Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Aaaaand, Kavanaugh just went after Roe Vs. Wade...

+3
2seaoat
RealLindaL
zsomething
7 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

zsomething



... just like that wig-on-a-pile-of-shit trusting idiot Susan Collins swore in her nerve-rattling quavering voice that he wasn't gonna do.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/brett-kavanaugh-june-medical-services-louisiana-john-roberts.html



On Thursday night, the Supreme Court blocked a stringent Louisiana abortion law by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals to keep the measure on hold. Roberts’ vote is surprising, but not a total shock: The Louisiana statute is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and until the court overturns that decision, the Louisiana law cannot take effect. To Roberts, this precedent matters. To Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it does not. Kavanaugh so disagreed with the majority that he wrote a dissent explaining why the Louisiana law should be allowed to move forward—an opinion that should not be taken as anything less than a declaration of war on Roe v. Wade.

The case, June Medical Services v. Gee, should be an easy one. It is a challenge to a Louisiana law that is nearly identical to the Texas statute invalidated in Whole Woman’s Health. Louisiana, like Texas, compelled its abortion providers to obtain surgical privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics. These privileges are often difficult if not impossible to obtain—hospitals can, and do, deny them because they oppose abortion. More importantly, they provide absolutely no medical benefit to women, as the Supreme Court ruled in Whole Woman’s Health. Because these measures impose a substantial burden on abortion providers (and their patients) while providing no benefit to women, the court found them to be unconstitutional.


As someone on Twitter just said, "Oh, look, the rapey guy did the Handmaidsy thing."

Yeah, conservatives love freedom. Unless it's, like, a woman's freedom, or a gay person's freedom, or a black person's freedom, or an atheist's freedom, or... well, any other freedom to do much of anything except go to church and be a coal-rollin' asshole. I mean, the freedom to have clean air and water's definitely out, gets in the way of corporate interests.

Anyhow, yeah, that Kavanaugh, gonna turn out just fine, yup. Has it even been six months? Frat boy works fast.

RealLindaL likes this post

RealLindaL



Yep, didn't take long. And is anyone here really surprised?

2seaoat



Nobody reads cases. I predicted Roberts would be a principled jurist and got attacked here. I predicted Mr. K would be a principled jurist. He has already repeatedly ruled with the majority. This case does not overturn Roe. It is not quite the case that being near a hospital is important when the state is approving a clinic, but when there is a pattern of exclusion, that is a violation of a woman's constitutional right, and this court has done NOTHING to restrict the same.......Roberts saved the day.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:Nobody reads cases.  I predicted Roberts would be a principled jurist and got attacked here.  I predicted Mr. K would be a principled jurist.  He has already repeatedly ruled with the majority.  This case does not overturn Roe.  It is not quite the case that being near a hospital is important when the state is approving a clinic, but when there is a pattern of exclusion, that is a violation of a woman's constitutional right, and this court has done NOTHING to restrict the same.......Roberts saved the day.

For Kavanaugh, the whole case turned on the concept of 3 doctors being able to obtain hospital privileges, which requirement the SCOTUS already overturned in the previous case in Texas.  Roberts only did what he had to do.  Precedent only matters to R's when they can use it to their advantage; otherwise, precedent be damned.

Mr. K is exactly what we warned he was.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18a774_3ebh.pdf

RealLindaL



This ruling only amounted to a temporary stay anyway. Look for review by the full court in the near future, and watch what happens.

Kavanaugh is already positioning himself -- again, it's no surprise.

2seaoat



no surprise at all and consistent with his other rulings. Wade is safe.

RealLindaL



2seaoat wrote:Wade is safe.

NOT.

You do know he was a dissenting vote, yes?

Telstar likes this post

2seaoat



For wade to be overturned would require five justices not recognizing the right of privacy and a woman's right to health care choices, and it is quite another for a state to try to back door shut down rights by factual debates on womens health safety which is absolutely an attempt through that back door, but the front door nope. I never understood why crossing the river to another state to get health care is seen as so restrictive. Cancer patients have to travel as facilities are not always available in that state. However, a poor person has much more of a challenge to get affordable health care.

Deus X

Deus X

So what if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Medical abortions--the Abortion Pill--are available everywhere. As Seaoat pointed out, all Roe did was make surgical abortions more convenient.

In '73, when Roe was decided, abortions were already available in most states if the life of the mother was at risk and women already had a stunning variety of methods of contraception.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Deus X wrote:So what if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? Medical abortions--the Abortion Pill--are available everywhere. As Seaoat pointed out, all Roe did was make surgical abortions more convenient.

In '73, when Roe was decided, abortions were already available in most states if the life of the mother was at risk and women already had a stunning variety of methods of contraception.

Only 13 states had some form of legal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. I was working at a Houston hospital in 72-73, where some of the first legal terminations of pregnancy/sterilizations were performed.

Deus X

Deus X

Floridatexan wrote:
Only 13 states had some form of legal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade.  I was working at a Houston hospital in 72-73, where some of the first legal terminations of pregnancy/sterilizations were performed.  

You're talking about abortion to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion was legal if the life of the mother was at risk.

1890 -- Abortion is regulated by statutes advocated by the AMA, and abortion is permitted upon conferral of one or more physicians who believe the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-abortion-timeline-story.html

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Deus X wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Only 13 states had some form of legal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade.  I was working at a Houston hospital in 72-73, where some of the first legal terminations of pregnancy/sterilizations were performed.  

You're talking about abortion to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion was legal if the life of the mother was at risk.

1890 -- Abortion is regulated by statutes advocated by the AMA, and abortion is permitted upon conferral of one or more physicians who believe the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-abortion-timeline-story.html

Kinda leaves out the whole rape and incest thing, doesn't it? Not much room for a nonviable fetus, either. So, what's a doctor to do about a miscarriage?And the birth control pill at the time was probably too strong and caused side effects...still does. But the public shaming for an unmarried woman (or girl) was all on her.

Telstar

Telstar

Floridatexan and zsomething like this post

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Sheldon Whitehouse Is Following the Money Around Brett Kavanaugh

What did happen with his debts before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court?

By Charles P. Pierce
Mar 16, 2021

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is not kidding about tracing how dark money has come to influence the selection of judges for the federal bench. And now he’s found a big fish in a small barrel. From The Guardian:

Among the concerns listed in Whitehouse’s letter to Garland are allegations that some witnesses who wanted to share their accounts with the FBI could not find anyone at the bureau who would accept their testimony and that it had not assigned any individual to accept or gather evidence. “This was unique behavior in my experience, as the Bureau is usually amenable to information and evidence; but in this matter the shutters were closed, the drawbridge drawn up, and there was no point of entry by which members of the public or Congress could provide information to the FBI,” Whitehouse said.
And, while the allegations regarding Christine Blasey Ford were grim and awful, Whitehouse also has had his teeth into what always has been the hinkiest part of that whole episode—namely, how Kavanaugh’s substantial personal indebtedness was settled up before he was confirmed.

Of course, this is of a piece with Whitehouse’s campaign to expose to daylight the money that fuels the conservative judicial assembly line. In fact, during the confirmation process, Whitehouse sent Kavanaugh 14 pages of follow-up questions regarding his finances. From Mother Jones:

Other questions from Whitehouse addressed Kavanaugh’s unusual debt history. Not long after Trump nominated him, the Washington Post reported that since joining the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge in 2006, Kavanaugh had run up a significant amount of debt that often appeared to exceed the value of his cash and investment assets. His debts on three credit cards, as well as a loan against his retirement account, totaled between $60,000 and $200,000 in 2016, according to his financial disclosure forms. The next year, his debts vanished. When he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week for his confirmation hearing, his financial disclosure form listed no liabilities aside from his $815,000 mortgage. His disclosures don’t show any large financial gifts, outside income, or even a gambling windfall, as Sotomayor’s had when she hit the jackpot at a Florida casino in 2008 and won $8,283.
(And, no, I did not know that Justice Sotomayor had beaten The House for eight-large. Nice work, Madam Justice. Bill Bennett would like some tips.)

Whitehouse did a solo act on this subject at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee a while back. It was a bravura demonstration of how corrupt the judicial nominating process has become in the days since the Supreme Court legalized influence peddling in Citizens United. Of course, former Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose sudden retirement opened the place on the Court that Kavanaugh took, something that did not go unnoticed at the time, reassured us that, “The appearance of influence or access... will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” Called that one a little early.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35853157/sheldon-whitehouse-brett-kavanaugh-debts/

***************



Telstar and zsomething like this post

Telstar

Telstar

So Roe is gone. So be it. Not that it will help but I'm casting a spell so that every banshee that supports this will suffer agony and pain ten times ten the agony that any poor woman will have to suffer because of this miserable SCOTUS decision. It may not be much but at least I can look at my daughters, sisters and nieces in the face. It may not be possible for the banshees on the right who supported this to do the same, If the spell works they will no longer have a face,



Aaaaand, Kavanaugh just went after Roe Vs. Wade... Abort_11



Last edited by Telstar on 6/25/2022, 2:27 am; edited 1 time in total

PkrBum

PkrBum

Sooo... we just have to write laws and then advocate for whether those laws are a good idea for our local community... states?  Seems impossible... implausible... a catastrophe.

It's a disingenuous position. No one has usurped reproductive rights. A woman (and man) has every right to prohibit/restrict reproduction. "A MISOGYNIST CONSPIRACY"..!! (Even though men are held financially responsible)

Don't worry folks... plenty of black children will still be killed in leftist states. You fucking ghouls.

Btw: I've made my position on abortion clear in the past. I'm not religious and respect that people have different opinions than me. If you want to kill life... then don't pretend that other life is a political issue.

Telstar

Telstar

Perhaps the Emperor Caligula had the best solution to the Reicht Wing Republican/SCOTUS problem. They should all share one throat, so they can be judged swiftly and surely with one clean stroke.


Floridatexan likes this post

zsomething



And now Clarence Thomas is going after birth control, too, so that argument just kinda shit the bed, didn't it?

https://www.essence.com/news/clarence-thomas-reconsider-gay-rights-birth-control/

O' course, when Republican theocrats start stripping away more and more rights, the so-called "libertarians" will find some absurd way to keep making excuses for all of it, because (*spoiler alert!*) Libertarians don't really stand for anything other than bitching about everybody so they never have to feel responsible for anything. Responsibility just ain't something they're good at. They'll sit around and defend shit while still claiming they don't. Bunch of weak fence-riding cowards.

And, as always, the Bible Belt Republican states will keep bringing in the highest rates of infant mortality, because that's how they roll.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm

They don't give a shit about saving babies. Hell, I know so many conservatives who've done a lousy job keeping their own kids alive that it's practically a crossover demographic, and it never stops them from howling about everybody else.

None of this is about babies. If it were, they'd be embarrassed to keep getting the highest infant mortality year after year due to their voting against the social programs that keep babies alive. Nah... all this is about is a bunch of closet-case man-worshipers wanting to take as much control over women's lives as possible, because they hate them. They're not successful with women (conservative states also have far higher divorce rates -- https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-highest-divorce-rates and their way of dealing with sour grapes are trying to throw a monkey wrench into their lives. They like the idea of rapists having more rights than women. The whole conservative movement is getting overloaded with "red-pill" incel whiners. It's even harder to find a conservative who's made a marriage work than one whose kids all survived. Seeing a woman be in control of her own destiny just infuriates them. Seeing anybody who hasn't enslaved themselves to some witch-doctor who's interpreting the whims of a make-believe sky-god makes 'em feel like they've maybe been silly and stupid, and they've got to force their will on them to save face.

But, they sure love to preach and think they should be making the rules for everyone else... no matter how badly they've fucked up their own lives. Every day I get miserable people who've made a hundred mistakes I never would've made trying to convince me that they're "right" about shit. It's getting hard not to just laugh 'em off the planet.

Except it's really not a laughing matter, because when they do get enough power, they're going to start killing anyone who makes them feel weird about their own silly beliefs. Even people who are just trying to live their own lives and mind their own business.

They're gearing up to it already. Which is why we're getting more and more shit like this:



When that starts happening, the same ol' enablers will have their excuses for that, too.

Floridatexan, Telstar and RealLindaL like this post

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I’m a High-Risk Obstetrician, and I’m Terrified for My Patients

July 5, 2022

By David N. Hackney

Dr. Hackney is a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and chair of the Ohio section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

My wife and I practice in medical fields — obstetrics and pediatrics — that should be filled with happiness. And often they are, though we have selected sub-specialties that are often shrouded in sadness — high-risk obstetrics for me, and pediatric oncology for my wife. We have both watched children die while held in their mother’s arms.

Often we are asked about our psychological defenses in the face of tragic outcomes: the cancer that does not have a cure, or pre-eclampsia that becomes life-threatening to the pregnant woman before viability. In my opinion, the most important defense is the voice in your head that says, “I did everything I could.” I tell myself that I used treatments supported by research and monitored pregnancies with the highest-quality technology. I performed complex procedures, listened and counseled. I did everything I could, but ultimately the preterm labor could not be stopped — or, in my wife’s case, the child’s leukemia was just too aggressive. So we provide comfort and bear witness.

On June 24, Roe v. Wade was overturned and a near-total abortion ban became law in Ohio, where my wife and I practice. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal anomalies, including lethal conditions.

Diagnosing birth defects is what I do. Over the years many of my patients with lethal anomalies have elected to continue their pregnancy knowing that their child will die after delivery. These patients always have my full support. Sometimes this is in concurrence with their religious beliefs, though sometimes it’s simply meaningful for them to deliver and spend time with their child, even if only for minutes or hours. Most patients, however, elect to discontinue the pregnancy.

For these patients, abortion is now illegal in Ohio. Some people will travel out of state. However, many people will not be able to do so, particularly people of color and those living in strategically disenfranchised communities. Sometime soon, I am going to meet a patient who has no ability to leave the state, and I am going to have to tell her that her baby has a lethal condition, and she is going to have to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. It might be tomorrow. It might be weeks from now. But this is going to happen, and I cannot stop it.

The End of Roe v. Wade
Commentary by Times Opinion writers and columnists on the Supreme Court’s decision to end ​​the constitutional right to abortion.
David N. Hackney, maternal-fetal medicine specialist: The end of Roe “is a tragedy for our patients, many of whom will suffer and some of whom could very well die.”
Mara Gay: “Sex is fun. For the puritanical tyrants seeking to control our bodies, that’s a problem.”
Elizabeth Spiers: “The notion that rich women will be fine, regardless of what the law says, is probably comforting to some. But it is simply not true.”
Katherine Stewart, writer: “​​Breaking American democracy isn’t an unintended side effect of Christian nationalism. It is the point of the project.”
This patient will go through her third trimester visibly pregnant. Strangers in the grocery store will congratulate her. She will have to explain her story over and over again to friends, neighbors and co-workers. She will be forced to experience labor and delivery, and then her child will die. The risks of term delivery are far greater than the risk of abortion, so she may also experience hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia, blood clots or other complications.

Ohio’s new law is unimaginably cruel.

What am I going to do when I meet this patient — when I am sitting in an examination room with her as a nightmare unfolds before us? I hope the voice inside my head will again say, “I did everything I could.” But this time the voice would not only be talking about my medical management. Over the years, the Ohio section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which I chair, has issued statements, engaged social media and organized action alerts and membership lobby days on a wide range of important issues, including abortion. We have testified publicly before Ohio House committees and made direct appeals to legislators in their offices. For instance, in 2019 we successfully fought HB 413, which would have made “abortion murder” a crime and could have required doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus,” which is impossible. And in February we testified against HB 598, which would ban virtually all abortions in the state and could even affect fertility services.

So I will try to tell myself that this is not my fault. I will remind myself of the politicians who either did not believe me or did not care. But did I do everything? It is impossible to not worry that I have failed the physicians and patients of Ohio.

As physicians, what would we not do to save our patients from suffering and death? We have worked in hospitals through the night. We have performed surgery for hours. We have been splashed with blood, urine and amniotic fluid. We have listened to our patients’ concerns and sometimes held their hands and cried with them. The Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, is a tragedy for our patients, many of whom will suffer and some of whom could very well die. Did we vote in every election? Did we call our legislators? Were we always brave enough to speak clearly and truthfully about abortion, especially in settings that make us uncomfortable?

When we are in the room with our patients, will the voice in our heads still say, “I did everything I could”?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/opinion/ob-gyn-roe-v-wade-pregnancy.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1i3KEK1ehWYdc2vwvkaAp0tQsxSh7udUZLetqAJk862whmNWbG2e4xulo

**************

Telstar and zsomething like this post

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Opus Dei: Supreme indecency, extreme deceit

The Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson is only the beginning, as anti-abortion activists and GOP-led extremists mobilize to assault a wide range of rights.

By Barton Kunstler -July 7, 2022

The current Supreme Court majority that just denied women a legal right to abortion (Dobbs vs. Jackson) consists of religious fanatics whose careers have been fast-tracked (so that young Justices can serve for decades) by ultra-wealthy, like-minded lobbyists and political operatives. The nexus of this activity lies with a powerful arch-conservative organization within the Catholic Church, Opus Dei, that in the U.S. operates out of the Catholic Information Center in Washington D.C.

I am not targeting Catholics but rather the Church’s reactionary, fundamentalist wing. Many Catholic organizations are dedicated to upholding the rights and lives of minorities (and majorities, such as women), victims of pedophilic priests, gays, the poor, immigrants, etc. The fundamentalist wing of any religion has more in common with other creeds’ fundamentalisms than with many of its own co-religionists, whom they often regard as enemies. Catholic fundamentalism is obviously not the only “brand” influencing American politics, but it is the one with a dominant insidious influence on the judiciary.

Opus Dei and its partner organizations have poured tens of millions of dollars into promoting the careers and appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and the five Justices who overturned Roe: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett (Roberts, an arch-conservative, nonetheless dissented on the abortion case).

Opus Dei was founded in Spain by Escriva de Balaguer in 1928 and grew in power, wealth, and influence during the Fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco who, with significant military help from Nazi Germany, overthrew the legitimate Spanish government and ruled over a police state from 1939-1975. The group extended its power throughout Latin America, supporting Pinochet’s murderous regime in Chile and other terrorizing dictatorships. It consistently opposes gay, sexual, and reproductive rights, and the Catholic liberation movements that champion the poor in Latin America. It has been involved in the Vatican’s banking scandals but still wields enormous influence over Vatican finances, as detailed by Robert Hutchison in his book, Their Kingdom Come. Opus Dei’s assets as of 2008 were $2.8 billion, but they have undoubtedly grown since. Popes John Paul II and Francis both elevated Opus Dei officials to the highest Church offices. One of Opus Dei’s core principles, as articulated by its founder, is to engage in “the sphere of public life”, not because they are human or Catholic rights but because “they are God’s rights…May such ‘fanaticism’ for the Faith…become stronger every day.” Opus Dei is not simply a conservative religious group, it is openly dedicated to wielding political and financial power in nations throughout the world. And that often means promoting and aligning itself with the most violent, reactionary regimes and acting in the shadow realms of political influence.

Opus Dei members were prominent in Trump’s White House, including Attorney General William Barr and Pat Cipollone, Trump’s former White House counsel. Opus Dei had access to Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, along with other noted right-wing lobbyists (Heritage Foundation, Koch Industries), meetings the Trump administration tried to keep secret. Member Larry Kudlow was Trump’s director of the National Economic Council. It may well be the most powerful political lobby in the world and yet its explicit political agenda is absolutely subservient to its extreme, authoritarian religious agenda.

A key fixer in this effort is Leonard Leo. Leo is on the board of directors of the Catholic Information Center (William Barr was a past director) and Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society, a lobbying group that adheres to an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution (more on this below). The two organizations are close political allies, as Leo’s dual role suggests. As Trump’s close advisor during his presidency, Leo was responsible for selecting and guiding the Supreme Court nominations of Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch and was instrumental in riddling the lower Federal courts with Trump appointees. Meanwhile, members of both Opus Dei and The Federalist Society include Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Chief Justice Roberts is a Federalist Society member and the Society’s members and supporters are prominent in many of nation’s top law schools and most powerful law firms, which allows it to have an untoward influence over judicial selections. When Clarence Thomas headlined a 2013 Federalist Society fundraiser, guests were seated in proximity to him according to the size of their donations. In effect, the Federalist Society and Opus Dei have become the Supreme Court of the land.

Much of Opus Dei’s influence was exerted via the Wellspring Committee, established and run by Opus Dei members Ann and Neil Corkery in 2008. The Koch brothers were instrumental in providing Wellspring with its first $10 million in seed money. According to Robert Maguire of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Corkerys “have been the overseers of massive amounts of money that have gone into federal judicial races.” Wellspring closed down in 2018 but not before passing its mantle to the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN); in 2017 Wellspring transferred $14,814, 998.00, or 94% of its donations that year, to JCN. JCN was formerly directed by Leonard Leo and now by Carrie Severino, who served as Thomas’s law clerk. (Opus Dei’s Roger Severino, Carrie’s husband, was Director of Trump’s Office for Civil Rights). JCN is a 501(c)(4) organization so its donors can remain secret. JCN poured millions into supporting Bush and Trump’s Supreme Court nominees (Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett) and millions blocking Obama’s Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

Given Opus Dei’s absolute anti-choice ideology, global power, and influence over the Supreme Court, it is clear the Court’s anti-choice decision was not driven by legal arguments over the right to privacy, strict or “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution, or states rights. These were all just window dressing. The Supreme Court—and much of our judiciary—has been taken over by fanatics with a strictly theological agenda: to replace “separation of Church and State” with “the Church runs the state”. It is a narrow, fanatical religious ideology that decided the case.

The so-called “originalist” theory of interpreting the Constitution claims the Constitution only protects rights explicitly mentioned in the text. The Constitution itself rejects the “originalist” idea so central to conservative ideology. The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This clearly states that interpreting the Constitution is a living, evolving process, for how else can those “other[s]” rights be “retained by the people”? The Ninth is also a safety valve: “If we left out any important rights, sorry, our bad, it doesn’t mean those rights aren’t protected as well.” The Ninth has been used to uphold such diverse rights as teaching non-English languages, sending kids to private schools, protecting against forced sterilization, and the 1965 Griswold decision overturning bans on contraception, in which privacy was deemed a “penumbra” (also called “unenumerated”) right. The penumbra concept was then applied to abortion in 1973’s Roe decision.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, citing both the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments: “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or…in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.” The Court also recognized that “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary…is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Blackmun’s decision includes an overview of the dramatic shifts in cultural and legal attitudes towards abortion, though most views differentiated abortions in the first 12-16 weeks (before the baby is usually felt moving inside the womb) from those occurring later.

The “sanctity of the foetus”, that is, viewing abortion at any stage of pregnancy as equivalent to murder, is the linchpin of the anti-choice position and its driving emotional trigger. However, even the Catholic Church’s historical opposition to abortion had nothing to do with the sanctity of the foetus; it was aimed at the “sin” of sexual pleasure. Church policy varied over the centuries but the foetus’s life was either absent as an issue or secondary to sexual sin and other theological concerns. St. Thomas Aquinas asserted that in its earlier stages a foetus is in a “vegetal” and then “animal” state before achieving person-hood at some point, most likely at the end of the third month. It wasn’t until 1965 that the Church banned abortion on the basis of sanctity of life rather than sexual sin. However, the Bible passages used to justify this claim 1) do not really address abortion (the BIble is much more direct in advising that adulterers be stoned to death); 2) are drawn mostly from the Old Testament, a Jewish document, significant since the Jewish religion allows abortion; and 3) are in the Bible, which has no legal standing in the United States. Or didn’t.

The Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson is only the beginning, as anti-abortion activists and GOP-led extremists mobilize to assault a wide range of rights. The anti-choice movement was never only about abortion. Abortion was used as the emotional catalyst for a broad attack on the values of tolerance and social commitment embodied in Federal guarantees backed by Constitutional authority. The well-being of Americans and our system of government is now in the hands of religious fanatics on a crusade against all those who do not believe in their degraded, medieval version of truth. They are welcome to their beliefs but are not welcome to impose those beliefs on the rest of us, nor to challenge the fundamental values of the United States, which holds the value of human beings above adherence to extreme and rigid political or religious ideologies.

https://www.nationofchange.org/2022/07/07/opus-dei-supreme-indecency-extreme-deceit/

*************

Telstar and zsomething like this post

Telstar

Telstar

THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN! SCREW THE CRORUPT SCOTUS FIVE! SCREW THE CONFEDERATE SHIT HOLE STATES INCLUDING THE DANGLING PENIS STATE THAT IS AFRAID OF A LITTLE MOUSE! elephant


zsomething likes this post

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum