Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Roe v. Wade: Overturned?

Discuss.

117 comments:

  1. You thought Jan 6 was bad. You ain't seen nothing yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the wailing and gnashing of teeth should be EPIC!

      -FJ

      Delete
    2. (((Thought Criminal)))May 3, 2022 at 12:42:00 PM CDT

      Just make it legal to murder people that financially inconvenience you.

      Delete
    3. I hate to admit I, and the friend I was with today, said we WISHED that the Left would go hog wild on the Capitol Bldg...."INSURRECTION" BUT, they put chain link up, JUST IN CASE....drat

      Delete
    4. Farmer,

      Damn, Democrats don't get that hysterical about any other issue. Not child poverty, not the murder rate... Scary

      Delete
    5. Why isn't that hysterical, shrieking harridan screaming about Biden's inflation slamming working people?

      Delete
    6. Maybe she's afraid of getting pregnant.... BWAH!

      -FJ

      Delete
    7. Democrats don't need reasons to demagogue.

      -FJ

      Delete
    8. ...just EMOJI's. ;)

      Now EMOTE, ya. heartless b*stard!

      -FJ

      Delete
    9. "Damn, Democrats don't get that hysterical about any other issue. Not child poverty, not the murder rate... Scary"

      I personally have never been all that moved by over Roe V Wade one way or the other but I do know that isn't the case for a great deal of the country. And it has been for almost 50 years.

      Not trying to equate the 2 and perhaps not the best example but considering the passion people have of this issue and how big of a friggin deal it is to so many, I suspect that if the Supremes re-legalized slavery of non-white people, there'd be little talk of child poverty or the murder rate.

      And considering our history is "deeply rooted" in slavery, that may be a bigger topic of the week than hungry kids or a shooting in Chicago.

      "Why isn't that hysterical, shrieking harridan screaming about Biden's inflation slamming working people?"

      Unless you were just throwing out some satire jab, that's where any assumption of credibility went off the rails.

      Delete
    10. Slavery, a problem Constitutionally remedied 150+ years ago at the cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties.

      Can you spell red herrings?

      Delete
    11. Abortion, a practice also resulting in 50 MILLION+ fetal deaths.

      -FJ

      The passion that Democrats currently exhibit is to KILL MORE!

      Delete
    12. They say that the reason that priests become priests is that they are given the dispensation to violate the 10 Commandments. The secular priesthood is no different. How DARE anyone limit their ability to violate the 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" secular variant...

      -FJ

      Delete
    13. Want to kill? Join the USMC!

      Delete
    14. Get your "secular dispensation" from killing America's enemies.

      -FJ

      Delete
    15. ...but ALWAYS remember the Delphic admonition, "Meden Agan!"

      Delete
  2. Wade overturned? No. It will go back to the States. Nothing will have changed except the Dems now have a cause celeb. Well played Dems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wade was the ruling as to compliance with the US constitution so in returning the power to the states, yes, it will be overturned.

      Delete
    2. A totally brilliant move....they got this leak out before June, when we'd have probably heard the results.....they want a long time to harp on it before the Midterms....it was 'ALL COVID ALL THE TIME" then "UKRAINE ALL THE TIME"....and those weren't working anymore...so now it's "ABORTION DENIED"...and , of course, it isn't. Roe IS overturned (Though Justice Roberts says this might NOT be the actual outcome) and it goes to the States now.....Very well played.

      Delete
  3. As noted above, this would mean that the issue goes back to the states. A majority of Americans appear to support the right to choose, so abortion will still be legal across most of the nation. And for those living in anti-abortion states....there will likely be services just across the state border.

    I don't see this as a big deal functionally. But it certainly speaks volumes about SCOTUS precedent and the testimonies of SCOTUS nominees when seated in from of the Senate.

    The dog finally caught the car. Now the Left will be hyper-energized going into the run-up to the mid-term election. The Universe giveth....the Universe taketh away......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Biden is SUCH a champion for women's rights! lol!

      Delete
    2. There is something to be said for returning power to the states. Not sure this is the best issue to use for a variety of reasons, but this nation is supposed to be a republic, and has been losing that status for too long.

      And yes, Democrats will be highly energized. " We've got to elect a lot of Democrats to protect the courts." Did the court do this for that very reason? Quite possibly.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      Now the Left will be hyper-energized going into the run-up to the mid-term election.

      My first thought, too. Then my mind wandered to the 2024 National Election. The Dems will be presenting their part as the Party for Women.

      Sheesh.

      Delete
    4. Jayhawk,
      Democrats will be highly energized. " We've got to elect a lot of Democrats to protect the courts."

      Ugh. I can't stand one-issue voters.

      Delete
    5. @AOW, sure. But it matters less what the Democrat Party thinks, and more what women voters think. Not being a woman or a Democrat......I'll just be a spectator for that contest.

      Delete
    6. CI... currently, 23 states have abortion bans on the books. Most observers believe three additional states will join that crowd. Those would be Nebraska, Montana and Indiana. That would bring us to 26 states. And the list, while not including California or New York, includes some pretty large states, so we mat actually be at 50%.

      Also, in some of those states, it is on the books now that an abortion is illegal,

      As for functionality, look to Alito's justification. He's arguing that absent a direct enumerated right in the Constitution, the Feds, or in this case the court, have no ability to infer any status or right for anyone. Thus, under the system we have, as the SCOTUS conservatives envision it, the power and authority to confer those rights, returns "to people and their elected representatives.”

      While conservatives may cheer that statement, and maybe even add a hearty Amen!, Stop for a moment and think about it.

      Roe was built on a series of precedents, theoretically flowing from the Equal protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment, that believed a person had a right to privacy in his or her life.

      First came Griswold. The SCOTUS inferred this right to privacy to say that a woman had a right to access birth control over state objections.

      Eisenstadt built on that saying unmarried women also had a right to birth control over state's objections.

      The Loving decision built on that inferred right to say that interracial marriage was also legal, against the views of individual states.

      And then Roe built on all of those.

      In this decision, Alito is striking at each of those decisions.

      In fact, Sen Mike Lee of Utah has recently said the Loving Decision was wrongly decided. Sen Marsha Blackburn said in the Ketanji Brown hearings that Griswold was wrongly decided.

      Both because those "rights" were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Essentially Alito's argument in this brief.

      So I think it is a big deal functionally, even as someone who is in favor of some realistic restrictions on abortion.

      Delete
    7. Dave, Well stated, but abortion differs in that there is another life at stake. Roe hinged on viability of the fetus, as did later decisions.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)

      Delete
    8. @ Dave: "Both because those "rights" were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. "

      I can't believe that was Mike Lee's rationale.

      The constitution does not grant us rights. It was supposed to prevent government from infringing on our rights, which are limited only when they harm others, or when we enter into a legal compact

      Delete
    9. In short, It's a mess. Look, the great majority of Americans favor access and legality up to a point. Not a total ban, or non restricted access.

      Why can't our politicians get together and lead?

      Because they would have to be honest with their supporters, tell them no one gets 100%, make a deal and give up making fund raising appeals demonizing the other side.

      Delete
    10. Looks like Repubes Collins and Murkowski are up for passing a law in the Senate to protect the right to an abortion.

      I could see Schumer and the Dems blowing away the filibuster to get that through.

      Abortion is the holy of holies for Democrats.

      Delete
    11. Dave,
      I still thank you for your reasoned comments here, but gay marriage, birth control, and anti-miscegenation laws are not in the same category as abortion.

      The first three are personal choices that harm no one. Abortion kills a living human being. We can argue at the margins, when is the fetus viable, but she or he is a human life with a complete genome and a heartbeat.

      At the same time I will say, I do not want the government poking its nose between a woman and her doctor. Gruesome charnel house criminals like Gosnell are not doctors.

      Delete
    12. SF, legal doors to birth control, marriage inequality etc. aren't opened or closed by our personal opinions of how we categorize them.

      Alito’s draft argues that in order to be worthy of judicial recognition, unenumerated rights not mentioned in the Constitution must be "strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition".

      That simply conflicts with a history of judicial rulings giving rights that you say are not of that category as they are not deeply rooted in American history.

      Alito's draft did mention:

      “We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

      Well, as many have written and mentioned, that just ain't how it works. You just don't get to make decisions based on some pick and chose legitimacy of the case and then claim that it doesn't apply to future rights. How are gay marriages "deeply rooted in our history"? It isn't. How would gay marriage rights be exempt? Civil rights? There's no legal reason they would and Alito's opinion they would be is irrelevant. The precedent is in place.

      Did you catch the KBJ hearings when TX Sen. Cornyn went on Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized gay marriage? Did you know that ME GOP took on a position to oppose same-sex marriage?

      So it isn't like gay marriages and more isn't coming their way. And we now know that accepting the "law of the land" was pissing down our necks.

      Delete
    13. Brace yourself, I'm going to kind of partially agree with some of what you said. This is what happens when we end up with a government that refuses to simply acknowledge that we all enjoy natural rights, unless specifically circumscribed by law made by elected officials.

      Delete
    14. Only one state I know of recognized gay marriage through a referendum vote that passed. That state was Maryland. Want gay marriage? Be like Maryland and pass a law.

      Delete
    15. more for those interested.

      -FJ

      Delete
    16. @SF - This is what happens when we end up with a government that refuses to simply acknowledge that we all enjoy natural rights, unless specifically circumscribed by law made by elected officials.

      I agree with this, but there should be an extremely high bar to circumscribe natural rights.

      Delete
    17. Ronald... let's also note that all of the decisions you and I mentioned were all name checked in the legal argument, and have been mentioned in recent weeks by GOP Senators as bad law, not legal or in need of being overturned.

      Will that happen? Who knows, but is it unreasonable to think that at some time in the near future, a member of the GOP will take a step to make it so?

      I will say this as it relates to the SCOTUS and jurisprudence... at least in her hearing, future Justice Barret defended Brown v Topeka as settled, rightly decided law. Kavenuagh, Alito and others no.

      Why?

      Delete
    18. I'd say that a medical intervention was sufficiently "high" for a bar... especially as it relates to "trans rights".

      -FJ

      Delete
    19. "The Dems will be presenting their part as the Party for Women."

      As opposed to Republicans? Seriously?

      Delete
    20. CI: I agree and failed to add that in. A pretty good standard is "Your right to swing your fist ends just before someone else's nose."

      Delete
    21. Successfully hypergamous females will always support the party of the patriarchy. The Democratic Party is meant for the unsuccessfully hypergamous ones. You know, the ones who marry Democratic men. :)

      Delete
    22. sf - Why is that? Why can't we live in Magnesia, where its' every citizen's responsibility to enforce the law (with all the force the word force implies).

      Delete
    23. There's a lot to be said for a nation with well defined and different male/female roles and responsibilities not perturbed by perverse notions of "equality".

      -FJ

      Delete
    24. Only a capitalist worries about "aggregate efficiencies". It's NOT the FEDERAL government's job unless it's related to interstate commerce and funded through tariffs and fees, not income taxes. Individual states can do what they like, provided they can legally differentiate themselves as "equals" within a con-federation of states.

      Delete
    25. We don't have to be "The United State [singular] of America" with one set of laws like SCotUS made us under Roe.

      -FJ

      Delete
    26. The only thing we have to fear (from one another) is fear itself!

      -FJ

      Delete
    27. Don't like your lot in life? Found/ join a Brook Farm experiment. Surely one of your tech billionaire donors can sponsor it.... for a "control"ing interest, I'm sure.

      -FJ

      Delete
    28. Where are all the brave Autonomen willing to put their 'actas' where their 'verbas' are? Your Rote Flora that don't require "local police exclusion zones" ala Portland/Seattle occupations?

      -FJ

      Delete
    29. _____ To a Daughter Smitten _____

      Desist, my darling dimwit; do not wed
      On impulse born of weather fair this June.
      No one should be by sun and roses led.
      Only till you’ve weathered a typhoon,
      Tornado, or at least a spate of sleet,
      Will your prospective mate reveal his soul.
      Easy times glide by, deny, delete
      Demands that demonstrate a nature whole.
      Intoxicated by the scents of spring
      No common sense could nonsense overwhelm.
      Joy seems imminent, yet blistering
      Unhappiness might well be at the helm.
      None a nun would have you be, and yet
      Eden is not ours to gain, my pet.

      ~ FreeThinke, The Sandpiper

      Delete
    30. @ Ronald Ward: "SF, legal doors to birth control, marriage inequality etc. aren't opened or closed by our personal opinions of how we categorize them."

      True enough. They are opened by elected officials passing laws. There are plenty of crazy politicians out there, but passing new laws against the things you mentioned? Ain't gonna happen.

      Delete

  4. Biden spoke about it today all mixed up, stuttering and looking very confused and saying “ I don't know., but”.
    And after speaking for about 15 minutes, he COMPLETELY FAILED to even say one word about it being Leaked.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Praise God! FINALLY! Watch the left hyperventilate!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Imagine a political party whose #1 get out the vote issue is legalizing killing babies in the womb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, SF....so true. They're so wildly angry and upset that they can't kill their babies. What a political party, indeed.

      Delete
  7. How long before the howling pussyhat screamers demand the conservative justices be impeached?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This may turn the tide on California's decline. Abortion tourism. Ain't gonna to moving to Texas!
    BAYSIDER

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ironic that most of the reaction that I've seen so far, is not the effect of the potential ruling......but rather the presumed reactions of the political opposition.

    Bread and circuses for the simpletons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guilty as charged. Funny, actually, I was just going to comment that none of the 'news' outlets are actually bringing on court watchers and legal scholars to discuss the merits of the case and how the arguments went.

      Delete
    2. Okay I am contrarian here. Roe vs Wade was a lousy decision.
      I want this to be state rights and decided locally. I am pro abortion and think temper tantrums are proving the case.

      Delete
    3. You should not feel guilty SF! Read Roe v. Wade—Dissenting Opinion

      JUSTICE William H. REHNQUIST
      01/22/1973

      here.

      Delete
    4. I would like to hear an analysis and discussion of this case, that will overturn roe v Wade.

      Delete
    5. I'm a paralegal and could give you plenty analysis and discussion of this case, however, that would be considered the "unauthorized practice of law." Not breaking any laws here in VA, they will get you!

      Delete
    6. I'm not a lawyer nor a paralegal but pursuant to the Virginia UPL rules, "an individual is deemed to be practicing law if: He undertakes for compensation, direct or indirect, to give advice or counsel to an entity or person in any matter involving the application of legal principles to facts."

      I'm reasonably sure that unless one is being compensated, any analysis and discussion of a court ruling or suspected ruling would not be considered "unauthorized practice of law."

      Delete
    7. Layla,
      I'm a paralegal and could give you plenty analysis and discussion of this case, however, that would be considered the "unauthorized practice of law."

      WTH??? First Amendment!

      Delete
    8. In the world of Paypal and voluntary website donations, determining what may or may nor constitute a "payment for legal services" could become contentious, especially given the litigious inclinations of the current "Lawfare" party.. Caution is probably in the wisest path.

      -FJ

      Delete
    9. AOW, Paralegals do not fall under the First Amendment. Anything I say even remotely legal coul cause the arrest for “for the unauthorized practice of law.” Not taking any chances with this administration and all the horrors they have committed.

      Delete
  10. I hope it's true as that will push it down to the states and the states will further define themselves as conservative or libtard as a result.

    We will never get along and so have to divide and live in states which make sense to us,

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our Democrat blogger buddies Dave and Ronald have raised some good issues. The libertarian in me does not like the fact that we live under a legal system that can restrict human behavior that does not affect others. That is contradictory to our natural rights.

    So, what we end up with his judges confecting tendentious legal reasonings involving penumbras, etc. In my perfect world, a judge would simply bang down a gavel and tell government you can't tell people who they can and cannot marry, you can't tell people what they can or cannot put into their bodies or use for birth control or whatever. That is in the realm of personal behavior and it's nobody else's damn business.

    But, what we have instead, is a system where the government can thumbs up or thumbs down a behavior based on whatever. So, when your opponents ox is getting gored, people cheer, and then howl when it's their own ox being gored.

    This particular ruling did not even deal with the question of human life or viability of the fetus. So, this is my libertarian opinion, not grounded and actual US law colon there are two lives in question when we deal with abortion. That makes it fundamentally different than marriage laws, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree, there needs to be a personal/ individual space for "negative liberty" off-limits to the positive liberty created through government oversight. Cultural diversity, however, can be encouraged provided marriage is regulated at the state level so that endogamous and exogamous can both co-exist without creating a nation od Incels trapped in the hereditary impulses of hypergamous females. ;P

      -FJ

      Delete
    2. Don't like the patriarchy? Move to the great states of Amazonia or Polyamora.

      Delete
    3. (((Thought Criminal))May 5, 2022 at 7:12:00 PM CDT

      The libertarian in me does not like the fact that we live under a legal system that can restrict human behavior that does not affect others. That is contradictory to our natural rights.

      This may be a little too nuanced, but what effect on American society would there be if 23 million to 34 million more taxpayers aged 16 to 48 years making an average of $64k a year existed? More tax cuts? Less inflation? Lower national debt? Little to no financial recessions after 1989? Secure social safety nets for today's avalanche of retiring Baby Boomers?

      9 to 12 million of my tiny generation (Generation X) doesn't exist, due to abortion. ~16% of America's Generation X was slaughtered in the womb. For the unintended consequence of being broke on payday. Wipe out most of our 401k)s with lengthy recessions at least five times along the way (so far) too, for those of us they didn't kill or born in the 8 years before it was legal to exterminate us. Nah, we ain't bitter. Come bitch on our Internet. We think you're viable. The next generation, not so much. We need to build as many robots to unemploy these bastards as possible.

      Delete
    4. (((Thought Criminal)))May 5, 2022 at 7:37:00 PM CDT

      It was a little over the top for the patriarchy to send the trans to beat up their athletes down at the intersection though.

      Delete
    5. TC, I get your point, and its a good one. I am not defending abortion. I am against it. Further down somewhere I make the point that abortion is not merely a personal decision. There is another human life involved.

      Delete
    6. (((Thought Criminal)))May 6, 2022 at 9:18:00 AM CDT

      I know you're not defending abortion. All I'm saying is that in a system of largely unfunded mandates to take of the poor and the retired and the elderly, legal abortion has removed at least 63 million players from Team Taxpayer and Team Labor Force. It's a lousy way to run a country long term. The decision to abort "not affecting others" is a relative, short-sighted action in a system built upon passing debt to people that aren't even conceived yet. Makes you want to keep people born before 1965 away from anything important.

      Delete
    7. take *care* of the poor, retired, and elderly.

      (But increase the burden of doing so, by shorting us 63+ million people)

      Delete
  12. Thanks Silver...

    Here's a great read on this issue from a political angle.

    It's filled with enough links to give us all a lot of reading. But even just reading the article brings a lot of issues into view as it relates to the politics of this.

    Happy Cinco de Mayo folks. And no, it's not the Mexican 4th of July... just a commemoration of the Mexican army defeating who else, the French, in the Battle of Puebla.

    And one of Budweiser's biggest sales days of the year. Reportedly bigger than Super Bowl Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I generally think polls are fickle, but we'll soon see whether the articles data plays out. I thought it did a good job of laying out the difference between natural and civil rights.

      Delete
    2. Dave, I think there's a lot to voter turn out and I think Roe will have an impact considering (to borrow CI's wording above), now that the dog caught the car.

      It reminds me a great deal of how up until about 5 years ago, KY had more dry counties than wet. I'd say that if accurate polling was possible, it would have shown most people approved of alcohol sales. But then many people like myself who would have voted for it really didn't care that much.. Thing is, local churches and the better than thou quilting society were so adamantly against it. And local politicians knew damn good and well they'd be at the polls come hell or high water when wet/dry votes were on the ballot.

      It also reminds me of how Rs continued to try to gut Obamacare knowing it was a popular program and would kick millions of their constituents off of healthcare. I think they really knew it would be politically damaging to actually do it yet politically damaging, for several reasons, to not act like they were trying. IMO John Roberts knew it and I also believe John McCain was their dead man walking to save their sorry asses from themselves.

      Repeal of Roe v Wade and R voter turnout will be an interesting thing to watch.

      Delete
    3. The last two paragraphs in Dave's like were the best:

      If pro-life voters want to restrict abortion, and if pro-choice voters don’t want politicians to decide the issue, why not let the two sides fight it out? In the Reuters poll, voters of all persuasions—Republicans, Democrats, and independents—preferred referenda to state legislation as a means of deciding abortion policy. By organizing or encouraging ballot measures, governors and legislators could extract themselves from the issue.

      That would be a fitting answer to the court’s withdrawal from the abortion debate. In its draft opinion, the court complains that Roe bypassed democracy, depriving pro-life citizens of the right to “persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views.” The opinion concludes, in a tone of righteous beneficence, that “the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

      Delete
    4. Here is a dissenting view from WSJ, also with links.

      Delete
  13. Yeah CI... I get it, but what I liked was that he showed data from both sides on essentially the same questions. I found the Knights of Columbus study to be really interesting. A very conservative group doing the polling and coming up with data that is not aligned with their POV.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I may not be a Rocket Scientist, a Teacher, or a Doctor, but I do know one thing. And that is that ANYBODY who kills their own Baby, No Matter How Old they may be One Week, or any age.
    Is a HEARTLESS CREATURE, and has no business even thinking about being a Parent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Volokh Conspiracy is much more sanguine than pro-abortion Democrats.

    The Democrat line of argument taken up by Dave and Ronald is a clever one, scaring people with the specter of judges taking their rights away. I don't think its going to work. Too much of a stretch.

    Do we really need to rehash all the intellectually honest legal people on the left who have plainly stated Roe was wrongly decided?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This Atlantic article by Kaitlyn Flanagan--whom crabby lefties suspect is a closet conservative--is a good read for a quieter and more visceral look at the issue.

    The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of dishonesty... I think that in all honesty, a return to the "Lysol abortion" is a harum-scarum red herring, much like the induced fearmongering of "refer madness"...

      -FJ

      Delete
    2. Farmer,

      I think so too. Flanagan wrote that three years ago and it was her way of humanizing the issue, I guess.

      But your point is a strong one for many reasons including:

      * Anybody can get contraception today

      * Pregnancy out of wedlock is no longer stigmatized. Its celebrated

      * The "morning after" pill

      I could see states trying to outlaw in-home medical abortifacients, but I also see such attempts getting shot down in court, on any of a myriad of legal grounds.

      Delete
    3. FJ...I like to peek in on CNN from time to time and yes, they're already talking about coat hanger abortions....they're bringing out ALL the stops! This leak is a gift to them.....in the way that 1/6 still is (and will never stop being).....I'm shuddering wondering what HUUUGE anti Republican they'll come up with in October......it won't be pretty!

      Delete
    4. SF: what stops this from being a slippery slope? You don't have to turn over many rocks to find people who will earnestly argue that many kinds of contraception are in fact abortifacients.

      Delete
    5. Z,
      I like to peek in on CNN from time to time and yes, they're already talking about coat hanger abortions.

      Didn't Geraldo yell something about that on The Five the other day when he got into a screaming match with Greg Gutfeld?

      Delete
    6. Jez,
      Popular will. A state legislature and a governor would have to pass a law outlawing something, and then that gets challenged in the courts.

      I suppose it could happen (the federal government is on the brink of banning menthol cigarettes), but doubt it. I don't see much popular support for banning contraceptives.

      Delete
    7. There isn't much popular support (less than 30%?) for banning abortion either afaict, but I expect some states will do it anyway.

      Delete
    8. I wonder what the honest poll numbers are. So much of the time, polls aren't honest -- a lot has to do with who is polled, of course, but a lot has to do with the way questions are phrased.

      I know of a lot of people opposed to abortion. But most of those same people have zero problem with contraception (barrier methods and, usually birth control pills). There is a school of thought, however, that condemns the use of birth control pills:

      We consider fertilization, not implantation, to be the beginning of human life. these changes contribute to birth control effectiveness. On the surface, this would seem to be nearly incontrovertible evidence that the "pill” is, at least occasionally, an abortifacient

      Certain abortifacients ("morning after" pills, IUD's, etc.) are in gray territory for some, so to speak.

      Delete
    9. Jez,
      You don't have the complete picture. You can go yahoogle this, but roughly stated:

      - A small percentage, ~10-20% want no abortion restrictions whatsoever

      - A small percentage, ~10-20% want abortions outlawed. Full stop.

      A strong majority believe, in Bill Clinton's formulation, "Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."

      If you start reading into opinion analysis, most people find the procedure abhorrent and consider it killing a baby in the womb. That is not a religious statement--it is a scientific fact.

      These same people also do not want to deny a woman an abortion (even if they don't like it), but they want some reasonable limits that include humane procedures and consideration of viability of the fetus.

      btw, European nations have more abortion restrictions than many states here in the US.

      Delete
    10. I concur almost entirely.

      'A strong majority believe, in Bill Clinton's formulation, "Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."' -- yet that's not what's gonna happen in many states, I expect.. which is why I'm not convinced that popular will is sufficient to stop this slippery slope from sliding further.

      Delete
    11. @AoW: yes, that's what I was referring to. It might take a few more years driving the culture war wedge to the point where the minority that supports banning the Pill grows large enough that they become electorally significant, but don't act surprised if it does happen.

      Delete
    12. Jez,
      Maybe, maybe not. Frankly, I can't see banning the Pill as happening. But if it does happen, perhaps there will be lines out the door for vasectomies or even women getting their tubes tied.

      In my view, everyone should watch actual films of high-resolution sonagrams taken at various stages of gestation. In Virginia, watching such a video was once required before any abortion (other than a medical one) was done. Guess what? Many women opted for pro-life and didn't get the abortion.

      Delete
  17. Here is what I think of it:
    1. This isn't a question of "A woman's right to choose", It's a question of Federal power and whether the SCOUS is given the power to legislate from the bench.
    It does not under the Constitution.
    2. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion even hinted at as a "Right". Roe v Wade was ruled under the "Eminitions of the Penumbra" doctrine which is used is used as an ad hoc addition to the Penumbra theory which is used to represent implied powers that arise from a specific rule, and extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.--For example, privacy rights without government intervention is implied from First Amendment of the U.S. constitution. represent implied powers that arise from a specific rule, and extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra. Another example, privacy rights without government intervention is implied from First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.-- Which in itself, can devolve into only opinion.
    Therefor, "Eminitions of the Penumbra", becomes only an opinion of an opinion and has no place in Federal law.
    3. Citing the above and the Constitution, --i.e. The 10tn Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.--italics mine--
    That means that either a Constitutional Amendment or a law must be passed through Congress to make abortion a Constitutional "Right".
    4. That means, it is thrown back to State Legislatures, which represent "the people", to decide, as I see no possibility that a Constitutional amendment concerning abortion could be enacted/passed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Warren, thanks for this. And yes, the Leftist TV pundits are all pretty sure a law will be passed in Congress re Abortion. I'm no expert on ANY of this but it feels dangerous to me that the SCOTUS can say NO to something "go to the States" and our government branch can say "Nope....we're doing it..." ?? I wanted to add that I think this was leaked now because most SCOTUS decisions come out in June or early July....but now I wonder if it wasn't to get something done in Congress before the Midterms, when (hopefully) the Republicans take over...

      Delete
    2. @Z,
      But SCOUTS hasn't said no. It's just recognizing the fact that it doesn't have the power to say yes or no, it's up to the "people".
      It's Democracy, which the left always speaks for until it doesn't reflect their agenda. See free speech, but only in causes that promote the advancement of leftism. See the constant redefinition of words and phrases, stretched and deformed to mean things they clearly were never meant.
      Leftism is the religion of ignorance and abortion on demand their sacrament.
      When nine Justices of the Supreme court can create rights, policies and law from the bench, Democracy --even a Democratic Republic--is replaced with a kritocracy, which was the system of rule by Biblical judges in ancient Israel.
      The problem with passing laws through legislature is they can be repealed with the next group of legislators.
      Abortion is a moral ethical and emotional issue, not a legal issue unless the Government, on any level, inserts itself.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, SCOTUS hasn't even acknowledged that IS their decision yet....But having said no or not doesn't matter to our Left; they're playing it BIG TIME....Threatening the court because they want to pack it AND because it plays GREAT to tell women they won't be able to kill their babies; apparently most women don't realize it goes to the State... I think you're right; the original decision didn't come down correctly; even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that~! I don't believe abortion should be a legal issue at all. I agree with you xx

      Delete
    4. (((Thought Criminal)))May 5, 2022 at 7:45:00 PM CDT

      Missouri had voted 71% against legalizing same-sex marriage. What is this democracy they are talking about?

      Delete
    5. That IS democracy.... the people have voted. What do you think democracy is?

      Delete
    6. I think his point is, people in Missouri voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage, but got it anyway. Another blow to States Rights.

      Delete
    7. (((Thought Criminal)))May 6, 2022 at 9:31:00 AM CDT

      Exactly. Leave decisions up to the people BUT only if they make the desired decision.

      I'm waiting for the fight over gun laws (Missouri makes it illegal for the feds to enforce gun legislation that has no counterpart in state law)

      Delete
    8. Thanks for that reminder!, SF and TC..... Yes, there are states which voted against but GOT IT because of R v W...true. How that point escaped me, I don't know... Yes, TC " ....only if they make the desired decision!"

      Delete
  18. How long before we hear loony lefties howling about Dominionists turning the nation into a Handmaiden's Tale dystopia?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      How long before we hear loony lefties howling about Dominionists turning the nation into a Handmaiden's Tale dystopia?

      Two days ago, I read an essay to that effect. Can't recall where, though.

      Delete
    2. If Duck were here, he'd be quacking about Dominionists, I'm sure.

      Delete
  19. I know of one woman who paid a very high price down the line for her abortion. The story below illustrates that an abortion is not a freebie in any sense.

    All too infrequently mentioned are certain long-term effects of abortion, even from an abortion carried out in a good clinic or even a hospital. One of those effects is incompetent cervix.

    I found out about this condition when a former colleague of mine suffered from the condition.

    She had her abortion done in the 1970s in an accredited setting when she was in college in Spain for the summer.

    Many years later (15 or so), she kept this information from her fiancé. At their age (mid-30s), they have, of course, decided that the past was the past, so leave it alone.

    After they married, they embarked on starting a family. She hadn't leveled with her doctor for fear that her long ago abortion would somehow be revealed. Mistake! Their first child arrived very prematurely -- he weighed 2 pounds and had numerous medical issues as well as some learning issues later down the line. It's a miracle that this little baby survived at all! As a young man, he still has health and neuro issues. :'(

    Anyway, the husband found out about his wife's long ago abortion from the ER doctors. I can only begin to imagine the husband's agony when he found out! The marriage survived -- after a lot of counseling and also because these folks were devout Roman Catholics. And they went on to have a very healthy baby girl because the doctor took the precautions demanded by incompetent cervix.

    BTW, the family was military (husband on active duty), so all of the medical bills have been picked up by the taxpayers. I'm not complaining. I'm just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am glad Roe v. Wade was overturned. It is long overdue since there truly is no constitutional merit to begin with. The Constitution speaks the right to "Life and Liberty," and abortion is an abomination.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--