The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the baby), it has much wider ramifications regarding any Supreme Court ruling that recognizes an American's Right to Privacy.
Effectively, this Court said that no American has any Right to Privacy under the federal Constitution!!! Imagine the import of that!
In the Declaration of Independence, upon which our Constitution is founded, it talks,. about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How can ANY reasonable person argue that an individual's Right to Privacy is not implied? Yet the Conservatives on the Court ruled that it is not!
Our Constitution starts out, on purpose with this declarion of intent -
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I have to ask,what reasonable person can argue that the individual Right to Privacy is not implied in those words? We know who tries and did - Conservatives.
Clarance Thomas took the opportunity to tell the world what Conservatices are going after next:
- what you do in your bedroom;
- your genetics, if you happen to be LGBTQ;
- your love, if it happens to be for someone of the same sex
They may now do these unimaginable things to:
- Restict where a woman can travel
- Restrict what a person can order through mail
- Force doctors to move if they want to practice without fear of being jailed
- Force fertility clinics to shut down
- Restrict to what or whom you may donate money
- Restrict the advise you can give women
- Open women, and probably others, to have thier communications searched
- Restrict who you may drive across a state line
and dozens of other unAmerican things and all because Conservatives want to control your business and FORCE you to follow their archaic religious moral code.
What a very scary and sad place we live in now because Conservatices can't mind their own business.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics … index.htmlYes, the goal of Conservatives is to keep women barefoot & pregnant. Conservative men are threatened by modernity in all aspects. They want to return to more delineated times when Blacks, women, LBGTQ, & other people "were in their so-called place." Conservative men are especially threatened by sexually liberated women. They want to punish women for being sexual. It is a scary place but progressive Americans are going to fight the regressives.
Prior to Roe, conservatives prosecuted women who received an illegal abortion. A 22-year old woman whose life was in jeopardy due to her pregnancy (as it was in a previous one) had an abortion to save her life. She was found guilty of manslaughter.
This is where we are today. Women will die due to Thomas, Alito, and Conservatives.
'Supreme Court pushes divided nation closer to breaking point with new fights over abortion"
So True
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics … index.htmlAbortion rates decline everywhere it is legalized. It was never about saving the unborn. It was about imposing religious beliefs on others - usually those less fortunate. Where is the christianity in that?
THANK YOU, KATHLEEN. We have SIX Taliban justices.
I am purposefully NOT Christian, but I do distinguish between thoughtful Christians who actually believe in what they think Jusus is teaching and those who abuse and distort his message. In my mind, evangelicals and fundamentalists are not real Christians. They are just a dangerous cult.
I have a relationship with God because of the sacrifice Jesus made on my behalf. All that is asked of me is to live by the example of Jesus' life while he was here among us. What did he say about abortion? Nothing recorded. What did he say about government? Pay your taxes. Everything else was for us to treat others as we would want them to treat us. Feed the hungry. Care for the sick. Welcome the stranger. Take in the homeless . . . to give just a few examples. If you can find that kind of activity within your political party, choices about who you vote for become easier.
Hence my comment about evangelicals and fundamentalists. They oppose feeding the hungry (at least with your tax dollars), they oppose the gov't helping those who can't afford it to get health insurance. They tell strangers to stay away, we don't want you.
Clearly, evangelicals and fundamentalists do not listen to Jesus.
"And because G.O.P. extremism is fed by resentment against the very things that, as I see it, truly make America great — our diversity, our tolerance for difference — it cannot be appeased or compromised with. It can only be defeated."
Paul Krugman of the New York Times...Credence2, we have the TALIBAN here-the six Supreme Court justices.
You know what this retrograde decision striking down the right to privacy at the federal level and the scramble by some states to subjugate women other states to protect women reminds me of? 1787!
One of the events which drove our founders to write our Consitution was the fighting between states which was ever so slowly leading to a civil war.
It is becoming harder to differentiate between the Maryland - Pennsylvania fight in 1787 and what is starting to take shape between such backward looking states like Texas and Oklahoma and those states who actually believe in personal liberty like California, Oregon, and Washington.After you read Alito's dissent, you'll understand why I think he is a very, very scary man.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … n-abortionThere coming after the "pill" next. They could not resist the opportunity to tie us all down to their phony and exasperating ethics.
I am just waiting for enough people to realize that THEY are crossing the line, or will they?They AREN'T coming after the pill-such hyperbole.
I meant the pill that a woman can take after to induce an abortion, the one that the Supreme Court is reserving for a decision regarding.
Deleted
I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas votes to reverse the ruling that allowed whites and blacks to marry. Can you imagine that it was ONLY 60 some odd years ago that it became legal over the very loud and violent objections of conservatives.
One of the functions of "the pill" is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Without that implantation in the uterine wall it will be aborted; the murder of a human life.
Bet your booty it is on the list, just not the public one yet.Hadn't thought of that, but it is so true - that is the way these social conservatives see it.
That is the way that the far Christian right sees it. Not social conservatives particularly. Although I know many conservatives, and many Christians (both liberal and conservative) I don't know a single one that would take that stance. Only those of the far radical right do, at least in my experience.
Human life begins at conception is not in the Bible. Genesis 2:7 "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into man the breath of life, and man became a living soul." This happens long after conception. Not just a life. A human life different from the animals.
"A human life different from the animals."
How so? Outside of the fable from millennia in the past, how is the human species, in general, different than any other animal?
I wouldn't be surprised because hardline social conservatives oppose all types of contraception except MAYBE the rhythm method.
Methinks it is time to impeach this aberrant Trump judge and help save America.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/politics … index.htmlWe need to get rid of Uncle Clerance as well.
No, we need to get rid of Biden. Clarence is a small fry in comparison to Biden.
Alito and Thomas want to turn America back to when Thomas would be a slave again. Why? Because a strict reading of the original Constitution does not prohibit slavery. I am not sure they even recognize any amendments after the first 10.
Proposal: We stop playing Russian Roulette with the Supreme Court, adding members based on whoever happens to be sitting in the White House when a vacancy occurs - even presidents who did not get elected by the majority of Americans and will not protect the values the majority agrees on (i.e. abortion).
Proposal: Five Republican seats on the court and five Democrat seats. When a vacancy arises in one of those designated seats, the senate judicial committee members from the designated party nominates a replacement who is voted on by the entire senate. When the chief justice seat is vacant (the 11th member) the house judicial committee as a whole nominates a replacement who is voted on by the entire house.
Yes, I'm suggesting expanding the court. The population of the US has grown in 2047 years.You are also suggesting making the Court an arbiter of consensus instead of law. Just another 'overt' political apparatus. Each party picks the seats? Would you doubt their very top selection criteria wouldn't be party loyalty?
GAYou are presuming that they are arbiter's of law now, which I would argue they haven't done for quite a while.
Wasn't that Trump's criteria, and every President before him?Good point, isn't that what Trump was doing, packing the court with rightwing fanatics toward the end of his term?
'There you go again . . . ' Trump, Trump, Trump . . . climate change, it's Trump, gun deaths, it's Trump, social injustice, it's Trump, inflation, it's Trump, Covid, it's Trump, Suzy did Dallas, it's Trump. Geesh.
GAYep, and I will keep talking about that traitor to America until he is where he ought to be - in jail. He is the most dangerous threat to American survival there is - worse than Russia and worse than China. Why, because his threat is much more immediate and in the works.
Sure you will, and look how quickly your insertion into every conversation shuts down that conversation.
GAThat is because Trump lovers can't take the heat. His evil must always be front of mind if he is to be prevented from doing what Hitler did to Germany or Putin did to Russia.
It ludicrous to think that much of our political affairs can exclude Trump. He is at the head of every contentious issue today. It was once mentioned to me that I referred to Trump too often, but when has he not insisted himself on being in the limelight? As the probable Republican nominee and the one so many conservatives and Republicans suck up to, he has to be more than just a mere footnote in our current affairs.
GA: " Each party picks the seats?" It happens now, but it is one person, the president, doing the picking. In both cases, the entire senate or house votes to approve or not.
Unfortunately, that will take a constitutional amendment. There needs to be an approach that can be built under the current Advise and Consent framework.
When the National Popular Vote has enough states signed on to go into effect, I'd like to see the people behind that movement take on the Supreme Court nomination/appointment process. They think outside the box and get results.
Yeah, selection is already a politically-influenced process., but it doesn't make sense to make it official and expand its power.
GAAmerica would be so much better off with a divided court full of moderates. Moderates would follow the law, extremists won't and don't.
I totally agree with this statement, Mr. Esoteric. Moderates tend to be more logical.
It's going to be tough to illustrate why the Parties' choices would be moderates. My first thought is the court would be the best 'operators' of each party.
Officially turning what was intended to be the least politically-involved branch into the most politically-involved bench just sounds nuts from the start. Thinking about the mentioned pluses is a process, but so far none have budged that original 'that's nuts' reaction.
GASOCTUS already IS the most politically-involved bench. The attempt is to find a way to make the Court less political.
Given their record of having decisions overturned I would have given that award to the 9th circuit court.
You do live in a world of make-believe, don't you.
"Based on the October 2017 term, the Ninth Circuit was often on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. The High Court reversed 15 of its cases -- twice as many as from any other federal appeals court. But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time." - From Find Law.Guess I'm a little behind the times. Perhaps they've gotten a few honest judges. Or maybe they learned they can't legislate from the bench with impunity.
I wish Thomas and Alito would learn they can't legislate from the bench. I don't have my hopes up.
Buck up! We lost Bader-Ginsburg, who made no bones about doing it (even wrote it into her opinions) already. Maybe more are to come.
That was a terrible loss for America justice, especially for women.
White Women in mass continue to support Republicans so there must be more important things for them to consider over and above their own bodily integrity and control of their reproductive options.
They have made their own bed, figuratively. So, if you voted for Republicans, you make your own problems.That is true, right now, I think it is 50/50 but I have a feeling Republicans will lose a lot of support in 2024.
I just don't understand the appeal of a Party to white women that holds them in such disregard.
You must like people legislating from the bench. It was common for her to do that and I've even read some of her opinions where she made no bones about why; she didn't think the law was right.
As do you.
What I want the bench to do is pass judgements that make America a better place and not a worse one as they have done recently.That is not the Court's job. It is the Legislators' job. If you want a Court that decides issues of social justice, instead of laws, then who do we call to decide matters of law?
GAGot it. Make laws that you like whether it is based on law or not. You want what you want and don't care if it is in agreement with the Constitution. That way America will be a "better place".
That's what I said, isn't it? Liberals want that "flexible" Constitution, changeable at will, while Conservatives find the Constitution to be law, unchangeable except within the parameters laid out there.
GA is right - it is not the court's job to "make America a better place". It is to interpret the law as written, not as they, or you, or I wish it were.When the court ruled in 1954, that separate was inherently unequal, was that not making America a better place, a ruling that clearly upset almost 60 years of precedence?
Do you think that that was legislating from the bench or was it the proper application of the Constitution and its intent even though not explicitely stated?I have no idea of it was an example of legislating from the bench, and have no intention of researching the question.
But did you? Or was it automatically wonderful because you think it was the "right" thing to do? Regardless of the law, it was "right"?
That IS what we're talking about, right? Rendering decisions on whether they are "right" or "wrong", regardless of what the law says?Since you have no idea of what is "legislating from the bench" (your words, not mine) or not, why are you raising such a stink about something you know nothing about and won't research it.
"I have no idea if it was an example of legislating from the bench..." What did you think it referred to? The distance from earth to the moon?
So, did not the law say in 1896 that separate and equal was appropriate? Did someone decide to "gut" the Constitution in 1954? Conservatives are such anachronistic sticks in the mud, so you can put away that whale bone corset now.
The fact that you choose not to substantiate your comments is more of that "because I said so" conservative reasoning. It does nothing to enhance your case.
Circumstances change and how the law is interpreted changes with it. The drafters were not ignorant in assuming that circumstances would change within their lifetimes and long after they were in the grave. You are the only holdout that seem to have a contrary opinion.Sorry to hear that, that's too bad....
So Brown vs the Kansas Board of Education was an example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench?
If you believe that....Who said that? I didn't.
I took your statement about the law changing with the times to be the point of disagreement.
GA
"So, did not the law say in 1896 that separate and equal was appropriate?"
I have no idea. And I have even less of an idea of the legal evidence produced in 1954 or the legal reasons for changing it. I did say that, did I not?
LOL There are millions of Conservatives that will disagree that interpretation of the Constitution is dependent on current feelings of right or wrong rather than the words it contains. Which you know very well, even if you are not one of them."I have no idea. And I have even less of an idea of the legal evidence produced in 1954 or the legal reasons for changing it. I did say that, did I not?"
Well, I have, I studied it intensely and the legal basis behind the 1896 and 1954 rulings. So, if you don't know, why take such definitive attitude as though you do?WHAT "definitive attitude"??? All I've said is that I don't know anything about it!
Ok, let me rephrase what I said since you are so picky.
What I want the bench to do is pass judgements BASED ON THE LAW that make America a better place and not a worse one as they have done recently.But see, both you and I know better - you don't mean that at all. One has only to look at your tirades against the RvsW decision to see it; a decision that was completely based on law, saving tens of thousands of lives each year was a bad one because you didn't approve of it.
And for those independents? No representation?
The independents can vote with who ever they caucus with. What Kathleen suggests is so much fairer than what we have now.
BTW, changing the number of seats on the court is nothing new. It has been done several times since its creation - six times to be precise.
Initially, there were six Justices.
Then in 1800 it was reduced to five
Then around 1864 it was increased to ten
Then in 1866 it was reduced to 7
Then in 1869 it was increased to 9
And this is where it stands today.
To go along with Kathleen's proposal, I think their term should last only 20 years.I'm happy with 9 justices and see no need for any more. And I could go along with your term of 20 years, although that brings up the question of re-appointing them.
I really hate the thought of turning the SCOTUS into another political football, but also recognize that it already is to a large extent in that position. Seems difficult to get an honest judge anywhere, one that will make decisions based on law rather than their personal political stance. Nearly as difficult as an honest politician."one that will make decisions based on law rather than their personal political stance. "
They just did - after 50 years of legal precedence.Apparently they did. I do not have the experience or knowledge to truly understand their decision, and I did not hear the arguments, but in this specific case (RvsW) it sounded correct to my limited knowledge. The original decision, based on privacy, did not seem correct.
But I have read decisions from SCOTUS that were very plainly coming from personal feelings, not from law.
I am to, so long as they are fairly chosen. No re-appointing, IMO.
SCOTUS is already a political football, it has been since 1784. Kathleen's proposal will at least prevent the type of one-sided court we have today that opposes human and civil rights. It is quite similar to the Taney court of old which gutted the 14th and 15th amendments back in the late 1800s.Sounds like you are wishing a court that would make law according to what you want it to be. That you feel the end of R vs W "opposed human and civil rights", without any consideration of what the law says, indicates that.
If the law, in your opinion, opposes human rights, then the law needs enforced until changed. That, of course, is a major difference in how the Constitution is interpreted - IMO it is not a "living document", subject to change according to current political, social or moral whims. You feel differently, giving rise to objections based on those current whims, and desire a court that will make those changes.
My proposal would be the same with nine justices. I just think representation on the court ought to expand with the population.
I'm not for term limits, but forced retirement at an agreed upon age might be a good idea. Just stop putting the citizenry at risk based on who happens to be president at the time a replacement is needed. Especially one who is not elected by the majority of Americans.
Independents will get to vote in the senate and the house with the amount of influence they have now.
One thing that baffles me is why the Supreme Court in the USA is political. In the UK a Supreme Court’s Judge's politics is his/her personal affair between him/her and the ballot box e.g. the UK Supreme Court Judges are not selected on their politics, and in fact their politics in the public domain is unknown.
In the UK there are 12 Supreme Court Judges, but only an odd number can sit on a case e.g. typically 5 or 9, so that cases can be decided on a majority decision.
In the UK candidates for Supreme Court Judges are selected by an ‘independent commission’ called The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
SELECTION COMMISSION for Supreme Court Judges in the UK
The selection commission is made up of the President of the Supreme Court, another senior UK judge (not a Supreme Court Judge), and a member each from the Judicial Appointments Commissions for England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - by law, at least one of these from the Justice Appointments Commission cannot be a solicitor (lawyer) e.g. at least one of the members must be a layperson.
SELECTION PROCEDURE for Supreme Court Judges by the Selection Commission in the UK
Once the commission is formed, there are a number of people it is required to consult:-
1. The first group is a set of "senior judges" who are not members of the commission and who does not wish to be considered for appointment.
2. The commission is then also required to consult the appropriate Government Ministers of the English (UK) Government, Welsh Government, Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Government.
The selection must be made on merit, in accordance with the qualification criteria as specified in law – Thus keeping politics out of the selection process.Now I LOVE the idea you mentioned above; have 12 Justices but let a lottery decide which 9 hear a case as well as a variation of the selection process.
Let the President pick his or her nominee and let an independent commission made up of equal numbers of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats decide first if that nominee meets the requires laid out to be a fair justice, it would take 60% of the commission to approve a perspective justice. If the nominee makes it through, then send it on to the Senate for a vote.Yep, sounds a good idea: That would be one step closer to the separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature – as it should be in a true democracy:-
Separation of Powers: https://youtu.be/TL8HyxlL_8c
While looking on YouTube for the above short video, I stumbled across this video below: I’ve watched it, but it’s not for me to comment on it as I don’t have an insider’s (American) view on what is being said in the video. Therefore I would be interested in your feedback and opinions on what is said in the video below:
The Separation of Powers is BROKEN in the USA: https://youtu.be/1FIzoxAm2IU
Not bad, Arthur. There are too many among us that would take issue with any chance of parity and impartiality in the court, as it is a threat to power.
The next battle social conservatives will wage in their war against women is applying the 150 year old Comstock Law.
"CNN - A law passed 150 years ago that banned the mailing of contraceptives, lewd materials and drugs that induce abortions could provide a pathway for effectively banning abortion nationwide – even in states where the procedure is legal."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/politics … index.html
Oh, BTW, Republicans once again refused to let the Equal Rights Amendment from taking effect. Not surprising.Wonder why no Democrat President ever put their weight to codify the decision into law. Could it be because they couldn't get the votes? Or possibly because they used the 'fear' Republicans would take away abortion , to bring out voters on election day & that fear value, bringing voter turnout was too high to give up?
Since abortion rights are not listed in the Constitution as enumerated powers, then the court had no power, other than to turn the decision over to the states. Just because it was a decision made in the past, doesn't make it a law, nor does it make it permanent. If that were the case, we'd still have Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Betts v. Brady (1942), and Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). How can you argue that the court was correct on those lawful landmark decisions, but somehow incorrect on this one?
Are the state laws problematic? Some seem to be, but the voters of those states can change them by electing representatives who support the majority position. Obviously not all states agree with your viewpoint, but isn't that the foundation of what our great nation is built upon? We are a Constitutional Republic that gives a voice to all citizens.
We currently have a Democrat President. Why isn't he and the Democrat Senate putting their full weight into passing a Federal Law to protect abortion through the legislative process? We both know the answer is that it wouldn't pass. The Women’s Health and Protection Act failed, but the Hyde Amendment passed. When Bill Clinton campaigned for the White House in 1992, he did so with the message that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare." but even he (with both Houses) couldn't advance meaningful legislation. Remember the Freedom of Choice Act in 1993. It failed. President Obama did not even try to codify it, eventually even adding a clause of the Affordable Care Act plans from covering abortion.Deleted
I guess because the majority doesn't rule all the time, only when it benefits social conservatives.
Just from your response . . . That 'case' could start with asking the same question for the Dred Scot decision. Would your answer to your last question (you're not so sure) be the same for that case?
GADeleted
Ouch, I should have used Credence2's Bd. of Ed. example. Is that different from your thoughts on Roe?
GADeleted
Well said, FreedomRider
Ask the conservative who speaks of "strict constructionism" and "original intent" how is it possible for a virtual reversal from Plessy to the Board of Education ruling over 58 years? If the Constitution were written in stone, then there should have been no difference as to how the Board case would have been adjudicated from the decision made regarding Plessy.
So who can explain to me how two differing sets of jurors across 58 years can take the Constitution they both shared in common and come to contradictory judgements? The Constitution is the constant so what were the variables that explained the totally differing rulings?Not familiar with the case or either of the courts, but it is certainly possible that one (either one) "legislated from the bench".
Not likely, the 1896 case spoke to the state's rights issue, the other 1954 case spoke of civil rights afforded to all American citizens above and beyond state's rights, which was the better interpretation? Both positions have merit in their respective places. Was it not the States rights issue the explanation used to overturn Roe?
Who could have said that the Constitution would have provided a single correct answer? If it were that easy, we would not need to pay 9 men and women over $200,000 a year.The Taney Court was the slaver's friend, not that conservatives think that is important.
The Chase Court was responsible for gutting the 14th and 15th amendments. All of the Justices were Conservative Democrats (today's Republicans). Today's Court, save for the three liberal Justices, looks and acts a lot like the Chase Court. Those were the Dark Ages of American justice.
Shouldn't one be educated on a subject before positing whether something is possible or not. Otherwise, isn't the suggestion just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Here ya go, one Conservative explanation would offer an analogy to a very true religious-based explanation; When the televangelists and 'healers' scandals of the 1980s were being exposed as scams and scandals, a Christian was asked how they could keep the faith? The answer was that their faith was in God, not man.
As an analogy for your Court criticisms, just change "God" to 'the structure and entity that is the purpose of the Court.'
GAChristian was asked how they could keep the faith? The answer was that their faith was in God, not man.
That explains how a Christian can keep his faith regardless of how flawed the messenger is.
--------
Explain how that would apply to what I am saying about the court?The justices are the weak link. It isn't the Court's fault if we can't find the perfect humans to be justices. Optimistically, I think it can be said they are the least politically biased institution we have.
Adding more political influence or more imperfect humans to the selection process isn't going to change that. I think the concept and structure of the Court are as they should be, and as they were envisioned. That's my 'faith in 'God.' If there is a failure it is the introduction of political bias by the justices selected. Adding more political influence will not 'fix' the Court (if it is broken), it will change it into just another political arm of government.
See, the same message as the analogy, but a lot more words. :-)
GADeleted
Established for you. I see mistakes and corrections, and even 'mistaken' corrections, but not a failed system.
To hold that the Court is already a political arm is a judgment of the concept, not the justices. I see it differently. Finding a non-politically influenced selection process (or at least the least politically influenced) would be an improvement, but you don't do that with more politicians.
GADeleted
Trying to not misread your response . . .
Yes, we do want judges constructing rules based mostly on their interpretative judgments about what the constitutional text and its history “really mean."
No, we do not want judges constructing rules of law based primarily on a careful analysis of modern-day costs, benefits, and likely consequences.
A law can't be equitable if it means one thing today and another thing tomorrow because the cost/benefit analysis changed.
Looking at the original contextual construction is not looking backward. The Constitution is not a book of answers, it is a book of instructions on how to find the answers.
The problems that the Constitution applies to aren't the specific circumstances of the problem but the nature of the problem. A thief today is the same as a thief of the Founding days. The specifics may change, ie. what is stolen and how it is stolen, but it is still an act of theft. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say what kind of arms we have a right to, just that we have that right. So the arguments of muskets vs. AR-15s aren't relative to constitutional arguments.
The 18th & 19th-century problems aren't outdated relative to modern times, they just changed details. The construction of the Constitution addresses that reality by setting the rules to solve those problems, not to give us solutions for specifics that were impossible to foresee.
GA"Looking at the original contextual construction is not looking backward." - IT ABSOLUTELY is - and our founders thought so as well.
First, there is the obvious process to change the Constitution built right in. But even when it is changed in this manner, the conservative court often ignores the changes. Example, the gutting of the 14th and 15th Amendments by the Chase Court in 1870s and the roll back of the 1964 laws created to put teeth in those amendments 100 years later. Dobbs is a good example of that, they absolutely missed what the 14th Amendment (and the Constitution in general) was about. To think the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy is patently absurd.
Here is Thomas Jefferson's view on the matter: In 1810, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Jefferson's arch enemy Alexander Hamilton wrote Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.”
The learned Benjamin Franklin wrote “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,”
Justice George Marshall thought “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”
To wrap up, Jefferson also said "“The dead should not rule the living.”
Yet that is exactly what conservatives propose and are doing.Something is being misunderstood by one of us. I read your quotes and read affirmations of what I thought I was saying.
The Hamilton quote reads to me as saying only general provisions could be permanent because who knew what the future would bring. I described it as an instruction manual for the rules for solutions.
The Marshall quote speaks to adaptability in the context of enduring for ages. That isn't different from originalism because originalism also recognizes the inclusion of an amending (adapting?) process—a process for future change.
As for the last Jefferson quote about institutions advancing with the times. it might be fair to say they have.
GAMaybe I misunderstood you. I took it that you support the "contextualist" interpretation. Did I get that wrong? Are you a Scalia-Thomas-Alito kind of guy or a Kennedy-Breyer-Sotomayor type?
What's the issue? If my choice is binary I'm lost.
GAYou asked for a label tied to multiple names. If the choice was more defined, as between Scalia and Ginsburg, or originalist and 'living document' the obvious label would be Scalia's—a contextual originalist.
GAOh. Each set of names adheres to different ways of approaching interpreting the Constitution. The group that contains Alito are the backward-looking strict-constructionist dead Constitution approach. The set containing Kennedy take a more forward-looking, living Constitution approach more in line with what our founders clearly wanted.
LOL If our founders "clearly wanted" a Constitution that changes with the times and politics, they would not have built in a difficult but not impossible method of changing it. They would have just left it alone, allowing every new President or power group to make it say whatever was desired.
Oh joy, your group sounds a like lot more fun than the one I picked.
GAYes, your group do seem like stick-in-the-muds. Maybe not Scalia, I heard he is quite a card.
Deleted
"To me, there is little sense in asking what eighteenth- or nineteenth-century people believed about modern problems."
Is there any sense in asking what eighteenth or nineteenth century believed about limiting government? About the horrors of a government that can do anything it wants? Those people experienced it first hand - is there any sense in asking what they think of unlimited government power?The scope of limited government in the 18th and 19th centuries cannot be transferred to a 21st century reality. Limited government as understood centuries ago simply is not possible today.
The Constitution is a general guidance and as such there is the space of a freight train as to how that guidance is interpreted.I know I am repeating myself here, but it seems necessary.
"Limited Government" as conservatives like to think of it is what was found in the Articles of Confederation. That "limited government" was found to be unworkable so our founders established a strong central government in federation with the various dependent states.
It was never contemplated for the several states to be more powerful than the central government. Instead, they were allowed to exercise control over things that the federal government didn't implicitly or explicitly hold for itself.
The the general Welfare clause in the Preamble pretty well defines what the federal gov't is responsible for, in my opinion. If something affects the people as a whole, such as a right to privacy, they is in the purview of the federal gov't. If it doesn't have much general application, such as specific speed limits, then it is a state matter.
That said, the federal gov't has every right to establish a maximum speed limit because of its responsibility to protect the welfare of the citizens of the United States.Yes, ESO, the first thing we learned about the fragility of the Articles of Confederation" was the problem of a weak national central government.
"Instead, they were allowed to exercise control over things that the federal government didn't implicitly or explicitly hold for itself."
That would be incorrect. Delete the word "implicitly" and you have it right - leaving the word gives unlimited power to the feds. Although you might like that, the founders did not and a great many today do not.That would absolutely be correct as countless Supreme Court decisions (more than Thomas - Alito have time to overturn) have established. For example, starting with 1st Amendment cases:
"The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedom of assembly is recognized as a human right under article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendmentPerhaps I should re-word my comment; implicit does not mean that anything My Esoteric thinks is good is implicit.
You're right - SCOTUS can make that determination. You cannot.
Why? Given that states make the laws suitable for their population, why do we need a massive federal government?
I think the Constitution is very, very plain, and not merely "general guidance" ; what power is not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states, where there is little limit.States make laws suitable for their legislatures. Only when you have moderates in the legislature are those laws suitable for the population. When one extreme or the other controls the legislature, then the laws are only for a certain segment of the population. That is the reality we are seeing play out every day in Red States especially.
Also, I am not surprised you misquoted the 10th Amendment once again. Truth matters.Depends upon how you define "limited government"? In 1787 who would have imagined a defense establishment that drags down almost a trillion dollars of spending every year? How many of the cabinet level agencies today would you say are unnecessary, after all there was no necessity for them in 1787.
No
Dept of Labor
Homeland Security
Department of the Interior
EPA- how are environment issues over several states to be managed?
Most issues today are problematic over several states and not just one.
Wilderness, circumstances change, the Federal Givernment out of sheer necessity can not defined in the archaic manner done by those looking fondly back toward the 18th century.
So, I disagree....He keeps getting history SO wrong.
"Given that states make the laws suitable for their population, why do we need a massive federal government?" - That is patently FALSE. The founders, especially Madison, found that MOST states made laws that WERE NOT suitable for their population. That is why they created a STRONG central gov't. (Caps for emphasis).
"I think the Constitution is very, very plain, and not merely "general guidance" ; what power is not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states, where there is little limit." - PATENTLY FALSE. The Constitution does not say "specifically" anywhere in the texts when talking about the powers of the federal gov't and the state gov't. IN FACT, they included the Supremacy Clause to emphasize who is top dog.
Also no:
Dept of Agriculture
Dept of Health and Human Services
Dept of Justice
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Energy
Dept of Housing and Urban Development
and a bunch more.
Who needs them (If we want to life at the low standard of living that existed in 1787."In 1787 who would have imagined a defense establishment that drags down almost a trillion dollars of spending every year?"
Assuming they knew basic arithmetic, and understood inflation (pretty sure about both) it is a simple thing to predict that increased people will require increased military spending. Actually, compared to what they were spending, and their available funds, we're much better off today.
Credence, we need a federal government, yes. But not one that 20% half our GDP. Half that, probably.Ok, Wilderness let's talk about arithmetic
First of all without going into the numbers, an Agrarian society which the United States was in 1800 could not have conceived that the need for defense would take on global implications. America is a world power, was anyone thinking that way in 1800?
There are almost 1000 American military installations that circle the globe, today. I can't image that the founding fathers had any idea that this would constitute "defense". Two centuries into their future, So,there is more to this than inflation and increasing population.
So now, your arithmetic, doing a check on what the military budget was in 1800, it was about 6 million dollars. Under today's defense contracting establishment, try getting claw hammer for less than that?
A further check revealed that your numbers are way off, 6M in 1800 is the equavalent of 144 million today. Our actual defense budget is well over a 5000 times that figure, so much for arithmetic, huh? There is not an explanation for so great a difference and outcome.
So, since you did not get a passing grade on your last math exam, what is the basis for your saying that the percent of GDP that is current Government spending should be half of the current 20 percent?
The point being that there is a vast difference in anything that these Founding Fathers could have conceived verses the current reality. That is true in any aspect that you care to examine.In fact, for over a century, America opposed a standing army and wanted only a small navy. It was only after WW I that America accepted a standing army as necessary. To me, that means protecting America from foreign attack was not high on their list of priorities.
Everybody knows that we have been quite insular in a military sense until about a century ago, and people balked about getting prepared for the WWII.
I am waiting for Wilderness to explain his justification and sources as to how he derived his conclusions...That's not difficult. They could watch as England, Spain, Portugal, etc. attacked countries all over the world. It didn't take a genius to speculate that America would be attacked one day as well. That they didn't want to pay for an army did not mean that they could not imagine it.
Plus, as I pointed out and you ignored, they were already spending large sums to maintain their own army; more than we are, considering their resources and inflation.How do you know that they imagined it? That does not follow at all until well into the last century.
What did I ignore?
Did you miss the memo, the numbers do not support your position.Cred, those were not stupid people. You're trying to portray them as children that can't think beyond today. They were not.
No, they were not stupid people, but not even the most far sighted of people could have a reasonable guess as to a world 250 years into their future, can you do that?
Would I think that America would need to defend itself (if it still exists)? Yes. Whether from other countries or even ET's.
Of course, there was a recognition of the need for defense as there was a Department of War as a cabinet branch from the very beginning. They just got through with a war with Britain and would be visited by them again in 1812.
Could they have foreseen the need to go from defense to a status of world superpower with defense outlays 5000 times that, that would have been expected between 1800 and 2023 allowing for inflation and population growth?
250 years is an inconceivable period of time for anyone to try to predict or anticipate anything and no one has a crystal ball that that can even be close to being accurate in that circumstance.
I would be at a loss to attempt to predict life as it will be in the late 23rd century. I can't bend a piece of steel rebar with my bare hands, neither can you nor neither could any of the Founding Fathers.
Could they have foreseen the military industrial complex?Ever read science fiction novels? Some of them actually come true with the dreams of people.
No, I don't find it impossible that our founders would dream that one day America might become a leader of the world.I am a fan of science fiction, but ox cart technology was the vogue in 1800 as it was 250 years before in 1550. We can only attempt to predict the future from the realities of the past and present. There was no reason to think that the world would radically change beyond that which was familiar to men from the 16th thru the 18th centuries.
To reasonably foresee the future and to dream are two different things. Anyone can do the latter, but the former proves to be more difficult. Nostradamus was the only documented person who even came close.We are all (here) old enough to have seen many 'sci-fi wonders' become reality.
This argument about the limits of foresight of the Framers is silliness. They did not need to be prophetic to prepare for the specifics of human and societal advancement, they just needed the foresight to recognize that advancement will happen and rules for dealing with it were necessary.
They did have that foresight and they did set the path for dealing with unknowable future change details.
GAMost science fiction writers that attempt to address a future outside their natural lifespan were wrong, as they could not encapsulate all social, political, economic and technological change. Jules Verne, Arthur C. Clarke were among visionaries that just happen to be accurate in the development of future technologies, but that is far more the exception rather than the rule.
I think that it is silly to expect 18th century men to grasp the scope of what can and what has changed in a 250 year period, it is ridiculous.
But isn't that the gist of arguments conservatives continue to make, to imbue these "founding fathers" with superhuman powers?
From their reference, what constitutes human and societal advancement? Within their primitive environs, they could not have begun to understand what that would ultimately mean.They did not need to address the scope, nor did they need to foresee what would constitute those changes.
Pick a societal change issue, you will find the rules for addressing it in the Constitution. That one may not agree with the solutions available within those rules has little ground to criticize because the Framers anticipated 'great unforeseeable changes' and included a mechanism to change those rules.
Your gripe shouldn't be against the Constitution or the Framers, it should be with the ones 'misusing' (in your view) those rules.
GAAlright, GA, I call you on that one, what were the rules that defined the ruling on Plessy in 1896?
How do we explain how those same rules were applied to reverse Plessy with 1954 landmark desegregation ruling?
If there are many possible solutions within a set of rules, can they remain "rules"?
So which ruling, 1896 or 1954 fell outside of the rules, or were both a broad interpretation of the Constitution available within the "rules"?I think your mentioned issues all used the same rules. First, the rule that challenged decisions/laws must conform to Constitutional restrictions, and second, the rule that contested decisions be settled by the courts—from the lowest to the highest.
So yes, the different decisions were interpretations within the rules. The Constitution's rules also have a rule to cover that: if enough folks think the Court's interpretations are wrong, then they can change the "rule" being interpreted by amending it.
Where's the beef? The Constitution didn't fail simply because you don't like the final ruling, or because there have been contradicting decisions. If there is a failure it is due to the actions of men, not the rules that brought the decisions to them.
GAI can't help but to not notice that conservatives seem to think that conservative jurists are more true to the Constitution (original intent).
So, if diametrically opposite rulings are operating within the same rules, how are relatively liberal decisions outside of the guard rails and not within the vastness that seem to be found within the boundaries?
So if enough people think that the court interpretation is wrong? Does the Constitution and the concept of original intent incorporate such an idea, a changing value judgement as to the proper interpretation?
So, with the wide berth between your "guardrails", who can accuse any court ruling as legislating from the bench?Ironically, even an originalist like Scalia had to use the "implicit" meaning of the 2nd Amendment to come to the decision he did. Clearly, the words alone do not support his conclusions.
It's natural that conservatives and liberals see court decisions differently, but we shouldn't see the mechanism (the Constitution) differently.
The 'inside or outside' of the guard rails is determined by the justices of the Court. For instance, the only explicit (to borrow from another exchange) thing the 1st Amendment says about freedom of religion is (just for illustration) that Congress can't establish one or prevent anyone from practicing one. Those are the 'guard rails.'
Everything else, from the 10 Commandments on the public square to IRS 'religious organization' tax status are interpretations of what "respecting" and "establishment" mean. The Court decided the meaning of "respecting" included anything relating to religion, and "establishment" included 'promoting' a religion.
The Constitution didn't explicitly say either of the things, the Court determined them, but it did say that whatever the Court determined had to meet all of its standards for making that determination: equal treatment, right to privacy, etc. Those standards are the 'guardrails.'
If enough people think a determination is wrong—based on a constitutional disagreement (that being the Court should have the final say), then the guardrails will be moved via amendment. Otherwise, the argument isn't whether the function of the Court is wrong, it is whether the function of reaching the determination was wrong.
Justice Ginsburg illustrates this point. Without criticism or negativity (or promotion), I think it can clearly be shown through many of her opinions that she saw instances where the modernity of public good outweighed strict constitutionality. That isn't following the rules. That is outside the guardrails. That is legislating from the bench.
GAGA, can you present one case where Ginsberg was part of a majority opinion or a dissenting one, where you believed that she "legislated" from the bench? I will evaluate it based on our conversation and see if I could concur.
Revisiting Plessy, the majority opinion on the Supreme Court Ruling that was very the foundation for Jim Crow, was the principle of States Rights, certainly an explicit tenet within the Constitution.
The 1954 Decision, the death knell for Jim Crow was based a great upon the 14th Amendment and equal rights under the law that implicitely could not be realized in a forceably segregated society. These justices went to a different aspect of explicit and implicit concepts to derive a ruling and come to an conclusion not considered 58 years previously.
But, from your point of view, could we say that both decisions operated within the guard rails as you defined it?Scott, it's early Sunday morning and life is good, so what follows is a good-natured humorous attempt to make a point. In the spirit of a Bill Maher monologue . . .
No, I will not present a Ginsburg opinion. it is not necessary to evaluate anything and your concurrence wouldn't change the validity of the point.
We both have been looking at these issues (and discussing them) for years. and we have both dug into the details (deep Google dives) to support our opinions. But, we aren't Justices, so our degrees of knowing what we are talking about only need to be understood to be enough for reasonable discussion. I think we both meet that bar.
That's enough from Maher. ;-)
From the beginning of this exchange— the creation of a political selection committee issue, the arguments have been about the majority Justices' rulings, not the tools (the 'guardrails' of the Constitution) they used to reach them.
If I dove into the details of your examples I will probably find instances where a ruling was apparently (in view of overturned decisions), outside the prescription of the Constitution, but the guardrails were there, they were simply ignored or misinterpreted. (also in view of overturned decisions) That only shows that justices can get it wrong, not that the rules for deciding are wrong (the Court).
Adding more justices or inserting an overt political influence in the form of a party-line selection committee doesn't have anything to do with fixing the perceived errors of the Justices, it just adds more political influence to get the rulings 'the people' want. That's not how the Court should work. When interpretations understand they are outside the lines (my perception of some Ginsburg dissent statements), and applied anyway, it is 'legislating from the bench,' which is not how the Court should work.
GaThe point is that in your opinion Ginsberg legislates from the bench. If you cannot show why, it just remains just that, your opinion. You always have that option, but so do I.
So, if the justices cannot get it right, who can? There are myriads of explanation for any ruling and who is qualified, if not the Justices, to determine what operates inside or outside the guardrails.
I remain of the opinion that the "rules" are not as fixed and as explicit as you seem to believe and I will leave it at that.
The error in the make up of the jurors was the theft of two juror selection by Republicans, changing the balance of the court in an unethical way. And that continues to stick in my craw.
You have your perceptions, but I have mine as well. It remains just another area where we agree to disagree.We're on the same page here. My Ginsburg thought is just an opinion. I do believe it is a correct opinion, but I don't think it is the only opinion because either choice is almost purely subjective.
I've lost the zeal to go link-chasing to find the text of opinions that formed my perception, but I know that I did find them once, considered them, debated them here, and ended with the perception stated.
If someone else wants to do the work I'll gladly argue a particular case with them. But I'm fairly confident in my perception and too lazy to reconfirm that confidence just to show that I'm right. ;-)
GA
"Adding more justices or inserting an overt political influence" - The way that is stated implies it is not a political process now. I hope you would agree that it has been a political process from our founding. I would argue therefore that there would be no "insertion" at all, but a modification to an already political process.
The keyword was "more." That's not to imply the Justices bring the politics with them. Generally speaking, no name pops to mind as politically biased.
Certainly, they bring their liberal or conservative ideologies with them, but that should be expected. It's not a bad thing. The politics in the Court are tied to parties, not ideologies. They start with even the vetting process to make the list to be considered to make the list, and they get more partisan with each step in the process.
GA"That's not to imply the Justices bring the politics with them." - Are saying they are not human?
"Generally speaking, no name pops to mind as politically biased." - I can come up with a lot starting with John Marshall (liberal), Thurgood Marshall (liberal), Taney (conservative), Rehnquist (conservative who began chipping away at civil and voting rights) Alito (conservative), Thomas (conservative), Ginsburg (liberal) ... the list is huge.
Who I don't put in that list is Kennedy, and O'Conner and other middle of the road Justices.Maybe it is too generous to see the Justices' "politics" of controversial decisions to be ideologically driven instead of politically driven. I never considered Ginsburg to be politically active in her decisions, even when they might be deemed as 'legislating from the bench.' I saw her bias to be liberal ideology, not Democrat partisanship. The results might end up the same, but the motivation is different.
GAWell, you have a point, That is why I try distinguish the Court by ideology rather than Party. As I have tried to convince others here, it is ideology that is constant over time (not necessarily personal ideology) while the Party that adopts it changes every few decades.
So, to me it is a conservative Court or a liberal Court rather than a Republican or Democratic. That said, most presidents pick their nominees to coincide with their ideology. But, up until 2005, with few exceptions, Justices were a shoe-in. But starting with Roberts, the fights began.
Not so much with him, only 22 Democrats voted against. Then Alito where Democrats understood the danger of putting such an ideologue on the Court - so much damage has resulted in recent years from him.
Beginning with Obama, it became approval along Party lines, for the most part with all, or almost all of each Party voting against the other Party's candidate. It went even so far that McConnell violated the Constitution, in my opinion, and refused to even bring Garland up for a vote. America has paid a steep price for that purely political move.
Let me add that with Kavanaugh and Thomas, the Democrats had good reason to object given the questions about their moral character. Thomas' lack of ethics is becoming very apparent today and I just read that Trump quashed the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh.
"It's natural that conservatives and liberals see court decisions differently," WITHOUT a doubt.
"but we shouldn't see the mechanism (the Constitution) differently." - YET WE do. As Credence pointed out with his example, you liberal Justices and far-right conservative Justices taking different approaches which lead to often opposite rulings
Once upon a time, your 1st Amendment example was pretty clear because it only applied to the Federal gov't, specifically Congress. The 14th Amendment changed all that because it said the "rules" in the Constitution and subsequent amendments also apply to the States. You had plenty of States in the late 1700s who established a religion, Virginia and Pennsylvania come to mind. Why the founders didn't make the States follow the Bill of Rights to is beyond me. But they didn't and it wasn't corrected until the passage of the 14th Amendment (Which clearly wouldn't pass today.)
When a state government puts the 10 Commandments in a public square [b[to the exclusion of all other religions,[/b] that is "establishment". To me, that is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment as modified by the 14rh Amendment. If, on the other hand, the State also erected monuments to the Jews, Muslims, Bhais, Buddhists, Hindu, Atheists. Pantheists, and the like, then I doubt it violates anything.
Would you agree, based on your arguments, that Scalia "legislated from the bench" with his 2nd Amendment ruling? That was clearly outside the "guardrails" set up by the text of that amendment.Ha! You ask me to match my judicial and constitutional understanding to that of a Supreme Court Justice? Okay, let me look . . .
I found this 'in a nutshell' quote from PBS:
. Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the five-to-four majority said this -- "Some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
And then these Scalia explanations of his reasoning in a Reason.com article
Yep, I think Scalia got it right, and that he got it right by proper interpretation of what was explicit and implicit in the words of the 2nd.
As mentioned in the article, Scalia did not close the door on regulation of the Right to bear arms, he simply confirmed that Right exists. The key to that determination was his perspective on the relevance of handguns to the right of self-defense. If the right to bear arms is explicit and the right to self-defense is explicit, then banning the most ideal 'arms' for that purpose does jump the rails.
There may be constitutional leeway to regulate what arms may be borne, but not for denying the right to bear them — without Constitutional change first.
GABut Scalia did make it clear that the Second Amendment was not absolute so, obviously he took an implicit interpretation not explicitly stated in the text that one could infer and say that registration and regulation were not unreasonable in of itself.
When you listen to conservatives catawailng about it all the time, you would think that the concept is to have no boundaries.I have yet to hear anyone, conservative or not, to advocate for the ownership of automatic weapons, bazookas, explosives or tanks.
Your statement is a gross exaggeration of the facts.We do agree that there are acceptable boundaries to the 2nd Amendment, now we need to work out what those need to be.
It is not the just the fact that military ordinance is prohibited, we need to go in deeper as to the availability of firearms that are not explicitly military ordinance, better sorting out those that should not be eligible to acquire one."better sorting out those that should not be eligible to acquire one"
And therein lies the key. Not banning this gun or that one, but figuring out who should be able to exercise their right to own one at all. Better yet, figure out why we are such a violent culture and address that."Better yet, figure out why we are such a violent culture and address that."
While we are busy trying to find that needle in a haystack, let alone correcting it, the carnage across America continues unabated. The better solution is screening out those that are ineligible for any number of reasons, we need to start there.
Once again, we are on the same page. Except that, I think Scalia's opinion was directly tied to the explicit rule that we have a right to bear arms. Just as you say, the Court has ruled that right is not absolute. It does seem implicit in that rule that constitutional regulation is allowable.
Hell bells, I even agree with your closing thought. That's what I hear too, but below the volume of that caterwauling is the stronger (but less attention-getting) conservative voice that says some regulation is necessary. Scalia represents that voice.
GA
First, let me say that I agree with the outcome, just not the way he got to it. I did read Scalia's opinion in full a while back. The rational of recent rulings on Dobbs and especially New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) throw cold water on Scalia's decision.
Yes, I know that is counter-intuitive, but it boils down to whether the Justice mind being blatant hypocrites or no. The reason I say that is the new test for laws restricting guns must pass:
"The Court held: "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"
First let me note that Thomas "legislated" from the bench on this one. The PLAIN TEXT of the amendment starts with A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free state, ... THAT is the Plain Text Thomas was referring to. Neither Scalia nor Thomas seemed to care about those words - which provide the rational of "keeping and baring arms". It wasn't for self-defense and it wasn't to carry openly or in secret in almost every place imaginable.
How Thomas jumped from those words to "the Constitution protects that conduct" in almost any circumstances is beyond me. It is well known that ALL rights have limits (except, apparently, a woman's right to chose in Thomas' mind),the 2nd Amendment included."The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Is this Uncle Clerance? What tradition of firearm regulation, there hasn't been any?..That may be his point. There was no regulation in 1800, so why should there be any in 2023?
The full sentence, required for proper context, is:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Right of the People.
To Keep and bear Arms.
Shall NOT be Infringed.
Not the Government's right to have a Militia to use against the people.
Not the Government's right to restrict weapons from the people.
Now... in terms of arguing the Militia part of it... we must get to the definition. Which is also critical to the argument.
We no longer have a Militia in America. We no longer have a draft, we no longer have a citizen's army. Israel has a militia, a citizens army, as almost all Israelis serve in their military.
The Founding Fathers didn’t want the U.S. government to have an army made up of full-time, professional soldiers. That was precisely what they had just fought a revolutionary war against. King George’s redcoats were in large part professional mercenaries.
America has much in common with the UK/Redcoats of those days, our wars overseas are fought with professional soldiers and plenty of mercenaries (Blackwater, G4S, etc) Halliburton made 40 billion off of their involvement in Iraq alone.
The Founders wanted America’s military force to be made up of part-time volunteers drawn from the ranks of regular citizens. Such citizens, they argued, couldn’t be used by a tyrant against the population the way professional mercenaries could.
The creation of this well-regulated militia of part-time volunteers would help safeguard the freedom of the new republic because it would make the creation of a professional, mercenary army un-necessary... the exact opposite of what we have today.
You could argue that military matters have become so complex that part-time soldiers could never do the job... and to that I would tell you, look to the Israelis and tell them that they can't be the most dangerous and effective fighting force in the world, other than perhaps our own.
So here is a real solution... you want to own an AR-15?
Serve in the National Guard.
The States should be required to train and discipline all who want to serve who are physically and mentally capable and willing.
They can keep standards of physical and mental fitness. They can keep from allowing felons and mentally ill people from serving, but all others should be given that opportunity, as they would be given the right to vote.
This way, semi-auto rifle owners then have the proper training and respect for the weapons, the dangerously unfit can hopefully be identified and disallowed access to all weapons, and the rest can be restricted to moderate caliber handguns and single shot rifles (for hunting purposes).
And in order to have the ability to purchase even those, there should not only be a background check, but also required safety and range training.
https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a … ia-anyway/
Scalia (noted in the above article) argued against my position of requiring military service.
But I think the two were meant to go hand in hand.
I think the Founders wanted the PEOPLE to make up the Militia that would protect and defend the State, the Nation and the Constitution. Not a professional, private or mercenary Army.
The Authors of the Second Amendment were clear in their intent.
They contrasted militia to a standing army. Militia was considered “proper, natural, and safe,” the other “dangerous to liberty” this was the thought of those times, as I noted before, it was commonplace, and we can see evidence of that thinking, first in the Articles of Confederation and then in the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation placed a limit on the standing “forces” any state could “keep up”:
Nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such state.
The Articles of Confederation did expect each State to “keep up” a militia:
Every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
That mistrust of a standing army is evident in the Constitution. It grants Congress the unqualified power “To provide and maintain a Navy,” but the power regarding land forces is restricted: “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” They considered a “standing” navy to be tolerable, not dangerous to liberty, but wanted strict qualifications on permanent professional land forces.
And you can see why, today America has replaced the UK as the Occupying Force in countless lands and fighting multiple wars with its professional Army and its Mercenaries.
What are the rules in the Constitution that address the Internet or the ramifications of AI?
Same rules. Any 'solution' must meet Constitutional legal standards and any arguments over that constitutionality are decided by the courts.
The Constitution isn't a Book of Answers. It's an instruction book. It even applies to the esoteric stuff you come up with.
GAThat sounds very much like you agree with Credence, I, and others that the Constitution was meant to interpreted Implicitly rather than what Wilderness says, Explicitly
Not quite like you and Cred. I also think it is an explicit document and its edicts are explicit as prohibitions or instructions. However, those edicts are also written to implicitly accommodate future interpretations, hence the 'guard rails' analogy.
GABut the logic doesn't make sense to me. If the Constitution is rule-based such that one can incorporate changes over time, by definition, it is not "explicit", is it not. To make rulings about things like the Internet and AI, one has to infer things that aren't in black and white on the parchment.
To me, it is a binary choice. You either take the "as written" approach or you take the "what did the founders have in mind" approach. Virtually all decisions by the Court have been implicit in nature starting the first precedent setting one - Marbury v Madison.(1803)I would agree that the Court's decisions are almost always interpretations
drawn from meanings implied in explicit statements. Following with the 1st Amendment example just noted, It would be very cut & dried if the decision was whether the government could establish a religion. No interpretation or implied intentions are needed. The explicit statement covers it. No.
However, if the government allows only the Ten Commandments to be on the public square — that isn't covered by an explicit statement. Now enters the consideration of meanings implicit in the prohibition. The Court decided 'promoting' was implicit in 'establish.'
Contextual Originalism doesn't deny the reality of implications, it is just the structure for determining what they are. If the explicit statement included "black" there is a lot of room for shades of black to be implicitly included in "black,' but there is no implication that black could also include orange just because society now thinks orange is the new black.
GAInteresting example.
Allow and "establishment" are two different ideas. Allowing Christmas trees at the Civic Center or Kwanza or Hanukkah displays is one thing.
Putting a denominational religious symbol in every classroom that is mandated there by the school board, municipality, state while shunning any others amongst a captive audience, school children, I would say crosses the line into what would be considered "establishment".
I would find that to be a reasonable point from which to derive a decision on the issue. Would I be guilty of legislating from the bench?
There are many conflicting points found in the Constitution both expressed and implied that can be considered a determinant in any Supreme Court ruling. There may be several contrary "implications" involved, so who can say that there is any "right" ruling again depends on your having a conservative or liberal bent, and both can have a place in the Constitution as an original intent of the founders.Good point. I can see the argument being made that by exclusively promoting the Christian religion in a public school effectively makes that school and arm of the Christian faith. They "established" Christianity in public schools.
I don't see any 'legislating' in your view of The Commandments in the classroom. It is 'promoting' and promoting was judged to be an 'establishment' effort. The process for reaching that judgment seems to have worked for you, and it was the same process that overturned Roe. Just much more politically affected.
If there weren't opposing ideologies, ie. liberal vs. conservative we wouldn't really need the judges, we would ♫ . . . all just get along. ♫
GA ;-)I suspect overturning the prohibitions against States establishing the Christian religion in their schools is on the list of precedents that the conservative Justices want to overturn. I think there are cases headed their way now.
I wonder if Alito and Thomas have Brown v Board of Education in their sites?I would bet against such a ruling. The Christian Right is powerful but miracles are still beyond their reach.
GAI would have said the same thing...until RvW died and suddenly states everywhere were banning abortions, and against the will of the people.
Yeah, there is that. But I'm still an optimist.
GAAnd Red States are already passing laws to challenge This is the latest ruling I could find - Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022),
The City of Boston had a program that upon application, a group may fly their flag in front of city hall. Until Shurtleff, all the applications had been secular. A Christian group applied and were turned down because, the city said, that flying that flag amounts to the city "establishing" the Christian religion. Shurtleff sued. Two lower courts agreed with the City of Boston. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling with a unanimous decision. Their reasoning is because their program is open to all groups. religeous ones can't be singled out.
Seems reasonable.
Another 2022 case, decided 6-3, was Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). At issue is whether a person can pray on public school property.
A football coach (which represents the school) made a habit of praying in the center of the field immediately after each football game. The school tried to negotiate with the coach to do his praying somewhere else, or at a later time. It needed to be in front of God and everybody else in the stadium.
The school did not renew his contract and he sued. The conservative Justices reversed long-standing,1971 precedence and ruled that -
"The majority opinion from the Supreme Court found that the Establishment Clause does not allow a government body to take a hostile view of religion in considering personal rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, ruling that the board acted improperly in not renewing Kennedy's contract. "
The conservatives opened the door wide-open again to allow, once again, turning public campuses into places of Christian worship. They turned back the separation of Church and State, something Thomas Jefferson is famous for trying to promote, 52 years!
Now we will have to keep Democrats in the WH until enough conservative Justices pass on in order to right the ship again.
This will be an example of conservative justices getting it wrong and operating outside of the guardrails if they rule in favor of the establishment of religious materials in public schools. A fine example of conservatives legislating from the bench. I would be surprised if they ruled against it.
Yes, it would indeed be a fine example of legislating from the bench...if it happens. I agree with GA here - that's a mighty big IF.
It is an opinion that the Justices' would be wrong to do that.
Without an acceptable (to me) explanation for how supporting the placement of just one religion but not others isn't 'promoting a religion, and how that promotion doesn't equate to establishing a religion, that would also be my opinion. It would be legislating from the bench.
I don't think there is an acceptable reason to hold that promoting isn't establishing, and that establishment—in this manner, isn't unconstitutional.
See how easy that was.
GA
LOL, Thomas and Alito are pretty will connected.
How is Creedence doing that? I didn't see him do that.
BTW, what has all of this got to do with institutional racism?"BTW, what has all of this got to do with institutional racism?"
LOL About as much as institutional racism has to do with "The disastrous ramifications of the deadly reversal of Roe vs Wade".
Threads do have a way of veering off track, don't they?Hmmm, you are right. I should have looked at the title before making my statement.
Let me rephrase (although you did already) BTW, what as all of this got to do with a woman's right to choose?LOL Now I'm the one that's lost. I thought we were discussing the ability of our forefathers to have some idea of what the future might bring them, however loosely. That has nothing to do with the right to murder children.
Didn't Credence point out that they were not spending large sums?
If so, he was mistaken. The revolutionary war consumed what was for the time and circumstances far more money that the fledgling country had.
You miss my point or you are deliberately diverting from it. I said that defense has cost far more today than could been conceived of at the dawn of the 19th century. We have not been in a constant state of war since the Revolution.
My point is that there is no rational reason for today's exorbitant military outlays that can be defended by the Constitution or within the conceivable vision of the Founders in 1800.
Wilderness wants to leave the impression, it appears, that America spends way to much of out GDP on government services. In fact, we don't. America falls 102 out 154 nations, based on 2021 data.
Only five countries that MIGHT be considered industrialized and is with an order of magnitude of our size spend less:
* Mexico
* Chile
* Peru
* Turkey
* Egypt
So, contrary to conservative opinion, America seems to reign in its spending pretty well.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankin … ment_size/We do spend to much. America, while following the socialistic leanings of those that you are comparing us to (meaning most of Europe and a few others) is not where they are. Yet - we probably will be one day as liberals continue to grow our government and spend more every year.
"We do spend TOO much" - BY WHOSE estimation? What proof do you have other than your own imagination? Did you know that most (if not all) of Europe is NOT socialist? Name me one country in Europe that controls the means of manufacturing and distribution. If you don't, then your statement is False.
You are right about that 'space.' That has been my point. The Constitution establishes the guard rails but doesn't tell you how you have to stay between them, only that you do.
GAWell, those "guardrails" accomodate Plessy 1896 as well at the Board of Education ruling in 1954 from what conservatives referred to as the activist "Warren Court" reversing the previous ruling. So those "guardrail" can be spread wide apart and accomodate a great deal between them,
What does that have to do with the question at hand?
I think I can agree that it makes little sense to ask those folks about modern problems. They already said such in their construction of guiding rules for addressing those unseeable modern problems. The construction of the Constitution is the roadmap for addressing those problems, not the answer to them.
GA
I used to think that as well. But over time, I learned that was a Pollyanna view and reality is the Court has and always will be a political operation. The only time it has operated in the best interest of America is when moderates (think Kennedy) or liberals (think Ginsburg) were in the majority. All other times, America suffered greatly.
I started a hub ages ago listing all the bad decisions from the Court. I think I will start working on that again.
Deleted
Understood, the point I wanted to make that nothing is set in stone as long as mere people are in the business to interpret things. There is no such thing as "original intent", because that is really something that is open to interpretation in of itself.
Both sides are guilty of playing politics within the court. Depending upon your ideological bent one would argue that one side is true to the Constitution while other is not, when it is simply more a point of view from either side.Agreed, but at least with a liberal Court, America generally becomes a better place to live and people gain more rights. With a conservative Court, America regresses and people LOSE RIGHTS.
That was a serious effort. Mine wasn't nearly so. In scrolling back I discovered that I read what I expected you to say, not what you said.
I read this: "Ultimately, what does that say about our supreme court? Are we to be convinced that the current court is more learned?", as the opposite of what it says. Mea culpa.
GASeems to me that Alito may want to reverse Brown as well.
There are a lot of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. No where does it say you can't kill some one. So why do we have laws that make that illegal? Your view would seem to suggest those laws could be challenged and voided.
No where in the Constitution does it say you can't jaywalk. Yet there are laws against that too.
My point, of course, is there are many things IMPLIED in the Constitution. One used to be the right to privacy. But that no longer exists at the federal level. We have come a long way baby.
The Florida legislature and Ron DeSantis almost killed this woman.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/f … index.htmlI didn't want to start a forum on chlid labor yet, so I am sticking it here for the moment.
In the late 1918, the conservative Supreme Court decided it as alright to let children work long hours in unsafe conditions. In reaction to reporting such as this:
"Over and over, Hine saw children working sixty and seventy-hour weeks, by day and by night, often under hazardous conditions. He saw children caught in a cycle of poverty, with parents often so ill-paid that they could not support a family on their earnings alone, and had to rely on their children's earnings as a supplement for the family's survival. He saw children growing up stunted mentally (illiterate or barely able to read because their jobs kept them out of school) and physically (from lack of fresh air, exercise, and time to relax and play). He saw countless children who had been injured and permanently disabled on the job; he knew that, in the cotton mills for example, children had accident rates three times those of adults."
Congress passed a law banning child labor. In Hammer vs Dagenhart (1918), the conservatives on the Court thought the federal gov't wasn't allowed to protect children.
In 1941, this travesty of jurisprudence was overturned by liberal Justices
Well, in an effort to roll the clock back to 1900, Iowa conservatives wants to reinstate child labor.. Go figure.
Is this the slippery slope to getting back to children working sixty to seventy-four hours a week?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/politics … index.htmlI'm of two minds on this. Children absolutely must be protected from unscrupulous employers, but at the same time they need to develop a sense of responsibility and a work ethic. It is very difficult for a 15 year old to find reasonable employment, and has been since my own kids were that age (nearly 30 years ago). So...we probably do need to relax some of the laws, but it would be very easy to go too far.
Your link does contain one paragraph about my concerns, of course with a decided liberal twist:
"Democrats argue that not only could this bill endanger the safety of children, but it would also target teens from lower-income and minority backgrounds. They urged Republicans to instead expand social benefits so children would not have to work to help their families."
So it is better to simply provide whatever children need (although we already do so) than to teach them those things I mentioned? I don't think so, and neither do I accept the implied "wrongness" of allowing children of minorities and lower income families to work. That's just foolishness and an open attempt to bring racism into the question. Those kids will be better prepared for life than the rich kid that sits home and plays video games.
This is DeSantis' latest attack on human rights for people who don't look or act like him.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics … index.htmlNot only is the Dobbs decision killing pregnant women, it is putting women's healthcare clinics in more danger as the right-wing social conservatives ramp up their violence.
This as there is a huge jump in public support for Pro-Choice.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/health/a … index.html"Not only is the Dobbs decision killing pregnant women"
Got any names/links of women that died as a result of that decision?I am sure I can dig some reports up now that time has gone by. I already reported on this forum several close calls early on. It is common sense and a normal ability to extrapolate from known data that some women didn't survive being kept pregnant through atopic pregnancies and similar terrible conditions.
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/ … ble-digits
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … men-dying/Search as I could, I didn't find any names of women that died as a result of SCOTUS saying it was the state's responsibility. Just some references to "horrifying" possibilities and other such verbiage.
I've run into your "common sense" before (hunting rifles are "weapons of war" that never see a battlefield) and it only serves your purpose, not reality.
You might keep in mind that the SCOTUS decision did not ban abortions, though - that was left to the states.
Here is another way women die because of Dobbs - they are killed by their boy friends. Where? Texas of course.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/13/us/texas … index.htmlPeople do have a way of being angry over someone killing their children, don't they? Doesn't excuse it of course (the deed was already done) but most people will understand the "why" even if they don't agree. Even those from Florida, who are the end all and know all of morality.
This was predicted, now it is happening. Doctors are fleeing states with draconian abortion laws - as well they should.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/13/us/idaho … index.htmlWell, it would serve the red states right, there, coat hanger will then rule supreme...
But the women there need to remember that they asked for it....Damn bud, first it's "Uncle" references and now it's "coat hangers?"
GAYes, indeed, GA
To quote the late comedian, Jimmy Durante
"I've got a million of 'em”"Coat hangers" are one of the reasons Roe was passed in the first place. It makes sense women will revert to them again now that their choice is gone.
. . . and you wish to explain the coat hanger reference to me? Do you think I would have pointed to it if the reference wasn't understood?
GA
This is what the Conservative Court have forced some women to do - GET STERILIZED rather than risk getting pregnant in a Red State. Makes me sick to my stomach.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/health/s … index.htmlWow! A woman who doesn't want children, and has a medical condition making pregnancy very dangerous, voluntarily gets her tubes tied and it makes you sick to your stomach.
You're getting almost to the politician level at using emotionalism to argue with rather than hard facts.There you go fabricating things again and driving to the extreme. I guess you missed the point that this is more than a single woman wanting to be sterilized but thousands upon thousands in order to not run afoul of the draconian Red State laws.
What did the article say, doctors are seeing a three-fold (300%) increase in women wanting to know about being sterilized. That is OLNY because of the five conservative Justices and mostly white, male Red State legislatures passing laws their citizens clearly do not want.
I will not be surprised that sterilization won't be the next target of social conservatives to make illegal.And yet you provided exactly nothing to back up the claim that "thousands upon thousands <want sterilization> in order to not run afoul of the draconian Red State laws." Understandable as the example woman in the article wanted it for vastly different reasons.
Of course there is the mind reading example, where you KNOW why all those extra women are considering (not wanting, as you claim) sterilization. Sure wish I had your crystal ball!
We'll find out if those legislatures are passing laws the majority of their citizens "clearly do not want", won't we. My bet is all the outcries do not make it to the next ballot box. A shame as I wish they would. In the meantime we still have your crystal ball to tell us these things!I didn't think I needed to, common sense allows such a conclusion when you extrapolate the message from the article. Why don't you address the fact that triple the number of woman are now seeking information on sterilization.
All you had to do was Google it to refute me, but you won't because you know you can't
Dr. Diana N. Contreras, chief healthcare officer of Planned Parenthood, said after the Supreme Court’s decision, the organization saw a huge spike in traffic to its web pages explaining how an individual can get a vasectomy or sterilized.
In San Antonio, Dr. Michelle Muldrow said the number of women coming into Innovative Women’s OB-GYN requesting sterilization is unlike anything she has seen.
“I’ve had more consultations for sterilizations in volume per patient load than I’ve ever had in my career,” Muldrow said Wednesday. While she used to see a couple of patients for sterilization every now and then, she now conducts consultations daily.
“Never before have I seen so many women in such a panic or state of anxiety about their bodies and their reproductive rights,” Muldrow said. “They feel like this is their only option.”
Dr. Kavita Shah Arora, an OB-GYN in North Carolina and ethics committee chair for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said she has noticed “a dramatic increase” in the number of women requesting sterilization both in her own practice and in conversations with colleagues across the country.
One of her recent patients, who already has children, was previously unsure about permanent contraception, she said.
“The Dobbs decision pushed her over the edge to scheduling the surgery as she wanted to retain bodily autonomy and have independence over her decision-making,” Shah Arora said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nu … -rcna36869 - July 2022
So many women feel this way now - "“There was no possible way I could go back to Texas with a functioning reproductive system.""
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st … oe-vs-wade
AUSTIN, Texas — A staggering number of women (I take that to mean thousands) are considering permanent sterilization procedures after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to physicians and online search data.
/i]Searches for terms such as tubal ligation nearly quadrupled in the week after the high court’s decision, Google data shows. Facebook support groups for those interested in pursuing sterilization have been flooded, with one group gaining more than 2,500 new members since the June 24 ruling. [/i]
Those were from 2022. It does not take a crystal ball to probably underestimate the number of women thinking about sterilization in the face of social conservatives ruling their bodies, just an active, intuitive mind.
Since the ruling, there have been hundreds of calls: “There were 200 messages by Sunday night following the decision,” Handcock said.Unfortunately I find your "common sense" to most often be a guess supporting liberal agendas, nothing more. Personally I find that "common sense" says more women will be more careful with birth control measures after abortions are banned rather than take the radical, and often irreversible, step of sterilization.
Of course, part of the difference is that you are equating "looking into possibilities of sterilization" with "wanting to be sterilized". Common sense tells me that there is a huge difference between wanting an unknown medical procedure and checking it out for full information before making a decision.But why the huge increase in interest for sterilization (which have also risen, btw) but for Dobbs? Most of those quotes are in reference to Dobbs.
And it is not just women. Men are increasingly getting vasectomies to help protect women from Red State white, male legislatures who have taken away some of their freedoms and joined them in their doctors office.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-023-00672-xMy guess (guess!) is that they are looking for a cheap, reversible but long lasting method of birth control. That is the common sense reasoning, for both men and women. When killing children is no long acceptable ("their" words, not mine) then another method of contraception must be found. And some women cannot take the "pill" while I suspect even more don't like the idea of messing with their bodies natural functions - the result is a search for something else.
How about you? When they find they cannot kill their children do you think they decide the first, easiest, best and cheapest option to be permanent sterilization? Or are they simply looking at options prior to choosing one? We'd have to actually ask to know (or wait a few years and see if the sterilization numbers skyrocket), but what would be your guess?
(You state it is the white male legislators passing these laws; have you actually checked or is it just more "common sense" that fits your liberal concepts and thus does not need checking? What percentage of black or women legislators in those states voted to ban abortions, or is that something not to be asked?)Did you know there are only 5 or 6 women in the South Carolina Senate? I do know that the Florida conservative legislature are dominated by men. If you have been reading just a little bit, you will have read, as I have, that most Red State legislatures are dominated by white, males.
Female sterilization is not reversable. I understand a few male ones are.
I guess you missed the part in all those reports that said the surge of women looking into sterilization is for only one reason - to avoid being forced to have a baby in those draconian Red States that think it is OK want to control women's bodies and take away their freedom of choice.
Talk about playing on emotions with word choice. You are equating a not yet viable fetus with an actual, living and breathing child. Hell, fetuses can't even breath until the 39th week! If something can't breath, how can you call it alive?Yes, most legislatures are dominated by white men. Perhaps not 50%, but dominated. Idaho has 30% women but voted for it.
And that fact tells you that only white males voted for an abortion ban?
Some male sterilizations are reversible and in some cases so are female. "Is Tubal Ligation Reversible?
Yes it is and with very good pregnancy success."
https://www.tubal-reversal.net/blog/is- … eversible/
I do believe that's what I said; the search for a more sure contraception is because some states have decided that killing children in unacceptable. That does NOT mean that investigating the possibility means women WANT to be sterilized in spite of your assumption that it does.
I don't equate anything; I made it very, very clear that that is NOT my opinion. Don't put words in my mouth yet again; it is offensive and makes you a liar.
There are a great many animals that can't breathe and yet are very much alive; the ocean is full of them. Before you exclaim that they breathe water, a fetus will take amniotic fluid into it's lungs; breathing. Your arm is alive but does not breathe. So is an amoeba and a bacteria. The world is chock full of living things that do not breathe.While all of this is just a deflection from the fact that the Dodd decisions driving women to seek sterilizations, I will indulge.
I suggest you read up on what breathing is, I think you will find fish do breathe.
The umbilical cord is what provides oxygen to a fetus until it is actually born.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl … n-the-womb
Children breathe, fetuses do not - they are fed oxygen by the mother who is supposed to have control over her own body until the fetus inside of her can survive on their own if removed from the mother's body.
Women compose 50.5% of the American population. Theory has it that women ought to make up roughly 50% of the state legislatures - agreed?
Only two states, NV and CO, exceed that percentage (I am surprised but kudos to them).
You are right, Idaho only has 30%, 22 states, all but one Red, have less than than IdahWow. Kudos to Idaho. I had no idea they were so progressive.
And they're getting redder. I'm becoming disillusioned with my state lately, with the abortion issue being on top. Followed by book banning and now there is an idiot group in my city trying to get the library closed permanently...because they're supposedly feeding porno to children.
I just tweeted to my followers the following message -
"PLEASE HELP this message go #viral -
IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO DIED BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT GET AN #ABORTION, please send a picture and a letter why she died to the Five #Justices who are responsible for her #Death wishing them a good nights sleep."These horrible stories and more occur everyday since the most ACTIVST judges ever on the Supreme Court struck down a natural right.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/health/a … index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/07/health/k … index.htmlThe distavorous decision by the Conservatives on the Supreme Court to take away so many more rights beyond the Right to Choose, has become a disaster for Republicans across the US. They have lost every election or ballot initiative where abortion played a central role.
It is on the ballot again in Virginia this November as the State chooses a new legislature. Republicans are running to ban it to varying degrees while Democrats are running to keep the Right to Choose, Liberty, and Freedom the law in Virginia.
Hopefully, the anti-Liberty platform of the Republicans will put the Virginia House back in Democratic hands where it belons and keep the Virginia Senate with the Democrats.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/16/politics … index.htmlThen we will see if the people wish to be able to Choose to murder, kill and destroy children, won't we?
Changing the labels from truthful and descriptive to insipid and irrelevant doesn't change the act, you know, and it doesn't convince anyone that murder is merely Liberty and Freedom, either. Perhaps one day we can have actual discussions and draw actual, constructive conclusions rather than merely spouting old rants that political opponents immediately discard.Nope, because children are not being murdered, killed, or destroyed. That is just your opinion, and ill-founded one at that.
That day will never come because everything regarding abortion is subjective and that includes ideas like Freedom and Liberty. In this country, liberals believe in letting people do their own thing so long as it doesn't hurt other living, breathing human being.we had a reasonable compromise through Roe verses Wade, but the Republicans would not have it, prefering to put everybody in their manufactured straight jacket.
I thought so too, but you are grossly mistaken in the idea that Republicans would not have it. Unless you are prepared to concede that the Constitution is open to change as desired without the need to follow the directions contained in it to effect changes?
In many aspects, we have found some common ground on this topic.
Here is my problem
1. The overturning of Roe vs Wade could be seen from a Constitutional standpoint as justified. The decision implied that this matter was to be settled by the states on an individual basis.
2. the GOP has doubled down and made unduly harsh interpretation of this matter of reproductive rights in more than a handful of states under Red Control.
3. Because of (a.) A thrust to ban abortion nationwide contrary to the will of Blue states (b) threats against contraception and birth control coming from Rightwingers on the edge and it's not science fiction (c) the ideas from the Right being pursued as to some obligation to restrict the physical movement of women attempting to get abortions in states where it is legal, there can be and will be no meeting of the minds on this matter.
The Republicans will be castigated over this issue, even Donald Trump has warned the hard nosed ones that this is a losing issue for them, so I invite the GOP to stay on this destructive course that will take them right over the ravine, to my delight.
It is like you always say about the guns, "the left is always trying to take them?"
So, I say NO, emphatically, there will be no compromise with the Handmaiden's Tale crowd. I have no empathy for their side or objectives and consider this struggle as tantamount to war. Because the GOP insists on the full Monty not entertaining any form of compromise, we on the left must say NO, as the alternative of that is nothing less than slavery.The 14th Amendment passes on the responsibility to abide by the Constitution.
Also, the 9th Amendment applies "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
To say that the Constitution does not guaranty a person a right to privacy undermines the whole reason we have a Constitution in the first place. In fact, the Bill of Rights has the Right to Privacy as its underpinning principal. And the 14th Amendment made it clear the Bill of Rights applied to the States as well as the Federal government.ESO, I probably would have ruled looking at the 4th Amendment, there is, as one past Supreme Court justice put it, an inherent right to be left alone.
Funny, Wilderness told me a couple of days ago that the Supreme Court by edict had the authority to make a zygote a citizen with all the rights associated with that. Yet, while the Supreme Court could clearly make an edict outside of anything mentioned in the Constitution, the decision against Roe verses Wade was justified as judicial overreach? How do I correlate those two ideas?The thought that SCOTUS could make a definition is not well thought and could well have holes (giant ones) in it. Nevertheless, the concept of people, as opposed to other animals, is inherent in the Constitution...but never defined. It seems reasonable, then, that the highest court in the land COULD define it.
RvW, on the other hand, seems to have been a political work around - an effort to weasel out a reason to allow abortions without ever making the distinction between a person and something else. Certainly it was not the intention of the court to declare that a person was allowed privacy when killing another person, but that's how it turned out to millions of people.Understood, but "defining it" clearly outside the tenets of the Constitution as written giving citizenship rights to Zygotes is certainly going to be challenged.
As I believe that such a definition needs to stated clearly in the Constitution as it is And the Court not make this incredible assumption as they are to interpret the law as explicitely stated. Conservatives complain about this over reach regarding the other side all of the time.Just to clarify the obvious there needs to be a constitutional amendment that simply states "The Right to Privacy is guaranteed to all Citizens and no State shall infringe this right".
What constitutes "privacy"?
Conservatives will befuddle this concept without end. Their interpretation of a woman's reproductive rights comes down to one of their busy bodies following along as chaperones to make sure that the woman avoids sex, does not get pregnant and or chase after the welfare of zygote when it's all said and done.
Minors cannot claim this right in the way an adult can.
Can we draw a firm line between what is our own personal business and that which has to involve the larger society or government? The rightwinger will not make that easy.It is not in the MAGA's DNA to stay out of other peoples business.
Interesting thought. While the 4th is about the gov't "seizing" something of yours in an unlawful fashion, the flip side is the gov't FORCING you to keep something you don't want or may kill you.
There is no justification for those Justices for substituting their own moral code in opposition to the obvious will of the People.
I suggest you read some news. Virtually EVERY Republican state has restricted abortion in major ways while no Democratic ones have. I think "Republicans would not have it" is an understatement.
So, are you one of those who actually believes our Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy? That the Constitution allows the government to invade your privacy whenever it wants?
Except I don't believe that and have said so at least 100 times on these forums.
But it IS what a great many others believe, and it behooves us to understand their angst over the murder of millions of children. Until that is done, on both sides, we will continue to see fruitless and useless discussions.
Eight women in Idaho and Tennessee are asking state courts to place holds on their states' abortion laws after being denied access to the procedure while facing harrowing pregnancy complications that they say endangered their lives. Four physicians have also joined the lawsuits, saying the state laws have wrongly forced medical experts to weigh the health of a patient against the threat of legal liability.
Dr. Emily Corrigan, one of the physicians involved in the Idaho lawsuit, said she often struggles to understand what care she can legally provide to her pregnant patients.
Currently in Idaho, it is a crime, punishable by two to five years in prison , to perform or attempt to perform an abortion. The law states that it is also illegal for health care professionals to assist in an abortion or an attempt to provide one, with the penalty being the suspension or loss of their medical license.
Fellow Idaho plaintiff Jennifer Adkins said she was denied an abortion after learning through an ultrasound that her 12-week-old fetus likely had Turner syndrome, a rare condition in which one of a female fetus's X chromosomes is missing .
It wasn't possible to end her pregnancy in Idaho, so she was forced to travel to a clinic in Portland, Oregon, a 6 ½-hour drive away. What if she was unable to make that drive?
One more:
Jaci Statton, who filed the federal complaint in Oklahoma, said she nearly died during a pregnancy that her doctors told her was nonviable. She said she was told to wait in a hospital parking lot until her conditioned worsened enough to qualify for life-saving care. This is complete Insanity.
Please, someone tell me why this is necessary?
Is this really okay? Does this make sense? Please read the link for the additional stories.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory … -103131271It occurs to me that if the kinds of things you mention were the only abortions being conducted in past years we would almost certainly not be seeing bans. But they were not - instead abortion became little more than a method of birth control, angering those that think a zygote is a person and causing them to rise up in arms over the murder of hundreds of thousands of children every year.
So...perhaps it DOES make sense, in a twisted kind of way. You might not agree, I certainly don't, but I CAN understand and even sympathize with those seeing abortion as murder.The problem is, we have women with every intention of seeing their baby's birth but are having their lives threatened due to these bans. It just makes little sense to me. States who have enacted these strict laws and punishments haven't thoroughly thought through the consequences on such women not to mention hamstringing doctors. These laws appear to have little common sense. But what do we expect from lawmakers who generally seem to know very little about positions they take.
These type of abortions were needed in the past and they will continue to be needed in the future. I can't even fathom what lawmakers in Idaho expected the woman mentioned in the article to do? It has literally become life of a fetus over the mother.
Here's a thought, if the life of a fetus takes priority over that of the mother ( she is the vessel or let's say organ that it needs to be kept alive) then when do we reach the point that our government tells us that organ donations are mandated? If we can force pregnancy can we force you to give up one of your good kidneys for the life of another? There is no other instance in US law that forces you to keep another person alive using your body. This is the principle of bodily autonomy which is widely respected in law.
For instance, the ironic circumstance that a mother could be forced to give birth but if the child needed her blood for some reason she could not be compelled to give that blood.
It seems utterly inconsistent a to force someone to carry around a fetus inside your own body because it can only remain alive because they are physically attached to you and dependent upon you. But no one can force you to donate a life-saving kidney if the person in the bed next to you in the hospital will die without it.
Thank you for entertaining some truly random thoughts.It makes little sense to you because you don't see a zygote as a person, and refuse to accept that others do. It doesn't make sense because you don't see 600,000 murders every year as a form of birth control and don't consider that others do. A little empathy, trying to understand the viewpoint of others even if you disagree with it, goes a long way.
Then those "others" shouldn't get abortions. But, because they THINK they are right, they will FORCE their beliefs on everybody else who does not think a zygote is a living, breathing human being. You, and they are in the vast minority of that OPINION.
Not I, for I do not see a zygote, or an early fetus, as a person. But I DO make an effort to understand what others are saying whether I agree with them or not.
Something you might try one day.I do all the time. It is just when those opinions make no sense and are harmful to others do I say something. Since I don't generally comment on things I agree with, I can see where you, without digging deeper, say something like that.
You didn't address the suffering of the women who needed abortion care due to catastrophic situations.
My next point had to do with the concept of bodily autonomy. If I fully accept the idea of personhood for a zygote and that the zygote's life must be furthered by the use of a woman's body then should I accept the premise that the lives of other humans must in turn be forcefully aided by others bodies? Forced organ donation? Forced blood donation? The concept of bodily autonomy has certainly been blurred.
As I had previously stated, certain states can force women to give birth but ironically cannot force that same woman to give blood to her newborn who may be in need of a transfusion.Personally I see a difference between the two cases. If nothing else, the mother wanting an abortion did not create the life that wants a new liver or more blood. She is not responsible for them the way she is for her own child.
The case of a newborn that needs a transfusion, and the mother refuses, I have never heard of. That one might require some thought...thought that can wait until it becomes a problem more than once a year worldwide.Some religions would order the mother not to give the transfusion, instead relying on God to effect a cure.
Since you will ask, I will give you a partial list (they are all Christian, btw):
* Christian Scientists
* Church of Scientology
* Pentecostals
* Jehovah's Witness
* Amish
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7545013/I actually thought of that...but have never heard of a single instance of such a thing happening. Of course, we run into a conflict with freedom of religion in ordering a blood donation or a transfusion - something we're going to have to address one day. I HAVE heard of children dying (in my own state) from lack of care for religious reasons...and have also seen the parents prosecuted for withholding needed care in some of those cases.
The case of a newborn that needs a transfusion, and the mother refuses, I have never heard of. That one might require some thought...thought that can wait until it becomes a problem more than once a year worldwide.
Herein lies the case of bodily autonomy. A case that is applicable to all. It is irrelevant how many times an infant may need blood from the mother. The legal reality is that mother cannot be compelled to give that blood. She cannot be forced to give that blood. Her consent is needed to draw that blood. She has choice. She has bodily autonomy in that regard.
A doctor in that same hospital cannot choose to take her kidney and give it to someone who will die without it.
Yet bodily autonomy is set aside on the case of abortion before viability.
The state essentially co-opts the women's body and directs it's will upon it. The state essentially says you have no choice but to use your body as an incubator, a life support machine for a zygote..
So if the government in certain states can limit bodily autonomy, wouldn't it necessarily follow that a forced organ donation situation should be legal also?
Again, there is no instance in law that forces you to keep another being alive with your own body.
How can you have it both ways?
In this scenario, with right wing logic forced organ donation should be legal or abortion rights should be protected up to the point of viability.
In both pregnancy and when someone needs your kidney to survive, a life rests in your hands. In the latter case the law unequivocally disallows anyone from forcing you to let that person use your body to survive. In the former case, for some reason the law is not so unequivocal.
My bottom line?
By granting these personhood rights to a fetus, it extends rights that no physically manifest person has."How can you have it both ways?"
One is that actively taking a body apart, destroying it, is not quite the same as refusing to give up a part of your body to give to another. There is, to me, a huge difference.
But where would give a fetus Personhood? 4 months? 6? Birth? If anything less that birth, aren't the arguments then just put off a bit?That WAS already established - at viability, when a fetus can live outside the mother ON ITS OWN. Even though it still may be in the womb, it is now a fully-functional living human being and is effectively no longer a part of the mother.
Unfortunately, misguided Conservatives destroyed all that and put mothers in jeopardy of dying and subjecting millions (over time) to irreparable harm and suffering.At viability. And when was that? It is earlier every year, so it changes every year? Not much of a definition if you ask me.
In addition, the idea it can live outside the womb ON ITS OWN would put it at least into the teens. An obvious fallacy.
Yep. Misguided Conservatives followed the law. Something liberals don't seem to care much about, right? But I really like the comparison to subjecting millions (over decades or centuries) to harm...compared to condemning millions to death over less than 2 years. Still refusing to acknowledge the other side, aren't you?
Lastly, I would not agree that "personhood" occurs at some undefined point when massive medical intervention MIGHT keep an infant alive by replacing the functions of a mother with machinery. It's far too vague, it changes every year and is almost completely indeterminate. Personally I like the (unofficial) definition by RvW and wish we could get some real dialogue going amongst all to make that a formal, legal definition. We never will, though, as long as neither side will discuss it or acknowledge that there IS any opinion but their own.So what if it changes? If science can deliver a living baby on a regular basis sooner next year, then why not change it to that? All the Supreme Court (or Congress, which will never happen) is to make the rule dependent on what a board of experts declares at some point during the year.
What is constant is that viability is when a delivered baby can live outside the womb with a reasonable chance of survival. I don't see any problem with that.
As Credence said, it is the anti-choice people of have chosen to bow out of the conversation. Our side already compromised with the original Roe v Wade decision, everybody but the holier-than-thou element who feel they have the only right answer who wasn't satisfied with that compromise. It was the anti-choice crowd who broke that covenant and nobody else.
Your comment about teens is disingenuous and the very definition of obtuse
And NO, those misguided Conservatives substituted their own moral code for the law. The LAW had been set for fifty+ years. They are activist judges who created new law from the bench."If science can deliver a living baby on a regular basis sooner next year, then why not change it to that?"
And when we learn to grow "test tube babies", without any aid from a woman, what then? A fertilized egg is promptly a "person"? I reject that, for it is apparent (to me) that it is not.
What you're talking about is nothing but machines taking the place of a living mother, and that does not turn a fetus into a person. There is something about a person that a handful of cells does not have, and it isn't because we learn to keep it alive. By that reasoning the chicken heart that was been kept alive for decades is a person by definition because it lives outside a human mother. I reject that.
"Your comment about teens is disingenuous and the very definition of obtuse"
Sorry - you're the one that made the silly comment that it could live outside a womb, not I.
Then they were "activist judges" who created the old law. You can't have it both ways. And the truth is that they were activist judges in RvW. They turned the Constitution on it's ear to find a PC solution that they would pass muster with society as a whole, but had nothing at all to do with the actual question being considered.Thanks for bring up test tube babies. I am glad you don't think those zygotes are fully-functioning human beings.
Teens - Still the very definition of obtuse.
How were they activist judges for the original Roe v. Wade. It is simply unreasonable to think the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. For a person to believe that requires a complete lack of understanding about why America came to be.
At this point it is about 26 weeks because they need a chemical surfactant to breathe outside the womb. As technology advances and children are able to survive outside the womb even earlier (maybe by keeping them in tanks and attaching the umbilical cord to an artificial oxygen source) should those abortions stop taking place at 12 weeks?
(Your opinion of course. I already have mine and consider them humans from the time of conception.)I, and most people I suspect, don't have a problem with your view. What everybody has a problem with is forcing your view on to others, thereby restricting their liberty.
I wouldn't want my wife to have an abortion unless it was medically necessary (and not just to save her life). I would rather go for adoption. But, I don't have a right to force her to carry the baby to term; if she doesn't want to, even if I were the father; and neither does the government.Okay but the feeling on your side is that the baby becomes a person when he or she is able to survive outside of the mother. That date changes with technology. Even now we can remove an embryo from a woman, look at it under a microscope, and implant it again in another woman without harm. What about when we are able to put a 10 week old into a jar and keep him or her alive? Do you not realize that destroying a fetus that is able to survive outside of the womb is a form of murder? (It is called benign neglect, or just letting something die instead of practicing heroic measures.)
As far as Roe, I understand your point but that is not what the Supreme Court decided all of those years ago. They forced their views on everyone and restricted liberty. If I lived in a region where 99% of people do not want women aborting their children I still had to allow it. All the new decision changed was that states did have the right to decide. There are always going to be abortion sanctuaries like NY but if I am in Arkansas and most people do not want it (majority rule?) why cant I pass a law against abortion?Because you are not the one carrying the baby you have no right. If you want to pass a law that says all babies being aborted must be removed from the womb and put into the uterus of a woman supporting anti-abortion rhetorics I am sure there will be many more who would vote alongside you. This is after all the point of your argument, right? The changes in technology.
It is quite funny how those who are anti-abortion only care about murder but not about the many babies who are going hungry or are growing up in abusive homes. You clearly do not care about the children but you worry that your control over another human being is being taken away from you.No right because I am not the one who is pregnant? By that logic I do not have the right to criticize thieves as I am not the thief, nor do I have the right to judge a murderer as I am not a murderer.
This is not an issue that solely concerns the pregnant woman. It concerns everyone.
The original comment was because he, and many others, have stated that the child is only a person when he is viable outside of the womans womb. At this point they are using about 26 weeks but that has changed over the years, and will continue to change.
Why in the world do you think that people who care about the killing of unborn children no longer care about babies once they are born? How can you say that I do not care about the children and am only worried about control of another human being?Because the people fighting against abortion are the same people who fight against all the care programs for poor folk in the US. So they clearly do not care about human life, they just care about controlling people around them. If they cared about human life they would also fight for increasing minimum wage. No one in a "developed" country should have to work 3 jobs just to afford a roof over their head.
You have the right to judge a murderer and a thief because they harm other human beings whereas you can argue about when a child becomes viable. The child is viable as a human being as soon as it is possible for the child to live outside the mother's womb without the mother. It can be in an artificial environment if the said mother has access to it. If someone does not have access to the technology that you describe then it should not really apply to them because until that point you are forcing one human to take care of something. You do not force people to take care of their parents in their old age when they are incapable, instead, most people are sent to old age homes because that is an option. Make alternative options possible where an individual is not forced into doing something they do not want.So you are saying that because those people do not support more socialist spending they do not care about children, or human life at all? I do not know how hard it is for you to look at the other side but they might just think that overspending is also a way to make people poorer in the future. Of course there is no evidence in this as there are numerous factors involved, but if you have noticed the wages in the US are going down. https://www.census.gov/library/publicat … 0-279.html
So if you improve the economy and allow people to earn more income that is proof that you hate kids?
There are all sorts of arguments against increasing the minimum wage, just like basic monthly income, but no one on the liberal side of the argument has EVER suggested that they would stop abortions.
I think an alternative for those kids, at least in the case of the US, is to take the billions of dollars that they are sending to Ukraine and on the rest of militarty-industrial complex and spend that money on their own citizens. I would prefer that some of that money go to nutrition, but at this point they think that buying a bottle of coke or pepsi is okay but healthy foods are not since they are not supported by govenment subsidies.
You said yourself that it is okay to judge another if "they harm other human beings". What difference is there in that and killing an unborn child? As far as I remember extinguishing life is a form of harm.There are all sorts of arguments against increasing minimum wage and at the same time there are arguments against ensuring people have food on their plates. Most of those that go to food banks and get "social" money do in fact have jobs. There is no point discussing anything related to abortion with people who are against both these points because they are essentially okay with kids going hungry.
Killing an unborn child is not murder because the said child cannot live without the mother. There is no other human being in the world other than this individual that can ensure this lifeform lives. That is why I said earlier. If you can ensure that everyone has access to the technology where they can be free to choose to give up the baby without it being aborted I would vote for it too.Claiming those people do not care about kids just because they do not believe in the socialist system is quite a stretch. I can also claim that all socialists support human euthanasia because some socialists in Belgium and Canada support the practice.
It is possible to take an embryo from one woman and put it inside another woman, so you are incorrect in that there is no other human being in the world that can support the child.Then by all means ensure that there is another woman ready to take up the child within a stipulated time frame after which the woman is allowed to get an abortion. The time frame has to be medically sound to not increase the risk to the pregnant mother.
Since when is paying someone a living wage considered socialist? And yes, I am open to supporting Euthanasia if the person is suffering medically and there is nothing that can be done and if the person wants it. In the free-world that the USA claims it is, one should be free to make this decision as well, because once more it affects no one more than the person directly involved in it.My original point was that medical science has not advanced to the point that those children can be transferred to another woman or a tank at this time, but when they do are the abortionists that think it is okay at 26 weeks going to change their number?
Many women do not know they are pregnant any time sooner, often due to a lack of education. If these technologies do come to fruition and are available for all then I do not see why anyone would say no.
I can imagine babies from rape, etc. would be traumatic for the person to give up even to such a system and in such cases exceptions have to be made because the fetus in such instances is a living reminder of the trauma.
The people you refer to are not really abortionists but those who want freedom for people to make their own decisions about their own body. The same kind of people who in the past fought for women to be treated equally and have equal pay in the workplace (still not a thing) and those who fought for women to have voting rights.
9 US states support voluntary euthanasia, but the question is rife with potential for gross abuse. It is a very touchy subject, added to with the power of religions where any form of voluntary death is a sin.
A state is either secular or it is not. All my discussions are considering the government is not theocratic.
All states are secular under US law. No state government can be theocratic.
On the other hand religious folk can come with endless nonsense reasons to control people the way they want to (everyone can, for that matter). As the power of religion waxes and wanes those reasons take on more or less power to control. And right now the religious power is waxing strong.In that case, no reasonable debate can be had. Debate requires logic and reason and not belief.
It IS a problem. If God has told the anti-abortion when that egg becomes a person then you're right - no discussion or debate is possible.
But that is one argument I haven't heard yet - that God has declared anything at all on the subject.Problem is that God has not told a single person a single thing. It is just other men saying He has.
But your side wants a theocracy and are pissed because they can't.
According to the data, religion in America is waning quickly. They are just getting louder to make you think they are waxing.
"In all the scenarios, Christianity's share of the U.S. population declines. “Depending on whether religious switching continues at recent rates, speeds up, or stops entirely,” the report says, the Center's projections show Christians shrinking from 64% of Americans of all ages in 2020 to between 54% and 35% by 2070."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/arch … by%202070.
And why should religion have a say in a personal decision?
Neither Canada nor Belgium has a socialist government. They are both capitalist states.
FYI - Social support programs are not socialism, far from it.
In case you didn't know, socialism is when the gov't (normally) controls the distribution and production of services and products.
They do this, they say, to make sure everybody gets an equal opportunity. The problem is socialist governments have never worked out very well. Generally, they do two things: move to capitalism or become autocracies.
"healthy foods are not since they are not supported by government subsidies" - Maybe where you live, but that is not true in America.
There are always rights that compete with each other, often in a zero-sum game. You say a mass of cells has rights but the mother does not.
We are saying the mother's rights win out until the baby is viable. At that point, the baby's rights win out."We are saying the mother's rights win out until the baby is viable. At that point, the baby's rights win out."
And yet I have had liberals tell me it is only a person after birth, or after drawing the first breath. I disagree of course (can't see how either one changes the infant into something it was not), but it does go to show the wide range of opinions and that neither side has a lock on truth/reality.Well, those liberals would be wrong, wouldn't they.
There are some conservatives that say birth control is the same as murder because it prevents a baby from being created.
Yes, I was talking about the United States. Were you aware you could fill up your shopping cart with pepsi and ramen on food stamps? The program would not provide you enough to fill up on healthy foods, however.
Do you mean the program prevents a person from buying healthy foods?
What can people on SNAP buy?
Fruits and vegetables;
Meat, poultry, and fish;
Dairy products;
Breads and cereals;
Other foods such as snack foods and non-alcoholic beverages; and
Seeds and plants, which produce food for the household to eat.
What can people on SNAP NOT BUY?
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, or tobacco
Vitamins, medicines, and supplements. If an item has a Supplement Facts label, it is considered a supplement and is not eligible for SNAP purchase.
Live animals (except shellfish, fish removed from water, and animals slaughtered prior to pick-up from the store).
Foods that are hot at the point of sale
Any nonfood items such as:
Pet foods
Cleaning supplies, paper products, and other household supplies.
Hygiene items, cosmeticsThat program was intentionally designed to support big food manufacturers and provides just enough to buy ultraprocessed foods. Even if you can legally buy fresh meat, fish, and vegetables there is not going to be enough to feed a family.
We have a thing here called a "cesta basica". It combines many of those processed foods but also contains whole foods like meat. It is certainly not perfectl, as many of the participants on this program end up using extra income on products like colas, but it is an advantage in that when hungry the basics are provided for. It does not include the processed breakfast cereals that are such a basic part of the standard American diet.
There is a lack of nutrition education on both sides of the aisle, liberal and conservative. Instead of spending school time on gender theory and other subjects in that vein I think shcool kids would be better off learning about the garbage they are eating.Where do you come up with some of this stuff? Lying Fox News?
What is your problem? Has Val been giving you lessons on how to be rude on the forums or are you just naturally a hateful person? Go have a big plate or Ramen noodles and chat with some of your lib friends.
That is not a question. "All people who watch and believe any of the lies perpetrated by CNN are idiots" is a comment, not a question.
Did I say anything like that? Please provide the quote and we can dissect it.
"Where do you come up with some of this stuff? Lying Fox News?"
That is a question. It is referring to your claims that "That program was intentionally designed to support big food manufacturers and provides just enough to buy ultraprocessed foods."
It is not close to being true, so where did you get that from?
Based on what you say, SNAP recipients spend almost 100% if their supplement on soda and junk food. That is not quite true. About 5% goes to soda itself. 40% goes to “cereal, prepared foods, dairy products, rice and beans.”. 40% goes to meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs and bread. That adds up to 80%. Only about 20%, typical of non-SNAP households, goes to what can be called junk food.
Also, consider Snap is a sliding scale. I was on Snap where my monthly payment/provision was $16. The max in California for a single person, 2021, was $250. I was on it back in '13.
An interesting point if that technology is ever developed.
So what if the date changes with technology. Just keep revising the standard to keep up with the technology. The principle doesn't change, personhood starts at the point where the fetus, now baby, is viable outside the womb.
How did they restrict liberty? Whose liberty did they restrict? Seems to me that freed up women to control their own bodies.
That "right to privacy" was guarantied to all Americans. What the Conservative decision said is the right to privacy only applies to certain Americans, not all Americans. T
You can't pass a law in Arkansas because it violates (or at least it used to) a woman's right to privacy that once was guaranteed by the Constitution. I wouldn't doubt that some MAGA-type will try to outlaw vasectomies and hysterectomies.
In any case, your argument is mute because there is, if I am mistaken, a majority in each state that supports a woman's right to choose.
A piece of American history - one of the reasons our Constitution was created was to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority" as it was called then.
They don't count, don't you see? The only thing that matters, it appears, is whether a non-living zygote exists.
Hell, some of these zealots go as far as to make it illegal to have products that prevent zygotes from even being formed in the first place.
Even back in the 16th century, they understood what a "person" was.
The physical body of a being seen as distinct from the mind, character, etc. [from 14th c.]
1624, Democritus Junior [pseudonym; Robert Burton], The Anatomy of Melancholy: […], 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Printed by John Lichfield and James Short, for Henry Cripps, →OCLC, partition 3, section 1, member 2, subsection 3, page 347:
A zygote does not qualify as a person by any stretch of the imagination.
"But they were not - instead abortion became little more than a method of birth control, " - Although I know you won't, but please provide the stats to back up that ridiculous claim.
LOLOLOL If you think 600,000 abortions per year are anything BUT an alternative form of birth control you really need to check your reality meter.
My reality meter is fine.
But apparently your ability to read the minds of those who get an abortion is well also.
So, since you didn't provide any specifics and just threw that number out their for its propaganda effect, let me assert that only 1 out of those 600,000 was due to non-medical reasons. (Of course I don't know what the real number is and neither do you.)
Following the dialogue prompted curiosity and an adventure or two. If curious two articles answered for me at this time two elements discussed so far. One is about the Supreme Court and the rights of the fetus. It appears the Supreme Court does not want to stick its neck out on that question. The other is about personhood.
U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs fetal personhood appeal by Reuters (Oct 12, 2022)
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-suprem … 022-10-11/
Opening paragraph:
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights in light of its June ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide, steering clear for now of another front in America's culture wars."
Personhood: An Essential Characteristic of the Human Species at National Library of Medicine. (Feb 2013) [A very lengthy read, yet quite interesting, and is a deep dive into different perspectives.) Worth a skim of the subheadings if anything.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6081772/
One quote is:
"As we consider how we ought to treat the human fetus or embryo, the most constructive questions are: When does a developing human begin to acquire the entitlements of membership in the moral (human) community? When does it begin to count as one of us? When should it become enfranchised by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? These are metaphysical questions, and, thus, are not susceptible to resolution using the devices of ethics. Practical answers, if any, will issue from the political process (p. 300)."
And, within the article, they do discuss the legal perspective in relationship to the Consitution. The Subheading is - Personhood is Not a Right.The Conservatives on the Supreme should be jumping for joy observing this predictable fall-out from their disastrously decision to take away women's rights.
This lady could very well die from the Texas Republican draconian abortion law.
If she does die, they should charge Paxton with Manslaughter - two counts, one for the mother and one for the baby he killed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/us/texas … index.htmlThis absolutely disgusts me that for the first time in 50 years A woman has had to go before a court and beg for necessary health Care. And now the state supreme court of Texas decides they need to think about it? Will this be headed ironically right up to our Supreme court? Trump has brought us this. I don't think this woman can even leave the state to obtain care elsewhere as I do believe Texas has the bounty law. Cruelty really is the point with Republicans. The attorney general is trying to punish this woman as much as possible.
Republicans want less government and to stay out of people's lives? LOL what will they want to force on us next?
I find the silence from our MAGA friends quite curious. Wilderness weighed in on another post but crickets from the others.Now that she is leaving the state for healthcare, will she be prevented. maybe arrester by Paxton or other Republicans? Will Paxton bring charges against anyone who helps her get out of the prison she is in? Will Republicans sue her and anyone who helps her, regardless of what state they live in?
Trump loves to call people "vermin". Well that insult certainly fits Texas Republicans who support Paxton.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox, announced on Monday the 31-year-old mother, who is 21 weeks pregnant, decided to leave the state to get health care elsewhere. While the center is not disclosing more details about her plans, their statement said she’s received “offers to help her access abortion elsewhere, from Kansas to Colorado to Canada.”
“Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making health care decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors.”
What if she wasn't able to get out of the state for the procedure? Particularly due to finances. She has to go quite a ways to find a state that allows the procedure. What will Ken Paxton's next move be in retaliation?
Begging for healthcare in a court of law. This is the legacy of Trump, who has boasted of his success in the curtailment of reproductive rights. In a second Trump term, this will surely intensify and expand.I certainly hope there is a way for her to retaliate against the Republicans in Texas. As a minimum, if she has the will and stamina, she should go on the campaign trail with every Democrat running for office in Texas and tell her story.
I believe that a woman's right to choose should be ensconced into law at the federal level. I believe that the federal law should decide pertinent laws, not the state. There is a time & place for everything & important laws such as a woman's right to choose should NEVER be left for individual states to decide. There are some states that are less enlightened than others- so the federal government must make laws that are palatable for equal rights.
It is a shame most Republicans don't feel the way you do.
Not a Republican at all. To reiterate, I am a Democrat & a Liberal one. I have always been pro-choice. I vehemently believe that children should be wanted. To me, forced parenthood is beyond barbaric & into demonic. I am for women's reproductive rights. I am for birth control & small families. Having unwanted children results in child abuse, throwaway children, not to mention poverty & limited opportunities for women & future psychosocial & sociological detriments for the whole society.
I had an aunt who had an unwanted child. Her future was shattered. She became embittered, taking out her anger on others. Yes, I have always been for a woman's right to an abortion since I was in my teens.Then how can you be for Trump? He is a misogynist and opposes women's rights?
Which "women's rights" is Trump against? Certainly not the right of reproduction, for he has never proposed mass sterilization of women he doesn't like - every woman is free to reproduce (given they can find sperm) or not to.
I guess you don't follow the news in that fantasy world you live in. Is that why you ask such a ridiculous question?
I find Trump's views on Abortion adequate, and very fair-minded.
In his own words --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZqnrAcEpf8What I heard him say is that he is PROUD to have taken away a woman's Federal Right to Privacy and control over her own body.
And do you actually believe the rest of his answer given he is estranged from the truth. What we know about him is his actions - which was to strip women of some of their freedoms,
Remember, in 1999, he said he was VERY PRO-CHOICE. What happened in between then and now? He ran for President on the Republican ticket. So switching was a matter of politics for him, not conviction.
Trump has taken so many positions on abortion, how do you know which one he really believes.
But one thing we do know for sure, he was PROUD to have taken away your control over your own body. I must ask, are you equally proud he did that to you?But one thing we do know for sure, he was PROUD to have taken away your control over your own body. I must ask, are you equally proud he did that to you?
------------
Conservatives would rather distract you from this important matter by making a federal case about the rising price of ground beef....Not all conservatives... I have abortion views. But, mine are pretty blatantly offensive to some women. I take pride in my intelligence and in ensuring that I managed birth control effectively and that my children were intentionally planned. In the unfortunate event of a rape, I would have promptly opted for an abortion. It's essential to recognize that women are diverse individuals with unique perspectives. Personally, I am guided by common sense, making informed decisions by educating myself on matters that could impact my life, such as an unwanted pregnancy. See what I mean -- ya think a liberal would be pleased with my view on abortion? Ya think a pro-lifer would be any happier? The key word women are individuals...
Do the rising food prices not disturb you in any fashion? They disturb me, you see some that are not as well off and can't afford ground beef.But, Sharlee
When the Supreme Court voted down a 49 year compromise between pro-life and pro-choice forces, what did the Conservatives of so many crimson red states do?
They went draconian, with 6 week bans and total bans. They made no exceptions for maternal conditions. They wanted to ban women from using the public roads to go from banned states to states where the procedure is legal. They have consistently resisted plebiscites from many states putting abortion rights on the ballot. They have gone out of their way to defeat the will of majority of the voters.
Well, this issue has legs and it is a major Achilles heel for Republicans that we Dems are going to exploit. As young, professional, up and coming, urban women may not take kindly to a bunch of old sclerotic men telling them what they can do with their bodies. The ugly face of paternalism and misogyny.
So, instead of leaving well enough alone and the biddies minding their own business, they want to apply their priggish morality to everyone. The GOP knows this is a losing issue for them and will try to distract people away from it, but rest assured, we won't let them.
Oh, yes, rising prices are problematic, but attack upon my basic rights of personhood all the more so.I felt my first three years would have offered the context of what I was sharing. My view... on women being individuals. I truely feel this is ultimately a fight women can handle.
I reside in Michigan, where we voted on the abortion issue. Michigan boasts progressive abortion laws, and I actively participated by signing a petition to place it on the ballot due to my belief in fairness. And I cast my vote. The majority prevailed. As I said I have a very open mind and never find myself stuck in mud or my head in the sand. never get caught in the crowd... Just don't need them when it comes to making up my mind about important issues.Unfortunately, Sharlee, not many in your party share your sentiment regarding this matter. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having all of these problems.
I take pride in my intelligence and in ensuring that I managed birth control effectively and that my children were intentionally planned. In the unfortunate event of a rape, I would have promptly opted for an abortion.
You do realize that your plan in the case of rape is not available to a sizable number in our population .
According to a new new study by JAMA 58,979 pregnancies occured due to rape in states with no exception.
How is this acceptable? How many of those could afford to flee their state for a procedure? Do the ends really justify the means in this case? Those who are raped in these states should be forced by the state to have those babies? It is a given that some girls or women maybe irresponsible with birth control but pinning this whole issue on the intelligence of women is demeaning.
We have girls and women out here dealing with rape and being forced by their state governments to deliver their rapist baby. Forced birth. We have women out here who are waiting in hospital parking lots to become sick enough to receive health Care that includes abortion. Sick enough that hospital lawyers feel they can manage the risk.
This issue is multifaceted. It includes much more than the women you deem as unintelligent or reckless. Let's not forget how it is affecting care for women who have pregnancies that are very much wanted but go catastrophically wrong.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi … rcna135565It's worth noting that your suggested approach in cases of rape may not be accessible to a significant portion of our population. While it seems unfair, I can only influence policy in my state. Which I participated in. In Michigan, we made sure to work and get Abortion on the ballot. I cast my vote, and respect the majority outcome. I imagine that women facing such limitations in other states may encounter challenges in making their voices heard. This is unfortunate, I believe in letting women have their say via voting. I am aware many states do not respect petitions. That is very undiplomatic and goes against democracy. I would hope will work on being heard.
The comment you referenced was in response to ECo, who made assumptions about my views on abortion without any knowledge of my perspective or the state I reside. It's not acceptable to make such assumptions without some awareness of my thoughts on the subject. As a nurse, I am well aware of the complications that can arise in pregnancies, and I have consistently expressed support for abortion for several reasons.
"What I heard him say is that he is PROUD to have taken away a woman's Federal Right to Privacy and control over her own body. "
What I understood from Trump's statement is that he takes pride in advocating for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, acknowledging the perspective of a significant segment of Americans who believe in the sanctity of all life. Despite this, he expressed his personal belief that there are acceptable circumstances for abortions, demonstrating a nuanced stance. I appreciate his honesty in not just telling the woman what she wanted to hear. It's crucial to consider the entire conversation and context, as opinions can evolve over time. For instance, Trump was pro-abortion years ago, and it seems he has developed the ability to understand and respect both sides while expressing his current convictions. I see a man willing to be unafraid to share his view, even when he realizes it may not be what another wants to hear. Very much refreshing, in my view. One can see he is not a politician. "Tell them what they want to hear..."
"But one thing we do know for sure, he was PROUD to have taken away your control over your own body. I must ask, are you equally proud he did that to you?"
I find your comment amusing. I take pride in my intelligence and in ensuring that I managed birth control effectively and that my children were intentionally planned. In the unfortunate event of a rape, I would have promptly opted for an abortion. It's essential to recognize that women are diverse individuals with unique perspectives. Personally, I am guided by common sense, making informed decisions by educating myself on matters that could impact my life, such as an unwanted pregnancy.
I must say, your comments are very predictable, you seem to have very predictable thoughts. You stay safe within a crowd.I doubt you are correct in stating "a significant section". Far, far more Americans oppose women losing their freedom that think it is a good thing.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … oe-v-wade/
Have you noticed that anytime an abortion measure has come up for a vote since Dobbs, the pro-choice crowd soundly beat the anti-choice crowd. - Every one!!
I am not sure where you have been, but Lying Trump is the poster child of "Tell them what they want to hear." It is one of the things he is best known for besides being the biggest liar in the history of American politics.Context tutorial --- "a significant section"
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy worthy of attention.
I did not in any fashion imply a majority or minority, did I? You read your biased meaning into my statement.
Hard to respect a view when biases are frequently applied.
The Republicans took away your right to privacy that you once enjoyed across the United States. Now you have to be careful of what you say and do in in those states who have banned or nearly banned abortion.
If you are in Texas for some reason and you meet a women who is extremely ill from her pregnancy where the baby will be born dead, and you counsel her to go out of state to seek help - you just broke the law and can be fined and put in jail. THAT is what Trump is Proud of having done (according to him - all by himself).
Lying Trump is PROUD that Texas was able to almost kill Amanda Zurawski. She thought she would be caring for a newborn this spring, not testifying to the US Senate because she nearly died after she was unable to get an abortion in Texas.
Lying Trump is PROUD that Texas was able to prevent Marlena Stell from Texas terminating a pregnancy where the baby was dead in side her. Stell spent two weeks looking for an obstetrician who was not afraid of being fined and going to jail for removing the remains of her dead baby. What if that had by you?
Lying Trump is PROUD that all these things happened because he overturned Roe - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ … ives-birth"The Republicans took away your right to privacy that you once enjoyed across the United States. Now you have to be careful of what you say and do in in those states who have banned or nearly banned abortion."
I reside in Michigan, where we recently voted on the abortion issue. Michigan boasts progressive abortion laws, and I actively participated by signing a petition to place it on the ballot due to my belief in fairness. and I cast my vote. The majority prevailed. It's perplexing that you didn't inquire about my state before making your unresearched statement. It appears you're not putting in the effort to gather information before commenting. As I said I have a very open mind and never find myself stuck in mud or my head in the sand.
You seem to be in a rhythm, so I'll step back. While I value intelligent conversations, this dialogue has become repetitive and somewhat peculiar.
Trump has taken so many positions on abortion, how do you know which one he really believes.
Let's not forget this one...
Trump was talking to MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
Do you believe in abortion or no as a principle?"
"The answer is there has to be some form of punishment," Trump said.
"For the woman?" Matthews said.
Trump said, "Yes," and nodded. Matthews pressed further: 10 days or 10 years? Trump said he didn't know, and that it's "complicated.".
I am surprised that Republicans do not devise some way of making it difficult for this woman to receive abortion related health care outside of the state. Would they dare stand in the way at this point?
Texas HAS already made it difficult, if not impossible, for women to receive this kind of healthcare outside the state. They passed the law that allows any Texan to file civil suits against ANYONE, ANYWHERE, that helps a woman obtain an abortion without fear of even having to pay for it even if they lose.
The Republican Texas Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that there will be no exception to their abortion law short of the active death of the woman. And that will still most likely involve criminal charges to all involved. If I were an OB in Texas I'd be packing in in right about now.
I've made it my mission for the next year to work with as many local and national groups as possible to make sure young people hear these stories and understand how dangerous it will be to put Trump, the one who is proud of and boasts of killing Roe, into the White House.
Still waiting to hear from our conservative folks... How is this not the most egregious, dangerous example of government overreach and control? How is this not authoritarian?
Are these women just collateral damage? Acceptable losses in service of advancing the overall maga agenda? the top 1% are looking for another tax cut so a few women may die here or there to appease the evangelicals?Willow, they, the conservatives have nothing to say. It is just another issue that they just assume would be kept under the MAGAT hat. As we saw in 2022, it will be the Achilles heel that will derail all of their ambitions for 2024.
The Impending risk of virtually slavery as promoted by the Right has to be more important than the few more cents a pound that they pay for ground beef.... Priorities?This discussion thread provides insight into the diverse (right and left) opinions on abortion held by individual users in this community. After reviewing the thread, it appears unfair to generalize that conservatives or Republicans have not addressed the issue, as many have expressed varying perspectives. Living in a swing state where abortion was recently on the ballot, I observed that it passed with strong support. It would not have passed without Republican support.
In my opinion, we should strive for fair abortion laws that uphold the right to choose, within reasonable limitations. These limitations could include considerations such as fetal pain, instances of rape, incest, genetic abnormalities, or health issues preventing the mother from carrying to term.
Regarding Trump's stance on abortion, recent articles quote his current thoughts on the matter. It may be unjust to criticize his views without acknowledging his present perspective. Based on my research, he is advocating for constructive dialogue between both sides to find balanced solutions that satisfy diverse viewpoints, a stance that seems sensible.
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/trump- … egulations
We are seeing cases, as the one Willow has pointed out, that are clearly not just. The people of Texas did not get the right to vote on the issue. This is unfair. The people need to make their wishes known and make them known loudly with their votes. They have the power to vote out those that they are at odds with.Trump also made these statements
“After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade"
Trump said his actions have “put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position” against proponents of abortion rights, giving himself credit for the various bans.
“Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing,”
He alone, by way of his Supreme Court nominations, is responsible for the current situation in Texas. With many more to come.
No child or adult should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. The MAGA Party is running on a platform of authoritarianism, forced birth, and human suffering. He is not to be trusted. Far too many are looking to make America Texas.
This recent case has really just gotten me very motivated to act politically.
My god, Paxton wanted to force this mother to carry a fetus to term in which if she survived the process would then have to deliver a dead baby or watch it die? She was fortunate to have the means to escape the state but poor women will not. They will face the unbelievable cruelty, depravity at the hands of the government.
Really does give one the impression that MAGA hates women ."No child or adult should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will."
Just curious, but does that include an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman?If a doctor asserts there are life-threatening circumstances, yes. There has to be room that a doctor can make that decision. Not a politician. Not an attorney. Not a judge. But A doctor. Texas has taken decision making out of the doctor's hands. There will be these very rare cases where this would be necessary. I think statistics show that it's less than 1% of an occurrence when needed.
Should an abortion be offered at 8 months on demand, just because? No absolutely not. We are talking about the life of the mother in danger. We are talking about known catastrophic fetal anomaly. These are not situations in which women should be forced at the hand of the government to potentially die giving birth to a nonviable fetus. My kitty any woman currently in Texas who may have a high risk pregnancy.In wide principle I would agree with you...but not in the case of a woman just 2 weeks short of delivery. There are other methods of removing that person from her womb that do not include killing it. And at that age it IS a person IMO.
But I would suggest a little more care with such sweeping statements, for it most definitely did indicate that very late term abortions (all the way up to being in labor but not having delivered yet) are acceptable. You did not mean that but it is what you said.
Of course it does in a few rare cases - like if the pregnancy will kill her or the now baby will be born dead or dying. Those are the only times in the past that late stage abortions were carried out. They never have been done for the fun of it has Conservatives insist they have.
And yet we both know late term abortions have been done solely to prevent a birth. Rarely, but they have happened.
You make wild-ass statements like that without ANY PROOF. Why. Since you don't provide it, we are pretty sure you put that out there for propaganda purposes.
"“After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade"
This is certainly what he said, he proposed sending the decision back to individual states leaving the decision-making in the hands of the citizens. This has not worked out because some states are not putting abortion on the ballots. So, the majority are not being heard.
In my view when Trump makes this statement --- “Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing,”
This is somewhat true, many states have revamped their abortion laws regarding weeks. Not all are pleased with newer laws.
I noted your entire comment, you are intitled to your view. I have no will nor do I find it necessary to defend the America First agenda.
I have hopes that women will become more aware of their bodies, and the need for birth control. This would help cut down the need for abortions. I was clear in my comment above, that I feel rape, incest, and the health of the mother need to be able to obtain abortions without question. I am for a 20-week law."Not working out" was a forgone conclusion when Roe was overturned. Why do you think Roe was found constitutional in the first place? Because some states abused their authority.
"Why do you think Roe was found constitutional in the first place?"
Not because some states abused their authority, for states DO have the authority, under the Constitution, to prevent abortions. Rather, it was found constitutional because the court legislated from the bench, making new law, rather than following their constitutional requirements to allow Congress, and only Congress to make new national law. Personally I found it to be quite a good law but that does not make a law based on twisting the right of privacy into something it was not and never meant to be Constitutional.
We had fair abortion laws until the Conservatives on the Supreme Court decided to take it away, followed shortly by Conservatives in many Red states making it virtually impossible to obtain one.
I am glad to see normal Republican citizens are against the Conservative war on women's rights. But, are they scared enough to vote the Conservative lawmakers out of office. I doubt it.
I wonder if Texas Republicans will figure out a way to punish a woman's heirs if she dies giving childbirth and taking her baby with her. I wouldn't be surprised, they are that evil.
Interesting study from JAMA quantifying one of the effects of Dobbs.
"Following the US Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) decision overturning Roe v Wade, 14 states have outlawed abortion at any gestational duration. Although 5 of these states allow exceptions for rape-related pregnancies, stringent gestational duration limits apply, and survivors must report the rape to law enforcement, a requirement likely to disqualify most survivors of rape, of whom only 21% report their rape to police"
"Post Dobbs, 10 or fewer legal abortions occurred monthly in each of the total abortion ban states". Keep that in mind as you read the rest..
"We estimated rape-related pregnancies by state to assess how abortion bans affected survivors of rape."
"In the 14 states that implemented total abortion bans following the Dobbs decision, we estimated that 519, 981 completed rapes were associated with 64,565 pregnancies during the 4 to 18 months that bans were in effect. Of these, an estimated 5586 rape-related pregnancies (9%) occurred in states with rape exceptions, and 58,979 (91%) in states with no exception, with 26,313 (45%) in Texas.
"Girls and women in states that banned abortion experienced rape-related pregnancy, but few (if any) obtained in-state abortions legally, suggesting that rape exceptions fail to provide reasonable access to abortion for survivors."
State-sponsored forced birth has been realized. Another shocking offshoot is how common rape is in this country.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain … le/2814274I keep searching but have found a report yet of where these draconian laws against women have resulted in the death of a pregnant mother because she couldn't get help?
In any case, Biden and Harris and any other Democrat out on the campaign trail need to take women like that Texas one where the state tried to kill her with them so they can personalize the harm Republicans are causing.
Which is why the debate and division rages on - because no one wants to talk about when human life begins. No one wants to compromise and actually set a time. Everyone wants the rest of us to simply capitulate and use their opinion as fact, whether that opinion is at conception or the first breath or somewhere in between.
We had a compromise with Roe vs Wade, who abandoned it?
While you may, as a liberal, disagree with interpreting the Constitution as it reads and as it was meant, I do not. It is not a flexible document, intended to be "interpreted" according to the current political leanings.
Still, I wish that suit had never been filed, and RvW had not been changed. To me, it was an acceptable compromise and after so many years of existence it was workable.I understand the reason the decision regarding Roe vs Wade was made. It is the doubling down and pouring salt into the wound with draconian provisions against abortion rights by GOP state legislatures that stand front and center.
Conservatives are the most responsible for the failure to compromise as is evident over many red states. I should make that clear.I 100% agree that the word "compromise" has left our political scene. As has "protect the minority", or "live and let live".
It is the way of our land today, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.
So...you are correct, while noting that the attempt to vilify conservatives is just as out of line, for both parties are equally guilty. Party politics first, then the needs and desires of the people and country. Neither party is superior to the other here.
I'm not about talking or debating. Evangelicals demand agreement on their point of view. My point is simply that it is not Biblical. If any group should demand that, they should.
Apologies: I tool your quote from genesis, and your comment about that quote, as an indication that the bible states that the first breath of air puts the "soul" into man and thus makes him different from all other animals (with the implied assumption that others animals have no soul).
My point is that no one should care, or should present, what the bible has to say about the matter. We are NOT a "Christian Nation", dependent on a millennia old tome written by people ignorant of almost everything around them.
It is up to us, as a people, to define what "human life" is and when it begins. Do so and the abortion issue will be solved, but we never make the effort, simply demanding that our own answer is the truth and that everyone else must accept that opinion as factual.Wilderness: No, we are not a "Christian Nation." We have freedom of and from religion.
I think those who claim Christianity and a literal translation of the Bible should apply that standard to every verse, not just the ones they cherry pick - especially when there are verses that debunk their certainty that they alone are right about when life begins.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm not on this site all that often any more.
And people always ask me why I never consider voting Republican.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-legislat … 46341.htmlIt is sad that shenanigans such as this one, using courts and irrelevant arguments, are used so often today to make our laws rather than the vote of the people.
But it isn't just one party; it is the whole system from Capitol Hill on down to the local dog catcher. We have gone from an acceptance of democracy to fighting in the courts to get what we want regardless of what others might desire.But most of the problem themes discussed in the articles are overwhelmingly coming from Republicans and the Right.
What else would you expect from a biased, left wing source? You want "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" you will have to research at least a dozen sources.
So Associated Press is a biased left wing source? You people say that about preponderance of media excepting only the minisucle and clearly biased right wing sources...
My point is being made by everyone except hopelessly hide bound and biased conservatives....
Where is your data to challenge it? If you don't have it, then the position you take is not supported.LOL Very nearly ALL of our media sources today are biased to one side or the other, and a large majority are leaning left.
I think you know this, too, even if you accept the tales from left leaning sources as factual.I always said that it is the height or arrogance and or ignorance to not be willing to provide supporting data to back up an assertion. It is either lazy or some sort of subterfuge in intent.
Well, Wilderness, I should not be surprised, I have had this sort of issue with you over our many years of interchange.
I will leave it at that.
"In a controversial opinion that could end the practice of in vitro fertilization in the state, the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday declared that frozen embryos are “children” entitled to the same legal rights as other “unborn children.”
So the Alabama Supreme Court says that frozen embryos are children and cites the Bible in it's opinion....
The court said that 3 couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed when a wandering Mobile hospital patient dropped the specimens can sue for wrongful death because the embryos were “children,”
Where will this lead? Far right extremists will take away IVF?
In looking up some stats, it looks like 1/10 of embryos die from freezing and less than 5% are used in implantation. So in Alabama it takes about 22 dead children to get to one IVs success.
The 8-1 decision declares “the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.” (LOL in this case a freezer)
Sounds like an awful lot of children are dying due to IVF... Sounding like we'll need to outlaw that.
What next?? Murder charges for doctors attempting implantation that ends up unsuccessful? This looks like a nice launch pad to criminalize any pregnancy loss.
https://www.alreporter.com/2024/02/19/a … .%E2%80%9DThe far right is flexing its muscles, for sure.
What I found interesting is that the court quoted the bible as the definitive source for it's decision, saying that the Alabama Constitution recognized Christianity, and it's fables, as governing the state (paraphrasing here). I have to wonder how that fits into the nation's Constitution, except that the federal law does not prohibit states from creating their own religion. Still, past decisions have taken that "right" from states - why is this allowed to continue?You win that one. No arguments here.
What, or how, do you get "a wandering Mobile hospital patient dropped the specimens"
I am picturing a mobile hospital... a deployable, on wheels, hospital?
Picking up specimens?
And the Patient dropped them?
And now they can sue because the Patient dropped them?
Do I even want to know?
Probably not.And now Alabama wants to make it harder for women who can't get pregnant any other way to benefit from IVF. Are they "pro-life" or not.
Full disclosure: Two of my precious nine grandchildren are only with us thanks to the miracle of IVF.I'm waiting for a law/court decision that declares contraception to be murder. Anything that kills either a gamete or zygote - the "Pill", an IUD, even an implant or condom. All that needs done is to declare that half a human cell, a gamete, is a "child" - we've already been told that a zygote is a child "because God said so", so can a gamete be far behind?
The world has gone mad.I can't tell you how many Christian women I know who are adamantly "pro life" but use an IUD - for all intents and purposes a self-aborted.
Either any interference is evil or one is no worse than another.
Meanwhile in Missouri...
A Missouri Republican has proposed an amendment seeking to ban women from Medicaid if they have ever had an abortion.
Missouri Senate Democrats shared the proposed amendment introduced by state Sen. Mike Moon on social media.
Some responded to the post by saying blocking women from being eligible for the government's health insurance program for the neediest Americans if they had received an abortion was "cruel."
But cruelty is the point... If this passes, I wonder how they will root these women out
https://www.newsweek.com/medicaid-ban-w … ri-1868440Alabama’s largest hospital paused in vitro fertilization treatments Wednesday as providers and patients across the state scrambled to assess the impact of a court ruling that said frozen embryos are the legal equivalent of children.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system said in a statement that it must evaluate whether its patients or doctors could face criminal charges or punitive damages for undergoing IVF treatments. “We are saddened that this will impact our patients’ attempt to have a baby through IVF,” the statement from spokeswoman Savannah Koplon read.
I'm just baffled by this. IVF brings life into the world. So what is the Republican explanation for this? Is the bright side that there will be plenty of babies available for adoption through the forced births? No expensive procedure needed. A win-win in Republican's eyes?
It is clearer than ever that women will decide this next election. Keep it up GOP. The SCOTUS mifepristone decision is the next potential bombshell.The Disastrous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade has struck again with the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children. Along with all the comments that precede this one here is another take on that terrible decision - it puts these anti-choice agitators in a logical paradox.
y
Many of them say IVF must be protected. If they take that stance then (besides being in hypocritical) they either 1) don't agree that frozen embryos are children and that doctors and parents shouldn't be held civilly or possibly criminally liable for their destruction or 2) agree that the embryo's are children but there should be no consequence if they die in order to protect IVF.
In the former case, their argument that embryos in the uterus evaporates and that their anti-choice decision to interfere with another humans personal rights is purely self-serving. In the latter case. In the latter case, they are being beyond hypocritical and their fight against women's personal freedom is again purely self-serving.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/us/rulin … index.htmlAre you suggesting that people declaring that a zygote (fertilized human egg) is a child are rational, that their reasoning is logical because it comes from their personal interpretation of a millenia old document written in a political act to promote a specific religion by people ignorant of almost every bit of scientific knowledge of the world around them?
I had forgotten that many Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths (fancy that) regarding IVF. While ostensibly supporting IVF over embryos that are children, they are trying to pass a federal law that makes ANY embryo a child as soon as the egg is fertilized with no exception for IVF!! Talk about Big Government hypocrites, lol.
https://dccc.org/new-125-house-republic … exception/I have maintained for years (and have been vocal about it) that the entire abortion question hangs on the answer to "When does "personhood" begin". Few would respond, preferring the standby's of "A woman controls her body" or " Abortion is murdering people". Certainly our esteemed legislators never addressed the question.
Well, now they have, with the results being seen. I have to wonder if the actual question will be addressed or if politics and political power will drive the response to this madness.
I figured conservatives were being hypocritical when they "said" they were for IVF. The Democrats in the Senate put forward a bill to protect IVF across the nation. Guess what, the Republicans shot it down.
Another nail in the coffin of Republicans taking over the Senate.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics … index.htmlFrom the link:
“The bill before us today is a vast overreach that is full of poison pills that go way to far, far beyond ensuring legal access to IVF,” she argued."
“This bill does three things and three things only,” said Duckworth. “It protects the right of individuals to seek assisted reproductive technology without fear of being prosecuted for seeking that technology. It preserves the right of physicians to provide that assisted reproductive technology without fear of being prosecuted. And it also allows insurance companies to cover assisted reproductive technology.”
These two statements are in direct opposition to each other. Which one is true is not apparent from the link, as the bill is not quoted and neither offers reasoning to support the statement made.
Given the propensity to try and shove bills through that do more than is apparent, I would have to assume that the first, that there is far more going on than is apparent, is likely the true one.Given the how significantly more the Conservative side lacks in veracity when compared to the Liberal side, I would go with the Democrats version.
Question - If a Republican down-ballot candidate comes out against IVF, so that they don't appear hypocritical, will they lose lots of Republican votes?
The House, even though most hold the position that a fertilized egg is a child, recently voted to protect IVF even though that means they are now OK with discarding unused embryos (children).Here is the latest Esoteric.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald- … ion-2024-3
I think Trump, who has no real moral moorings, is doing what he does best, engaging in expediency. He wants to put to rest concerns of urban professional women who voted against him that he not going to be unreasonable about abortion rights. He is just going to have to persuade the hard right wing Christian evangelists and other bone head conservatives types with dog whistles that this is just a ruse to get votes.
It has a political purpose, if elected he would be more than happy to sponsor a national ban. Don't be fooled.Yes, as is pointed out in the article, Lying Trump is prouder than anything that he is responsible for all the hurt and probable death this misogynist has caused women since Dobbs. Very proud indeed.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … Ud9BanMpeA
"blatantly Christian nationalist opinion in the IVF case may have a silver lining: It reveals the limits and cracks in both the theology and jurisprudence founded on the idea that life begins at conception — and points to the decline of its broad political usefulness."Synopsis:
"The Protestant-Catholic coalition on abortion formed in the 1970s, when a group of conservative political operatives, known then as the New Right, organized to colonize the GOP, and they joined forces with evangelical ministers, eventually known as the Religious Right, in order to retake the country for the white Christians they represented. Historian Seth Dowland argues that to do that, they tapped into anxiety stirred by changing sexual mores and the role of women. In the late 1970s, he has written, abortion fit into “a political philosophy that connected defense of the ‘traditional family’ with opposition to abortion, feminism and gay rights. Christian Right leaders defined traditional families as those with two heterosexual parents, with the husband as the head and, preferably, the primary breadwinner.” Even though this family structure was never archetypal in American history, “the image of a working father, a stay-at home mother, and well-scrubbed children carried significant appeal among conservatives in the wake of the 1960s.”
“Family values’’ became a rallying cry for evangelicals, Catholics and other Christian conservatives who wanted to reconstruct the American social order on the basis of patriarchal, heterosexual and monogamous marriages. “If America is to return to original greatness,” stated Jerry Falwell, one of the most prominent leaders of the Religious Right, “we must ... support the traditional monogamous family as the only acceptable form.”
Some of the new Religious Right, including Falwell, had a racial motivation for their political activities, seeking to protect tax benefits for “segregation academies” that didn’t admit Black students. But as Randall Balmer has previously argued in POLITICO Magazine, the operatives found that complaints about government intrusion into religious schools and universities didn’t motivate evangelicals to go to the polls. But after leafleting several churches in 1978, they discovered that abortion could. In the following years, abortion gave “Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right a ‘respectable’ issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals.”
Anti-abortion supporters take part in a "Rally for Life" march outside the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas.
Anti-abortion advocates take part in a "Rally for Life" march outside the Texas State Capitol. There is no denying the political utility of the idea that life begins at conception. | Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images
When it came to respectability politics, what the leaders of the Religious Right understood is that reducing abortion to murder by claiming that life begins at conception would provide them with an almost unassailable high ground in debates not just about reproductive rights, but also women’s independence, family structures and the stability of the American social order. It was also a way to form an unlikely but powerful alliance between conservative Protestants and the Catholics they had persecuted for so long."Talk about a Deep State, lol. This attack on women has been long in the making by, guess who, Conservatives.
Yes, i recall seeing the debate fleshed out on talk shows as long ago as the early 1980s.
You are correct. It is the more fundamental Protestants who are vehemently "pro-life". Catholics have always been against abortion, not to mention any type of birth control that isn't the so-called rhythm method. I left Catholicism in my early 20s because of its totally atavistic stance towards reproductive freedom among other things.
We get to the heart of the misogyny and the conservative Republican's obsession regarding controlling women. But it should come with a stiff price tag next fall, and it will.
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/05/screws … trol-bans/First, thanks for sharing the article, Cred. Second, Wow! Also, I read the linked article:
How an obscure 19th Century law is being weaponized against bodily autonomy and abortion rights by Salon (Mar 28, 2024)
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/28/how-an … on-rights/
Again, I say, Wow!Imagine taking seriously the ramblings of a 19th century prude and apply it to 21st century society? Such is the nature of this Comstock guy and his "Act".
I read the linked article as well, thanks for your comment.As I said with an earlier Salon article recommended by you I appreciate their literary sense with their writing skills/style. They seem to cover the essay type - argument, well enough. Of course, IMO.
Such is the nature of Conservatives as well.
I think Lying Trump's chances of winning in November are falling like his stock it.
I wonder if the Kirk in the Salon is any relation to the conservative philosopher Russell Kirk whose 10 Principles of Conservatism explain nicely why they oppress minorities and women - because that is God's design. That said, at least Russell was educated. This other Kirk bozo barely made it out to high school.
Here is another FORESEEABLE consequence of taking away a woman's right to privacy - the Rate of Vasectomies and Tubal Ligations have increased sharply since Dobbs. That means, of course, fewer children will be born as young people try to avoid becoming criminals when they decide to end a pregnancy.
SAD
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/12/health/p … index.htmlSounds like you would prefer to see abortions rather than vasectomies. Yes?
No, I personally oppose abortions. But, what I oppose even more is taking a woman's right to chose away and putting it in the hands of politicians.
With abortions, the woman can continue to have babies. With tubal ligations, they foreclose that possibility.And it is preferable to have an abortion over having a tubal ligation...because subsequent to an abortion more children can be conceived but a ligation ends that possibility?
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree at all. Setting completely aside the matter of just what is being killed (a baby or an unwanted lump of flesh) the possible harm, as well as mental anguish, of an abortion far outweighs that of a tubal ligation or vasectomy. Particularly a vasectomy as that might be reversible (as might a ligation).
I think the president (whomever that may be at the moment there is a vacancy) should be taken out of the selection process entirely. Happy to add seats as the number was determined when there were only 13 states not 50. Half filled with republican selectees and half filled with democrats plus a chief justice selected by the full House of Representatives. All nominees would still be confirmed by the senate where the states have equal representations. Nominees would be selected by their parties' House judicial committees. Having a president nominate justices is playing Russian Roulette with the highest court in the land.
Although not a bad idea, I would very much prefer to keep the nominations as far away from party politics as possible. Plus, of course, your idea completely eliminates any participation by anyone not well known to one of the two political parties...adding to rather than lessening the playing of party politics in SCOTUS.
MAGA states have promised (and probably already have) to use citizens health records in order to prosecute them and their doctors for reproductive care the legislators frown upon.
Biden just closed that route for these zealots to harass and threaten innocent women and their health care providers.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/health/b … index.html"MAGA states have promised (and probably already have) to use citizens health records in order to prosecute them and their doctors for reproductive care the legislators frown upon."
The context of This statement as written implies it to be factual. I would like to have a source of which "MAGA states PROMISED to use citizens reproductive health records to prosecute them and their doctors for reproductive care the legislators frown upon."
Provide a source. The link you posted has no mention of what you shared.Sadly, red states want out of state abortion records to be available to them...why?
"Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron signed onto a letter last month opposing a proposed federal privacy rule that would block state officials from obtaining information on residents' reproductive health care services obtained outside the state.
Cameron was one of 19 Republican attorneys general who signed onto the June 16 letter, opposing the change proposed in April by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to amend HIPAA patient privacy rules."
The Arkansas Times reported that Republican state Attorney General Tim Griffin wants the same thing. So does Republican state Attorney General Chris Carr of Georgia as well as Republican Attorney General Lynn Fitch of Mississippi. 19 in all signed on.
Broadly, the letter argues that the Supreme Court gave the public and their elected representatives the power to restrict abortion, and that the Biden Administration is inappropriately interfering with the process.... States literally wanting to chase women down.
The letter, led by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, argues the rule change would upset the balance of safeguarding patient privacy with "permitting disclosure of information to state authorities to protect public health, safety, and welfare," along with unlawfully interfering with states’ authority to enforce their laws.
The government having the right and ability to collect private medical information from other states.? No, just no. How is this okay? Why do my local politicians need to know about my medical procedures obtained elsewhere?
Trump did this
Newsom..
https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1782082600368283715
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/n … 420153007/First, the video you posted is insulting to my intelligence... Sorry, no other way to put it. Get back to me when a cop hands a woman a pregnancy test. LOL. I would have never thought you would buy such a concept. Oh well.
There are no laws that will aid any state in obtaining private health records period. I have not found any state that has been successful in changing the Privacy Rule, a Federal law.
" Only you or your personal representative has the right to access your records.
"A health care provider or health plan may send copies of your records to another provider or health plan only as needed for treatment or payment or with your permission. " https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individua … ermission.
"The Privacy Rule, a Federal law, gives you rights over your health information and sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information. The Privacy Rule applies to all forms of individuals' protected health information, whether electronic, written, or oral. The Security Rule is a Federal law that requires security for health information in electronic form." https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individua … index.html
Maybe let's stick to the here and know.
That has been widely reported and is common knowledge; but then I forget that Lying Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN won't publish such stories in an effort to hide truth from their audience. But, if you insist.
https://montanafreepress.org/2023/07/19 … n-records/As you see citizen's health records are protected by Federal law. Get back to me when any state wins a case against this law. It seems you are always deep into what could be, and ignore what is.
The Privacy Rule is a Federal law. I suggest you look to Federal Law.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individua … index.html
The truth is we have a Federal law that prevents our health records shared by anyone with whom we don't choose to share them.
Today was a terrible day for the continuation of the American federation. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a states right to ignore federal law, something called "nullification". If let stand, that is the first step in the break up of the United States, which many feel is the goal of Trump and his MAGA cult.
At issue are the competing interests of a Idaho state law that criminalizes anyone associated with a woman getting an abortion and a federal law that requires doctors to "stabilize" a patient in emergency situations and sometime that stabilization may require an abortion.
While the Idaho law theoretically carves out an exception to save a mother's life, it is problematic because doctors have been too afraid to take the chance and have therefore jeopardized women's lives and/or organs (think uterus). Women have to flee to a safe state to continue to live in some cases or save their uterus in others.
One reason doctors are so afraid is that their judgement can be overruled by state lawyers, as happened in Texas not too long ago. (That came out at trial today.)
"The dispute, stemming from the Justice Department’s marquee response to the high court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, turns on whether federal mandates for hospital emergency room care override abortion bans that do not exempt situations where a woman’s health is in danger but her life is not yet threatened." - What you can read into that is Idaho doesn't give a damn about a woman's health short of death and the federal government (as it should) does.
The federal gov't argues " that there was a real conflict between Idaho’s law and the federal law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), but she painted it as a narrow one. She stressed that, in this case,[i] the administration is not trying to interfere with Idaho’s overall ability to criminalize abortions outside of certain medical emergencies." - but protect the mothers life and limb in an emergency. IN IDAHO, those "certain medical emergencies" in practice means "imminent death" of the mother.
Already four of the Conservative Justices have indicated they want to side with the state and rule that any state can ignore any federal law they want (that is the intended consequence I suspect) and call it government overreach. They want to rule that it is OK for the Idaho to take a woman's uterus if it means preventing an abortion, often of a non-viable fetus. Isn't that a sick world in which to live?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics … index.htmlThe views about the Dobbs decision to limit women's freedoms by the Conservatives is still as unpopular as ever. 65% of those polled oppose the decision (non-MAGA) while 34% (MAGA) approve. Of those for every one who strongly support the liberty-limiting decision, TWO strongly oppose it.
That should tilt the election against Republicans up and down the ballot given how strongly women feel about having lost some of their rights.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics … index.htmlYOU KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN!
"Texas man wants court order to investigate woman’s out-of-state abortion"
"Collin Davis, a resident of Brazos County, filed a legal petition in March stating that on February 20 — the day after he learned the woman intended to obtain the abortion — he retained an attorney, who sent the woman a letter requesting that she preserve all records related to her plans to terminate the pregnancy.
According to the petition, the letter warned that he “would pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.” - Damn, MAGA must be having a rapture over this.
How sick can this kind of Conservative get?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/us/texas … index.htmlThis is insane. No man has the right to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. This "man" is demonic. How DARE he! It is her body, her decision, not his.
Yes, if it's his fetus she is carrying, he should have worn some protection. Sounds like he may have been wanting a kid and she didn't. BTW, been there, done that. Hope my firstborn doesn't see this.
It is an interesting, and sad, conflict of individual rights. Just the same as the right of a woman to control her own body and the Conservatives right to control it for her (alright, I am being sarcastic).
That said, one right must give way to the other and, in my opinion, the man loses this one.
Related, however, is the situation where the mother sues the man for child support. In that case, it needs to go to court to determine "culpability". At first blush, if it is rape or if the sex was with goal of producing a child (sorry about using the two in the same sentence), then the man is on the hook, in my opinion (along with going to jail in the first instance).
Next down the line is if the couple was in a long-term relationship, then again, I think the man pays child support.
On the other hand, if it was casual sex or a one-night stand, then I wouldn't be as quick to determine liability, although it probably would take much for me to see the other side.Exactly, he should have used protection. Men have to BE SEXUALLY RESPONSIBLE also. Women have been carrying the contraceptive burden for a long time. It is time that men step up-don't want an unplanned pregnancy, PARTICIPATE in the birth control process. There is absolutely no excuse that advanced forms of male birth control aren't invented.
Shouldn't SHE have insisted on protection as well? It is a two-way street. Nevertheless, I agree with the rest of your comment.
Sadly, most Conservatives don't agree with you, only Liberals do.
I am not a Conservative. I am a Liberal but not a LEFTIST, THANK YOU.
Did I say you were?
But then I wonder why you defend most conservative positions?There is such a thing as logic. I defend logical positions.
I don't find the following conservative positions logical:
* A woman doesn't have a right to choose (to which you disagree with their position)
* Opposition to LGBTQ people's right to be themselves.
* Opposition to police being held accountable
* Opposition to freedom of religion unless it is their religion
* Opposition of workers right to organize to protect themselves.
* Belief that liberals to be Marxist, socialist, race-baiter, anti-police, anti law-and-order
* Belief that xenophobia is a good thing
* Belief that society shouldn't try to improve itself
* Belief that laws should not prevent discrimination
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ap-us-ab … b9c982cd4d
Well, ESO, Texas is at it again....https://www.salon.com/2024/05/10/katie- … -database/
It's coming to a theatre near you, "The Handmaiden's Tale" don't be fooled by GOP diversions and distractionsBecause of the Trump Acolytes Alito and Thomas, It is too dangerous for women to live in Louisiana, they should all move to safer states.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/us/video … src-digvidWould you prefer that SCOTUS justices set aside their legal training and vote their conscience rather than the law? AND that they vote only liberal, or at least however YOU feel they should?
Or does the law take precedence, with those same justices tasked to interpret the law rather than make new law without the need for Congress?No, I would rather they vote based on the law, not their political and religious beliefs.
Clearly, "precedence" means nothing to Conservatives as they keep overturning it.Ah. Then you accept that the whole "privacy" thing was nothing but an excuse to force states to allow abortions.
What, then, is the gripe? The court applied the law, even though the previous one had not. Would you prefer that nothing ever be changed in our legal system, that bad laws exist forever without removing or changing them?
Make up your mind; either you want SCOTUS to rule according to law or according to what you want to see, regardless of what the law is.I am sorry you don't believe the Constitution doesn't guarantee YOUR right to privacy, that the State may invade YOUR privacy anytime they want.
Me, I believe that the RIGHT TO PRIVACY is a core principle embedded in our Constitution.
Yes, I agree, it would be nice if THIS Conservative Court would stop making up the law to fit their political and religious beliefs.If the 4th Amendment means anything at all, it would stand behind the words that represent the idea that people have the right to be left alone. These infringements upon privacy going to ridiculous levels being facilitated by the Supreme Court passing tyranny to the state level, does not go unnoticed.
Conservatives complain that liberals legislate from the bench but I see no less from the Right Wing Tribunal in charge now.
We are all in a lot of trouble.Absolutely. And based on that book I think I mentioned to you, Pursuit of Happiness, our founders are turning over in their graves from what Conservatives have done, are doing, to America.
I just learned something that preconceived notions led me in the wrong direction on. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Well, for 70 some odd years I have misunderstood what "unalienable" means. I Presumed it mean something like "Natural" rights or something else along those lines.
It doesn't. It means rights you have that you cannot give up to others whether you want to or not. (Privacy falls under Happiness, btw.) That is not to say the right cannot be taken away for there is no question the state can "take" your life or "take" your liberty just like you can not give up to another or have another "take" you right to your own thoughts.
That is also the reason why Jefferson did not include "Property" in the DOI, because it is alienable, you can give your right to property to others.
Indeed, the right to privacy is of paramount concern.
But it does not mean the right to keep secret your murders; it does not mean that you are guaranteed privacy while you kill children. As usual, the pro choice camp refuses to address this all important question, instead diverting into something else.Murders is your minority opinion and not based in law or fact. Why do you force YOUR opinions on others to believe and jeopardize their lives in the process? What gives you the right to do that? If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one, but you can't tell your female neighbor she must follow YOUR personal moral code.
It is not MY opinion at all, regardless of how many times to repeat that it is.
But it IS the opinion of millions of people; an opinion that you and others refuse to acknowledge or discuss. Instead you pretend it does not exist and need not be considered in the ongoing fight over abortion. I also believe, without statistics to back it, that the majority of people in this country believe, at a minimum, that sometime between fertilization and birth that zygote becomes a person; a human being with the same right to life that you have. It is not a "minority" opinion at all but a nearly 100% one.
I hope your "moral code" is like mine (and I believe most people's) in that murder of children is not acceptable. Even as you ignore the murder of the "unborn" I hope you still carry that specific moralSo, if you disavow that as your opinion, then you must agree your opinion (and as a matter of law) is that abortion is not murder.
As to relying on "millions of people", well millions of Americans supported slavery in the 1800s, so did that make it alright??
The fact is, a fetus is NOT a person until it is viable. Only then does it gain the rights of a person that is enough to supersede a woman's right to control her own body.
As to your way overly broad hypothetical, even the law agrees with you there. Just to repeat myself, the law in non-medieval states is that a fetus gains "personhood" when it becomes viable within a woman's body.
But even then, you now have competing rights. Just because a fetus finally becomes a baby doesn't mean that a woman loses control of her body to the state, it just means that right is subordinated to that of the viable fetus.
I do agree that murder of CHILDREN is unacceptable. But a non-viable fetus is NOT a child. That is your personal, minority opinion and nothing more.
What almost all Americans DO AGREE on (minus the MAGA component) is that a woman has a right to control her own body until the point of viability.
You do realize, don't you, that you are fighting for what you accuse liberals of doing, taking away personal freedom.This is an interesting discussion between you and Wilderness, but may I add that a cluster of cells is not viable between six and 15 weeks as the MAGA states are trying to force on women. Women are dying or being left sterile for life from lack of prenatal care. Doctors are either refusing to provide proper care in these questionable (only under the law) cases or they are leaving the state to practice where their services are welcome and legal.
What might eventually happen is that enough women from "important" families will be harmed, and that these influential politicians will start a movement to reverse the "forced birth in all cases" trend. However, this class of people can usually afford to travel to where the procedures and medications are legal to get the services they need. This just depends on how urgent an emergency the needed service is. Forced birthers need to think about it, will your wife or daughter be able to make it in time to a safe haven to get a needed procedure?
You still can't see the hole in your argument, people have different values as to when life begins and when a fetus is viable, and not just a clump of cells. Why is your interpretation and that of the rightwinger the ONLY correct interpretation? Do you know where the line between fertilization and birth when the zygote becomes a person is found? That is what this debate is all about and I am not just going to concede to the Right just because it adamantly says that it has all the answers. What make you so sure?
I'm beginning to believe that the line of viability is of no importance to the forced birth crowd. I'm quite sure that they understand the concept of viability. They understand that a spontaneous miscarriage at 16 weeks does not result in a doctor applying extraordinary means of life support. The fetus will not live without the use of the woman's body.
I think the sole purpose is to force women to incubate the zygote to the point of viability. They support the government enforcement of the use of one body to sustain that of another. I don't think they understand the implications.
It's interesting that states can now force that birth but postpartum they couldn't compel that mother to donate life-saving blood to that newborn to continue its life. Makes one wonder where all this will lead.
If I need a kidney, should I be entitled to one of my neighbors in order to keep myself alive?
A philosophical question to all...
Does the right to life include, entail, or imply the right to use someone else's body to survive?Funny you should mention that - forced birth. My wife an I saw Furiosia last night and one of the warlords had just that - a set of wives who lived in peaceful, idyllic (for a Mad Max world) prison cell whose sole purpose was to pump out male children. (They didn't say what happens to the females, nothing good, I assume.)
I wouldn't be surprised that this wouldn't be appealing to a few of the MAGA crowd.No, I don’t give away a kidney without my expressed permission.
This all goes much deeper than just the abortion matter, it goes to a cultural aspect of patriarchy that believes that beyond procreation women are to not to desire sexual activity. This is found in many parts of the world, female circumcision being an example. While not as dramatic here, the attitude still exists among many who believe that women should be controlled and, yes, punished for not being chaste until the man says otherwise. I am certain that the right wing Supreme Court will make it possible for states to restrict the physical movement of women suspected of being pregnant, even though they all say that it is not in the cards now. I neither believe nor trust them. The reactionaries are pushing hard in that direction and it may be right around the corner.
It is at the depths of the fears and insecurities of many.I wish there were more intelligent, supportive men like you and one or two others on this forum who are willing to speak out. Thank you.
Not too many people publicly recognize that this movement is an unconstitutional attack on women's constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment which begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Not enough people understand that although it gives some the right to practice their religions unviolated, it does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of others who do not share their beliefs. The forced birthers say that it's not about religion, it's about "saving babies." What they don't say is that "babies" falls under their religious definition that does not necessarily meet the scientific or medical definition of a baby, or other religions' definitions of "babies." They are the loud minority. I hope the silent majority turns out en masse at the polls next national election day."I wish there were more intelligent, supportive men like you and one or two others on this forum who are willing to speak out. Thank you."
Thank you, MizBejabbers, you're one of the good ones.
This matter is the moral equivalent of war. Take away reproductive freedom and it is the crooked road back to whalebone corsets. It is just the state of allowing all aspects of a woman life and freedom to be threatened. The antogonists merely come through the back door.
To avoid the Handmaiden's Tale fleshing itself out in America, I hope women take these issues into account and realize that this is far more important than the rise in the cost of a pound of ground beef at the market, and vote accordingly.
We can't let the Neanderthals win......
This is sickening. Cruelty really is the point.
Texas Radio DJ Ryan Hamilton Found Wife Unconscious on the Floor After Hospital Denied Treatment for Miscarriage
She first visited an emergency center in North Texas, the outlet reported, where doctors confirmed the fetus didn’t have a heartbeat.
His wife was prescribed misoprostol — commonly called an “abortion drug” although it’s used for both miscarriages and abortions — to “finish the process of what had already started at home,” Hamilton told CBS.
His wife was sent home but after two days, she hadn’t expelled the nonviable fetus. Since she had been told to return to the emergency center if she needed to repeat the medication, she went back.
However, this time, Hamilton says the doctor told them, “Due to the current stance, I cannot prescribe this medicine for you.”
The family drove to another hospital — with their nine-month-old daughter in the car, telling her they were going on “an adventure” — where he said his wife was treated for four hours and doctors again confirmed that there was no fetal heartbeat.
Although the law allows exceptions for medical emergencies, Hamilton says he was told “it was not enough of an emergency to perform a D&C,” short for dilation & curettage, a procedure where tissue inside the uterus is removed.
He said his wife was given a higher dose of medication, and sent home.
That’s where she called him from the bathroom, and Hamilton said found her on the floor, unconscious, with a trail of blood leading from the toilet.
He said when they returned to the hospital, he was told she could have died.
This is a war on women. Please tell me a medical treatment that men are required to wait until they are at deaths door to receive? No, really.
Forcing a woman to walk around with a corpse inside of her, this is a part of Republicans pro-life schtick?
Trump has stated that there should be some form of punishment for women who seek abortions but MAGA also seems to want to punish women in the midst of miscarriage.
Yes, they love life so much that they don't care if the woman dies also.
Trump did this.
https://people.com/ryan-hamilton-wife-m … aw-8657876This is absolutely horrifying, that someone should go through such a thing.
But making it into what it is not, was never intended to be and still is not ("Cruelty really is the point") is foolish and can serve nothing but to demonize people that are trying to do what they think is right. Even the "doctors" of the holocaust did not do their experiments out of sadism and cruelty - to claim the well meaning (but stupid) legislators are doing so reflects far more on you than on them.Cruelty isn't the point? I beg to differ, as evidenced by SCOTUS recently entertaining one of the most extreme, sadistic anti-abortion cases yet...the Idaho law that allows doctors to perform abortions in cases where the life but not “merely” the health, of the pregnant woman is at risk.
The ban requires doctors to treat pregnant women’s health as disposable, and the loss of their lives as an acceptable risk.
Politicians arguing that states do not have to allow abortions in the case of risks to women’s health, sepsis, organ failure and loss of fertility. The court potentially affirming these are acceptable cost of prohibiting abortions.
The status of American women? in backward states, now have to beg before the courts not to face legally enforced medical negligence that will kill and maim them. All at the hands of a movement, whose insistence on criminalizing life- and health-saving abortions can have no explanation other than sadism.
Stupidity is at the heart of the argument.
There is no way to preserve the life of a nonviable embryo or fetus without preserving the life of the pregnant woman who carries it; Idaho’s policy makes no sense if preserving fetal life is their goal. But the preservation of fetal life is not the anti-choice movement’s goal. Their goal is to inflict as much suffering on women as possible.
What is at stake now? SCOTUS debate on the Idaho Emtala case made it clear. What was being debated in court was how much women can be forced to suffer, how much danger they can be placed in. The anti-choice movement, and its allies on the bench, have shown once again that there is no amount that will satisfy them.
On top of it, we have Trump saying women who receive abortions should be punished. Yes, cruelty is the point.As always, your premise is based on the idea that a fetus is not a living human being, without giving any regard at all to the opposing view. Trying looking through your opponent's eyes for once - try to understand that opponent and what they are saying rather than simply ignoring them.
Which is legally and the most accepted status of a fetus. It is only your far-right religeous views that declare it such.
That, in of itself, is fine. You certainly can believe that which is your unalienable right.
But, your premise is based on the idea that that must be the view of all people, and if it is not, it is OK to let legislatures force that view down their throats.
Your argument of "without giving any regard at all to the opposing view" is very misleading. As I just said, you have the right to have an opposing view and I (and I suspect Willow) recognizes that. BUT, you do not have the right to make me have the same view at the penalty of death or harm.It is the most accepted in your world. In reality it seems about 50-50, with even more acknowledging it is a baby but still willing to kill for convenience.
I'm sorry, but legislation is all that keeps some from killing almost indiscriminately. There are people out there that do not respect your right of ownership and even your right to live. Only the law, and the force behind it, keeps you safe. Same with that fetus; only the law, and the force behind it, keeps some from simply killing anytime they wish to.
You disagree it is murder, I disagree, Willowarber disagrees, but the FACT remains that there are millions and millions that DO find it to be murder. Address, and solve, that problem that the entire problem of abortion goes away. But it is not addressed; it is ignored and the problem festers and grows, doesn't it?
Their "intent" my not be to be cruel, although that is the foreseeable outcome of their trying to make other people be subject to their own personal moral code, but I wonder if you say the same about the leaders of the Inquisition.
I am having a hard time telling the difference between that, and what most Conservatives are trying to do to women. Can I apply your same logic to the Inquisitionists, that they are just doing what they think is right? Or how about the instigators of the Holocaust who proudly claimed they were doing what they thought was right. I see no difference.You are correct (IMO) - cruelty is the foreseeable outcome. Along with saving hundreds of thousands of lives, but of course that matters not, does it?
I feel truly sorry for you if you cannot differentiate between stretching someone on the rack until dead and saving the life of an unborn child.Since they aren't so-called "lives", no it does not; the life of the mother, who is an actual living breathing human being by ANY measure takes precedence.
So insistent that only you are right, that no one else could possible have the answer.
Of course it lives - that is obvious to even to even the most "nay-sayer" in spite of your comment to the contrary (why would you make such a comment, KNOWING better?). Given that the mother, in cahoots with another, is the one that CAUSED the problem in the first place, it seems wrong to put her wants above the life of another.
But...is that your definition of the difference between lump of flesh and human being? That it breathes? Can you delineate just what changes are made in that instance of the first breath? What changes in the organism itself to make it a person when it was not?I bet most mothers and fathers who hear their baby's heartbeat for the first time will disagree with you. I've never been part of the 'religious right' and I know how I felt when I heard my kids' heartbeats for the first time.
GAI don't think so since people overwhelmingly support the woman's right to a abortion. If most Americans did subscribe to the idea that a fetus with its first heartbeat is being a fully functioning human being, then we would be having a different argument I would think.
I doubt any of the votes to enshrine the right to an abortion in state constitutions would have passed had that been the prevalent belief.
None of the above is minimize the development progress where the heart starts beating and the wonderful impact that must have on the parents. It is a miracle in how all of that works.
But, that aside, the debate centers around when the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother. Right now, the law pegs it at when a fetus can leave the womb and survive as a real human being.
At that point, a whole new debate starts when faced with the situation of who must die when giving birth will kill the mother."But, that aside, the debate centers around when the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother."
I don't see that. Looks to me like the one side declares that the rights of the fetus vs mother are at least equal, with perhaps the fetus taking a slightly higher position. Along with that is the idea that the right to life absolutely trumps the right to convenience or the feelings of the mother.
On the other side, the rights of the mother (convenience, feelings, everything and anything) trump the rights of a fetus, including the right to live.
Both, as far as I can see, are nothing but assumptions, conclusions drawn without evidence or reasoning.The embryo seems to have gained rights in some states that transcend those of the very woman it is dependent on to bring it to independent viability.
Do you think the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, why or why not?
Certainly the right to life applies well beyond the embryonic stage. Does it not encompass the entire lifespan?
Suppose I need a large bone marrow transplant to survive? Should the state affirm my right to life by allowing me to use the body of another so that I may survive?
Or is this right reserved solely for a clump of cells?
In what other situation is one allowed to forcefully, by state sanction use the body of another to sustain life?
In all other situations, the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.
Interestingly, as soon as that mother in Idaho delivers her forced birth baby, that state cannot force her to provide lifesaving blood to that same baby... Why does she suddenly regain rights over her own body at that point?Personally I do believe that the rights of another person, another human being, absolutely trumps the rights (outside of life vs life) of the one that brought the second one to life.
That does not, of course, include the entire lifespan of the child, for that span of time includes a period where it is not a person in its own right - it is that "clump of cells" you refer to.
But it is not I that you must convince, for we are (mostly) on the same side. It is the millions of others that have determined that a zygote is a person; those that you ignore as unworthy of debate.In acknowledging the zygote as a person, then explicitly banning all abortion, I'm simultaneously saying it is acceptable for one person to use the body of another person to maintain life.
The zygote will die without the body of another. It requires the body of another to live.
In what other instance is a person allowed to use the body of another person to sustain life?
I think I have squarely acknowledged the personhood debate here.
Does the right to life include the use of another person's body?If I were to assume that a zygote is a person, I might well take the stance that the mother is responsible to maintain it's life (again, outside of life vs life).
The mother, after all, is one of two people that created that person and thus bears responsibility for it. We continue that same sense of responsibility for another18+ years.
And if that is the course taken (mother is responsible), then biology dictates that the right to life includes the partial use of another person's body for a (relatively) short time.
But as I say, this is not something I struggle with, for a zygote, or early fetus, is not a person IMO. And most of us seem to agree that after a few months that mother absolutely does owe the use of her body.
(But no, you have not even touched the personhood debate, for that question is when the zygote becomes a person, with all the rights of every other human being.)IF you make that assumption, then the logic makes sense.
But, until the Supreme Court declares that to be the law (you can't have one state saying this is a person and another state saying it is not, after all), then no person and no state has the right to turn a woman into an incubation machine.
Your conclusion sounds like you agree with that.And yet...without the assumption that a zygote is not a person, and it is made law, no person and no state has the right to allow indiscriminate murder of living people, in the womb or not.
So...we cannot allow the murder and we cannot demand it not be done. The answer? A legal, lawful decision on what is a person - a brand new law would be nice. Screaming out "WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS" and "YOU'RE MURDERING OUR CHILDREN" isn't cutting it, is it?
(I was quite happy with RvW as a compromise between reasonable people. Unfortunately, those "reasonable people" seem to have all left the house, leaving only the screamers that ignore any but their own opinion.)Do you know of any on the Reproductive Rights side who is demanding abortion at any time regardless of whether the fetus is viable or not? I don't.
It seems to me the Reproductive Rights side is asking for the woman to have control of her own body up to the point of viability or to protect the life and health of the mother (which is that other moral debate, kill the mother or kill the baby, that's the choice). What that side is screaming about is stopping the taking away of their freedoms.
The point of viability was established in Roe or the subsequent decisions. I am not sure Thomas/Alito found that part unconstitutional.Sorry, but the Reproductive Rights side does not, in general, take the stance you do, and that you apply to them. I have heard and seen several people advocate "personhood" at first breath - abortions until then are find.
Comically, the whole "reproductive rights" thing is a face in and of itself. Every woman has the right to reproduce (if she can find a sperm donor) or not, as she sees fit. Once the choice is made, however, and whether by carelessness or by intent, that right to not reproduce is lost.
RvW did not, as far as I know, directly address the point of viability. It did, in a roundabout way, decide when it was...with the opening that it changes every year according to science and politics. Not sufficient, IMO.
"But no, you have not even touched the personhood debate, for that question is when the zygote becomes a person, with all the rights of every other human being.)'
It doesn't matter when I believe personhood begins. Several states have already decided that issue by banning abortion. 14 states have a total abortion ban with very limited exceptions. Haven't these states, by default, declared personhood at the moment of conception?
The Alabama state Supreme Court ruled that embryos have the same rights as children. That's personhood.
They have conferred to the clump of cells the same legal rights and protections as anybody else. Actually they have taken it even a step further in declaring that the clump of cells has the right to use the body of another to maintain it's very existence. Think of the implications , the cases in medical ethics that will surely follow as a result of these precedents.
The forced birth/right to life crowd has unknowingly opened up a can of worms. It is only a matter of time before a fully grown person asks for those same rights that have been conferred upon the embryo. It's coming. If you let one person use the body of another for its survival, the argument can certainly be made for all people to be allowed that same right. The lawyers scrambling at this very moment.Yes, states have made the declaration, however silently. As SCOTUS did, they made it through the actions of making laws that only make sense when that personhood is declared, but without ever debating, discussing or declaring the root of the law. Shame on them - as far as I'm concerned those decisions came from the local religious right, putting their church above the government.
I think it would take an awful lot of squirming and twisting to end up with the result you forecast, with everyone trying to use someone else to live on. Not a single one has an umbilical cord, the method currently used. Not a single one is trapped inside the other person, as a fetus is. I doubt we will see much of that, although our legislature (particularly the liberal side IMO) are masters at squirming and twisting the law and reality into something it is not (transgender is but one example).Do you think transgender people are frauds, that their condition is fake?
Their condition is not fake. The idea that they can change their sex IS fake. Personally, I do not believe that it is even an error; it is fake.
OK then, medical science begs to disagree.
My position is that the genetic code is so complex, it defies categorizing people as male or female. They may "look" that way to others, but it doesn't mean that is how they experience life.
That said, I must admit that I don't understand it, it just seems so totally alien to me - BUT, who am I to judge.
One thing I will stick with are proper use of pronouns. If someone wants to be identified as the opposite sex, fine, so long as I know, I'll try to use the proper pronoun. But I am stuck at this binary thing. I can use "they" or "them" in a sentence when I am referring to more than one person, but not when it is just one person. I'll continue to use him or her,If you have a "Y" chromosome you are male, with only a tiny percentage of exceptions. Not really difficult at all.
And no matter how hard you try, you cannot get rid o those trillions of Y chromosomes. You will remain male.
As far as I'm concerned, others can pretend to change their sex at will...but cannot require me to go along with the pretense. They can dress accordingly, they can change behavior, they can have surgery to change appearance. But they will remain the sex they had at birth.But how about all those other 19,900 genes that provide instructions to the body? You don't think they have a say? Also, are you implying that what goes on inside the brain involuntarily has no meaning? I think it does.
Perhaps they do. But there is one sure fire way to detect a male; check for a "y" chromosome. It will work every time.
Now the matter of "feeling" or which "gender" (based on your "feelings") is another matter. But our culture and our laws are not set up around "gender"; they are set up around sex regardless of which word is used. Probably because until just recently the two meant the same thing.
From following these discussions you’ve made your stance that regardless to whether someone “dress accordingly”, “change behaviour” or “have surgery to change appearance” to the opposite sex to their birth; in your strong felt views “they will remain the sex they had at birth”.
It will probably not surprise you that the UK takes a different stance:
Under UK Law (Legislation passed by Labour (socialist) Government in 2005), in the UK a person can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. For their application for the certificate to be approved they must be medically accessed by two NHS doctors (as part of a panel of medical and legal experts). The panel of medical and legal experts take into account documented evidence that must show a mental health diagnosis of gender dysphoria, in order for the certificate to be approved. If the person is married, consent of the spouse is also required for the certificate to be approved.
However, once a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued, the person can then use that certificate to legally change their sex on all official documents, including their birth certificate, marriage certificate and passport etc.
Video made by the UK Parliament about the Gender Recognition Act: https://youtu.be/n7YOmpEG0SY
The step by step process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate in the UK: https://youtu.be/Wd9Ybh_r8pQAmerica needs to follow suit to counter Conservative intolerance.
Speaking of Conservatives - how badly do you think they are going to get beat in your upcoming elections?"America needs to follow suit to counter Conservative intolerance."
I don't consider it intolerance, it is called having a grasp on reality.
Like one conservative said, "Women cannot become men and men cannot become women. The only thing that can be done, and the only thing that has been done, is to chemically and or surgically alters a person so they provide the illusion of being the opposite sex. These are facts and they are indisputable."
Transgender people are simply opposite sex impersonators.
That pretty much sums it up. Conservatives are too in touch with reality to play into the delusions of a mentally disturbed person. The left is ruled by those with mental health issues.
The left needs to realize that delusional thinking does not change reality.Just shows how short-sighted, rigid-thinking, and intolerant Conservatives who say "Women cannot become men and men cannot become women. " are. They are stuck with a shallow interpretation that all it takes to make a man or a woman is the right genitalia. Modern medical science has long ago understood that physical characteristics aren't the sole determiner of sexual orientation. Ancient science, on the other, didn't know any better. Guess with science Conservatives accept.
There are 19,900 active genes in our bodies. Only one is needed to produce the male phenotype. That said, no single gene determines sexual orientation. What "sex" a person really is is the result of interactions between thousands of genes with themselves as well as with the environment.
Acting on this total lack of understanding by Conservatives is why the majority of people think they live in a make-believe world that only existed eons ago."Modern medical science has long ago understood that physical characteristics aren't the sole determiner of sexual orientation"
We are not talking sexual orientation.
What is most accepted about men and women is men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes.
Again, these are facts and they are indisputable.
You can't dispute anything I've stated. You can only provide distorted hyperbole.
Facts are Facts and you can prove them wrong.
"Women cannot become men and men cannot become women. The only thing that can be done, and the only thing that has been done, is to chemically and or surgically alters a person so they provide the illusion of being the opposite sex. These are facts and they are indisputable."
A transgender woman is a female impersonator
A transgender man is a male impersonator
It caused by a mental disorder called Gender dysphoria.
You don't get to change reality simply because you aren't able to accept it.No, you aren't talking about it, they are since that is what actually counts.
Consider the "suit" you want to follow: You want "conservatives" to accept that a government-issued proclamation changes the physical reality of a biological fact (as currently known).
I will hang on to my intolerance if that is the only 'proof' that it is wrong.
GAI would rather Conservatives follow the science and not mythology or government-issued proclamations.
You're on your own now. Your thought that believing chromosomes determine the male/female (man/woman) physical differences is believing in a myth, is too far out there for me. It was science that said they were the determinant. Is yours an alternate science? (he asks with a giggle)
GADidn't say genetics didn't determine male/female phenotype. Just the opposite, I said it did. What I did say is that genetics (along with environment) help determine sexual orientation. And it is that distinction that Conservatives seem to be unable to discern the difference (which is also probably genetic-based as well).
I think you are mistaken about the Conservatives' view on sexual orientation. We know there are differences, and we generally accept them. That doesn't mean we agree, but just that we know they are there.
But we haven't been talking about sexual orientation. We are talking about the reality of the sexes. They are physical realities, not mental perceptions.
That is probably why Conservatives are so obstinate about the issue. We argue physical realities and Liberals counter with mental perceptions of reality, (the mental perception may be the real reality for the individual, but it can't change the physical reality of the rest of us).
GAWe are not arguing that Conservatives don't have a right to disagree. What we are adamant about is Conservatives don't have the right to tell another person how they can live their life - which is what their goal is.
I do agree with your comparison. Conservatives only believe things their five senses can observe and stop there. Liberals understand the world is much more complex than that simple model.Sticking with the issue, I don't get the perception that Conservatives are trying to tell trans folks how to live their lives, we are telling them they can't make us participate—tell us how we have to live our lives.
Your closing was a bit snarky, bless your heart. Your "complex" world is built on 'simple' models. The complex is always a derivative of the simple. If you can't get the simple parts right, you're unlikely to get the complexities right either.
GA
Very, very badly; half way through the election campaign (with just 3 weeks to go) and the latest opinion poll (11th June) puts the voting intentions as follows:
• Labour (socialists) = 38%
• Conservatives (capitalists) = 18%
• Reform UK (politically to right of Conservatives) = 17%
• Liberal Democrats (politically between Conservatives and Labour) = 15%
• The Green Party (politically to left of Labour) = 8%
Unless the Conservatives can pull a rabbit out of the hat within the next three weeks they are set to loose over two thirds of their seats; and even almost half of current Government Ministers are set to lose their seats in the General Election – So the Conservatives are in ‘panic mode’, making one big mistake after another, which is just making matters worse for them. Two of the biggest cockups this week being:-
1. The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak) leaving the D-Day commemorations early, leaving President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron to carrying on without him – although he has since apologised profusely the British voters have not forgiven him.
2. The Prime Minster (Rishi Sunak) claiming hardship as a child because his parents couldn’t afford satellite TV; that comment went down like a lead balloon with the voting public because not having food on the table is hardship, whereas satellite TV is a luxury item, not an essential: So the voting public feel that Rishi Sunak is out of touch with the people.
The opinion poll released today, following last night’s televised debate between the Conservative and Labour leaders, showed the Labour leader Keir Starmer winning the Battle in the debate by a clear margin, with 64% saying he performed best compared to 36% for Rishi Sunak (Prime Minister): https://youtu.be/MmiZaH54t6sYour Conservative Party and ours have a lot in common save the polling, our Conservatives are doing much better than they deserve.
I see that about 35% of the British public hold far-right views. That is about the same as our MAGA cult.Yep, and traditionally a similar number of the British public hold far-left views (Labour and Green); while about a third of the population have moderate views (in the middle), and therefore tend to lean towards supporting the Liberal Democrats, who have similar politics to your Democrats in the USA. But of course, with the Liberal Democrats being in the middle, their vote tends to get squeezed as (under the first past the post system) many Liberal Democrat voters vote tactically for either Labour or Conservative.
Detailed analysis by YouGov (who have a track record of being accurate with a 2% margin of error); based on opinion polls of 13th June; shows latest projection of how few of the 650 seats the Conservatives will win; as detailed below.
There are 650 seats in Parliament, therefore a political party has to win 326 to gain overall control; in the last General Election the Conservatives won 365 seats in 2019, the current predictions is that they will only win 140 seats (225 seats less than last time).
Current Projection Of How Many Seats Each Party Will Win:
• Labour (socialists) = 422 seats
• Conservatives (capitalists) = 140 seats
• Liberal Democrats (politically in the middle) = 48 seats
• Others (Including Northern Ireland) = 19 seats
• SNP (Scottish National Party/socialists) = 17 seats
• Green Party (left of Labour) = 2 seats
• Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party/socialists) = 2 seats
https://yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2024I would much rather see the Labour and Liberal Democrats switch places, but you can't get everything you wish for. Nevertheless, that outcome will be a nice change, although a jarring one.
I fully appreciate that an American on the left of American politics would like to see the Liberal Democrats switch places with Labour in next month’s UK General Election; after all, the Liberal Democrats in the UK is politically very similar to the Democrats in the USA.
But as you said, after 14 years of Conservative austerity, the projected outcome “will be a nice change”; although from my viewpoint, not a jarring one, in that Labour is committed to a prudent fiscal plan to stimulate economic growth (to generate increased Government Revenue), without raising taxes on ordinary people (just the super-rich), and without borrowing e.g. greater economic activity means more people in work paying taxes, and businesses making more profits and thus paying more taxes from increased profits.
On winning the Election, Labour’s top priorities will be:-
1. Deliver economic stability
2. Cut NHS waiting times
3. Launch a new Border Security Command
4. Set up Great British Energy
5. Crack down on antisocial behaviour
6. Recruit 6,500 new teachers
Labour’s Mission Statement is:
1. Kickstart economic growth
2. Make Britain a clean energy superpower
3. Take back our streets
4. Break down barriers to opportunity
5. Build an NHS fit for the future
Labour is committed to not raising taxes on ordinary people, but will raise an extra £8.55 billion ($10.8 billion) tax revenue on the super-rich, as follows:
• Close non-Dom tax loopholes and investment to reduce tax avoidance (hits the super-rich only).
• Introduce VAT and Business Rates to Private Schools (hits the super-rich only).
• Close loopholes in ‘carried interest tax’ (hits the super-rich only).
• Increasing stamp duty on purchases of residential property by non-UK residents by 1% (hit’s non-UK residents only)
• Windfall tax on the oil and gas giants (who have profiteered from the Ukrainian war because of the dramatic increase in worldwide gas prices).
The full details is in Labour’s Manifesto: https://labour.org.uk/change/my-plan-for-change/In contrast the UK Conservative’s fiscal policy is to cut welfare benefits by £17.5 billion ($22 billion), which hits just the 'poor'; specifically so that they can cut NI (Income tax) by 2%.
But isn't it a good feeling to know that there are still some people, even across the pond, that understand that self-sufficiency is a good thing and that forced charity to those that won't produce themselves is NOT? That there are still some people that believe that what they earn or build is theirs not the property of some politician that wants to buy votes with it?
You might have a point if what you described is reality, but it is not. Not in England and definitely not in America. Democrats in America and Labour or Liberal Democrats in England believe self-sufficiency is a great thing. What they don't believe in letting those suffering through no fault of their own to continue to suffer without helping.
Conservatives apparently have no problem letting the suffer just as any good social Darwinist would do.I believe you. That liberal Democrats in America have been on a decades long attempt to forever increase the charity they give out truly shows they like the concept of self sufficiency. For sure.
(You are aware that over half our population is now considered unfit to support themselves - that they must have a handout from government to survive the rigors of daily living?)
Your comment prompted me to look at what current British public opinion is on the topic of taxes vs public spending; and here’s the summery of the latest tracker update 27th May (link below); the tracker which goes back to the last General Election in 2019 is updated monthly:-
1. Brits who think they pay too much tax, and think Public Spending should be cut:
• All Voters = 30%
• Conservative voters = 34%
• Labour voters = 22%
• Liberal Democrat voters = 27%
• Voters under the age of 25 = 22%
• Voters over 65 age = 26%
• Middle Classes = 31%
• Lower Classes = 29%
2. Brits who think they pay too little tax, and think Public Spending should be increased:
• All Voters = 30%
• Conservative voters = 20%
• Labour voters = 48%
• Liberal Democrat voters = 41%
• Voters under the age of 25 = 31%
• Voters over 65 age = 32%
• Middle Classes = 34%
• Lower Classes = 25%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/tr … ght-amount
Regardless to what you may make of the above data; the other important factor is how high a priority tax is as a main issue during the 2024 General Election; and as shown in the chart below (data extracted from another YouGov poll at the start of the General Election), even amongst Conservative voters tax is only among the top 3 main issues for 13% of Conservative voters. So although the Conservative Party is trying hard to make it the main election issue in the election campaign, it’s not cutting as much ice with voters as the Conservative Party would like.
