The Voting Rights Act of 1965 "Gutted" by the Supreme Court: Are We Headed Back to the 1880s? [208*6]

CONSERVATIVES DID IT AGAIN!

SOMETIMES THIS IS HOW I START MY HUBS on topics like this, but not this time. It is actually the Democrats who I wish to chastise. It was they who were warned by the Supreme Court in 2009, when they had a super majority in Congress, that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 needed to be updated or face the possibility the Act will be invalidated later. The following is based on news reports, mainly from POTUS on Sirius/XM satellite radio, and research on the Internet. Nevertheless, it is a simple story and makes a lot of since.

In reaction to the terrible TV scenes of mayhem Southern police visited on Civil Rights protesters, as well as the murder of a few of these same protesters by Ku Klux Klan members or their sympathizers, Congress got up the nerve to once again implement the intent of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments with laws which had teeth in them to enforce those documents. Congress, back in the 1860s and 1870s did the same thing, only to watch the conservative Supreme Court invalidate almost everyone of the them allowing the South to "rise again" and turn back the clock to pre-emancipation days, minus the slavery; that was replaced with share cropping.

By 1890, the South had regained its former status, with all its segregationist and discriminatory practices, prior to splitting the Nation in two. It took another 60 years for President Eisenhower to enforce the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954, and an additional 10 years before the final laws needed to implement the Constitution requirements for Civil Rights, i.e., the Civil Rights of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were passed. Since 1965, Conservatives (notice I did not say Republicans since Democrats have a small contingent of Conservatives who haven't switched parties) have been attempting to role back the implementing laws or by-pass them with other state laws.

Is this latest Supreme Court ruling letting the Conservatives win the contest? No, I don't think so. From what I have learned, most of the Court (Justice Thomas being an exception) believe the Civil Rights Act was, and still may be, proper and that discrimination at the polls still does occur, and further, it may occur at a rate which will still require the continuation of the Act. What five of them did object to is Section 4 of the Act which specifies the model used to implement important sections of the Act. They felt the data used to create the model is outdated and needs to be recomputed to see if the discriminatory environment which led to the original Act still exists..

The Court, in 2009, felt the same way, but instead of invalidating that Section as this Court just did, they let is pass but with a strong warning to Congress that they need to fix it or risk an adverse ruling at a later date. That date arrived at 10 AM, June 25, 2013.

Source

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

THE SUPREME COURT RULED 5-4 that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was Unconstitutional. So, what is Section 4, what does it do, and why were the conservative Justices so upset with it.

Ostensibly, Section 4 sets out the formula to be used in determining whether a political entity, be it a state, county, or small municipality, can be considered "covered" and therefore subject to Section 5, which establishes the federal review procedures for any change in voting laws of the covered jurisdictions. It is actually Section 4a which sets out the formula which is:

  • The first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a "test or device" restricting the opportunity to register and vote. Examples were given such as requirements for the applicant being able to pass a literacy test or to establish that he or she had good moral character
  • The second element of the formula is if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964.

Section 4a also establishes "remedies" for those found to meet the above two elements. They are:

  1. The first of these targeted remedies was a five-year suspension of "a test or device," as a prerequisite to register to vote.
  2. The second was the requirement for review, under Section 5, of any change affecting voting made by a covered area.
  3. The third was the ability of the Attorney General to certify that specified jurisdictions also required the appointment of federal examiners.

Section 4 sets out other remedies as well in Sections 4e and 4f which address discrimination based on education level attained or if they belong to a "language minority", such as voters in Puerto Rico.

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act because the majority, consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that “things have changed dramatically” in the South in the nearly 50 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed in 1965. Consider the wording of the two elements that must be proven and you can see why these Justices felt they were outdated.

Now, Congress, in 1970, 1975, 1982, and again in 2006, reauthorized the Act; the last two for 25 year periods, knowing full well what the formula was. In fact, in 1975, they modernized the elements to be based on voter participation in November 1972. At the same time they expanded the scope of "test or device" to include the practice of providing election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age.

"Times have changed and so should the law" is the majority's rational for finding this section unconstitutional. Underpinning all of this, however, is the Justices distaste for the Federal government treating states differently which they believe is on the razor's edge of being unconstitutional itself, via the 10th Amendment. But, they understand that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments give the Congress the authority to make such laws in order to enforce their provisions. Consequently, it seems they are going to hold the Voting Rights Act under close judicial scrutiny to make sure it is still needed.

They said as much in 2009 when, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009), Chief Justice Roberts said "The South has changed. The evil that Section 5 is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance..." In other words, Roberts strongly suggested that "Congress, review what you have wrought and make sure it is still applicable or the Voting Rights Act may not survive the next challenge."

Where the 2009 decision took aim at Section 5, today's decision actually struck down Section 4, which the former section needs to have active for it to be enforceable. The Court said it did not strike down the act of Congress “lightly,” and said it “took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act”. In fact, referring to their 2009 decision, the Court chastised Congress by saying “Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [Section 4] unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.” And there you have it.

The Voting Rights Act has recently been used to block a voter ID law in Texas and delay the implementation of another in South Carolina. Both states are no longer subject to the preclearance requirement because of the court’s ruling on Tuesday. Nevertheless, Roberts wrote, “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,”.

NOW WHAT?

FIRST OF ALL, EACH OF THE JURISDICTIONS who were found to have made changes to their voting laws with the purpose of hindering a class or classes of voters in their ability to exercise their right to vote, can now do so again. It will be interesting to see how many will take the opportunity now that they are unimpeded.

To give this section some context, know that Canada has no restriction on who can vote other than the voter's signed statement (even to register at the time of voting) that are who they say they are and some proof they live at the residence they say they do, such as an electric bill or government correspondence. In fact, they are experimenting, on a national level, on-line voting. Also know that Canada has minuscule occurrences of voter fraud and if any is found, it is quickly prosecuted.

The evidence that voter suppression is alive and well in America, as Chief Justice Roberts confirmed, can be found at this Wikipedia entry on attempts to restrict voting. So the need for a revamped Section 4 is clearly, to many of us, still needed. To be fair, Roberts has his doubts this is actually true, but, what he wants is for those who think so to prove it with more current statistics. Personally, I am one of those who is certain of the continued need for Section 4, but nevertheless agree with Chief Justice Roberts for the need for new data. It is a shame the Democratic Congress didn't take his warnings seriously and develop the necessary information when they had the chance; for I believe serious damage to civil and voting rights is going to result from the Supreme Court's ruling; a ruling I think Roberts had no other choice but to make.

Assume for the moment that this data Chief Justice Roberts is looking for is available and it supports a continuation of Section 4, updated to accommodate the new information. Given that, what is a possible, or maybe even probable outcome? In my considered opinion, the outcome will not be good for at least three years. For the next two years, until Dec 2014, Congress will probably do nothing other than argue with itself, if they do anything. The action is going to come in the campaigning for the 2014 election, especially if, in the intervening time, various election jurisdictions begin the process of rolling back the clock in terms of restricting certain classes of people from exercising their right to vote.

REACTION

TO THE SURPRISE OF MANY, PERHAPS, I voted YES to my first poll question. I didn't vote that way because I disagree with the Voting Rights Act (VRA), quite the contrary, I think the VRA is absolutely essential to protect minorities and the elderly from the continued encroachment of Conservatives on their ability to exercise their right to vote. Of course, Conservatives don't see it this way, instead they see the VRA as a federal take-over of a state's ability to regulate federal elections in their state and that the Court simply set things right.

So, if I agree with the need for the VRA, why would I vote YES in my poll? Because America, the Independent and Democratic portion anyway, needs a wake-up call as to what is going on; to stop the slide back to the 1880s. It is clear from Roberts' comments in the this case, and others on the same subject, that they actually believe there is a reasonably good chance there is no need for the VRA anymore, that everything is hunky-dory regarding race relations in America. Therefore, now is the chance for those who still care about civil rights in this country to do something; but if they don't, or at least don't make a real try to correct this ruling in the way Justice Roberts suggested, then maybe America deserves to return to the days of Jim Crowe.

Consequently, the stage is set for a very interesting five years, for I think it would be safe to assume that if there is going to be objections to reinstating Section 4, it will come from conservative rather than middle-of-the-road progressive or liberal candidates. And, one would hope the progressives and liberals will take up the standard and carry the question to the public in this upcoming election cycle.

If they do, then we will be able to take the measure of America and Americans as they go to the polls to vote, for in many districts, I feel certain the choice is going be between a candidate who does not want to continue protecting voting rights, living in a false world that there is no problem (or, worse yet, it is the conservatives who are being disenfranchised) and one who sees the world as it really is and wants to do something about it again.

WHAT SOME STATES DID OR TRIED TO DO TO SUPPRESS VOTING

Source

CURRENT VOTING PATTERNS BETWEEN BLACKS AND NON-HISPANIC WHITES

REGION
BLACKS
NON-HISPANIC WHITES
DIFFERENCE
SOUTH
44.0%
59.5%
15.5 points, Whites over Blacks
NORTHEAST
68.7%
74.8%
6.1% points Whites over Blacks,
NORTH CENTRAL
79.9%
76.0%
3.9 points, Blacks over Whites
WEST
64.9%
75.2%
10.3 points, Whites over Blacks
Current Population Survey

SO, WHAT MIGHT THE POLITICIANS DO?

THE CHART AND TABLE ABOVE give a snapshot of how things are today. So, if the Democrats are smart, and they often haven't been, they would push hard, both in Congress and on the election trail to pin Conservatives down in their opposition of reinstating the VRA. If Conservatives actively oppose Civil Rights, as this will be seen, it will bring out the Black and Latino (who are already out because Conservatives will have killed the Immigration Bill) voters in numbers like American has never seen. If that happens, Conservatives could be in real trouble at the polls.

By the way, don't take the above statement as proof the VRA is no longer needed simply because it is obvious the previously disenfranchised Americans now have a much better ability to vote. It was the VRA which has allowed this kind of turn-out to happen and it is this potential of this kind of turn-out that has led to so many attempts to change voting laws that, through the VRA, the federal government has found necessary to void in order to prevent the disenfranchisement of a segment of American society. And, it is the VRA, if it is reinstated, that will continue preventing voters from being disenfranchised.

In order to be able to pass a new VRA in the next session of Congress, Democrats need to retake the House and improve their position in the Senate. Democrats need to switch seventeen U.S. House seats to their side in order to regain control in that body. Now, there are 435 House seats which go up for "grabs" in 2014. To the great shame of our American system, 388 are, because of gerrymandering, considered "safe". In other words, the Party in power at the time of the last census legally rigged the election districts such that their Party is a virtual shoo-in for the next 10 years for the House seats from that state. Only 47 seats are "in play", 25 Democratic and 22 Republican, and possibly good change hands. That means the Democrats must retain all 25 of their seats and win over 17 of the 22 (78%) Republican ones; that is one tall order, especially during a mid-term elections!

It has happened before, but rarely. If it is going to happen again, this next election may be the one where it can take place for the stars appear to be coming into alignment. Not only is there the VRA issue, but you have the death of Immigration Reform, as well as an improving economy and declining unemployment. Yes, there are those pesky scandals swirling around Obama, of course, but 2014 is many months away and some of them are resolving themselves, e.g. the IRS scandal which is vaporizing in front of them. As for Bengasi, I haven't heard much about that lately; can the opposition successfully raise it again a year from now?

Having said all of that, it has only been a week since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was effectively struck down by the Supreme Court, so at best, I am speculating on probable scenarios that may play out. It is an extremely serious issue which absolutely deserves the attention of the Nation and action from Congress. Only time will tell what will actually happen.

FIRST QUESTION

DO YOU THINK THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES DID THE RIGHT THING IN FINDING SECTION 4 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not Sure
See results without voting

SECOND QUESTION

DO YOU THINK THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT NEEDS TO BE REINSTATED?

  • YES
  • NO
  • NOT SURE
See results without voting

THIRD QUESTION

If you are a minority, disabled, or up there in age, Have you had problems with voting or been denied the ability to vote because of the new Voter ID laws?

  • Yes
  • No
See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION #1

Do you see yourself more closely aligned with the

  • Right side of the political spectrum?
  • Left side of the political spectrum?
  • Somewhere comfortably in the middle?
  • None of the above
  • Not sure
See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION #2

Are you

  • Female?
  • Male?
See results without voting

More by this Author


14 comments

MizBejabbers profile image

MizBejabbers 3 years ago from Arkansas

You wrote:

"Section 4 sets out other remedies as well in Sections 4e and 4f which address discrimination based on education level attained or if they belong to a "language minority", such as voters in Puerto Rico."

Because of my job I am not allowed to make comments of my political opinion, but I think I can safely state this. The use of Puerto Rico as an example of language barrier to voting is a poor example because that state prints two versions of their laws, one in English and one in Spanish. As part of my job I have spoken personally with the Puerto Rican laws commission staff. I have also met with some of the employees of this agency whose first language was Spanish. Puerto Rico should have very little, if any, language barriers to voting.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the comment, MizBejabbers. I used Puerto Rico because it was used as one of the reasons for that section in my reference. To me, it makes sense because, unlike all States, Spanish is the first language in Puerto Rico and, I suspect, the only language for some segments of that population.


HSchneider 3 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Excellent and comprehensive Hub, My Esoteric. I highly doubt that the Republican held House will act on this critical issue. Allowing voting restrictions to curtail the rising demographics against them is too much in their political interests. The 5 Justices deep down knew this and knew they were gutting this landmark piece of civil rights legislation. My preference would be for Section 4 to include the entire country thus taking partisan politics out of it and the Court out of it. Let a special unit of the Justice Department approve all critical voting changes all over the country. The 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to act on this so pass a new, all encompassing Section 4.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the comment HS, and I suspect you are right on all counts including having Section 4 apply nationwide.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

the Democrats who I wish to chaise. It was they who were warned by the Supreme Court in 2009, when they had a supermajority in Congress, that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 needed to be updated or face the possibility the Act will be invalidated later."

That is the rub and why I had to reluctantly support the SC ruling. Did you forget to mention Plessy vs Ferguson, the basis of Jim Crow and discriminatory practices in America for a half a century.

The new model for the attempt at disenfranchisement of those that tend to vote on the left is the legalistic trickery in the State Legislatures. What happened in Ohio last year, for example, the South has nothing over. Our adversaries have moved beyond 1960s methods to gerrymandering and so called voter integrity schemes. The left should have known that a rubber stamp for a 1965 circumstance could not continue 50 years later. It is unfair to the South. I never thought that I would hear myself saying it, but it is quite true. The Right is losing adherents and they will do anything fair or foul to maintain itself while its fortunes sink beneath the waves.

The need to protect those that are subject to disenfranchisement is still there, but we need new yardsticks. I agree with the position you take on this article.

As always a thought provoker, nice to read you again.....


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

And thank you for reading me Credence, I appreciate it. In doing my research, I noticed that many of the newest "covered" jurisdictions ranged all over the US, Hawaii, to Alaska, California, and other unlikely places. So, I go along with the idea that the criteria and tests set out in Section 4 should apply nationwide.


Michele Travis profile image

Michele Travis 3 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

Once again you have written a wonderful hub. It does seem like we are basically going backwards in time, when it comes to voting. I live in Ohio, so I do understand all that happened in Ohio in this last election. Romney and Obama were here so many times. I forgot how many.

Romney tried so hard to keep people from voting, it was almost crazy. But losing the Civil Rights act of 1964, well to me, that is even worse.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you very much, Michele, for your compliment and thoughts.


bradmaster from orange county ca 24 months ago

My Esoteric

What exactly is the impediment that is created by voter ID.

Remember, the right to vote is for US Citizens, not everyone that can register to vote. There is also a minimum age requirement as well.

The decision bar for SCOTUS needs to be raised, as 5-4 decisions don't resolve the issue presented to the court. Roe v Wade didn't resolve the issue that is still in question 40 years later. Abortion and Right to Life.

SCOTUS decisions need to have the same percentage bar as that of submitting and passing US Constitutional Amendments.

The reason decision of SCOTUS not to hear the gay marriage ban cases from the states, while within their power, is a political cop out from the branch of government that should have put an end to the issue.

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 22 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thought I would grab a new subject area I haven't been to in a while.

The set of laws conservative governors and legislators are implementing as a result of the Robert's Courts ruling are specifically designed to stop or discourage those who might vote Democratic to vote.

It has noting to do with voter fraud. If it were a problem, which it is provably not, (or the reverse, cannot be proved it is), then all states would be creating such laws as well as the federal gov't. But, only Red states are ... which makes it political on its face.

Examples of what they are doing, beyond unnecessarily burdening voters with a requirement that limits them to certain photo IDs that may or may not be easy or free for them to accept (since voting is a fundamental right, it should not cost a citizen a dime, beyond what is needed to get to the poll, to exercise that right) are as follows:

- "eliminating same-day registration". The less well off often work two or three jobs where employers will fire them at the drop of a hat if they miss time, and don't have time to register that day if they haven't had a chance earlier (although personally, I don't have much sympathy in this case)

- "Shortening or elimination early voting". Same reason, although I do sympathize here. I think if they are going to keep voting on a Tuesday, they need make it a mandatory national holiday. Better though is to move it to a Saturday.

- "Making it harder to register by requiring unnecessary documentation" A driver's license should be sufficient given the hoops you have to go through to get one now. But, any other identification establishing your residence and a sworn statement, one that is punishable if false, that you are a citizen should all that is required.

- :Making it harder to vote" by requiring ONLY photo IDs that may be hard or costly in time and/or money to get.

The main reason SCOTUS didn't hear the gay marriage bans is that, at that time, all Courts of Appeal had ruled the bans were unconstitutional. There was nothing for the Court to take up.

Now that one Appeals Court has ruled to uphold the ban, and assuming the defendants appeal that to the Supreme Court, now the Court will probably take it up ... it should end up in a 6 - 3 decision finding the bans unconstitutional.

Roe v Wade is settled law. It has been hammered away at around the edges, mainly as it involves religion, but it is still standing strong. The fight between Right to Life (which only has meaning once there is agreement on when Life begins, and there is a wide gap in that debate) and the Right to Choose what happens to one's own body will never go away.


bradmaster from orange county ca 22 months ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

The set of laws conservative governors and legislators are implementing as a result of the Robert's Courts ruling are specifically designed to stop or discourage those who might vote Democratic to vote.

bm:

Roberts is also the one that decided a 5-4 decision that illogically allowed Obamacare.

-------------------

You wrote

It has noting to do with voter fraud. If it were a problem, which it is provably not, (or the reverse, cannot be proved it is), then all states would be creating such laws as well as the federal gov't. But, only Red states are ... which makes it political on its face.

bm:

The proof of eligibility to vote would be applied to every voter, not just voters that might vote democrat. The reason that it only appears in Red states is because the democrats control the Blue states, and outvote the Republicans efforts to pass the photo id requirement there.

It is no different than requiring everyone to have a SS card, or to have a passport id, or a driver's license id. Democrats are the ones giving handouts to these people that you say are valid voters, but isn't it more like the democrats want to get a ROI of their handouts to these people.

There appears to be no problem with 99.99999 percentage of the airline travelers, yet we force people to be treated like terrorists at the airports.

US Airport security is a joke, and it wouldn't take an OBL to breach it.

While, I am on the malfunctioning government, lets talk overreaching and treating innocent people as having little to no privacy. The NSA goes through millions of innocent people looking for possibly one bad guy.

Now the government is extending that where is Waldo concept by flying planes over populated areas to capture cell phone calls.

Examples of what they are doing, beyond unnecessarily burdening voters with a requirement that limits them to certain photo IDs that may or may not be easy or free for them to accept (since voting is a fundamental right, it should not cost a citizen a dime, beyond what is needed to get to the poll, to exercise that right) are as follows:

- "eliminating same-day registration". The less well off often work two or three jobs where employers will fire them at the drop of a hat if they miss time, and don't have time to register that day if they haven't had a chance earlier (although personally, I don't have much sympathy in this case)

- "Shortening or elimination early voting". Same reason, although I do sympathize here. I think if they are going to keep voting on a Tuesday, they need make it a mandatory national holiday. Better though is to move it to a Saturday.

- "Making it harder to register by requiring unnecessary documentation" A driver's license should be sufficient given the hoops you have to go through to get one now. But, any other identification establishing your residence and a sworn statement, one that is punishable if false, that you are a citizen should all that is required.

- :Making it harder to vote" by requiring ONLY photo IDs that may be hard or costly in time and/or money to get.

The main reason SCOTUS didn't hear the gay marriage bans is that, at that time, all Courts of Appeal had ruled the bans were unconstitutional. There was nothing for the Court to take up.

Now that one Appeals Court has ruled to uphold the ban, and assuming the defendants appeal that to the Supreme Court, now the Court will probably take it up ... it should end up in a 6 - 3 decision finding the bans unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An agency of the U.S. Justice Department is gathering data from thousands of cell phones, including both criminal suspects and innocent Americans, by using fake communications towers on airplanes, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

According to your theory as you apply it to voting, then there appears to be no real threat to invading the privacy of honest law abiding citizens.

Even though the report goes on further saying that department agencies comply with federal law, including by seeking court approval.

But we all know they can't unring the bell of these phone calls, so it is a technicality they say they comply.

I gave you examples in my previous comments about how photo id, mostly based on driver's license are required in many areas, including getting a library card.

This is now longer the 1950s or the 1850s where there was little to no tracking of people for any reason. But today we have lost privacy, and we are susceptible to identity fraud, and forced to comply with a misnomer of SS id.

The fourth amendment has become a shallow grave for privacy.

As for voting, we already don't have the one person one vote anymore.

The Electoral College needs to get some school credentials as it is not voting by the people, and there is no higher learning in it.

------------------------

You wrote

Roe v Wade is settled law. It has been hammered away at around the edges, mainly as it involves religion, but it is still standing strong. The fight between Right to Life (which only has meaning once there is agreement on when Life begins, and there is a wide gap in that debate) and the Right to Choose what happens to one's own body will never go away.

bm:

Roe v Wade is a compromise, and it does OK, but it could have been a better decision. As I am continually saying the Supreme Court has not made brilliant decisions over the years, and lately it even shirked its responsibility to settle the issue of gay marriage.

I believe it did that because, it has no judicial notice as to choice versus genetics. Without this there can be no reasonable assurance that gays are simply demanding to have their choices validated by the law.

In the Roe v Wade, the SC also didn't do its duty in asking for judicial notice on the concept of when does legal life begin. Certainly unless there is a medical emergency, there should be no second or third trimester abortions.

And the court shouldn't uphold abortion as a post prophylactic birth control. Many women that have abortions, are like the five time graduate of the Betty Ford Clinic.

Using you statics expertise, you could extrapolate the number of deaths of embryos to full term natural deaths to determine how viable life is during pregnancy.

Doing it by the week or even better daily during the pregnancy would in effect determine the viability of life, and indirectly generate a determination of when life begins.

Until that happens Roe v Wade doesn't answer the abortion question, it just puts a blindfold on the issue.

I don't have any religious arguments here, just logic.

We don't even have the right to die, which is choosing what is to happen to our body, yet you want to apply choice to a life being formed. Why is it fair then for murdering a pregnant women held as two counts of murder?

Among other ares, the government and especially the SCOTUS are inept in handling social matters. Government is political science not social science.

So my opinion on the three branches of the government is that congress is broken, the SC is lame, and the presidency is starting to look like a mini Kingdom.

I thought the founders of this country wanted to create a different kind of government from Britain?

Please refer to my previous comments for details on any of the areas that I have mentioned here.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


bradmaster 22 months ago

My Esoteric

Just checking in as I have no automatic way of knowing when an author responds to my comments.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 22 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nope, I think this number 53 in line, lol.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 22 months ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

I just bumped up by joining hp.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working