This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA.
Why is this happening to our high courts?
It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the court and yet he is playing politics and leaving our Constitution shredded on the floor.
DACA was an unConstitutional act by President Obama. Everyone agreed with that statement. Yet, we have a bunch of justices that are ruling based on their personal politics and not on the law. This is exactly why we are losing confidence in our government. Again and again, the people in power are failing us.
Why can't they just do their job or resign?
And yet there is a small glimmer of hope; the decision was not based on whether DACA was a good program or even a legal one, only on the perceived fact that Trump's methodology of ending it was illegal.
Whether that was merely a sneak around the back door to legislate from the bench or an honest opinion I'm not qualified to answer, but can hope that the court made the decision based on law rather than politics. They DO do that some of the time, after all!
Unfortunately not in this case. I place the blame squarely on John Roberts.
Why isn't the job of the Supreme court to determine the Constitutionality of these orders? That is the elephant in the room. It is not the job of John Roberts to decide what part of this case the court will address. I am not a lawyer or a judge but I am not naive. His opinion is so lame, I just can't believe anyone is buying it.
It might be the job of the SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of DACA...if it were brought before them. It wasn't; instead the constitutionality of Trump's orders was, and that is what they rule on.
you are splitting hairs...and trying to defend the indefensible.
I was not born yesterday.
The DACA was unConstitutional and even Obama, a Constitutional professor before he was President said so. Why did he issue the order in the first place? Because he knew no GOP will not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
Trump is the only one outside of DC who is willing to take him on and all the insiders, including some members of the Supreme court are just too timid. They don't want to be an outcast and be labeled a racist for calling out the first black President.
It is a shame our system has been so corrupted.
If all parties would just follow the Constitution like they pledged in their oath, we will all be better off. A color-blind society will rule based on the rule of law and not the trend of the day.
Let me give you an extreme analogy.
If Obama had issued an executive order freeing all murders in our prisons, and Trump comes along and cancel that order.
Would the Supreme Court ruled the same way?
You seem to think that the court case was about whether DACA was constitutional or not (I agree that it doesn't seem to be). But that is not the case; the matter before the court was whether the order to disband DACA was legal or not, and that is what was ruled on.
As an extreme example, suppose a case of police brutality was before the court. Should they then look at DACA and cancel DACA as it was unconstitutional even though it has absolutely nothing to do with police brutality?
It is not splitting hairs at all, for the case before the court did NOT concern the constitutionality of DACA, only whether Trump's order was legal. And the majority decided it was not - something I cannot comment on, have not seen the actual order or heard the arguments for and against its legality. That I believe DACA is unconstitutional does not have any effect on a decision as to the legality of Trump's order.
It is rare that I find myself defending SCOTUS for a decision I don't like, but in this case they seem to have done the right thing (assuming that the order WAS illegal, anyway).
So in that case, why rule at all?
It seems they could just refuse to hear the case...
as with so many other cases.
This argument of not providing sufficient evidence is a ruse.
Anyone can say that.
To me, a simple guy, when the premise of the case is wrong, anything else related to it have no legal basis one way or another.
It was Obama that brought this on and we now have a terrible precedence on our hands.
Any future president can copy this MO...with other issues. It will tie up our legal system in knots for years to come.
My advice to Trump in this toxic environment.
Just propose the opposite what he wanted, regardless of the law, and the Democrats will reject it and he will end up getting what he really wants.
ie. Propose Defunding the Police, and see what happens...
Just as surely as you think your opinion is right, I just as surely think you are wrong.
I think this case is/was about nuances, not a black or white, (no play on words intended), issue like a ruling on Constitutionality. It can only appear that you think you know more about the issue than five Supreme Court judges. (ouch) :-0 That is not a claim I would make.
Wilderness already gave the reasons as an explanation.
It explicable enough if you are not aligned with rightwingers, Jack.
This is basically a conservative court, now. Are you now a Constitutional Law scholar qualified to second guess their rulings?
Yes, it is a conservative court in name only. With justices like Robert, it might as well be a liberal activist court. It sure rules like one.
In the old days, rulings used to be 7/2, or 6/3 but now it is consistently 5/4...not a good thing, if you asked me. How can 9 experienced judges interpret the Constitution so differently?
The answer is simple - they are not abiding only by the Constitution.
What I got from reading the ruling is that the Supreme Court does not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies, and that the agency did not comply with the procedural requirements.
"The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."
Roberts made clear that the administration does indeed have the power to rescind DACA, just not in this fashion.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem … ca-program
What do you think about DACA? and Obama's executive order?
He had 8 years as President and part of that full control of both Houses of Congress. Why didn't he pass a new law to make it permanent?
I think Obama's DACA has put hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo.
As you know under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration and immigration laws. A president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens. President Barack Obama lacked the constitutional and legal authority to implement.such an order, and the Congress never took up the hot issue, leaving these people in limbo.
How do we know Obama did not have the ability to make DACA permanent? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.
"Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works." Barack Obama
The compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness, enforce our present laws, or if Congress chooses to make changes to those immigration laws, to do so through the process set forth by our Founders in a way that advances the interests of the nation.
You have asked a great question, why did'ent Congress deal with the problem. In my view, because of our Congress men and women are nothing but political hacks, that sit on the fence in order to keep their jobs. Immigration is a hot potato that they are not willing to handle. It could lead to being political suicide.
Just consider what is being said about President Trump for wanting DACA ended. Sep 7, 2017, President Trump called on Congress to “legalize” DACA ... Given strong popular support for protecting the Dreamers. I am not sure why legislating on DACA so difficult for Congress.
President Trump needs to remove John Roberts from the Supreme Court or initiate an impeachment of John Roberts. He's not ruling the way I think he should rule and even though he's on the Supreme Court, I know more than he does about what is right and this isn't right. I have faith that President Trump can get rid of him. He should also get rid of Neil Gorsuch for his LGBGQT ruling. A business owner should be able to fire anybody for any reason. It's their business! The government should not tell business owners what to do!
Can you imagine what would happen if Trump did that? there will be civil war.
This is what happens when a society begins to fall, just like the Roman Empire.
Once a government body fails to perform and laws are not followed equally, you will end up with confusion and discord and eventually chaos. This is exactly what groups like Antifa wants.
They are being assisted by the media and the courts and celebrities...and academis.
I agree! But it's hard to do the right thing sometimes and removing John Roberts is the right thing. He was appointed to uphold the Constitution and he's not doing that. Trump should have the right to remove Supreme Court judges just like he's able to appoint them. When people don't do their job, they should be fired.
I don't know anything about the law, but I know that DACA decision was wrong.
Chief Justice just did it again and voted 5/4 with the progressives on abortion restrictions.
He is no friend of the Constitution or conservative.
Time to call these justices out...
He proves to me again that the Constitution means little to these high court justices. They think they are gods and they are fallible and biased just like the rest of us.
Our system is broken and there does not seem to be a way to fix it.
How do you make people abide by the Constitution?
Oh for heavens sake, don't you ever stop, Jack?
I think that the court called it correctly, Roe vs Wade is still the law of the land. Any attempt to legislate away those rights or whittle them down is a violation. So, what was going on in LA and TX is an attempt to restrict abortion going beyond provisions Roe vs. Wade and it is not acceptable.
I consider this a thumb into the eye of conservatives that is well deserved.
credence, it is not a law. The Supreme Court does not make laws. It rules on the Constitutionality of laws. If you read the roe v wade decision, it allowed for abortion with restrictions. It was suppose to be rare and last resort.
As we both know, that is not what is going on now with Planned Parenthood where abortion is used almost like another form of contraception. Nearly a million abortions are performed yearly...
Justice Roberts knew better and he is no conservative. He was appointed by GW Bush to the disappointment of many conservatives.
Once again, we lost even when we win at the ballot box.
"As we both know, that is not what is going on now with Planned Parenthood where abortion is used almost like another form of contraception."
That seems a rather gross exaggeration. How many condoms are sold each year, how many birth control pills, vs how many abortions are done? The two are not even with a factor of 1000 of each other.
Nor is it reasonable to look at only PP when using abortions vs contraceptives in the same sentence; you don't go to WalMart pharmacy to buy an abortion. PP undoubtedly has a MUCH higher percentage of abortions vs contraceptives than places that sell contraceptives but not abortions. That isn't difficult to understand.
The actual number is the key.
With all the sex education, and contraception available, why in 2020 do we still have close to 1 million abortions a year?
Some are late term abortions...
PP has not done a good job in both prevention and adoptions as an alternative to abortion.
The answer is simple. They make money on abortions...
Sounds like you should be "attacking" the women hiring them to perform a legal service rather than the organization performing that service.
Or working harder to ban all abortions in the country, putting those women into back alley corners or foreign countries to satisfy your sense of morality.
Nobody is talking about banning abortions. Here is what Roe v Wade said -
" In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother."
Then what is your argument that there are "too many"?
Jacklee, there is little doubt that many in this country would ban abortions for any but the most egregious cases of the mother's health, and what you are saying very much appears to fit into that category. You are vociferously complaining that PP does "too many", but without providing any information at all that it violates even the spirit (as you see it) of RvsW - all that you have to offer is that PP is doing abortions rather than adoptions and you find that wrong. You would shut down one of the biggest (if not the largest) organization providing women's health AND contraception...because they are doing abortions as well. Doesn't make sense unless you wish to virtually ban all abortions.
I find it odd that in our modern sophisticated world that abortions are happening with such frequency. More, I find it odd an organization like PP, who claims to support women's health and receives plenty of federal funding, is focused primarily on providing abortions and in some instances to under aged minors...what's that all about?
They have also been exposed to selling fetus organs for medical studies and research.
I am pro-life and I think abortion is a necessary evil that should be minimized.
I would not reverse Roe v Wade but just remind all that it came about to avoid back ally butchers...not to provide a form of birth control.
By forcing facilities to close in either TX or LA, so that women can not have access or a state putting forth onerous regulations as to how doctors that provide abortions are able to practice seems to me to go beyond the compromise under in Roe vs Wade
Can you explain the reversal of John Roberts? I can't.
The language in this case is exactly what was in a Texas case...a few years earlier.
Jack, remember Earl Warren? Eisenhower appointed him to the court. His court made some of the most progressively oriented ruling during his tenure as Chief Justice.
Eisenhower later said that he resented appointing him as he was hoping for a more conservative court. But neither jurors or people are monolithic and can be capable of change once they understand the situation on the ground.
It is rare for a juror who starts out leaning left to go right, but I see that occur much more often the other way around.
To the detriment of society...I may add. Our Constitution, is unique. Like it or not, it has served us well for over 200 years until now. It appears the progressive wing is winning but it is not clear if it will help us.
The pendulum swings one way and then the opposite. I just hope it reverses before it is too late.
The problem with interpreting the words of the Constitution is there is no standard anymore. Once we cannot trust what the words mean, all else is lost.
The danger comes from right wingers who want to hijack the Constitution under the ruse of "original intent".
And if I had my choice, the progressive wing will continue "winning". I guess you can challenge that if you think that you are a greater legal scholar than the nine people on the bench now? Egad, Jack!
You may be right. There are some (mostly "right wingers") that wish to interpret the Constitution to as near as they can to what the original intent of the writers meant.
And there are others (mostly "left wingers") that don't care what the intent was; they will "interpret" the words to mean whatever they want them to mean. To whatever they think will better match their left wing politics, without regard to the meaning.
Of the two I will choose the first every single time. There are methods to change the Constitution; if you don't like what it says, change it. But don't simply try to claim it means what it does not, or that times have changed so it means something different now than when it was written. Again, if times have changed then change the Constitution to match the times.
And there are others (mostly "left wingers") that don't care what the intent was; they will "interpret" the words to mean whatever they want them to mean. To whatever they think will better match their left wing politics, without regard to the meaning.
This is no different than what the Right does, it is just that that have a fancy definition that they call "original intent" strict interpretation if you will. But again that is just as much fashionable within the vogue of Right Wing Politics. Being called an activist court merely depends on from what ideological pole you are looking at it from.
Perhaps you may have a Supreme Court ruling to make your point, for example...
This equivalency is false. The conservative follows the Constitution as written.
The liberals make up stuff and changes meaning of words to suit.
It is not the same thing, just the opposite.
I respect that. we can agree to disagree.
However, one of us is right and one of us is wrong.
When in doubt, I refer to the Bible and the Constitution.
What do you rely on?
Conservatives are notorious for their clinging to absolutes.
The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution in cases of disputes regarding the law. Interpretation processes are in of themselves subjective. There are both progressive and conservative jurors that dont' agree on Right and wrong and these are scholars in the field. Otherwise, wouldn't there be a unanimous ruling for each and every case, if there were only one "right" answer?
America is not a theocracy, whether it be the Koran or the Bible. We use the Constitution and try to apply current circumstances to the "original intent" as much as possible recognizing the inevitability of change and the need to understand that 18th century norms may no longer apply to 21st century issues.
The court made the correct ruling, if you want to restrict abortion in its entirety, why not a reverse ruling on Roe vs. Wade?
Roberts came to the conclusion that I would have: that Louisiana was creating undue burden and obstacles to women having access to abortion rights. That was not the intent of Roe vs. Wade, that this decision can be endlessly whittled down and watered down to the point that the guarantee to the right to an abortion under conditions established under Roe, would, in reality be non-existent.
And that will not stand.
No, Roberts did not do what you said he did. If he did, I would have no problem with his decision. Again and again, he went against his own common sense and came up with odd and twisted explanations for his vote. He is acting like a crooked lawyer instead of a Judge. King Solomon would be turning in his grave...
Chief Justice single handedly have damaged the supreme court.
Inexplicably and with malice.
He should be removed or resign in shame.
We do not have a judicial branch anymore.
What we have now is a 3rd branch of our Congress who makes laws...sad.
Just think, One unelected justice can make up a new law.
So, I guess I have to accept that he made the right call, so how is he "making law" rather than interpretation of the established "Roe vs Wade"?
What would your "common sense" have produced and why?
Common sense would refer to the original roe v wade decision. Those justices struggled with the decision and came up with a balanced between right to abortion and the right to life...of the unborn.
Abortion was the last resort, not a way of contraception.
Roe v Wade was not a law by the way. It was forced upon our nation and we are still struggling with it to this day 60 years later. Half of our population still are not supporting abortion.
That tells me that the Founding Fathers had it right in the first place. This should have been handled differently by Congress, debated and voted on...instead of Supreme court ruling.
Now, we are still dealing with something that we don't truly understand.
Everyday, science is telling us the fetus is not part of the mother, but a unique human being from conception.
That is why there exists a placenta...where the fetus does not share the same blood as the mother...unlike any other organ of her body...
That is why the fetus has its unique 23 pairs of Chromosomes separate from the mother.
Roberts should have know better but instead caved to the progressive wing of the court. He is not fit to be chief Justice or even a justice of the court. He has a lot of explaining to do.
But was the idea to make it impossible to use the "last resort" because certain states imposed onerous provisions.
Roe vs Wade made the compromise between the interests of the states to preserve life yet offer women alternatives to the coat hanger.
That means a balance not an idea that the anti abortion side is free to whit away at it.
Who are you to say that Roe vs Wade was forced? Do you believe your side is the only side in this issue? If you don't want an abortion, don't get one and neither can we ignore the desires of the other half, compromise, remember?
Your ideas about the nature and origins of life are not shared by all, why should your interpretation be the rule?
I am more than satisfied with Roberts' ruling in this case. Louisiana and Texas crossed the line and need to be reminded where that line lies.
The reason we have 9 justices is so these differences can be flushed out.
That is why a 5/4 decision should be rare and not the rule.
In the majority of the cases, if you use the Constitution as a frame work, judges do not have such discretion. If they know the law, and they know the Constitution, and they apply the rule of law, 75% should agree on the outcome.
"They have also been exposed to selling fetus organs for medical studies and research."
See, now that is simply more bad press, faux "news" that you are pouncing on because you don't like abortions. They don't sell fetus organs; the sale of ANY human organ is highly illegal. They DO get a fee for collection and, presumably, transportation, but that's all.
"I find it odd that in our modern sophisticated world that abortions are happening with such frequency."
Why? Are you one of those that insist that your definition of what is a human being is God's answer to the question? You refuse to accept that others disagree, with their own reasoning - reasoning which is likely far better than yours?
Or women visiting PP and wanting an abortion is a much higher proportion than women visiting WalGreens for some condoms.
What you're trying to say is that because PP offers abortions, and gets clientele wanting that service, they are wrong for performing them. The logic does not follow - that you would prefer adoptions does not mean PP is wrong to provide a perfectly legal service their clients want.
Just as mentioning (at all) that late term abortions happen is - we both know that they are illegal except in very rare cases involving the health of the mother. And highly illegal back-alley ones.
Yeah it was a surprising siding by him. Especially since the scotus has been officially 'conservative' for awhile, now. Of COURSE you're going to be confused when one of 'your people' vote in opposition of your extreme bs:
"It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the court..." I'd guess he really believes that and makes decisions with his own mind and not by the minds of right-wing extremists. I know you don't believe me, Jack - but not every conservative is an extreme right-winger like you. Some of them waddle in the middle, just like some 'lefties' waddle around in the middle. Mindboggling, huh?
"...and yet he is playing politics and leaving our Constitution shredded on the floor. DACA was an unConstitutional act by President Obama. Everyone agreed with that statement."
That's totally untrue. Just because you and your ilk believe that doesn't make it true. 'Everyone' has NEVER agreed with that statement.
"Yet, we have a bunch of justices that are ruling based on their personal politics and not on the law." Talk about the kettle calling the pot black, lol! Trump and his cult followers don't understand the words 'democracy'. So, I can totally see how shocking it is to you when democracy and justice prevails, ha!
"This is exactly why we are losing confidence in our government. Again and again, the people in power are failing us." Since when is this NEW? And here I thought Trump fans were fairly happy with his Dictatorship rule. Its not the job of politicians or judges to force the will of an extremist minority on everyone. That would be a real failure - cuz again, DEMOCRACY, not the one-sided perspective of a bunch of propaganda-ized extremists.
"Why can't they just do their job or resign?" They don't resign just because extremists don't agree with them - simply BECAUSE they are doing their job.
DACA is unConstitutional and do you know who said it? President Barack Obama... and since then, even the Supreme court justices agreed. They just didn't rule on it or considered it in this latest case.
What kind of twisted logic was that?
It is not the extreme right that is destroying our country.
We are the only sane people left to save it.
It sounds like the old question, "Does the end result justify the means?" So, DACA is unconstitutional, but it's on the books. At the time it was illegally created, some compassion was behind the effort to allow those who had no voice be given time to choose a path "more acceptable" to the masses or be deported back to their native country.
What a mess! As a second-generation American who didn't know the difference between the Slavic language and English until age 9, maybe I should be ripped in half and quartered so parts of me could be "sent back" to Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany.
When people come here, it's because the Spirit has moved them. Such Spirit knows no boundary or limitations. It is Spirit.
When the Constitution was created, the makeup of our country was very, very different. So, we've got checks and balances, and amendments.
Slipping up isn't the end of the world. If anything, controversy makes people a little more aware and, hopefully, take more interest in what is happening. Voices count. Opinions do matter.
So, it sounds to me that Justice Roberts didn't want to deal with the issue and decided to shove it under the rug. Eventually, though, that rug will have to be moved, cleaned, and the debris beneath it removed. That is, if we want angels in our world.
Right now with persons damaging property and killing, the "illegal" young ones who are decent individuals are the least of our problems. We have to remove the perpetuated fear of the unknown by bringing into the open for discussion, perhaps compromise, and compassionate action.
My two cents' worth by someone who knows nothing about politics.
Thank you for a very heart-felt, calm, rational response. I agree with what you have said, and you have articulated it very well. As I understand it the question was not the constitutionality of DACA but the Trump administration efforts to remove it.
Not even Trump's efforts, but only the methodology he used. They also made it crystal clear that Trump can end DACA, but only if he uses other methods
I don' think you and Marie understand how the Supreme Court has failed us in this case.
I want a resolution to the immigrant problem as most of Americans when polled.
Yet, again and again, Democrat and Republican administrations come and go and with the help of the media and the courts, nothing is ever changed.
The problem just get bigger every year.
Here is what needs to happen in my clear thinking mind.
1. The Supreme court should rule that DACA is unConstitutional.
2. Congress needs to write a bill to deal with the 700,000 dreamers, one way or another, they need to get a legal path to citizenship.
3. The big picture is we cannot have this issue be used as a political football every election cycle.
4. If Congress cannot come up with a bill, the citizens should vote them out of office. We need term limits. To use a sports analogy, when a team loses again and again, sooner or later we need to replace the teammates so they have a shot to win again.
5. If the justices cannot follow the Constitution, they should be impeached and removed. Just like the President, there must be a way to get rid of justices when they are either too old or too incompetent, or break our laws.
A Constitutional Amendments might be the only solution but it needs to be done. Else, we will end up with a dysfunctional 3rd branch of our government.
How can we have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court make a decision on the ACA that rewrite a law? Calling a penalty a tax...
Word must have meaning or else we are left with the argument that Bill Clinton used in his impeachment - “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is... such non-sense.
On this we have no argument; the country desperately needs an end to the third class citizenry known as DACA, and our politicians are concerned only with using those poor people as political footballs. It is shameful, it is disgraceful and we should not tolerate it. It is my considered opinion that Trump has no intention of deporting them - only in forcing congress, kicking and screaming, into doing something about them towards citizenship.
Yes, I agree with you on Trump and yet he is demonized to no end by the media and some activist judges and some politicians in his own party...the never Trumpers.
Sooner or later, the underclass of our country will wake up and realize who their true friends are...and it is not the Democratic party.
BTW, one sure sign that the judicial branch is in trouble - when decisions are reached with a 5/4 vote. This should be rare in a well functioning court.
Why do you suppose the nomination of judge Kavanaugh was so nasty?
We have a politicized court for a very long time. The mere fact that Chief Justice Roberts deny that demonstrate to me that he is not living in the real world.
"Your ideas about the nature and origins of life are not shared by all, why should your interpretation be the rule?"
Yep. I agree. But . . .
There is one consideration that must be recognized. Folks that hold the view jackclee holds, do not view abortion as a choice or a life/religious belief. They sincerely see it as murder.
I would guess that if you, without the guide of any ideology, saw something as murdering a child, you would protest against it too. Would it be credible for me to call you a zealot, or claim you are forcing your values on me?
I strongly disagree with the religious folks trying to outlaw abortions. And I strongly support a woman's Right to choose and her Right to control her own body, but I cannot condemn the religious folks for whom this a sincere issue. I can just tell them I don't agree and fight to ensure their view isn't forced on the rest of us.
I Don't condemn them, they just need to realize we don't live in a theocracy and their views and values are not supreme, be all end all. They should not expect this, living in so diverse a society.
I like to believe that, diverse society or not, no one will calmly accept the murder of helpless children. We ALL hold that value, I sincerely hope, with the only disagreement being "what is a child".
Never said that. The issue is at what point does a fetus qualify as a person, that is what is debatable. We don't murder persons, children. Conservatives like Jack cling on to the idea of "at conception". Well that view is not universally held. Roe has made the compromise between guarantees for the protection of the unborn vs a woman's right to a safe abortion. We should stick with that, with the pro life side to stop removing the available options for woman to access a safe abortion procedure.
Yes, we ALL hold that value....
We do all hold that value. And it therefore behooves us to make an attempt - a STRONG attempt - to understand where the other side is coming from and what drives them rather than declare that their "values are not supreme, be all end all" for we all have the same values here.
Then BOTH sides can debate that point of "personhood" - something neither side will discuss so far because there is nothing but opinion to back either side.
Religious dogma is religious dogma and I really find most of this hypocritical on its face. How deeply do you consider an alternate side that you in principle do not agree? We are not going to agree on personhood and there is no objective standard, so all that is left is compromise.
I have problems with people who do zero sum games, all or nothing. In this topic, there is no definitive answer, so compromise. And yes, still I am not willing and am going to resist a faction who forces me to subscribe to their values, I resist it and resent it.
How much is their side listening to those that fundamentally disagree with them, Jack for instance?
It is a human rights issue. Protecting the unborn is what is behind my thinking and not necessarily religious. Science is on my side. The fetus is a whole individual being separate and different from the organs of the mother, if you analyze the DNA.
Our Constitution provide each of us with certain inalienable rights...that of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The debate is who does that apply?
It is clear it applies to all humans that are living and breathing.
The debate is about a human fetus in the womb.
At what point is that fetus able to survive independently?
That is why historically, and ruled by the Supreme court, that they recognize the three tri-mester period.
Abortion was ruled safe and legal in the first trimester.
Late term abortions is what is being contested.
Advances in medicine has improved the survivability of premature babies.
This is where the current debate lies...and it is inexplicable to me why anyone would support the killing of a fetus up to the point of natural birth.
Yet, it is happening today.
And there is the answer from the other side: "The fetus is a whole individual being separate and different from the organs of the mother, if you analyze the DNA."
This is false on the face of it, for the fetus is not a person, not an "individual" at all, merely a collection of homo sapien cells that may one day become a human being. Yet here is the "lifer" claiming omnipotent knowledge without a shred of evidence.
As an example, you seem to believe the the SCOTUS defined the point as the first trimester, then drift off into survivability and decide that because medicine has improved the survivability of preemies they are "people" earlier than they were - something that makes exactly zero sense.
Nor is it only late term abortion that is contested; there is, and has been for years, a concerted effort to end virtually all abortions. To say otherwise is beneath you, particularly as you yourself take the same stance in your posts here.
I don't deny there are groups that want to eliminate abortion all together. I am not one of them. I believe in an imperfect world we have today, abortion is a necessary procedure.
Take that as a baseline, where roe v wade came into being in 1973, it was made legal so that young girls would resort to back ally.
However, if you go read the opinion, it was debated and they thought abortion should be rare and a last resort...
Now, I ask you, honestly, has that been fulfilled in your unbiased opinion?
or has history shown us, once abortion was made legal, by the Supreme court, it became a cottage industry under the supervision of Planned Parenthood where they make lots of $$$ performing abortions and not much else.
That is where science comes in to the rescue.
In 2020, we know now that a fetus is not just another organ of the mother, to be cut out like a tumor.
It is an individual being with 23 pairs of chromosomes, different and distinct from the mother.
Therefore, I side with the Constitution and I believe the fetus, after first tri-mester, is a protected class and the court has ruled such in the past. Why are they changing their minds now?
On a side and related issue, when a pregnant lady is harmed in an auto accident caused by drunk driving, the baby in her stomach is considered a living being and the driver can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Why is that? if the fetus is just a piece of meat, why does the law treat it so harsh?
No, it has not become a "cottage industry under the supervision of Planned Parenthood where they make lots of $$$ performing abortions and not much else." PP is not "supervising" any other abortion clinics, they are not even half the clinics in the country and the abortion portion of their work is a minor part of what they provide.
If you believe that "personhood" happens at the end of the first trimester then what possible reason is there to limit first trimester abortions? Why are you concerned that they are happening? Why do you consider them to be murder?
I'd also point out that if the SCOTUS protected second trimester fetuses then there are states openly violating the law and have been doing so ever since RvsW. I don't believe that you are correct in that assessment.
I hate to burst your bubble by Planned Parenthood is not what you think it is, or sold to the American public. There have been undercover investigations by Project Veritas that exposes the corruption that lies within.
Whether you agree or disagree with the tactics used by project veritas, it is exposing a fact of life.
Planned Parenthood exists to make money off abortions and worse, selling body parts of fetus for medical research.
They do some other things in support of women's health like breast cancer detection and prevention...but the majority of their budget is on abortion.
These are a matter of public records and anyone with a computer can find them.
You have not address the case of the pregnant mom I cited.
If a baby in an expectant mom's belly is considered a life by the legal system in one case, doesn't it apply to all cases? what is the difference?
It is illegal to sell body parts of any kind, and PP has never been convicted of such an act. This means that any claim that they are doing it is unproven and as such of no more value than any other bit of fake news. Sorry to burst your bubble.
The majority of their income may well be abortions; that funds the rest of their services, many or most of which are free. Should they begin to charge poor teenagers, without a dime to their names, for contraception and female health care?
Do you expect the law to be equal everywhere in the country? Do you expect it to be logical and fair all over the country? Certainly those manslaughter laws you reference are not:
"At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization")"
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fe … r%20...%20
(As much as anything, it looks like yet another back door approach to end abortions, for the very reason you give: "See? That piece of meat is considered a person in some states and some circumstances, so it has to be one and cannot be aborted!)
You refuse to accept the obvious evidence. I can state to you right now, because selling body parts is illegal, that is why you will never hear a PP employee admit to it in public.
Project Veritas went under cover and exposed the common practice with hidden video tapes...you can find them on the web.
The fact you choose to defend PP tells me you are not interested in the legality.
For me, you can be a pro-choice supporter and at the same time criticize an organization when they do wrong. There is no blind allegiance.
As regard to the legal treatment of the unborn, I was merely pointing out a glaring inconsistency of the pro-choice stance. They claim on the one hand a fetus is not a person and can be aborted at the will of the mother, yet, if a person caused the death of an unborn in the case of drunken driving, well that is considered manslaughter... so which is it?
By "obvious evidence" you refer to someone, somewhere, making the claim without presenting any evidence at all. You know better - this particular claim has been debunked over and over.
It is whatever local law says - that is what I pointed out. That the same law is not in effect nationwide means nothing...except that it is a red herring for the lifers to pursue.
watch for yourself and make excuses...
I watched you link jackclee, and once past the opening clip that went viral the same staffer is emphasizing this practice is to facilitate research and off-set transfer costs—specifically stating the purpose is not to make a profit.
It seems to contradict your point rather than support it. You did watch all of it, didn't you?
I'd have to say you need to listen to it yourself. It was made very, very clear that sale of tissue is illegal, and that PP does not do that, but that recouping costs is not. Which is exactly what I said and in direct opposition to the claim that the tissue is sold, whether for a profit or not. I repeat: when you can provide a conviction for a highly illegal act, then you can say that PP is selling fetal "parts", but until then you have nothing to show.
Well, with that high standard you set, no wonder there has not been even an investigation into this. Somehow, in your world, PP is a sacred cow and they can do no wrong...
let me ask you this simple question.
If the money is just to recoup expenses, shouldn't it be a fixed amount?
why would they need to negotiate a price at this lunch meeting?
as the hidden video clearly shows...
or do you dispute what the women said. It was just clever editing?
I'm sure Jack agrees with me that all abortion is murder. Therefore, all women who have ever had an abortion should be put in jail since they murdered their unborn child.
What we need to do as the government is raid the offices of Planned Parenthood, find those records, and put every one of those women in jail.
Do you seek that the fetus has rights of personhood at the point of conception?
If the fetus can live outside the body of the mother is key in my opinion. I am against late term abortions and they are subject to restriction under the current ROe decision. But it seem that you lifer types want to control the narrative in all aspects, life at conception and no contraception. I will allow no one to impose upon me or my rights in such a way.
No, I don't. I go with the science. I think you have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about no contraception...
I just believe that a viable fetus has the right to life...and deserve our protection.
I just can't comprehend why a women would carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide to abort...and some people on the pro-choice camp think it is OK. What's that all about?
What do you term "viable"? Able to live with the utmost efforts of modern health science? If so, how is it that the point of "personhood" changes from year to year and country to country? How does it work that what was a lump of tissue one year is suddenly a "person" the next year, but with absolutely no change in the flesh itself?
"I just can't comprehend why a women would carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide to abort...and some people on the pro-choice camp think it is OK. What's that all about?"
What it's about is gross exaggeration, and denial of facts or truth, as false information is used to attempt to raise an emotional response that has nothing to do with reality. You are as aware as I am that abortion "almost to term" is illegal everywhere in the country and is extremely rare.
What do you consider "rare"? a 1% rate of 800,000 abortions is 8000.
Do we have that many police shootings?
And did we have 8,000 abortions days before full term? That IS what you're insinuating, right?
Or did we have 5 of them, all in back alleys?
no, that is not my point.
I was responding to your comment that late term abortion is rare.
I don't consider 8000 per year a small number.
Look, we just went thru 3 weeks of protests and riots due to 1 bad police shooting of a black man.
Meanwhile, 8000 late term abortions happen in our country each year without a peep. Many of these are from minority communities.
These babies are able to survive outside the womb but killed because the mother decided to abort.
You're right: I did say that:
"You are as aware as I am that abortion "almost to term" is illegal everywhere in the country and is extremely rare."
It was in response to your statement: "I just can't comprehend why a women would carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide to abort"
So...some proof that 8,000 women, in one year (or did you mean in the last 50 years?) carried a fetus almost to term and then aborted?
Or are you considering "almost to term" to be 26 weeks (182 days) left? Maybe 13 weeks (91 days)? Is 91 days "almost to term"? Remember that many states do not consider 14 weeks to term to be late term at all and it is quite legal.
You're missing the point entirely. How often, for instance, have you debated the beginning of "peoplehood" with anyone, let alone with a "lifer"? You claim to understand that that's the only difference, but the only response is that "values are not supreme, be all end all". And the circle goes round and round, endlessly, because no one will even try and discuss from the standpoint of understanding where the other side is coming from.
I am involved in such debates as to where protoplasm become people right here. I have been involved in such discussions. Do you look at the "race issues" with the standpoint of understanding as to where the other side is coming from?
My problem remains that many of these pro life types are against the termination of life at conception and make an big deal about the very idea of contraception. I can understand the need to revere life of the unborn particularely when they can survive outside the womb. Removing the option a woman has to safe and effective abortion procedures by closing all the clinics or reasonable access to same is not solving the problem, but exacerbates it.
There is nothing to understand, no more than fire and water can mix.
Maybe, I do not truly understand what these people stand for or what they really want?
by Mary's Crumbs 10 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
by IDONO 9 years ago
Should issues be proven to be constitutional BEFORE they reach the voter ballot?It seems that the voice of the people don't mean much anymore. We vote yea or nay on issues, then many times the result is appealed as unconstitutional. Maybe these issues should go before the Supreme Court before it...
by VC L Veasey 8 years ago
Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's issued the most?
by Glenn S. 12 years ago
What in the world is Roberts getting involve in polical grand standing. Arn't Justices suppose to be impartial. Another Bush appointee shows his true colors. -In a controversy stretching back to January’s State of the Union Address, Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of law students at the...
by IslandBites 6 weeks ago
The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico. The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to...
by Credence2 2 years ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|