 |
POST ROE v WADE has presented a
CONFUSING PARADOX . |
I WARNED last year that Roe V Wade was going to be overturned . BUT the battle is not exactly over. The Court ruled 6–3 that the (1)>>Constitution does not confer a right to abortion , overturning both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and returning "the authority to regulate abortion" to the states. (1.2)>>Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice Roberts each filed concurring opinions, while Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented. American political/legal system confuses me. My understanding is Roe vs Wade said that states couldn't ban abortions due the the right to privacy part of the 14th amendment. (1.3)>>And that's it, it was only that which protected reproductive rights. Which in hindsight seems really flimsy.So I'm wondering why a national (is federal the right term here?) law wasn't put into place protecting abortion rights? I sort of understand that for a law to be put in place it needs to pass in the house of representatives, the Senate and by the president so (2)>>I'm assuming it could only be done when the Democrats controlled all three. So in the past 50 years has there ever been a time when the Dems did have control, and if they did, why didn't they push through a bill on abortion rights? Is it because a bill would be easier for the GOP to repeal if they gained control, rather than having to wait until they had control of the supreme court?
Blame the Democrats for Roe V Wade Overturned .
(3)>>IN MAY the Democrats had a opportunity to codify Roe V Wade , named the Women's Health Protection Act. The vote was 51–49. While it did not pass Republicans as usual , the Democratic majority let it slip out of their hands knowing what the Supreme Court was going to rule. Obama promised PP he would codify Roe V Wade and make it his legislative priority but never did despite having a supermajority. Obama, a Democrat who served as president from 2009 to 2017, took to Twitter on Friday in response to the Court's decision to overturn (4)>>1973's Roe v. Wade and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which had found a woman's right to abortion was constitutionally protected."Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to (5)>>the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans," the former president wrote at the beginning of thread about abortion rights.Critics responded to (5.1)>>Obama's tweets by arguing he had had the ability to codify Roe into federal law during his time as president but failed to do so despite Democrats controlling the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2011. (6)>>The lack of a long-range plan of action has become especially conspicuous after the leak of the draft opinion, which represented the culmination of a nearly 50-year effort by conservatives to reverse Roe and pave the way for state efforts to severely restrict or prohibit abortion. The frustration was captured last week by (6)>>California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who responded to the opinion by asking, "Where the hell's my party? … Where's the counteroffensive?"In another internecine squabble, many Democrats responded to the draft opinion by calling on the Senate to again debate eliminating the filibuster — the 60-vote supermajority rule that allows a united minority to block most legislation — even though a January test vote on voting rights legislation showed that there is not enough support for it among Democratic senators. Democrats are failing so spectacularly right now, it's actually unreal. Anyone left-leaning still fighting for these criminals has brain worms at this point. They've had 50 years to do something, anything, and legit wait to pretend to do something until its appalling so they can pretend to be heroes.
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Many Americans, including members of Congress, believe or act as if Roe v. Wade and the U.S. Constitution have equal authority. They are wrong, both as to Roe's place in American constitutional law and as to the duty of citizens and judges to follow it unquestioningly. Few decisions in the history of the Supreme Court have cried out so loudly for reversal, on both moral and legal grounds. And rarely has any decision been so fraught with conspicuous errors of law, fact and reasoning as the majority opinion in Roe. Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, who writes:As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . . . What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ...The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.Roe v. Wade locates a pregnant woman's "constitutional" right of privacy to decide whether or not to abort her child either "in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty ..., as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people." The Court does not even make a pretense of examining the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine if it was meant to protect a privacy interest in abortion. Clearly it was not. The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution.(1.2)>>Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion.As I understand it Alito´s opinion pays insufficient to zero attention to the Constitittijon as a formulation of principles of social justice, principles to which Abraham Lincolln alludes in his Gettysburg Address. Point in fact Alito's draft SCOTUS ruling, sent the elective abortion issue back to be decided by the people of each state. He said, in his Conclusion section:...The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion..."If you read the current SCOTUS draft opinion, you already know it states that SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled on the matter in 1973, but rather have sent it back to each state to rule on. Assuming the current draft ruling stands, each state will then be able to determine what is best for their own citizens, as should have been the case in 1973.(1.3)>>And that's it, it was only that which protected reproductive rights. Which in hindsight seems really flimsy. imagine… More ways that the Democrats have made available for blacks to practice population control…Planned Parenthood disavows Margaret Sanger, but critics say it’s not enough | Fox NewsAs activists have noted, Black babies have long been disproportionately aborted in comparison to their share of the population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed this trend last November when it released its most recent report, which covered abortion trends in 2016.Despite their lower population levels, non-Hispanic Black women accounted for the largest percentage of abortions — 38% — while non-Hispanic white women accounted for 35%. And out of 1,000 live Black births, 390 Black children were aborted in 2016, according to the CDC. It’s unclear, however, how many of Planned Parenthood’s 300,000-plus annual abortions are performed on Black or Hispanic patients. (2)>>I'm assuming it could only be done when the Democrats . The Democratic Party's BIG BABY was Abortion , for decades the Party did nothing to codify it as a "real law". My assumption is that most of the Democratic Party was did not do this , must be that many of them are Catholics themselves , somehow played a game with the Pro-Choice movement. The feminist movement and the far-left of the Democratic party also bear some blame for the potential fall of Roe. They turned away many middle-of-the-road voters and “purple” women from their cause by tying abortion rights into all sorts of issues that do not enjoy consensus, like LGBT issues in general and transgender issues in particular , which have nothing to do with Abortion .The other question Democrats will need to confront: What do Americans really want? In a nationwide survey, 56 percent of respondents said they would support restricting abortions after 15 weeks, which the Mississippi law at the center of Dobbs aims to do. Hispanic voters, whom Democrats are already losing, are divided on the issue of abortion and are voting red in significant numbers. Same-sex marriage finally became so widely supported that even Democratic candidates in purple areas could safely jump on the bandwagon. Not so with abortion.(3)>>IN MAY the Democrats had a opportunity to codify Roe V Wade . Senate Democrats have failed in their efforts to codify abortion rights, even after a leaked draft of a Supreme Court decision indicated that a majority of justices were on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that assured a right to abortion.In February, Senate Democrats sought to pass H.R. 3755, the House-passed Women's Health Protection Act, but they fell well short of the required 60 votes to proceed to a final vote.Then, just days after the May 2 leak, Senate Democrats tried again, and failed. While the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would give Democrats a cohesive midterm message after months of uncertainty, it likely will not produce the seismic shift in the political landscape that many party leaders are hoping for.First and foremost, it is difficult to envision a scenario in which abortion supplants inflation as the top midterm issue. More than nine in 10 Americans say they are concerned, at a minimum, about inflation, and nearly one-half say they are “upset,” per a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.Indeed, economic discontent is widespread, and soaring inflation — which is a very politically powerful issue — is driving deep dissatisfaction with President Biden and the Democratic Party among Republicans and independents, and is even causing some Democrats to grow wary of their own party.Democrats already undermined Roe v Wade by undermining medical privacy with HIPPA and Obamacare... "My body my choice"? Where does one think the line protecting abortion on the basis of medical privacy starts? Medical privacy is the entire basis behind Roe V Wade, no? There's no way Roe survives the legal fights for mandatory vaccination...I love how Democrats have so completely taken down Roe v Wade, and Republicans had nothing to do with it, literally! Most every piece of the downfall of Roe, resulted from a party line vote in Congress, with Republicans voting almost unanimously against them, or a direct action of the Democratic Party, with Republicans in opposition, obliterating the very mechanisms used to justify the Roe decision... (4)>>1973's Roe v. Wade and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In 1973 , many women may not realize that a group of men had "defined a woman's right to chose " . The IDEA of a Woman's choice was not defined by Women. It was almost a legal illusion for 50 years . Way back in 1973, these men knew the decision was wrong. If some are still alive, they should hang their heads in shame!! A bunch of white men (plus Thurgood Marshall) dictated what was right for women? The decision ought to be discarded on that basis alone.Not surprised about the men aspect at all. Women have always been the victims of contraception and abortion while men are off the hook. U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton opinions, which legalized abortion in every state at any time during a woman’s pregnancy were part of what can be defined as 'patriarchal neo-liberalism ' . The abortion debate in our nation is typically framed as a culture war pitting “liberal Democrats” against “conservative Republicans.” This intensely polarizing issue has affected all three branches of government on federal, state and local levels.In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), the Supreme Court affirmed the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade that the state is prohibited from banning most abortions. Casey also ruled, however, that states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses [ case in point Texas ruling] . (5)>>the whims of politicians and ideologues. In other words with this decision you will help to esablish a Constitutional interpretation which ignores and virtually denies a constitutional commitment to the protection of vulnerable life. A Constitutional interpretation which sees the Constitution as a commitment to the rights of the Haves, of power-havers, of money havers. This in a country whose systems of power have a deep seated relationship with ill-gotten goods. The ill gotten goods of colonialism, capitalism, slavery, and expansionist ideologies. Such an understanding in no way favors the rights of the unborn. In no way, furthermore, does it favor the rights of woman, of a feminism well-understood. You can say getting rid of Roe is obvviously a desideratum for the Culture of Life. But the people of America have a right to the full story. And not to be led by the nose.(5.1)>>Obama's tweets . Regarding Obama, the constitutional “scholar”, remarks about the SCOTUS ruling..All emotional NO scholarly review of the decision..Like why was the current decision incorrect ? I frankly do not know if the current decision is flawed..but NO one is putting forth any rational rebuttal..The former president also said the decision is unlikely to significantly reduce abortions, which he noted have been going down over the past several decades as a result of better access to contraception and education. (6)>>The lack of a long-range plan of action . The purposely no-action of the Democrats killed Roe V Wade , not the Chief Justices themselves . The Democrats are phony . Remember the Bill that would have codified Abortion , but it would have been abortion on steroids . Known as Women’s Health Protection Act. The bill would have banned nearly all restrictions on abortion, making it the most permissive abortion bill ever to be considered in Congress.Abortion right up to birth would have been legal . No Republican voted for it, and only one Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar, of Texas, voted against it.it failed in the Senate, 49-51, short not only of a simple majority but, more important, of the super-majority of sixty votes required to overcome the inevitable filibuster. BUT the Democrats HOLD A MAJORITY , how this happen ??? Unfortunately for Schumer, the Senate vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act serves Republicans in addition to Democrats, because the bill is out of step with public opinion on abortion; the majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal, but with some restrictions. (6)>>California Gov. Gavin Newsom . Newsom’s “Future of Abortion Council” was formed last to “expand and protect access” to abortion in California. Language added to AB 2223 last week reveals their intent, Press California reports. It will also make California a sanctuary state for unfettered unborn baby/baby killing.The abortion industry is applauding the move to boost abortions. "Eliminating out-of-pocket cost for abortion for people with private insurance is a major step in California's commitment to being a Reproductive Freedom state - making abortion services more accessible and affordable for all people in California," Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California President Jodi Hicks said in a statement. "AB 2223 is not only a pro-abortion bill – it removes all civil and criminal penalties for killing babies born alive under any circumstances," said Life Legal Defense Foundation Chief Executive Officer Alexandra Snyder. "The bill expressly authorizes any person to facilitate late-term abortions and infanticide without legal repercussions. Life Legal condemns the use of euphemisms like 'personal reproductive decisions' and 'reproductive justice' to justify and encourage the killing of babies in and outside the womb." Such is the case in California, where Democratic Gov Gavin Newsom also took swift action to make his state a “safe haven.”
