto. I dropped my subscription to the Modesto Bee due to their one-sided reporting in their newspaper. The Ceres Courier is a much smaller paper but better reading all around with your articles being my absolute favorite. Your views seem to resonate with many of us. Due to peoples extremism it has silenced many who have our values so they are not branded ‘racist or white supremacist.’  This is including our news media. I look forward to reading your articles weekly in the paper. Even if sometimes that may be the only articles I fully read. Continue the good work my friend.”

* * * * *

Things were going great under Trump and then the disaster of 2020 came – not COVID, the election.

A tank full of gas under Trump for me was $55. It’s now over $100.

Food prices are up as well.

Now that the Supreme Court has a conservative makeup, progressives want to change the rules. Remember that Americans chose Trump in 2018 because he was conservative. Being the winner meant he got to appoint justices he felt would stick with the Constitution. Thus on his watch he appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In light of the overturning of Roe v Wade, I found inside my junk folder a series of letters from folks suggesting it’s time to pack the court because they didn’t like the decision. The national media in unison – (who gives them their talking points?) – pronounced that the court doesn’t have legitimacy. One letter is on page 4. She calls for four more justices which would be appointed by Biden to “rebalance the Supreme Court, which has been taken over by a supermajority that holds extreme views outside of the mainstream of legal thought and out of step with most Americans.”

Interesting statement since Biden doesn’t believe in court packing nor do most Americans. The system of nine has worked well for the past 150 years.

* * * * *

One question on Facebook shined the light on people’s dissatisfaction with the traffic on Mitchell Road. Leeroy Brownsin asked: “How many stoplights does Mitchell really need?”

The question comes a half a year after the Walmart Supercenter opened and with it new signals.

In some people’s minds, the city just places stoplights because they like them, not because they are needed.

But as Vice Mayor Bret Silveira answered the question: “All that are there are needed and necessary to keep everyone safe and from keeping speeders from killing people. I’m sure that you understand that traffic lights are much more than just a way to get to a different streets and businesses. I welcome any and all mechanisms to keep us safe. Drive the speed limit, you’ll be surprised how you will travel through those signals.”

Because he tends to be argumentative almost all the time, former council appointee reject John Osgood wrote this to Silveira (whom he detests): “Bret Silveira, traffic signals do not prevent any group of operators from causing traffic collisions , especial fatalities, only drivers and the motoring public who behave in a safe and lawful manner reduce the amount of incidents. You can not (sic) reduce risk with placement of the stop light , and in this case the decisions to place so many actually lead to frustration and can as a matter of fact cause the very unsafe actions you say the object prevents.”

He later publicly wrote more against Silveira saying: “all hail bret oh great and powerful deputy Brett … sometimes I think he sees us as those little creatures in the locker in men in black , atleast that’s the vibe he puts off ! I’d rather be talked to like I talk to folks than the soft spoken downgrading better than thou manner the ‘deputy’ provides.”

Man, take a chill pill. If you think the council is dysfunctional now, I can’t imagine what things will be like if District 4 makes an unwise choice this November.

While I dislike signal lights, they are a necessity. Expect a concentration of them wherever you have commercial areas on both sides of the street.

It’s not surprising that folks like Amanda Ginnings say, “I avoid Mitchell like the plague.” Mitchell has 11-12 signals from the freeway to the Tuolumne River. Depending on where you are going, the freeway could be the fastest option.

The complainers need to chill and realize traffic signals are a part of a safe road system and do assist in traffic safety, not to mention efficiently moving traffic without collisions.  

This column is the opinion of Jeff Benziger, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of The Ceres Courier or 209 Multimedia Corporation. How do you feel about this? Let Jeff know at