Woman savoring last few hours before getting turned back into vessel
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — It was hard to believe the time was running out. Maybe it would not, after all. It had been so long — nearly 49 years, with a few scares along the way — that the illusion had held, that she was a citizen, a person with rights to be respected in her own right. That not merely her life was worthy of protection, but also her ability to make choices for her own future. That she was just as good as any state legislator, and possessed certain rights they could not abridge!
Those 49 years had flown by. But when the court’s clock struck, her run would in all likelihood begin to end. She would stop being a person with autonomy over her own body that the law was bound to respect. She would go back to being a vessel that might potentially contain a person, a vessel whose rights ended once that possibility was considered.
It had been so nice, thinking that she could go anywhere in the United States and the laws would have to acknowledge her right to decide whether she wanted to be pregnant, that any doctor who treated her could give her correct information about what risks she faced, that if her life were threatened, her life would carry weight.
But no. Her rights were all the alienable kind, it turned out, and she was nothing more than a sort of empty clay jar into which, if she were sufficiently blessed, a person might one day be deposited. Her mistake!
She pondered what to do while the Supreme Court heard arguments about Mississippi’s abortion law and deliberated upon them and formed an opinion. There were so many person things she had liked getting to do. She was glad she had gotten some voting in, earlier in the month. Maybe she should sue someone in court, or hold a job outside the home, or try to express an opinion in print somewhere. Maybe she could go feed some birds. Maybe she could pursue a little happiness. She could get a latte!
There were so many choices that were wonderful if you made them for yourself and nightmarish if others forced them upon you.
Forty-nine years was long enough that she had started to think of herself as a full member of the body politic. She had begun to feel that she would definitely be able to use medical science to avoid dying. She had watched people be born during that time who did not know what it was like to be anything other than a person.
It would be hardest for them, to be so forcibly reminded they were not. To have their autonomy wrested from them. Not only women, either — plenty of people who would be shocked to find themselves downgraded because they possessed parts the state felt were public domain.
She sat on a bench and watched the leaves fall. It had been nice while it lasted, being a person. Getting turned back into a vessel would be unfortunate. But maybe she would not stay a vessel long.
It was a little surprising they thought they had the power to do it.
She could see them salivating already at the prospect of having so many people transformed so quickly, and overnight. They seemed to think it was a real possibility.
As if they got to decide. As if she would not fight.
Tags
Who is online
433 visitors
Anti-vaxxers have jumped on the pro-choice mantra of ‘My Body, My Choice’, they should pray that SCOTUS does not come down with a ‘No, it Ain’t’ decision.
to hear these people spin the difference between their anti-vax and anti-abortion stance is hilarious. they can knowingly lie to themselves and then willingly believe it to be the uncompromising truth. a simply astounding psychological phenom to behold.
Anyone who is "anti-abortion" should NOT get an abortion.
Anyone who is "pro-life" should consider adopting a child.
Anyone who is "pro-life" should get vaccinated.
I'm a pro-choice man. I have adopted a child, I am fully vaccinated and I have not had an abortion.
Anyone who is "pro-abortion" should automatically get an abortion. Population control. There are too damn many of us on this planet.
Anyone who is "pro-choice" should support the death penalty.
Anyone who is "pro-choice" should support anti-vaxxers. It is "Their body, and their choice"
I am male and believe abortion should only be to save the life of the mother; or if the fetus is malformed and will be born with a life threatening defect. That is my opinion and I will not force it on anyone. Get a million abortions if you want to. Just don't expect tax payers to pay for it. I will never adopt a kid- I hate kids! I am not vaccinated (have medical issues- doctor recommends I hold off until they are cleared up- if they ever do.).
We don't pay for it.
I hope you have the ability to participate in lots of future conservative christian social functions.
One of my fan club members is back.
Excuse me, but who pays for those ascending credits and dependent clauses given to adopted kids each tax season? If this decision is stricken even more credits and dependent clauses will usher forth into law or be founding wanting. (Conservatives have not 'counted the cost' of getting their way with women's bodies.) In alignment with conservative stream of consciousness, a mere mention of caring for a child or children outside of a "sacred bond" of marriage and "unique familial unit" is socialism.
I hope you have written your will.
For what it's worth, be safe, be careful.
I am an atheist. I know hard to believe a fiscal conservative atheist. But thank you for your obvious concern. It is what I have come to expect from ever tolerant left.
Then there should be no problem in ending government funding of planned Parenthood.
In fact they should automatically bar any entity with a PAC, or that donates money to politicians, from receiving federal funding.
Again, people can get as many abortions as they want. The vast majority of which are elective surgery (not to save the life of the mother; or severe birth defect that would affect the life of the infant). We don't use federal funding to pay for elective plastic surgery. Why should abortion be any different?
Again, the sympathy expressed by the left for my well being is touching./S
You have no clue as to what my medical condition is. I have had 3 doctors tell me the same damn thing about getting the vaccine; sorry if I take their medical advice over clueless politicians and those that don't give a fuck about my well being.
Sincerely, Thank you.
I try to do what I can to stay safe. I don't go out shopping anymore- I order everything online. I only get drive through when going out to eat. I make sure to get gas very early in the morning when stations aren't busy- and I use a pump that is furthest from other customers. I wear a mask whenever I am around people I don't know. Seems that having a medical issue and not being able to get vaccinated doesn't stop jury duty. The judge kindly dismissed me; but not before I had to try and social distance myself from small room filled with about 30 people (their idea of limiting contact). Try keeping a 6 foot space in a confined area around people that are fully vaccinated (they still had to wear masks thankfully); they must think they are indestructible even with the increasing amount of breakthrough cases.
Luckily the office I work at only has 7 people in it. We almost never hit that amount with vacations, personal days, and sick time. Social distancing is usually pretty easy; as there are 2 other unvaccinated workers. Both ex military- now they are anti-vaxxers.
People need to remember that just because someone isn't vaccinated doesn't mean they are an anti-vaxxer.
Some people can’t help but judge others even when they have no idea what your circumstances are. It must make them somehow feel better about their own crappy life.
Stay well, hopefully your medical condition will improve soon.
You are such a good man
Fine by me. Five hundred bucks for an hour vs millions over at least 18 years?
You bet I want tax payer funded abortions
They are cost effective
That's the phrase I was looking for
I do try, thanks Trout!
Yeah. I can agree with privately funded abortions, too.
Though, I feel that it is okay and positive (despite the sad issue it is) that an abortion be privately funded, you are setting up a strawman:
But those government matters that you could aid in morally rectifying, like a capitol insurrection, or the lying 'state of play' in states and federal officials who stoop to lowing the bar for their 'side' and thus costly millions of man-hours and payouts from the systems that must watch, investigate, 'try,' and imprison you seem clear we can afford! And, your silence is deafening 'loud.'
For the record, I understand immunocompromised people-due to a variety of medical circumstances are advised to seek the advice of their physicians about the 'worth' of the vaccine (at this time). Particularly, as it relates to giving a 'false sense' of security which can disarm people in situations where their attention to 'shielding' should be at its zenith. Peace and care to you as you weather this!
True, all.
Look, I know this may sound foreign to you but many women who get pregnant and have no means of support are going to end up on public assistance. Wouldn't you rather the state pay a one time fee of $500 than end up supporting a kid for at least 18 years? And these cyles continue through generation through generation.
I thought you were a fiscally responsible Republican
Moreover, it is some conservatives who with their austere work policies, stumbling-blocks to fair wages, and regrettable drudgery on lifting the wage floor (many such people do not believe in a minimum wage at all) who create the space for this very issue in the life of women. That is, some conservatives turn a deaf ear to what girls and women think and say about how they would like to determine their own self-worth apart from how many children they 'populate.'
Girls and women want to be the determinant of the "when, where, how, how many, and yes—WHO!
And when you think about it: If there is a God (I believe so), then clearly God delivered such 'ultimate' power into the female essence alone for a reason!
The two have nothing to do with each other. The correlation is simply a function of politics, not logic.
WTF? We are talking about the political sphere here. It is the very reason I get lumped with Republicans and far right conservatives by leftists. This whole seed is about politics.
Now I remember why I have so many ex-friends on the left.
What are you objecting to? Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. One can be an atheist and be a member of any party. There is nothing at all illogical about being a fiscal conservative atheist. Most GOP are religious but that does not mean atheism has anything to do with politics.
Let's start here (since I am in a rush) there is a strawman: Nobody has mention paying for EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE except you! Moreover, there is a great deal paid for in this country to many millions (I'll let you consider which program and which groups of people) of people. You seem to have 'forgetfulness' when it is convenience to conservative 'receipts' and "stupid decisions."
All for now, I got to go. . . .
And you plan to prove to us that you don't ask ANYONE to support "me," how? We only have your word for it and that is questionable since you appear to champion the "big lie" and its even bigger liar - one who lacks any integrity whatsoever.
Again, I repeat, people in this country are a national community. As such, we commune many aspects of our lives together. This notion you espouse of conservatives determining liberals' happiness quotients through bitchin and moanin about what liberals want out of the community is a 'party' sickness.
I believe it is a girl or woman's right to choose too. The details of who/what/how much funding is received (or not) I leave up to leaders (others) to decide. That is, I have no opinion or problem with the handling of it.
Taxpayer funds are for government approved programs, subsidies, and so forth. How much qualm to do you take with your 'pet' government programs, or do you advocate for no funding of government of anything? If one program is publicly funded, it opens the door for more funding programs. Moreover, if you advocate for one government program - you open the door for others to advocate for other programs, besides.
I get it. You want SEPARATION. You don't want to help people unless you see value in what it is they do. However, tax-payer funding properly used is for the betterment of our country and society as a whole. And not just for conservative 'consumption' on its ideologies alone. (Not even sure, conservative programs should be highly favored above any other set of liberal programs.)
Lastly, I have explained to you several times already; I do not say our government should pay for abortions. That is not the gist of this article anyway. Additionally, that is a far-cry from removing abortion from the public's choice, which Mississippi and Texas apparently are attempting to do.
Like I stated: The silence on capitol insurrection and the rest of that paragraph is deafening loud.
Then, at least, stop working to make people sad! And Texan, you can't flip the script on me. I see you, Texan. You are Trump "champion." You barely can speak of the man in public; and, you darn sure can't criticize him worth a damn. Deny it? Don't bother wasting our time. NAKKEDD!
We're a community and a society, time we got on with working from the same playbook!
BTW, you should make yourself aware that SEPARATISTS speak about privatization and individualism (in extreme) because they do not want to participate in community and society with others not like them. That is they want tribes instead.
Well, tribalization, did not serve this country well in the past (look at its history), and it can't serve this nation (us) well in the future. Diversification requires mixing for the good of all people who dwell here.
And so you wrote that to say WHAT?
Okay, stop right here: Define "responsible government" from Texan's perspective. Please proceed. . . .
And as I have explained time and time again above, I am all for whatever funding, private or public, that society comes down on re: abortion. However, that is not the main thrust of this article (you or someone similarly situated introduced the idea of 'funded' abortions above). I merely add on that government spends taxpayer funds on many projects and if that is the case - it should consider if there is merit to spending some on the case of abortion - or not!
Sure you mind. Prove me wrong: If a girl or woman is raped by anybody and becomes pregnant. Life of the fetus.
Should that woman be mandated by law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)?
State of Texas says yes! What say you?
Do you or don't you agree with What Mississippi and Texas (and soon other red states) are attempting in the courts today to modify and terminate Roe vs. Wade?
He has numerous times, yet you refuse to answer. “Oh, come on, man. If I have to define responsible government for you we will never get anywhere.”
Example found rather promptly Tex as you parse words about absurds then prove CB instantly correct, so parse on Rosemary, cause I’ve got the Thyme.
And barring that, can you at least follow the conversation?“
Know, I can not.
though I am capabull of leading ewe a stray , cuz I can possibly relate, say , a tad better than utters, whence forth it comes to word play, and just wished to keep you abreast of that which you claim knot two no, cause I can go N E wear u wish to try N take me, without getting tied up in your never answering, while claiming to be waiting, waiting to get Call Waiting, in the Call Waiting WaitingRoom , but the weight will be too great for ewe sheep to not pull Moore Wool over your shut eyes dropping Visine like it was Acid, really slippery Acid, so asz you keep dropping it, like the ball and game lame you due over play, as I’ve answered your questions as well as you’ve answered hear on N T, and G , wasn’t tit Fun keeping ewe abreast of watt I no u know, you’ve done, cause at least I’m having sun fun….
Explain you’re non answer man
answer. “Oh, come on, man. If I have to define responsible government for you we will never get anywhere.”
you claim THIS is an answer ?
Yea, thought so. Big shit abstract talking, but nothing substantial to dig deep down. I asked you directly to sketch or lay out or give us something of YOUR PERSPECTIVE on this one and you punted to filler. Why? Because you are >here< to blow up shit - not build coherence and camaraderie with this COMMUNITY.
Proverbial, smoke and mirrors routine, eh?
Difference is between subjective and objective. Your constant refusal to answer any question makes us wonder if you have any possible answers to your own statements. CB asked you several simple questions to clarify your stances, you refused to answer any while at the same time claiming you already did answer. This is YOUR standard modus operandi. No matter how simple the question you evade and refuse any answer.
Those of us that have dealt with you previously, have seen over and over your absolute refusal (or fear) to espouse your beliefs beyond the simple, bumper sticker sized, statements you make.
Not the appropriate answer! Give us a "gut" perspective on what responsible government should look like. You clearly believe in something, Lordy, your tone indicates so much-if not your commentary. Engage us with it. Instead of this filler you pass off as "dialogue."
Not sufficient response. Delay. Delay. Delay.
Well alright! I see you! Cheers! (And I'm buying!)
U red m reel good. Brang tha car 'round; I m goni' wit u. (Smile.)
And yet here you are brain-draining the room all day and creeping into the darkness of night. Get real. We see you. You have demonstrated the 'man behind the curtain.'
Stalling. Stalling. Stalling. No depth. All spin, chaps, horse and no . . . .
Now will you respond to the question this time, or will it be a case of SOSDD?
Your stance is this: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STATES.
Now see how easy that is to say. Practice ease and 'strain' won't happen. Thank you.
As to the remainder of that comment, miss me.
Sometimes I just like to get you on the 'record' about ridiculous old Donald Trump. Also, he is 'current events' and you go far and wide in your "discipline" to keep him out of discussion - and therefore, I like to check you 'in.'
Now then this one too, please:
You have my answer. Sorry if you don't like it! I will be 'visitin' Trump as needed to confirm his lies and facts with you. I hope you don't mind it, since you're 'cool' like that!
On that point: Donald believes the states should "govern" abortions or a lack thereof and not the federal unification rule or court opinions. What say you? (I want to see if their is discernible distinction between you and Donald as it is with those two state governors on abortion.
So to be clear, is that a decline to RESPOND? Donald<<hugs>>back.
I don't 'recognize' your ad homimen attack on my person. So "indulge" yourself in it at your leisure.
Don't indulge. I'm good: you?
And still you are here. (Told you!)
Well here you go:
If a girl or woman is raped by anybody and becomes pregnant. Life of the fetus.
Should that woman be mandated by state law to give birth to the child of the rapist or rapists (assuming she does not want it)?
State of Texas and Mississippi say yes! What say you?
Worthless insults are boring. Either you will talk to us or you can just fall silent. Are you here to interact in good faith or just chill discussion? I will find out in the end.
Got it!
What law? Roe v. Wade is not a law.
Exactly, it's a court decision... supported by other court decisions.... (in a very convoluted manner I might add)
There is no legislative history or black letter law supporting it....
As the court hearing today demonstrates, there's no coherent Constiitional argument to be made in it's defense. It's all pretty much a reliance argument, "it's been around almost 50 years, so it should remain." Lucky the Court ignored that sort of thinking when it issued Brown and overturned Plessy.
When a woman murders her husband or her neighbor or her boss she knows she is committing murder.
How many women who have an abortion believe they are committing murder?
Abortion has always existed, will always exist , and you cant force people to have a baby who dont want to. It will never work.
All ending abortion rights will do is expedite the downfall of our nation.
Sotomayor warns of danger to Supreme Court legitimacy in abortion fight: 'How will we survive?'
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Sotomayor said during oral arguments Wednesday morning. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
ll ending abortion rights will do is expedite the downfall of our nation.
Lol.. Somehow we won WWII without justices "discovering" a right to abortion.
I'd say the opposite is true. So much of our current national discord was caused by the Court pretending such a right existed. It's torn apart our parties, poisoned the judicial nominating process and removed the issue from the people.
The Constitution is neutral on abortion. Return the issue to the States and let people live under the laws they want. If you want to live in state that gives free abortions to all, so be it. The nation will be much better off when people stop using the Court as a super legislature to enforce their policy preferences on those who oppose them.
Let Utah be Utah and New York be New York. Diversity is supposed to be a good thing, right?
It will never work.
It's amusing how the same people who argue how popular abortion is are the ones most opposed to letting the issue be decided by the people.
She made a great point. Her comment was predicated by the fact that the Mississippi law was created with the expectation that the time was ripe because the political advantage had shifted more to the right in the Supreme Court with the Trump appointees.
No, the right to abortion should not be decided state by state, any more than the right to eat in a restaurant should be decided state by state.
Then pass an Amendment. That's the point of a written Constitution. Otherwise, why have one?
BREAKING: “How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor asked of the state’s attempt to define when life begins. “The state is saying to these women that we can choose to not only physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice, because we believe… what?”
Not only that Sean, the issue was around for almost 30 years before the court took up Roe, one of the things noted in the opinion was the lack of ability in the legislature to create a national law covering it... it was one of the basis for the opinion that the court "Needed" to do something given the inability to act...
That's not what the court is for....
The issue wasn't ripe for the legislature to make a law so it should have been left alone until such time the people decided and created a law...
That is one of the reasons there is such a huge controversy over it today... AND, I don't suspect the congress will get a law together anytime in the near future....
It is Congress's job to write law, their sole reason for being in this government. The court did not have any constitutional basis to create a new right and then apply it to a decision that had no basis in federal law..
That's grounds to overturn it right there...
"In accordance with our Holy Scriptures that we know the meaning of God's words and know what's best for you, Little Lady. Now take off them shoes, get back in the kitchen and make us a sammich!"
I am going to say something "un-PC" here at risk of taking any incoming lumps for doing so: Giving birth is uniquely female. That is, not even transwomen can pull off that feat!
Women and girls need to take charge of this area of governance of their own path in life. Stop waiting on men and boys (courts and legislatures) to decide your path to whole body autonomy especially where life-giving childbirth is concerned.
RISE UP ALREADY WOMEN AND GIRLS. IF you are not being heard, MAKE MORE NOISE!
“I am going to say something "un-PC" here at risk of taking any incoming lumps for doing so”
that’s not “un-pc”, that’s the truth, and if anybody gives you “lumps” for saying that they are complete morons.
The disturbing part of that line of reasoning is this is a 50 states 'unit.' That is, while we have 50 state legislatures, we have ONE supreme federal system. Moreover, states have "connective tissue" (Constitution: Article 4 "Full Faith and Credit" clauses, Recognition of private claims.)
Furthermore, certain aspects of human civil rights can not properly execute across a hodge-podge ("patched quilt") set of unique laws stretched and enforced across many states and "passages" people might travel down—literally. The existing scenarios of falsification (holding all the various compositions of laws together without violation) are astronomical! People will inevitably become confused and fall into the hands of an "angry" local government through ignorance or confusion from shifting rules.
This is what happened in the case of slavery existing in the slave states of old. Eventually, that hodge-podge set of laws became unworkable, unsustainable, and we are still facing its repercussions in attitudes and effects to this very moment! At-known, the innumerable historical accounts and "after-effects" in policy and rulings, that make our white majority ashamed when it is studied and brought under scrutiny.
Justice Sotomayor's point is astute and timely. Because we can see it clearly. Our courts are "trendy" now. That is, we can now fully anticipate (through talking heads and former experts in various fields and endeavors) courses of action from these judicial officials that belie their mantra of justice being blind (though reasonable and with integrity). A politicized court is a grotesque 'spot' and 'throne-room' for mobsters who threaten or thieves who corrupt verdicts and decision-making. Ultimately and immediately, it is an unclean thing!
This area of discussion reminds me of something I read (on NT or was it in a soundbite from Capitol Hill?) a while ago where a some conservative wrote about Comey's senate hearing for the high court: 'It's our time to control the court.' I found the comment remarkable.
Why? Because I never considered the court as a "turn at the wheel" apparatus. Apparently, conservatives and some conservatives have been bitter for an indefinite number of generations over so-called liberal "successes" in the courts. They literally wished for themselves a "turn" to make court decisions for their causes instead of simply being complementary to decent, reasonable, do-able, judgements.
Something else Mississippi is getting wrong it it is not doing its whole citizenry a service. That is, such a legislative law utterly binding women and girls throughout the 'territory' to give live births fails any tests of diversity of thoughts and activity. It is "sameness." It recognized only one worldview: That of local conservatives.
They 'talk' about rights and freedoms as though everyone in those states want conservative values to 'rule' and live under. However, if you remove significant traces of abortion activities from Mississippi, where is the state showing any consideration and understanding of its liberals?
Point of clarification: Sean Treacy do you support a constitutional amendment granting rights to an abortion (within today's current standards)?
Once again, the 'grounds' here of our national dilemma is conservatives and some conservatives (here we go again with a repeat need of a 'framework' for what is a conservative anyway) not supporting change that affords with the times and state of consciousness of a mature nation.
Conservatives and some conservatives dwell in states that are 'red' majorities that won't sign a contract to let women permanently choose when to have an 'issue' from her privately owned womb (not an 'organ' of the local, state, or federal governments)!
And the reason why it became a matter for the courts (including the supreme court) is women were dying, sterilizing themselves (even through 'error'), injuring, and psychologically maladjusted in states where their pleads fell on deaf ears. Clearly, those states are 'deaf,' and we can know this now, because across generations these same states did not relinquish state interests in getting women and girls to do state bidding no matter the aforementioned high-grade consequences.
I have little doubt that if such an amendment were passed, anti-choicers would still whine about it and try to have it revoked or nullified.
Well said Sir! Thank you.
Yet women's reproduction does not differ in any way from state to state. There should be one standard for every state as opposed to women falling victim to the state they live in.
Exactly. Or, at a minimum, not punish a woman for seeking care in another state. (I am aware that's still a shitty thing to make someone do for healthcare)
Then they would understand this 'sting' of where liberals are positioned, in trying to put parameters on the Second Amendment:
Since the "second" has withstood the rigors of time, trial, and fury, a constitutional committee could model an abortion right addition from it!
"An abortion, being intimate and unique to a female, the right of girls and women to maternal-fetal privacy concerns , shall not be infringed."
Moreover, it won't take much time following after for a "stroke of the pen" to criminalize girls and women who get confused by "nuanced" policies state by state and with co-mingling of rules and revisions in differing states. All after the manner of 'birth' control. (See what I did there? - Moving on.)
Girls and women will run afoul of some state provision and will have to pay the penalty of jail or prison. Worse, as it was in the past, there will be state officers, law enforcement types (sheriffs), and politicians revamping those "get out of jail free" special cards for discreet and select members of "the community"!
Mums the word.
I could see some states banning effective birth control such as birth control pills, Depo Prevara, and IUDs because some think they are abortifacients.
I have no doubt some equate contraceptives with abortifacients or that they would want it all restricted or prohibited.
What better way to control women? Pregnancy affects every aspect of her life. Control that & you have her caged.
Exactly. Control is what it comes down to. I'm thinking of writing an article about why about should and must be legal & readily accessible.
I think that would be a great article for you to write. I look forward to reading it.
Thank you, I hope it will be. I need to do some research first. But I have a basic idea of the main points. On the flip side, I have yet to see any rational argument presented as to why abortion should be illegal or severely restricted.
I haven't seen any either.
All that's offered are personal beliefs or appeals to emotion.
Yep. And the "saving lives" bullshit. When I ask if they would support forced live organ donation or even forced blood donations because of the lives it would save they either remain silent or say it is totally different, but they can't explain how except to say the "baby" is innocent. As if they can determine who is innocent & deserves to live.
Exactly and by those phonier than thou small c christians and alleged conservatives on the Supreme Court
I laugh whenever the "baby is innocent" argument is used. It's such an obvious appeal to emotion which has no relevance to abortion itself. It also shows just how weak the argument really is, like grasping at straws.
Exactly.
How do they know it's innocent? It could be the next Jeffrey Dahmler
I usually ask innocent of what? Was that innocence proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? What if it incurs harm on the woman, such as morning sickness (among possible other & more severe pregnancy complications)? Is it "innocent" of inflicting harm? Some of the so called pro-life are outright ludicrous.
Think about this, Gordy. Christianity teaches that man was born of original sin, so all must be saved. So when the "innocent" actually emerges into the world, he's already fucked. He's got a big swinging sword over his head and he hasn't even uttered his first word yet.
So no "innocent" is actually born unless Christians are going to a do a rope-a-dope to explain this bit of hypocrisy.
Well, you know some theists are quite good at cherry picking or pretzel twisting their religious tenets to suit their own narrative. Logic be damned, right?
I finished writing that article. Here is a link :
I know, but hey, thanks for informing us anyway.
Case law is the law.
No, Case Law is the AJUDICATED APPLICATION of black letter law and legislative intent or in some cases constitutional law... (expressed as opinion on how the law should be applied in the extant case)
Yes, it does carry the force of law for that specific case, but it is not law in and of itself...
I’ll say it again: Case Law is the law. Some of our law is based on the black letter, as you say, and is created by legislatures. This is referred to as “Statute Law.” Some of it is the Constitution. Some of our law is based on executive orders. And some of our law is based on judicial decisions and that is called “Case Law.” It’s ALL “the law.”
Gee, I always thought case law interpreted the law instead of created the law. If the courts are going to create law from the bench then we need to ensure that Congress doesn't meddle in the process.
That’s the process, of course. Judges don’t sit around and make new law on their own initiative. But their opinions are “the law.”
No, a judge's opinion is not 'the law'. A judge's opinion is an interpretation of the law. And those interpretations can be appealed.
A court's opinion may set a legal precedent for interpretation of law - but - those precedents can be reinterpreted. And laws can be enacted by the legislature that nullify those legal precedents.
Roe v. Wade was about prosecuting a doctor who performed an abortion under laws concerning homicide. Roe v. Wade did NOT legalize abortion; the court determined that doctors could not be criminally prosecuted under homicide laws for performing abortions. Roe v. Wade does not address the issue of women's right to choose; the case addressed the issue of doctors performing abortions. Roe v. Wade did establish precedents for interpreting law but those precedents can be reinterpreted or nullified by legislation.
So can Statute Law - by the Court
So can Statute Law - by the Court
And the Court can nullify statute law.
It does:
…
Ok for those needing clarification, there are four basic bodies of law, The three major ones are commonly known in the US as the Common Law, All four are created by the three different Branches of the Government, the Legislative, Administrative, and Judicial, (which creates the last two)
The first and primary body of laws is the Statute Law.. These laws are created by your legislators in Congress.. They are also known as Black Letter Law... everything about them from their proposal thru debate amendment passage reconciliation and final passage to signing is recorded... This is the basic rules of society passed by the peoples representatives... In WA St the would be the RCW's which stands for the Revised Code of Washington, for the nation they are called USC which stands for United States Code... Every state has it own separate version
The second major body of laws are the Administrative Codes, these are the laws the Executive branch of government creates to implement the statute laws.. ie how the statutes are going to function in the everyday real world... These are usually called Codes... These laws have their own courts to administer them and in WA St they are called the WAC, which stands for the Washington Administrative Code... Nationally they are known as the CFR which stands for the Code of Federal Regulations... this is the largest body of the three major bodies... the complete CFR weighs a whopping 45 tons, last I heard)
The third major body of law are the Case Laws, Case Law is the compilation of the prior judicial decisions of an appellate court or the Supreme Court. the court decides which ones go in the record and which ones don't not all case law makes it into the body of law... Case law represents a specific application of laws as the court decided to apply them in the case before the court... It means nothing to any other case at bar until the court says if it has the weight of precedent.. Precedent is the courts decision that this is the way we are going to decide cases based upon the code, and the intent of the legislature, administrative code, and the intent of the executive branch that wrote it (if applicable) and prior case law that the court has decided is relevant...
Ie if this issue comes before us again this is how we will interpret it and decide the case... In essence telling all the courts lower down the chain that this decision is how they will rule.. so you might as well get behind it and start ruling the same way... The supreme court can change the precedental value of any case law from it's jurisdiction anytime it so desires... This is why it is used in courts to guide the judges in making rulings from the bench... It is the body of legal opinions... And at one time the body of legal opinions, (precedent) said that slavery was legal in the united states, until they changed it... In the lower courts it is considered non binding law, but there is really no point in ruling something differently if you know the higher court will just toss your decision out the window when it gets to them... So it does carry extensive weight in legal proceedings... So much weight that to outsiders it seems like Case Law is the LAW as well... No Case Law is the guide to applying the USC and CFR in a particular set of circumstances... It is just easier for non lawyers to think of it as the third body of law..
The last set of laws are the Rules of Procedure, which are created in each jurisdiction by the highest court in that jurisdiction, they are the everyday rules of how things are done in that particular court and are administered by the court of competent jurisdiction that created them...
A judges opinion is exactly that, an opinion, of the application of law to a certain set of circumstances, it is not law by itself...
You:
Also you:
I mean, make up your mind. You either think legal opinions are law or you don't. I can't believe you guys are even going down this silly rabbit hole. Case Law is "the law." The End.
The shit we do here is "just an opinion." The shit Supreme Court justices do is "the law."
[deleted]
Bingo.
[deleted]
It's a connotationally protected right.
Who said it was a law? Row was a ruling which overturned unconstitutional laws.
Emphatically. The 1973 Supreme Court found that states were unconstitutionally negating an implicit right to privacy between women, girls, and a responsible set of medical professionals. Thus, adjudicating that before a set period (viability - within the justice had scope to detail) a fetus has no state interests to be respected. The pregnant girl or woman was so entitled. ("50/50.") Another example, men had no constitutional right to be 'head of household' but men everywhere came to believe in a 'castle rule' mistakenly granting them rights through marriage to physically beat their wives as long as it was behind closed doors. Thankfully, congress stepped up to act on that one (at long last!)
Where am I wrong?
Get ready for Axlotl tanks like in the Dune books
To all the conservatives out there who call themselves pro-life:
Please sit down with your children, sons and daughters, and have a heart to heart to them about pregnancy and STDs. Let them know that it only takes one time to get pregnant or end up with a disease for the rest of your life. Because once you get your way, abortions won't be available, Planned Parenthood clinics will shut down, and access to affordable health care and birth control will be quite difficult for your high school and college aged children.
Mamas...tell your daughters to keep their legs shut.
Daddys...make sure that boy has condoms at all times...FRESH ONES!!!!
Birth Control, adoption and safe haven laws ensure no one has to raise a child who doesn't want to.
Have you had "The Talk" with your children? Did you tell them where they can find birth control, adoption agencies, and safe haven locations so they don't have to raise an unwanted child?
Yes.
So your girls know that they need to keep their legs closed until they get married, right?
Unless like my daughter they choose NOT to get married. I always kept her in good supply of condoms. Now she buys her own.
Reminds of a funny anecdote... one of the times we rushed her to the ER because of her condition (more surgery for her that time) the nurse asked if she could be pregnant - now she was in awful pain and she snapped back "only if it was an immaculate conception". I about split a gut on that & the nurse smiled & said "ahhhh -ok then - that would be a no".
Your daughter is quite good with the snappy comebacks.
I'm trying to throw back in their faces all the crap they said about women and how they can avoid pregnancy. It's not working. And remember all the times they claimed that PP got federal funding and it went to abortions? That's my point. If they are right, and you know they are always right, then it stands to reason that PPs will have to shut down because they're not getting their federal money to perform abortions, amiright?
I don't know where she gets it from....
You are correct. I have come to the conclusion that they just do not care about anything other than their own lives - they don't even give a fuck about their families anymore. They sure as hell don't give a fuck about what Jesus told them to do... (he never mentioned abortion - but he had stuff to say about divorce and they still support that twice divorced & serial adulterer). I am so tired of them mouthing the platitudes but NEVER living the words.
I just wonder how many marriages all of them have under their belts.
But it is ok for them....
Those are alternatives for a woman who decides to risk her mental/physical/financial health by attempting to bring a pregnancy to term.
Abortion should remain an option for any woman who does not want to risk her life and/or her quality of life by attempting to bring a pregnancy to term.
Also, many women who have an abortion have already had at least one child and do not want to lessen the quality of life of their child/children by not being able to support them or even dying and leaving them an orphan.
This is one of the most personal issues that any woman has to deal with during her lifetime. Women's birth control options should not be up to public debate or public control for any fucking reason whatsoever.
When my two kids became teenagers, my wife had the same talk with our daughter, and I talked to my son about respect and keeping it in his pants and to make sure he wore a raincoat if he just could not restrain himself.
That's what good parents do.
I bored my daughter to death with the birds and teh bees thing. But I wanted to be certain that she knew what she was getting into if she decided she was going to take that step. She will be 29 next month and still no babies
My daughter had her first child at 24 and her second one 12 years later, so what my wife told her must have stuck also. My son pretty much did the same.
The argument I was hearing from the state this morning was basically that the Constitution is silent on abortion, and therefore, by the 10th Amendment, it’s an issue that belongs to the states. That might be appealing at face value, but for SCOTUS to rule that way would unravel a century of constitutional jurisprudence.
Many rights and issues are not explicitly addressed in the Constitution. That is by design. The Framers were not interested in making a 10,000 page document to cover each and every conceivable issue. So instead, more generalized concepts guide how our system functions. We use vague terms like “liberty” and “due process.”
For over 100 years, the Court has found fundamental human rights in the Constitution that were not explicitly spelled out. They have done this by understanding that those unenumerated rights are implied by the things that are spelled out (like liberty or due process). Thus, we have a right to privacy, a right to contraception, a right to marry, a right to vote, a right to travel, a right to have children, a right to send those children to private school, a right to determine what they learn in school, and so on.
If you undo this concept for the sake of abortion (based primarily on that right to privacy), then you also undo it for something as simple as traveling from one state to another. And if the state can prohibit abortion on these grounds, it can also prohibit procreating.
Even if you think privacy, liberty, etc., are poor foundations for finding a right to abortion, there is the 9th Amendment, which provides that even though a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is still retained by the people. So the question then becomes, “did the right to abortion exist when the Constitution was written?” And the answer is “Yes.”
Abortion had been allowed until “quickening” (you can thank Thomas Aquinas for that concept) under English Common Law for centuries - as early as the 12th or 13th century. So, it’s reasonable to assume that this right was retained by the people. Laws against abortion did not develop until the 19th century, and most of those were imposed in the latter half of the century as a response to the growing women’s rights movement. Before that time, the English Common Law tradition allowing abortions before quickening held sway in most of the United States.
We can talk all day long about whether or not abortion is right or wrong. It is not my intention address that here. But legally, I think it stands on more solid ground than people realize.
Hmmm...sounds like a can of worms if RvW is overturned. That means that gay marriage could be overturned, Brown vs the Board of Education, some other very important ones like the one that prohibited school prayer in public schools...
BUT...maybe Citizens United could be overturned
Exactly. Such an action would essentially mean the Court can revoke rights once they are granted. Such a situation has never occurred in the entire history of the court. It would be a very dangerous precedent.
Emphatically. That is the long-term strategy and agenda of some conservatives (and their think-tanks). It is something of a point articulated by J. Sotomayor today as well. (See the Devil in execution of its handiwork.)
And in furtherance of the thought, I 'listen' deeply: If some conservatives will do this to the "green tree" of girls and women who are their own mothers; what have they laid up in store for me?!! If this too can't galvanize all people of goodwill to come together under one banner-nothing should do it!
Women and girls we stand with you: Do you stand by us?!
I do for sure!
Another "foodie" for thought: These are the same subsets of some conservatives who are 'battling' to control girls and women ('corral' even) who see nothing wrong with this:
The national disgraceful breaking and entering of the capitol building in Washington, D.C.
These scenes are okay! What this country is about in some conservative eyes. Women's health issues - not so much.
It looks like we're fucked ladies. Thanks to the alleged conservatives on the Supreme Court - Barrett Cohen, Alito, Gorsucks, and token Thomas.
, a right to contraception
We do? Seems like that's something the Supreme Court might have mentioned in Row.
you also undo it for something as simple as traveling from one state to another. A
No, you don't.
Yes. That’s the OG Privacy case. Griswold v Connecticut was about the right of a married couple to buy and use contraception.
Yes, you do. The state is basically asking the Court to throw out the whole concept of unenumerated rights. There is no enumerated “right to travel” in the Constitution, but the court found it to be implied in the right to Liberty protected by the 5th Amendment. Kent v Dulles.(1958)
The more you want to limit any kind of rights for women the more you make me nervous. Wait until women get all the power and demand chemical castration for any man over the age of 14 who is not in active pursuit of becoming a father
That's not what griswold says.
IT says you can use them in the home, because the onty way that could be criminalized would be by an unreasonable search. That's why they called it a right to privacy rather than a right to contraception.
A state can ban the manufacture and sale of contraceptives under Griswold.
The right to contraception is found in the right to privacy, just as the right to abortion is found there. That’s the whole point.
I didn’t say anything about manufacturing or sale.
There's no right to contraception. If there was, don't you think the Roe court would have mentioned it?
I didn’t say anything about manufacturing or sale.
You said they have the right to buy it. But States can outlaw the sale and manufacture of contraceptives... So where is that right if a state can ban the sale of contraceptives? Is that a like a right to abortion where a state can refuse to allow any businesses to provide it?
Just as there is no enumerated "right of an individual to bear arms" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That so-called right first became law in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller when Scalia and 4 other Republican Supreme Court justices took it upon themselves to write that concept into the 2nd Amendment.
DC vs Heller was a case of first impression, it had never been decided before what the 2nd Amendment specifically meant so they had to go all the way back to the founders debates at the constitutional convention to establish what their intent actually was, review the statuary construction to see if it complied with the legislative intent, (which dictates in COFI's) and review prior decisions (case law) to see if they conform to the legislative intent as well... The decision on the individual right was unanimous, (it was a small but foundational part of the case, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") what they differed on was the governments right to regulate.... the liberals lost.... the governments right to regulate does not extend to ownership/lawful possession without a finding of probable cause....
Heller is the precedent establishing case on what the 2nd amendment means... It also weighed heavily on and caused the later Miller decision to be decided the way it was as reinforcement to Heller...
I note the fine distinction you are making here.
"Activist judges"? "Unelected 'black robed' menacing officials?
Ah, yes, the argument created by the since disgraced Cyril Means Jr, and used by the Roe Legal team and adopted by the Roe Court. Today, of course, the pro abortion lawyer refused to even recognize him at oral argument because his abortion propaganda has been do discredited.
When citing history, abortion advocates are not worried about the truth, there goal is advocacy. AS one of the authors the Webster Brief to the Court, Sylvia Law admitted the goal was "to construct an argumentative point rather than tell the truth."
nothing has changed
It's not really an argument. It's just history. It's a fact.
It happens to be a fact that might tend to contradict the pro-life narrative that there has never been a right to abortion, or that legalizing it is somehow a new idea, or that it has always been something that society considered wrong.
t's not really an argument. It's just history. It's a fact
That's the whole point. It's not history, it's dishonesty.
Taking statements out of context to mean the direct opposite of what was meant, cherry picking data and ignoring all evidence that contradicts it.
There's a reason why Cyril Mean's argument is no longer taken seriously. It wasn't "fact." Just ask the abortion lawyer today.
I don't really care about Cyril Means. He didn't invent advocating for abortion. Nor is anything I have written "cherry picked" or dishonest.
I have yet to see a legitimate legal reason why abortion should be illegal or prohibited.
And a right to public schools as a fix to the failed right to association, right in itself but, which et again conservatives and some conservatives made certain could not work to bring people and tribes together in harmony. Disharmony and separation was and is the freedom conservatives and some conservatives stand on foundationally.
(Don't mean to redirect, but I had to get the above in at this juncture: a perfect 'opening.')
Some conservatives call those (amorphous collection) rights legislative rights, and not as they love to "judge" it rights to be determined by "unelected ("blacked robe") officials."
I have not had time to read this thread, but I want to insert myself all the same with this opening? Now women do you see what the heavy hand of suppression hovering over your lives and bodies (by ignorant but insistanct men and women) can feel like? A limited, economically poor, state like Mississippi is setting itself up to take your present bodies back to a time when the hands of male dominance/control (can domestic violence laws falling be for behind) spoke and it was so.
Women, girls, should be angry at the attempt; stand up for woman-kind. Tell them, they have done enough (with this 'ask'). They have gone too far!
(NOTE: I will properly engage this thread from top to bottom later tonight.)
New Texas Law Allows Private Citizens To Hold Pregnant Women Hostage Until Birth
<satire>
I have a question that I can never get an answer to.
People tell me that God commands that abortion is killing and therefore must be outlawed.
I always ask them that if they are so keen on following God's commands, when was the last time they stoned their children? It's always crickets.
I know that's satire. But considering the nature and stupidity of the Texas (and Mississippi) law, I'm not sure if it will remain satire, but instead become reality.
Right? But what the right doesn't understand, is that the same type of law can be used against them. If blue state used the same type of law to outlaw guns, conservative speech, or any other rights. Well, we would be back to the days of MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.
They would certainly be vocal in their opposition to such laws, while at the same time being hypocritical too.
Of course not. But they will always fall back on the old mantra of being 'true believers' and thus having the sacred right to demean the rest of humanity.
I posted this on another seed but it belongs here as well....
Barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen (when not babymaking in the bedroom)
9 and still more to come...
Thinking of buying a new car? May I suggest.....
No, not Back to the Future, but Forward to the Past, and you don't need a DeLorean, you have the SCOTUS.
My first pregnancy I was barefoot and in the kitchen. Mr G hollers for me to come see something on the TV...hit a wall...broke my pinky toe. LOL!
Just waiting to see if THIS is what the SCOTUS is going to decide for America's women....
Hyperbole much Brother?
I never was that great a hyperboler, too few strikes. It's easier in Canada cause there are only 5 to blow away.
Men who don't want a woman to have right of abortion should give up doing things which put a woman in a position to want or need an abortion.
The long and short of this debate should be about the ruling made in Roe v Wade which was to establish that up until viability it falls under the woman's right to privacy. Once a fetus is able to live outside the womb without the mother then it should only be allowed to save the life and/or health of the mother.
"From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health."