Margaret Atwood Once Thought ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Was ‘Too Far-Fetched.’ No Longer.

Creator Margaret Atwood disclosed Friday that she in the beginning set off creating her horrifying dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” simply because she imagined it was “too far-fetched.” But after the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion, she’ll in no way sense that way again.

“Silly me. Theocratic dictatorships do not lie only in the distant previous: There are a range of them on the earth right now. What is to avoid the United States from getting one of them?” she asked in a column revealed Friday in The Atlantic.

In Atwood’s novel, ladies in The us are used as reproductive slaves, strictly ruled by a theocratic dictatorship directed by men. Atwood’s product was dependent on 17th century New England Puritan religious principles and jurisprudence — and imported to the U.S.

Supreme Courtroom Justice Samuel Alito also turned to the 1600s for justifying his leaked opinion that would intestine the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that created abortion lawful, reaching outside of the issues raised in a challenge to a Mississippi anti-abortion law. He cited many times the English jurist Matthew Hale, who opposed abortions — and executed “witches.”

The leaked feeling (which has not been finalized) would “overthrow settled law of 50 many years on the grounds that abortion is not talked about … . Accurate enough,” Atwood conceded. “The Constitution has nothing at all to say about women’s reproductive well being. But the unique doc does not mention ladies at all.”

Ladies “were intentionally excluded from the franchise,” she added, referring to the fledgling country. Only males would no lengthier be taxed “without representation” or be dominated with no “consent.” Women of all ages were being barred from voting until 1920.

“Women were being nonpersons in U.S. legislation for a great deal for a longer period than they have been folks,” Atwood chillingly pointed out. “If we start off overthrowing settled regulation using Justice Samuel Alito’s justifications, why not repeal votes for women?”

As for banning abortion, the belief about when daily life starts is based mostly on own or religious beliefs (some religions, for instance, believe that existence commences at start or that a pregnant woman’s lifestyle is the present life that will have to be shielded).

Now, in Alito’s viewpoint, “That which is a sin within a certain set of religious beliefs is to be produced a crime for all,” Atwood wrote. But the Structure requires that “Congress shall make no regulation respecting an institution of faith, or prohibiting the free of charge exercise thereof.” If a religion allows abortion, how can a distinctive faith restrict it for these with unique beliefs?

“It ought to be easy: If you believe that in ‘ensoulment’ at conception, you ought to not get an abortion, because to do so is a sin within your faith. If you do not so consider, you really should not — less than the Constitution — be sure by the spiritual beliefs of other people,” Atwood argued.

The Alito view “looks to be very well on the way to setting up a state faith,” Atwood added, and is turning back again to the 17th century, when Colonial women had been burned at the stake centered on religious evidence.

“If Justice Alito wants you to be governed by the rules of the 17th Century, you ought to consider a near glance at that century,” Atwood warned. “Is that when you want to stay?”

Verify out the complete column here.