For many waking up yesterday, they must have thought that they had a real Rip Van Winkle of a snoozer for the last 50 years. Across the spectrum, legal experts were declaring the death of Roe v. Wade after the Supreme Court refused to enjoin a Texas anti-abortion law in an emergency filing. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced that the Supreme Court just “overturned” Roe in the order. The mainstream coverage ranged from the outright death of Roe to its being rendered to a vegetative state. Even more reasoned analysis asked “Is this how Roe v. Wade dies?” The answer is no. This is how legal analysis dies.
Legal analysts once prized our role of transcending the political rhetoric and offering detached and honest appraisals of legal decisions and developments. However, in the age of echo journalism, legal experts are expected to drive ratings and readership with breathless, partisan takes on every story. Some of that analysis constitutes raw conspiracies theories dressed up as legal analysis like declaring that this order proves the “very real possibility in America right now that the federal courts are conspiring against us, against the rights of women, of people of color, of voters, of poor people.” Others cut to the chase and demanded that Congress immediately pack the Supreme Court with a liberal majority to guarantee results in such cases.
The trigger of this apocalyptic coverage was an unsigned, one paragraph order in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. At issue is a Texas law that would effectively gut Roe v. Wade by prohibiting abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. After Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, laws were routinely struck down if they barred abortions “viability” round 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law is clearly meant to test the new majority on the Supreme Court in another attempt to overturn Roe. However, the Supreme Court is already set for such a fundamental challenge after it accepted Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The order actually addressed a serious flaw in the challenge brought by pro-choice advocates to the Texas law. The drafters of the law were creative in leaving enforcement of the law to private parties rather than state officials. It allows private individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who either providers or “aids or abets” an unlawful abortion and allows for an award of $10,000 if successful in such a challenge.
Of course, such a lawsuit will not immediately end Roe v. Wade. It will be challenged on the very grounds cited by advocates. That includes the question of whether Texas is using private citizens to curtail a constitutional right. Those cases will also lead to judicial review. In the meantime, if any state official tries to curtail constitutionally protected rights, they can be enjoined pending any decision. Federals courts enjoin people, not laws, when there are actions that are being taken to violate the Constitution. This order concerns whether a court can enjoin the law before any final review on the merits. Any challenge to the law could be expedited on appeal.
The problem is that the challengers to the Texas law picked defendants (a state court judge and a court clerk) that do not enforce the law. Indeed, they appear virtually random. That is why five justices did not issue the emergency order. However, they expressly stated “The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”
Even Chief Justice John Roberts who voted for an injunction with his liberal colleagues admitted that this is a serious procedural hurdle and it is unclear “whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.” One can honestly disagree with how insurmountable this issue is for the Court, but it is ridiculous to say that it was some manufactured excuse for a partisan ruling.
Nevertheless, liberal professors and commentators immediately pounced and declared that this was just a procedural trick or excuse. Many noted that this is why Amy Barrett was added to the Court. However, these same experts did not make similar objections when standing or procedural grounds were used to protect abortion or other rights. Indeed, the only case cited in the order is California v. Texas where the Court rejected a challenge to Affordable Care Act due to a lack of standing, including Barrett. That order noted that “federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves.”
So the Court was not ruling on Roe and it was not ruling on this case, which is described as raising “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law.” The actual ruling seemed immaterial to the coverage as people rushed to ride a wave of anger. It is not the first time that actual orders or decisions seemed immaterial to their coverage. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin published legal analysis that actually got the rulings wrong in an effort to flog an anti-Trump narrative. NBC’s Chuck Todd previously misrepresented a ruling against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as not citing a single case despite an opinion with dozens of such citations. The actual opinion was entirely immaterial to the reporting on the opinion.
The order this week was based on a fundamental barrier to emergency relief that was even recognized in dissent. What is most striking is that none of that takes away from the legitimate concerns over the future of Roe v. Wade. There was no need to inflate the meaning of the order when there is a massive threat just behind it on the docket. The Texas law is an existential threat to Roe. So is the Dobbs case now before the Court. However, the press today has little patience for nuance or delay when there is rage to feed.
TEXAS LAW ALL LIES!
NO ‘HEARTBEAT’ AT 6 WEEKS
NO DEVELOPED ‘FETUS’ AT 6 WEEKS
Today NPR expanded on the misleading use of ‘fetal heartbeat’ in the new Texas law. Said term was crafted to be repeated over and over in mainstream media headlines. That repetition in itself serves a vital propaganda goal by convincing the public there really is a ‘fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks.
Below is an excerpt from today’s NPR coverage:
“The term ‘fetal heartbeat’ is pretty misleading,” says Dr. Jennifer Kerns, an OB-GYN and associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco.
“What we’re really detecting is a grouping of cells that are initiating some electrical activity,” she explains. “In no way is this detecting a functional cardiovascular system or a functional heart.”
Kerns adds that health care providers might use the term “fetal heartbeat” in conversations with patients during this early stage of pregnancy, but it’s not actually a clinical term.
In fact, “fetus” isn’t technically accurate at six weeks of gestation either, says Kerns, since “embryo” is the scientific term for that stage of development. Obstetricians don’t usually start using the term “fetus” until at least eight weeks into the pregnancy.
But “fetus” may have an appeal that the word “embryo” does not, Kern says: “The term ‘fetus’ certainly evokes images of a well-formed baby, so it’s advantageous to use that term instead of ’embryo’ — which may not be as easy for the public to feel strongly about, since embryos don’t look like a baby,” she explains. “So those terms are very purposefully used [in these laws] — and are also misleading.”
Later in a pregnancy is when a clinician might use the term “fetal heartbeat,” after the sound of the heart valves can be heard, she says. That sound “usually can’t be heard with our Doppler machines until about 10 weeks.”
………………………………………………………
Edited from: “Fetal Heartbeat Isn’t A Medical Term But It’s Still Used In Laws On Abortion”
Today’s NPR
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion
‘Fetal Heartbeat’ follows in the footsteps of ‘Partial Birth Abortion’. The latter is a term that was never used by the medical community. It was crafted instead by conservative focus groups.
Like ‘Fetal Heartbeat’, ‘Partial Birth Abortion’ was intended as a ‘worm’ that would proliferate through mainstream headlines with the goal of convincing people doctors actually used the term (which sounds totally insensitive, of course).
Fetal heartbeat is meaningless. It’s a metric. Young said it right. At what point can the American population stomach the killing of a human living being? You seem to have a problem recognizing the problem under discussion.
SM
The Texas legislature disagrees with you that “Fetal heartbeat is meaningless.” You seem to have a problem reading the law under discussion.
I think the topic under discussion is clearly broader than the Texas law. Part of it is not just what the law may be but what it can be and what it ought to be.
You seem to have a problem reading past the edges of your beloved Fact Sheets.
You seem to have a problem distinguishing fact from your imagination.
Anonymous the Stupid, as usual, you change what the discussion is about. There is a question involved. The question raised is when to terminate the life of a fetus. However, that means you accept the fetus to be life. You are looking for justification, so you feel better about the killing. To you it is political. You would kill full grown adults if they got in the way of what you wanted. You are a little Stalin without much of a brain.
You do realize the Texas bill does not mention 6 weeks?
Scanning I saw that some of the discussion below focused on when a fetus’ heart tissue shifts from mere electrical signals to an actual heartbeat. Similar discussions seemed to address the same issue from different angles.
Whenever the heart develops an actual beat is probably not important.
It is impossible to honestly deny that what is developing toward being a human being is alive at all stages. We easily recognize much more primitive forms of life as being alive. When you destroy it you kill life.
The real question is at what stage of development it must be before we as a society will no longer have the stomach to kill it.
This is a little like the death penalty issue. It is likely to be argued one way and the other but the decision will mostly be emotional rather than intellectual.
But isn’t it odd that the same folks who are so eager to kill a child in development are the ones who cringe and retreat at killing a sadistic murderer by judicial process?
A terrorist’s life is sacrosanct; that of your growing baby not so much.
Im impressed you spent any time reading it.
What to do with patients who have pacemakers? Defibrillators? Porcine heart valves? Is having Bovine valves more viable or less? And what about patients who have had CABG (coronary artery bypass grafts) with metal wires still in their chest that were used to close the open cavity? Do these nonviable people turned viable heart patients get dispensation from proaborts?
The whole viability argument is disingenuous. The word “Viability” comes from the Latin vita which means life. Thus viable or viability means “able to live”. Those individuals who have medical maladies, life threatening injuries, traumas and so forth, are not viable without some type of intervention. Do nothing and they die, hence nonviable. For example, a head or chest gunshot victim is not viable or able to live. Fortunately most would reason that the victim needs artificial intervention and should not be allowed to die just because they are not viable. You don’t look at an injured, suffering individual and say to them, “you’re not viable” and walk away. You try to keep them alive. So the viability argument isnt a serious one, otherwise we would be closing trauma centers, emergency departments, surgery centers and hospitals across the world.
Thank you. please read my response to “Anonymous”
oops. posted before I signed in.
Viable means able to live outside the womb, including WITH medical support. Prior to ~21 weeks, no fetus is currently viable. After that, preemies are often viable with medical support. All of the people you describe who continue to live are viable. If they weren’t, they would die despite your best efforts to keep them alive. It’s disingenuous to suggest that “viable” excludes medical support. If you’re truly the religious person you claim to be, then discuss it truthfully.
Develop an artificial womb and a means of transplantation, and you’ll eliminate the viability argument.
Young, you are right that one’s view of abortion is largely emotional and asking at what point we will no longer have the stomach to kill a foetus is a compelling way to put it. Ultimately, though, the question before the court will be whether the constitution says anything at all about this emotive issue. Clearly, an originalist would argue it doesn’t. But there are deep roots to Roe and Casey in the so-called right to privacy and in substantive due process. These have led not only to Roe/Casey but also to other decisions in many areas. Can Roe/Casey be overturned without undermining the rationale for many other constitutional rights enamoured of progressives, and not just them?
Overturning Roe/Casey could be disastrous for Republicans. Since 1973 they have been able to rail against the right to an abortion without having any constitutional power to change it. Now their bluff will be called. In every state and probably at the Federal level as well meaningful votes will have to be cast, and every one of them will have the potential to alienate socially moderate voters, including suburbanites in swing states who might be critical to Republican success. They had better hope the court preserves enough of Roe/Casey to enable them to avoid these potentially suicidal votes.
Why are you mentioning “Republicans?” There are more anti-abortion Catholic Democrats than are Republicans (I am not an anti-abortion Democrat.) Secondly, courts do not decide cases on “emotive” value. I believe you intended that as condescension, but it failed. I dropped out of medical school (and became a lawyer instead) because I had a good brain but poor stomach. Was my decision “emotive?” The more that jurists avoid emotion, but employ thorough debate and deliberation in their decisions, the more likely those decisions will hold. Newly-developed information (and science) might warrant updating, which is why we are even discussing Roe/Casey.
Daniel: “the so-called right to privacy”
***
What happened to it? Big tech in league with the government invade our privacy on an incomprehensible scale.
I agreed with the reasoning in Griswold for the most part, but now the “right to privacy ” doesn’t actually deem to protect privacy.
Young, if you accept the style of reasoning in Griswold you have no leg to stand on when you say the court has improperly discovered other new constitutional rights. I too like privacy but that doesn’t mean it’s a constitutional right. In any event, substantive due process appears a more potent doctrine today than Griswold’s penumbras and emanations. In overturning Roe/Casey, the court may undermine both these approaches. If they do, it is hard to see how a right to gay marriage would survive, since it was based primarily on notions of substantive due process.
Per your comment “that doesn’t mean it’s a constitutional right”—The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a right to privacy as found in several constitutional amendments, (2nd and 4th immediately come to mind, among others).
(I meant 1st and 4th,-but there are others…)
Daniel: “Young, if you accept the style of reasoning in Griswold you have no leg to stand on when you say the court has improperly discovered other new constitutional rights.”
***
Possibly you are right but I don’t think so. The Griswold thinking seemed sound. Rights that are clear in the Constitution, like 4th Amendment rights, combined with others essentially amount to what we would now call a right to privacy. ‘Privacy’ wasn’t used then as it is used now so it wasn’t expressly stated. What we came to call a Right to Privacy appears to be other rights under a more modern name. It wasn’t so much that they invented a Right to Privacy as that they put a modern name and circumstances on an existing right known by other terms.
That they may have acted properly in that instance does not mean that they acted properly in others.
Young and Lin, the individual amendments stand on their own. Combining their ostensible “emanations” and “penumbras” as a basis for conjuring a right distinct from each of them is hocus pocus to allow a majority of justices to amend the constitution to make it say what they want without regard to the amendment process set out in the constitution. I like the outcome in Griswold, but I can’t pretend it was a legitimate exercise of constitutional interpretation. The same is true of the substantive due process cases.
9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Surely you’re not assuming that people only have enumerated rights.
Young, you are right that one’s view of abortion is largely emotional
If by emotional, you mean moral. OK.
“It is impossible to honestly deny that what is developing toward being a human being is alive at all stages. We easily recognize much more primitive forms of life as being alive. When you destroy it you kill life.
The real question is at what stage of development it must be before we as a society will no longer have the stomach to kill it.”
That is an excellent summary. Their logic says we should kill children up to age 25 because their brains are undergoing significant change until that age. The stupidity I am reading from these folk is amazing. They are trying to justify their hate and lack of concern for living entities.
S. Meyer,
True. At the other end they seem equally enthusiastic about killing the elderly with ‘assisted dying’.
Shooting someone assists their dying too. War is just a big assisted dying effort.
The fact that they are reluctant to say the words: ‘You Are Killing’ suggests that at some level, deep down, a tattered bit of moral fibre is calling: “Don’t!”
Forget CNN and FOX. Prof. Turley is correct in characterizing media response -even and especially MAINSTREAM media (NBC, ABC, PBS, etc.) as spewing (my word, not the professor’s) fear-mongering mania over the death of Roe, ad nauseam. What I find most amazing is that, if this is the twist that media wants to take, why was there not a scintilla of information about (1) modern scientific advancements in the FIFTY YEARS since Roe, that create the possibility of a VIABLE fetus at just weeks of formation ( as opposed to fetal viability in the 1970s) and (2) the continued access to the “morning-after pill” –available at drug stores and pharmacies, that can end a potential pregnancy after rape, incest, or any unprotected sex. SHAME on media. I (and most of our younger generation) learn best after hearing both/all sides…
“modern scientific advancements in the FIFTY YEARS since Roe, that create the possibility of a VIABLE fetus at just weeks of formation ( as opposed to fetal viability in the 1970s)”
That’s not true. Despite scientific advancements, no fetus has been viable before ~21 weeks, and many aren’t viable then.
Why do you believe your claim is true?
“continued access to the “morning-after pill” –available at drug stores and pharmacies, that can end a potential pregnancy after rape, incest, or any unprotected sex”
Unfortunately, people often aren’t as responsible as they should be, about all sorts of things. They talk on the phone while driving, they drive drunk, they don’t use emergency contraception. Also, the morning after pill doesn’t always work, it’s sometimes contraindicated, it may not be covered by insurance or a woman may need a prescription for it to be covered, some women who have unwanted pregnancies were using contraception, some believe that they’re infertile or don’t menstruate regularly, sometimes women have abortions with wanted pregnancies because of complications, …
It would be good for more people to use emergency contraception when needed, but it’s not a complete solution.
You are correct to point out my liberal and expansive use of the term “viability-” apology offered. However, you are incorrect about medical science’s newest advances. When Roe was decided, fetal viability was 28-32 weeks. But Look up the advancements of ectogenesis. -My POINT was that media fails to mention these things. Secondly, if a fetus can survive–(intrauterine)-with medical assistance–it is ethically and medically hard to distinguish from a now non-viable adult being placed on life support machinery until trauma recedes to the point that he/she can survive without assist. Look up the case of brain-dead “Trisha Marshall” whose 17-week fetus was sustained for three months–ultimately resulting in a healthy baby.. There is a new scientifically-advanced product called a “biobag” (I do not know the medical term) that (under ectogeniesis) can be used as an external artificial womb to keep not-yet-viable (i.e., outside a maternal womb) fetuses alive and developing. — I’m just saying that medical and ethical considerations ( and their manifest application to American jurisprudence) are dynamic, not static. In physics terms, technology is developing per second per second. (2) Your comments about the morning-after pill are fifth-grade arguments akin to why homework wasn’t finished. Thanks anyway.
You were clear. You said, “that create the possibility”.
“you are incorrect about medical science’s newest advances.”
Please do quote what I wrote that you believe is false. If you can present evidence that it’s false, I’ll have no problem admitting I was mistaken. If you cannot, you should admit your own error.
“if a fetus can survive–(intrauterine)-with medical assistance–it is ethically and medically hard to distinguish from a now non-viable adult being placed on life support machinery until trauma recedes to the point that he/she can survive without assist.”
BS. It is astoundingly easy to distinguish the two: an intrauterine fetus is inside a woman’s uterus, using her lungs and bloodstream to get oxygen and eliminate CO2, using her digestive system and bloodstream to get nutrition, etc., and unless it is viable, it cannot survive outside her uterus with medical support, whereas the adult you describe as “non-viable” is actually viable, since that person can live with medical support. I don’t know where this mistaken idea comes from that if there’s medical support, that implies non-viable. Viability is judged WITH medical support.
“Look up the case of brain-dead “Trisha Marshall” whose 17-week fetus was sustained for three months–ultimately resulting in a healthy baby”
The 17-week fetus was not yet viable. Trisha was legally dead. Her body was still viable. Had her body not been viable, they would not have been able to keep her body alive for 3 months to gestate the fetus. Had she not been legally dead, the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy would have been hers to make.
As for biobags and ectogenesis, develop a functional artificial womb and a means of transplantation that doesn’t significantly harm the pregnant woman, and that will solve the abortion problem, though there may be new problems in terms of who pays for all of the artificial gestations and who will adopt all the children.
“I’m just saying that medical and ethical considerations ( and their manifest application to American jurisprudence) are dynamic, not static.”
I agree, nor have I ever suggested anything to the contrary.
“Your comments about the morning-after pill are fifth-grade arguments akin to why homework wasn’t finished”
A faulty analogy. It’s a fact that the morning-after pill is not 100% effective. It’s a fact that some women who have an unwanted pregnancy were already using contraception and have no reason to think that they’d need a morning-after pill. Etc. And it’s a fact that people don’t always act responsibly, despite our desire for people to act responsibly.
What you want to kill is viable until YOU kill or injure it. You are using an intervention to end viable life. Your intervention is not natural.
SM
-and your arguments (and defensive verbosity) are “not 100 percent effective” either. I’m sorry, but your statements, “Trisha was legally dead. Her body was still viable…” belie your ignorance. Trisha was on life-support artificial machinery for three months. Both she and fetus were non-viable without artificial support. Medical and scientific technology is nearing the point of DELIVERING a non-viable human fetus and keeping it alive and DEVELOPING to full term, -outside the womb. It has already been documented in animal species, I believe lambs? Your distinctions are specious at best, pompously ignorant at worst. No more, good night.
Lin-
You seem to have had an encounter with the anonymous who has made a name for himself for supercilious stupidity.
Apparently you’re unwilling to either back up your claim “you are incorrect about medical science’s newest advances” or retract it.
“your statements, “Trisha was legally dead. Her body was still viable…” belie your ignorance”
The Uniform Determination of Death Act, enacted in all states, says that brain death is legal death. Trisha was legally dead. If you don’t agree, why not?
Her body was able to be kept alive with support, which means it was viable.
So just what was ignorant?
“Both she and fetus were non-viable without artificial support.”
But her body was viable WITH artificial support, and her body gestated the fetus until a newborn could be delivered that was viable WITH artificial support. Again: viability does not exclude artificial support. However, initially, the fetus was NOT viable, as it could not survive outside the uterus even WITH artificial support.
“Your distinctions are specious at best, pompously ignorant at worst.”
I’d hoped that you’d engage in a civil and sincere exchange, but apparently not. Your claim is also false, since the distinctions I made are relevant, not specious or ignorant.
Anon- “The Uniform Determination of Death Act, enacted in all states, says that brain death is legal death. Trisha was legally dead. If you don’t agree, why not?”
***
Might there be a difference between ‘legally dead’ and dead dead?
Do you consider beating heart organ donation to be murder?
Stupid question only you could manage. But of course not. However it can illustrate the difference between legal death and biological death. There is a biological difference.
I suppose only the brain is legally dead. There was someone a couple years ago who was going to try to do a brain transplant. I doubt he succeeded but it may not always be impossible. A transplant like that could raise interesting issues. But it couldn’t be done with a dead dead body unless you are Dr. Frankenstein.
Things are becoming very weird.
“I suppose only the brain is legally dead.”
The **person** is legally dead. As a lawyer, you should understand the importance of personhood. Doctors regularly kill the living bodies of people who are legally dead when those doctors harvest organs after brain death. Do you object to that?
ATS thinks in the narrowest of terms but argues using the broadest. Special papers have to be signed by heart donors and or families. Recognition of the broad nature that involves death has been placed into our rules and law.
ATS is a narrow-minded individual who wears blinders as well. Like a horse, he travels only one route and cannot comprehend the nuances and subtleties involved. He travels in an insulated path from A-Z, unaffected by all the letters in between.
Allan the Abusive S(tupid) Meyer likes to project his weaknesses onto others.
Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t have to create the idea of weakness onto you. Most intelligent people that have been on this blog know your weaknesses. You think you make good arguments, but you deflect because your mind cannot manage subtlety and nuance. You start by relying on predigested material from the left, but once that material is analyzed, you cannot defend your point of view.
Instead of defending your point of view, you deflect. If that fails, deception is next, closely followed by lying compounded by your mistakes.
If all that fails, you run away and pretend it was another anonymous.
You have NO credibility.
On the contrary, Allan, I defend my point of view just fine, and you are the one who fails to understand the nuance in my arguments, so you project that inability onto me.
See my exchange with Karen. She is trying to have a sincere and civil exchange, which is all I ask. She may misinterpret something I’ve written, but we can work that out because — unlike you — she does not resort to lies and insults.
Your endless denigration demonstrates your weakness, not mine.
“On the contrary, Allan, I defend my point of view just fine”
Good, then you don’t need to lie, deceive and run away. You don’t even need an anonymous name.
I read your arguments with Karen, and sometimes the predigested parts you use fit, but you are at a loss for the most part. That is demonstrated by the way you treat her.
Karen does not use insults. She is very polite. I have found that being polite hasn’t worked. Look at the country and how courteous most of the right is while they are being canceled. The time for being polite is over for those that believe in conservatism and libertarianism.
The left will not follow the Constitution. They will back out of deals, constantly call their opponents all sorts of names, and then resort to protests saying kill the ‘conservative.’
The left and people like you have no morals or ethics. One should not waste their time treating you politely. You should be known as Anonymous the Stupid to separate you from the rest. The left acts with a unified voice even when they know they are acting wrongly. They target individuals.
You would like the right not to target individuals. Unfortunately for you, I believe the right needs to follow some of the left’s actions. Therefore, I highlight you among the anonymous figures. All should do that.
Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t deserve decency from anyone.
Your questions don’t merit an actual response but they are odd enough to prompt an historical thought.
I am not entirely sure what the difference might be between being declared legally dead in modern terms and outlaw in older terms. Even in the French Revolution being declared outlaw meant you could go straight to the guillotine without the delay of a trial or issues of evidence. That happened to Robespierre and St Just. In other jurisdictions being outlaw meant that literally you were outside the law and could be killed on sight.
Being declared legally dead and outlaw are in practical effects very similar. Odd.
Don’t bother to respond. I am just musing and don’t care what you think.
“[T]he Supreme Court just “overturned” Roe in the order.”
Maybe not. But in at least three ways, the Texas law is worse.
1) That law takes a page from the Left’s fascist playbook. It does not usurp a right. Instead, it stifles a right with so many regulations and government restrictions, that the right is too burdensome to practice. As with the Left’s fascist tactics on property and businesses, one is left with a “right” in name only.
2) It empowers *private* individuals to do what the government cannot do. It outsources government controls (in this case, over abortion) to private citizens. (That should sound familiar.)
3) It turns private individuals into snitches, with some sort of bizarre, quasi-legal authority. This fact, alone, is frighteningly Soviet in spirit and in practice.
Only real solution is to expand the SCOTUS with the plan you put forth back a few years, Turley. Totally agreed on that point.
eb
I note how ELSEWHERE one anonymous leftist figure we all know so well quotes Sotomayor on outsourcing so that the state can’t outsource unconstitutional things to non-government entities.
“It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws ”
This idea behind Sotomayor’s quote is important for the same one that hangs onto “government outsourcing” forgets it when dealing with other outsourcing such as SECTION 230 SOCIAL MEDIA. THE GOVERNMENT IS OUTSOURCING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
The above was by S. Meyer.
The issue was previously discussed where an op ed by Hamburger explained in detail the problems. It was in the WSJ.
Anonymous,
“ This idea behind Sotomayor’s quote is important for the same one that hangs onto “government outsourcing” forgets it when dealing with other outsourcing such as SECTION 230 SOCIAL MEDIA. THE GOVERNMENT IS OUTSOURCING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!”
Unfortunately it’s not the same thing. Thanks to the sheer ignorance of what the law is about.
Government is not outsourcing anything with section 230. They are just exempting social media platforms from frivolous litigation. Getting rid of section 230 doesn’t prevent social media from exercising its first amendment rights to run their businesses as they see fit. Even without the liability protections they can still censor or revoke posting privileges to anyone still violating their terms and conditions.
What Justice Sotomayor is referring to is the vigilantism that was legalized by Texas. What Texas did was essentially green lighted extremist groups and zealots to be cops.
There’s still the issue of anyone wishing to sue under the new law proving an illegal abortion occurred and the legality of a judge to even be able to enforce a ruling in favor of the person suing because a judge is a government official who is not allowed to enforce the law.
Essentially a judge cannot issue a ruling if a case came before him.
“Government is not outsourcing anything with section 230.”
That is your opinion. You never had a good understanding of the pertinent facts. I can lead you to water, but I can’t make you drink. Intellectually you are dying of thirst.
S. Meyer, you are a troll who regularly denigrates people you disagree with.
Anonymous the Stupid, you are a liar and deceitful individual. What more can be said? You are only demonstrating your Stupidity.
This is what the whole left tirade is over…”give me convenience to kill , or we throw a fit !”. Now as I stated they have a longer ride to go to a neighboring state to make an appointment with the butcher. That inconvenience riles up their woolen covered hide. Somehow death on demand is OK with these moral midgets , and god forbid they have to drive further to imbibe in it, oh dear lord the horror of it all !.
TERM ‘HEARTBEAT’ IN ‘HEARTBEAT BILL’ NOT SCIENCE-BASED
NPR’s “All Things Considered” featured a conversation illuminating the disengenous nature of this law.
The sounds a human heart makes, as heard through a doctor’s stethoscope, is actually the opening and closing of heart valves as blood flows through the heart.
But at 6 weeks a fetus has no developed heart valves. Therefore the ultrasound detector is only reading electrical activity. The sounds the machine then transmits is artificially simulated by the machine itself.
This distinction is important because the so-called ‘Heartbeat Bill’ implies that the heart is further developed than it really is at 6 weeks. Said distinction could greatly influence the public response given to pollsters when asked about the bill.
Pollsters have found that opposition to the bill in Texas rises by 20% when respondents are told that most women are not even aware they are pregnant at 6 weeks.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion
…..NPR’s “All Things Considered”……
It is a wonder you can keep a straight face when referencing NPR.
Matt Taibbi wrote a blistering account of NPR in June and then again in August. Worth reading
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/nprs-brilliant-self-own
June 20, 2021:
NPR has not run a piece critical of Democrats since Christ was a boy. Moreover, much like the New York Times editorial page (but somehow worse), the public news leader’s monomaniacal focus on “race and sexuality issues” has become an industry in-joke. For at least a year especially, listening to NPR has been like being pinned in wrestling beyond the three-count. Everything is about race or gender, and you can’t make it stop.
Conservatives have always hated NPR, but in the last year I hear more and more politically progressive people, in the media, talking about the station as a kind of mass torture experiment, one that makes the most patient and sensible people want to drive off the road in anguish.
And he was only getting started.
National Propaganda Radio….oh man…really ?. You have to inject the zeig heil NPR into this like it was a standard of something of merit ?. You are really reaching here…and the desperation shows ( and smells ) .
24/7 these leftist bobbleheads praise foggy bottom baizou biden and kamelatoe whorus like they were gods that bode no ill. And the truth is they do. Like trained dogs they lap up the narrative and bark it out to gain their masters praise ( and federal monie$) . Not even a nice try , quite lame in fact.
Alternative anonymous, what does NPR mean by “no developed heart valves”?
SM
Prenatal cardiogenesis (the development of the heart) occurs over time. Initially, there are no heart valves. If you want to understand more about when and how human heart valves develop, an appropriate search — such as human heart valvulogenesis or human cardiac valve morphogenesis — will pull up relevant articles.
Alternate anonymous, we all understand that. I wanted to know how that fits into their discussion on abortion. Is NPR trying to determine a new timing mechanism for abortion or throwing things in the mix without saying much of anything?
SM
S. Meyer, the point is that at 6 weeks there is no biological heart. It’s not a developed organ. When people hear “heartbeat” it’s generally assumed an actual full functioning heart. At 6 weeks it’s not a actually a heart.
You miss everything. I am going to let you dwell in your ignorance.
They’re pointing out that the sound of the electrical activity of embryonic heart cells that’s heard after a few weeks is not the sound of a heartbeat. The sound of a heartbeat comes from the opening and closing of heart valves.
So what?
Is NPR trying to determine a new timing mechanism for abortion or throwing things in the mix without saying much of anything?
SM
Killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child can be prosecuted as a double homicide in some jurisdictions
https://familycouncil.org/?p=20769
The morality and legality of killing an unborn person is not as clear cut as some here argue.
Young, I was thinking about that as I scanned this thread without time to respond. Leftists choose what they want to use as proof and then forget that things aren’t clear-cut.
The entire abortion issue can be summed up very simply. Roe Vs Wade was wrong. Abortion was a state issue, not a federal issue. Various states had various rules and regulations.
Whether I support abortion or not or am in the middle doesn’t mean squat. The Supreme Court screwed up so badly that the nation has been paying a heavy price though the payments have to do with things other than abortion.
Congress could have passed an amendment or dealt with the states and passed specific laws to alleviate the problem. Congress did not do its job. The left depended on the Supreme Court taking on legislative responsibilities.
The left pretends to be humane, but they are the ones ready to sacrifice lives, destroy communities and culture.
It seems that a number of times the Court has chosen to replace or set aside the Constitution haven’t gone as well as hoped.
Who was it, Ezra Klein?, who said the Constitution is “like a hundred years old and nobody understands its old language.” [Paraphrase].
He was wrong on the age and wrong on the language but he may be right about people, particularly judges, not understanding it anymore. Or not caring to understand it. Why understand it when you believe that putting on black robes makes you the Constitution?
So in Texas, a mask is your life and health, your choice. Also in Texas, her life and health, their choice.
Unless I am mistaken, there is a 250,000 felony fine for deliberately breaking a Bald Eagle egg. We are debating termination of life of a baby with a viable heartbeat. The state next door, New Mexico allows abortion through all nine months. They also allow assisted suicide. Think of that. Where will the line blur in offering elderly a quick way out because they are a burden to society? Who will decide the bright line? Who gets to live?
We are on the downhill road to devaluation of human life.
Many arguments for and against, but in the end how will we stand in the history books? That is a heavy burden for those who make such decisions.
EM almost every western country allows legal abortion. So knock it off with that, “How will history judge us?” crap.
Abortion is not just an American thing. In fact, countries ‘prohibiting’ abortion tend to be those Americans consider backward with regard to women’s rights.
I understand. The Texas law, like numerous states sets the mark as the heartbeat which would be determined by a physician. Some states (and countries for that matter) allow abortion of a viable human being moments before birth. Who gets to decide when it is no longer legal? Heck, there were a few times I wanted to put my teens in a barrel and feed them through a hole.
That’s my point. The Texas law does not prevent abortion. Heartbeat is a universal sign of life. We do not call the moment of death until the heart stops beating. Why not use this as a bright line?
The juxtaposition of charging a felony and a quarter million dollar fine for deliberately breaking an eagle egg and legalizing abortion in the 9th month with no consequences is clear and difficult for me to comprehend.
I know many do not share my belief. It is not determined lightly.
What I really suspect is that the “anger” is being overblown as a diversion. The 46th President has been hammered for his stunning ineptitude that was on display for all the world to witness. Stir up the troops and find a cause to draw attention away from the bungled Afghanistan exit and his diminished status.
“We do not call the moment of death until the heart stops beating. Why not use this as a bright line?”
Brain death is also legal death. See the Uniform Determination of Death Act. We allow organ donation after brain death while the heart is still beating: they kill the body by cutting its organs out for donation, and it’s legal, because the person is already legally dead, even though their heart is still beating. On the flip side, someone getting a heart transplant temporarily doesn’t have a beating heart, yet that person is still alive because they are not brain dead and the cessation of their heart beat isn’t permanent. The heartbeat is not quite the bright line you think it is.
EM how many Americans want women and doctors prosecuted on abortion charges??
ANSWER: Less than 20%
Again, you are correct. Few want to prosecute mothers or doctors.
Seeking redress through the civil courts is a different paradigm
Disagree. Laws are a poor substitute for self-regulation. The abortion argument is completely missed by both sides. Yes it is the ending of life. Agreed. It is also about doing something that is evil, sinful, injurious to another and to self. Dr Karl Menninger’s book, Whatever Became of Sin? applies.
“What’s done to children, they will do to society.”
― Karl Menninger M.D.
A more truthful argument about abortion is whether any individual should be forced to do something against their will. That is key. As a Catholic I believe that sin, theologically defined as “separation from God”, exists. There are 2 types of sins: mortal and venial. The former is also known as deadly, hence the 7 Deadly Sins (pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony, greed, envy, lust) which Dante Alighieri detailed in his masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, Purgatorio.
No one likes to be told what they can and can not do. In spite of morality, ethics and societal laws, we enjoy breaking them. Imagine busy bodies approaching other people to correct others about their mortal sins, and holding them accountable. That wouldnt end well. Although abortion is ending life, we cant force a woman to carry the developing baby. The woman should, but we cant force her. I wish I could force my patients to lose weight but I can not.
I hate abortion. It is always wrong. Sloth and gluttony are injurious to self, create a substantial economic burden on our health care industry, and they are choices. They are also mortal, deadly, sins, yet two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. COVID-19 deaths are linked to obesity. Instead of positioning masks and vaccines as the only mitigators, we should be nailing obesity as a manageable and preventable risk.
Diabetes, obesity, metabolism, and SARS-CoV-2 infection: the end of the beginning
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(21)00016-4
Wrath and pride are literally pathognomic for describing America. You see where I am going here.
Abortion is self-induced, a choice, like all other mortal sins, that come from pride, putting oneself above God. It is more honest and more efficacious to reform inwardly our hearts, minds and bodies. We should start there to end abortions, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, crime, fatherless children, a divided nation, etc.
No one knows whether any gods exist. If they exist, we do not know what they think is sinful, or if they even believe in sin. Faith isn’t knowledge.
You can have your religious beliefs. Others can have theirs. Still others are free not to believe in any religion.
Of course. Alas knowledge is relative as well. Everything is speculation. Nothing is certain. The location of an electron in an atom, the unit of time as to “seconds”, the acceleration of gravity on earth, the moon, the sun, mass of a proton, measurement of Energy of a gamma particle, all relative. There is no certainty especially in the medical sciences. However we have to start somewhere and religion has provided civilizations a foundation. Like it or hate it, thats a choice. Entropy (anarchy) otherwise prevails hence our current situation. A society must pick on a set of inner self-regulating rules that most embrace. Outliers are a given. However when all are outliers….not sustainable
Some things are certain, not speculation. It’s certain that there are infinitely many prime numbers, for example.
Anonymous the Stupid, you jump where Stupid people go.
SM
“Laws are a poor substitute for self-regulation.”
Excellent. We cannot survive as free people if self-regulation isn’t the primary source of control. Additionally, self-regulation helps one get more bang for the buck.
I am not advocating religion or anything else, but religion is one good way of promoting self-regulation if the specific religion permits the political and the religious to have a degree of separation.
Shrinking heads seemed to work for headhunters on Gilligan’s Island.
S. Meyer,
“ I am not advocating religion or anything else, but religion is one good way of promoting self-regulation if the specific religion permits the political and the religious to have a degree of separation.”
Huh? Religion is based on the threat of damnation, hell, eternal suffering, etc in order to promote “self-regulation”. That’s regulating behavior thru the threat of punishment so severe, eternal hell, as to render “self-regulation” an illusion. True self regulation would involve adherence to it regardless of threat of punishment. In religion punishment is the driver behind “self-regulation”.
Just like exercising personal responsibility. It’s a nice concept, but the majority of those promoting it don’t exercise it, but expect others to do so.
“Huh? Religion is based on the threat of damnation”
Try thinking. In this country, it is a voluntary association and is a good way of promoting self-regulation. Neighborhood groups are another way. The left is based on threats and force.
SM
“EM almost every western country allows legal abortion. ”
Legal abortion includes abortions for medical causes. What an honest person would have written is’ almost no countries allow elective abortions past 20 weeks.’
From WAPO fact checker
This statistic seemed dubious at first, because it seemed extreme for just seven countries out of 198 to allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But upon further digging, the data back up the claim. We should note that some of the seven countries allow abortions after 20 weeks, but ban it after 24 weeks. And other countries have no federal limits, but legislate at the state or provincial level, similar to the United States.
The Texas law allows legal abortions, so what is your complaint again.
In Article 1, Section 8, Congress is provided no power to establish federal statutes regarding anything other than the severely limited and particular “enumerated” powers therein, and “…all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,…,” and nothing but “…all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,….”
Congress has no power to legislate with reference to homicide or abolition, a form of homicide.
States alone have the power to legislate statutes regarding homicide and abortion.
The karmic irony of they intend to abort reproductive rites. No witch trials for you.
There is no mystery in conception following sex. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. And still six weeks. Baby steps.
Whether you like it or not, and whether you can admit it or not, abortion is also a legal choice prior to viability.
Yes abortions are legal. Up until at least severing the umbilical cord. Yes the baby can be fully delivered and aborted. Maybe later is Democrats get their way.
“Yes the baby can be fully delivered and aborted.”
No, you clearly don’t understand the straightforward medical fact that an abortion literally can’t occur after a baby is delivered.
Your are quibbling over centimeters.
The late term abortion calls for the baby to present the head, surgical scissors make an incision at the back of the skull and a suction tube inserted in the opening and vacuums out the brain.
Late term abortions require the delivery of the dead baby. Or do you cling to the term fetus as long as the baby is dead when delivered?
No, I’m not “quibbling over centimeters.”
First, let’s straighten out the fact that the medical community doesn’t use the term “late term abortion” (in part because they do refer to “late-term” pregnancies, which are pregnancies that go past 41 weeks gestation), and let’s see what they do say. Here’s some relevant commentary from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
“Abortion after 21 weeks accounts for slightly more than 1 percent of all abortions that occur in the United States. Abortion later in the second trimester is very rare, and abortion in the third trimester is rarer still, accounting for less than one percent of abortions. The term “late-term abortion” has no medical definition and is not used in a clinical setting or to describe the delivery of abortion care later in pregnancy.
“The need for an abortion later in pregnancy could arise for a number of reasons, including fetal anomalies or complications that threaten a woman’s health. Women, in consultation with their physicians, must be able to evaluate all appropriate treatments and make informed choices about what’s best for their health and their pregnancies. Depending on the circumstance, this might include abortion care, induction of labor, or cesarean delivery. Women’s access to accurate, full information and care must never be constrained by politicians.
“Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion. In any case, the focus of medically-appropriate, compassionate care must be on the patient and what she feels is best for her health and her family.
“Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.”
As for the procedures that are used for abortions at or after 21 weeks, the most common is a procedure called dilation and evacuation. According to the CDC, D&Es account for over 90% of abortions later in pregnancy. A small number of abortions later in pregnancy use some other procedure, such as induction abortion or dilation and extraction. If you identify the medical name for what you’re talking about, we can look up a medical discussion of what it involves.
Thanks for the factual post Anonymous.
YW,
PS My wife was nurse practitioner in obstetrics as well as a genetic counselor who evaluated women who were pregnant a little later in life. Occasionally they faced a pregnancy with a horrific outcome – sever brain damage, etc. – with no hope of the baby living very long or even pain free. The drain on a families psychic life, as well as huge medical bills that were ultimately pointless, led them to a very tough choice. Burdening them further with the intrusion of the State, led by misguided zealots, is beyond torture. No one is likely to take a pregnancy that deep into completion and then abort it without a damn good reason and the cruelty of those persecuting those providing them that option beyond despicable.
I agree. If, for example, a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term when the fetus has a condition like anencephaly that’s incompatible with life after birth, so that the family has some brief time together before the baby dies, that’s her decision to make. But if she does not want to continue the pregnancy knowing that the baby will die, that should also be her decision to make. There are also situations where the woman is pregnant with more than one fetus, and the choice is to abort one rather than risk that both (or all three) die. These are heart-rending situations. Women also still die in the US from pregnancy-related complications. Those who are anti-abortion seem to think that these are cavalier decisions. They aren’t.
Bridge fog, or they could be carrying a baby with Downs syndrome who will survive, but not be perfect. So they kill the baby before he or she is born. There is a real genocide going on against Downs Syndrome people, some of the kindest people on Planet Earth.
While it is true that many fetuses diagnose with Downs Syndrome or other genetic abnormalities are aborted before they ever see the light of day, the reasons for later abortions are typically the same as for earlier abortions.
“Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2 However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually. Since the Roe framework essentially medicalized abortion decisions beyond the first trimester, and since abortions in the United States are now performed on demand and only rarely for medical reasons which could end the life of the mother, what can we conclude about the value and impact of medical necessity determination in the case of induced abortion? A prescient proabortion author predicted today’s events with remarkable foresight when he concluded that the “rhetoric of medical necessity” is a mistaken strategy because “it is not the empirical evidence of what is or is not medically necessary which is important,” but rather “who possesses the ability to interpret necessity within key political contexts.”5 When viewed from this perspective, it is possible to see the recent New York and Virginia legislation as a signal that politics, not science, is the most powerful influence on abortion issues and legislation…
If an induced abortion is healthcare, still a widely debated question, then the procedure must meet the requirements of being medically necessary. Exempting abortion from the test of medical necessity essentially relinquishes any claim that it is health care. While the concept of medical necessity has been defined in myriad ways, a few key elements present in all of the definitions across a range of medical specialties are especially relevant in the context of induced abortion:
The service must be required to prevent, diagnose, or treat an illness, injury, or disease. Pregnancy is neither an illness nor a disease and, following conception, is no longer preventable. Therefore, the treatment (abortion) must target another specified illness, injury, or disease.
The service must be clinically appropriate and considered effective for the individual illness, injury, or disease. This requirement implies that credible, evidence-based peer-reviewed literature exists that the abortion procedure will produce a positive result on specified outcomes related to the pregnant woman’s illness, injury, or disease. In many states, the official language of the medical necessity determination form is too vague to allow such treatment-to-outcome specificity. In New Jersey, for example, physicians may consider “physical, emotional, and psychological factors” in determining whether a termination of pregnancy is medically necessary. There are specific clinical criteria available for determining the medical necessity for psychiatric treatment: a diagnosed disorder; which can be improved by the treatment based on accepted medical standards; presence of the illness documented by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) codes assigned; and determination made by a licensed mental health professional.9 Too often, these assessments are neglected or superficially completed using inappropriate documentation and by persons without appropriate credentials and experience.10
The service is not primarily for the convenience of the individual, the individual’s health-care provider, or other health-care providers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/
Karen,
For that article, the journal says “Received: March 06, 2019; Accepted: March 06, 2019,” so it’s hard for me to imagine that it was peer-reviewed, since it would take time for an editor to identify reviewers, send it to them, get the reviews back, and read all of them to assess whether to accept the paper. The author, James Studnicki, works for an anti-abortion institute.
Unless you look at some of the studies he refers to, you may be misled by what he wrote. For example, re: the study you highlighted in bold, he says “A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” But if you look up that study, it says “The average gestation at time of abortion was 22 weeks.” Studnicki never defines what *he* means by “late-term,” but 22 weeks is in the second trimester and is a gestational age where most fetuses are not viable. These issues would have been caught by any good reviewer and an editor should have required that the author address them.
You say “the reasons for later abortions are typically the same as for earlier abortions.” What do *you* mean when you say “later abortions”?
For that article, the journal says “Received: March 06, 2019; Accepted: March 06, 2019,” so it’s hard for me to imagine that it was peer-reviewed, since it would take time for an editor to identify reviewers, send it to them, get the reviews back, and read all of them to assess whether to accept the paper. The author, James Studnicki, works for an anti-abortion institute.
You clearly don’t know how to read scientific literature. Nothing you wrote is relevant because the article is a commentary.
:: eye roll ::
As for the author’s affiliation, you may not want to know Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom I respect, is a practicing Roman Catholic, graduated from a Jesuit school and speaks to students on the value of a Jesuit education. Additionally, the director of the NIH, Dr Francis Collins, is a convert to the Christian Faith
See:
The Language of God
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Language-of-God/Francis-S-Collins/9781416542742
Estovir,
“You clearly don’t know how to read scientific literature. Nothing you wrote is relevant because the article is a commentary.”
Thanks for pointing that out. I do know how to read scientific literature. I simply didn’t notice the commentary designation, perhaps because I initially read it on Karen’s link, which doesn’t include that. Now it’s more understandable that the journal self-identifies as peer-reviewed but it’s not a well-written article.
“As for the author’s affiliation, you may not want to know …”
I already did know. Not sure why you’d think I care. Neither is linked to the Lozier Inst.
Abortion deliberately kills the fetus.
If a viable pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life, then emergency C-section or induced labor will end the pregnancy.
If your argument is that a fetus should be aborted if there is a fetal abnormality that will make them suffer, or they won’t live long, then you are arguing for euthanasia. The argument should be couched in those terms.
What about viable fetuses who will have special needs, raining from mild intellectual handicaps to more severe disabilities, or those who are born missing a few fingers? What about a cleft palate? Who speaks for them? There are plenty of people who advocate for a woman’s right to do as she chooses to her own body, but the other person she carries inside of her cannot plead for their life.
In the old days, parents who did not want to be burdened with special needs children would kill them, or leave them to die of exposure. Some Brazilian tribes still practice this. If a child is not walking and talking by age 2, they are buried alive.
Eugenics led to the selective abortion, and even euthanasia of children and adults, of those deemed genetically unfit.
The practice still continues on some level, with the targeted extermination of Downs Syndrome children and other abnormalities. People want perfect children, and they’ll cull to get them.
I’ll bet the abortion debate would take a different tone if genetic testing could determine which embryos would develop homosexuality or gender dysphoria. All of a sudden, the unborn’s right to live would take on a newfound urgency.
Abortion is sad. It’s often done for very selfish reasons. Sometimes, as in the case of ectopic pregnancies, it’s inevitable. I don’t know what a good law on abortion would look like, but a lot of people don’t identify with or feel compassion for the developing human being who at a certain point can feel pain and fear.
The abortion debate needs to be balanced with people on one side advocating strongly for the pregnant mothers, and the other side advocating strongly for the unborn children, who have no voice in the matter.
As the Supreme Court said in Roe v Wade, at some point in gestation, the interests of the unborn become more compelling than the rights of the mother.
“Abortion deliberately kills the fetus.”
Yes.
“If a viable pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life, then emergency C-section or induced labor will end the pregnancy.”
Some pregnancies involve more than one fetus. In those situations, they don’t all become viable simultaneously, and sometimes one of them has life-threatening complications or is causing life-threatening complications for another. Some fetuses never become viable. In some cases, the risk to the mother’s life is from suicide. … (That “…” is meant to indicate that there are lots of variations on the conditions that lead some women to seek an abortion later in pregnancy and why viability may not be clear-cut.)
“If your argument is that a fetus should be aborted…”
But that’s not my argument. At all. I would never tell a woman that she should get an abortion. If no woman ever chose to get an abortion, that’s fine with me.
I believe abortions should be legal prior to viability (and that means that I think they should be legal even in the third trimester for fetuses that have conditions that are incompatible with life after birth and will never become viable, because I, personally, do not believe it is right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term knowing that the baby will die right after birth, though I totally support women who *choose* to do that), that they should be legal after viability if the woman’s life or health are seriously endangered in the judgment of her physician, and that there may be rare other situations later in pregnancy where I’m OK with a woman and doctor making choices that knowingly result in fetal death (e.g., in a multiple pregnancy with complications, where not all of the fetuses can be saved).
“the other person she carries inside of her cannot plead for their life.”
Is it a person? Are frozen embryos persons? Do they have a right to be implanted? Should they be counted in the census like other people? Or is there some point later in pregnancy where it becomes a person for you (so you don’t have to worry about frozen embryos being people)?
“the developing human being who at a certain point can feel pain and fear”
They can’t experience fear until their brain has developed sufficiently, around the same time as viability. It’s a key reason that I consider viability an important boundary.
As mentioned, previously, what you are advocating is euthanasia of a fetus who is suffering. Such a debate should acknowledge that the grounds are euthanasia.
An embryo is a homo sapiens. A human. Pesonhood is a social construct wherein the human has rights and value.
As I said earlier, it is very important in the abortion debate that one side advocate strongly on behalf of pregnant women while another side advocate strongly for the unborn who have no voice. They are so often forgotten. Even the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade acknowledged that the interests of the unborn do become more compelling than the rights of the mother at a certain point.
Do you have a problem with someone advocating for the unborn in this debate? If so, why?
The entire abortion argument is where a pregnant woman’s rights end, and when the rights of the unborn to not be killed begin. Many have different ideas about this. Viability. Genetic anomalies wherein a viable fetus may still be killed because the mother feels the handicap would be a burden, ability to feel pain, etc.
The fact is that most Americans do believe there should be limits on abortion. Most would recoil at the idea of a woman aborting a perfectly healthy, viable, full term fetus just a few days before delivery. Yet women can and do such a thing at times. If you read the evidence and testimonies from Dr Gosnell’s abortion factory, full term healthy infants were killed. Those mothers not only did not want to raise that child, they wanted that kid dead rather than adopted, even though they still had gone through almost the entirety of their pregnancy and still experienced labor. While there are stories of men who didn’t want to be fathers punching their pregnant girlfriends to make them lose the unwanted baby, or even murdering the women, there are also stores of pregnant women deliberately killing her full term infant to take revenge upon the unfaithful father. Then there are all the stories of women who kill their newborns or leave them to die of exposure.
At some point, most Americans would prohibit a pregnant woman from killing her unborn child. Sometimes the choices people make are terrible.
Aside from legislation, one of the core issues for those who advocate for limits is for the general public to remember that these are humans. It’s out of sight, out of mind. It’s just a rounded belly. The unborn are often referred to as just a bunch of cells or tissue, which is only true for a matter of days. Activists dehumanize the unborn. Even if there were no limits on abortion whatsoever, there would be a movement to humanize and arouse compassion for children en utero. One of my family members was adopted as a baby. I often think about the loss of the adult that an aborted baby could have grown up to be. His mother was either unable to care for him, or just not ready to be a parent. Because she delivered her baby, and gave him up for adoption, we got to have him in our family growing up. He could have been killed before he was ever born, and then we’d never have known him. We’d have lost out on so much.
When I think of most abortions, I think of how a baby gets killed by order of the one person who was supposed to fight tigers for him – his mother. It’s kind of like The Shining, where the psychological horror comes from the father being the threat to his son rather than protector.
In an abortion, the mother doesn’t see the little face of the fetus as he or she is killed. She doesn’t see the expression, or the struggle, especially apparent in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. She will never know.
Perhaps if a mother’s belly became transparent, so we could see the little fetus floating there, there would be less abortions.
Karen,
“what you are advocating is euthanasia of a fetus who is suffering”
No, I’m definitely not. I didn’t say anything about the fetus suffering. You must have misinterpreted something I wrote. If you quote back what made you think that, we can clear it up.
“An embryo is a homo sapiens. A human.”
Embyronic cells are certainly human cells, but a lot of embryos don’t have the biological capacity to develop into people. A lot of them have serious chromosomal defects, and they may undergo cell division once or a few times but quickly stop dividing and die. They die before implanting. This isn’t considered miscarriage because they never implant.
You may want to call an embryo that has no capacity to develop into a person a human, but I don’t. We may have different opinions about that.
Also, if it continues to develop, some embryonic cells continue developing into the embryo, but other embryonic cells develop into the amniotic sac, umbilical cord, and placental tissue. I bet you wouldn’t call an umbilical cord a human simply because it’s composed of human cells.
I might agree to calling an embryo that does have the biological capacity to develop into a person a human. But research indicates that’s probably less than half of all human embryos. Also, especially for early stage embryos, they have different properties than what we normally associate with humans. For example, you can freeze early stage embryos without killing them, whereas normally if you freeze a human, that human dies.
Bottom line: whether an embryo is a human isn’t so straightforward.
“Pesonhood is a social construct wherein the human has rights and value.”
Yes, and that social construct means people have beliefs about what’s essential to being a person. For example, do you consider conjoined twins to be one person or two? Or if two different embryos merge and develop into a single newborn, do you consider the newborn one person or two? For me, the most essential feature of personhood is a brain capable of basic activity such as consciousness. I consider conjoined twins to be two people because there are two independently functioning brains, and I consider a newborn that developed from 2 merged embryos to be one person because there’s one functioning brain. How do you think about those two situations: as 1 person or 2?
I’m comfortable with beating heart organ donation after brain death. That person is legally dead, even though the heart is beating. Are you OK with that, or do you think that person is still alive because the heart is beating?
“Even the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade acknowledged that the interests of the unborn do become more compelling than the rights of the mother at a certain point.”
Even then, the mother’s right to life and health is still more compelling, which is why abortions are allowed after viability if the pregnancy seriously threatens the mother’s life or health. But yes, the balance of the interests shifts as the fetus develops, and abortion is generally illegal after viability.
“Do you have a problem with someone advocating for the unborn in this debate?”
No, as long as the person is aiming for a sincere, truthful, civil debate.
“The entire abortion argument is where a pregnant woman’s rights end, and when the rights of the unborn to not be killed begin.”
No, as I noted earlier, the unborn do not have rights. The argument is about the balance of rights between the woman and the State.
“The fact is that most Americans do believe there should be limits on abortion.”
Yes. I believe that there should be limits on abortion, as I already said.
“Most would recoil at the idea of a woman aborting a perfectly healthy, viable, full term fetus just a few days before delivery. Yet women can and do such a thing at times.”
I recoil at that too, and it’s generally illegal. But women and men sometimes break the law. Gosnell is an example.
“Even if there were no limits on abortion whatsoever, there would be a movement to humanize and arouse compassion for children en utero.”
By some people, yes. Yet I don’t see most anti-abortion people fighting to improve maternal healthcare for the poor, so for those people, their compassion only extends so far. Some who want compassion for children in utero don’t even show compassion for all children who’ve been born.
“Perhaps if a mother’s belly became transparent, so we could see the little fetus floating there, there would be less abortions.”
Maybe. Or maybe if we also added a powerful microscope, we’d realize how often embryos fail to develop to birth even when there’s no elective abortion, and we’d think harder about whether we’re going to mourn them as if they were people dying or if there’s a difference between and embryo and a person.
It seems one alias disappears, replacing itself with another. I like your new name because fog represents confusion, an accurate portrayal of your state of mind as you post away on this blog despite the many name changes.
SM (S. Meyer)
S. Meyer, you are a troll.
“According to the CDC, D&Es account for over 90% of abortions later in pregnancy. A small number of abortions later in pregnancy use some other procedure, such as induction abortion or dilation and extraction.”
Gee, induction abortion. Sounds like exactly what i described. 10% is still 80,000 babies, a percentage of that percentage are healthy viable babies.
Or benign neglect. Like Virginia Governor Ralph Northam described the handling of a survivor of a late term abortion.
In response, Northam said that” a baby born alive could be “kept comfortable” and then “resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired” – the implication being that the baby could be left to die if the family decided they did not want to keep their child.
If you think the phrase “induction abortion” sounds exactly like “the baby to present the head, surgical scissors make an incision at the back of the skull and a suction tube inserted in the opening and vacuums out the brain,” perhaps you need to get your ears and eyes checked.
Go ahead: present your evidence that in an induction abortion “surgical scissors make an incision at the back of the skull and a suction tube inserted in the opening and vacuums out the brain.”
If you consider yourself moral, surely you care whether you’re telling the truth.
Same with the quote you took out of context from Gov. Northam. He said that a third-trimester abortion is “done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
If a newborn isn’t viable, it’s going to die shortly after birth. If a newborn has serious deformities that will require a lot of painful surgery and invasive treatment that may not be effective, parents have to decide whether they’re going to put the newborn through all of that in the hope that somehow the baby can survive or if they’re just going to offer palliative care. They might resuscitate the newborn that will never be able to breathe on its own for the family to say goodbye. You’re so astoundingly dismissive of the things that can actually go wrong with prenatal development, that parents sometimes have to grapple with.
“the implication being that the baby could be left to die if the family decided they did not want to keep their child.”
No, that is NOT the implication of what he actually said. Figure out how to have a truthful discussion about it. You’re presenting your side as moral, right? Isn’t truthfulness part of being moral for you?
+100
eb
You need to check the dictionary for the word aborted.
The way your mind functions is an abortion.
“…A NEW INDIVIDUAL IS INITIATED.”
_____________________________
– A zygote is a human being.
– Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being.
– Abortion is homicide; abortion is murder.
_________________________________
Fertilization
Fertilization is the fusing of the gametes, that is a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell), to form a zygote. At this point, the zygote is genetically distinct from either of its parents.
– Wiki
_____
fertilization noun
fer·til·i·za·tion | \ ˌfər-tə-lə-ˈzā-shən
Definition of fertilization
b (2) : the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated
– Merriam-Webster
_______________
homicide noun
ho·mi·cide | \ ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd
Definition of homicide
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another
– Merriam-Webster
Here is a link to download the Roe v Wade decision:
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/
The Court did not rule on the humanity of the fetus. Note that the 14th Amendment addresses citizenship, and how representative are apportioned, not the right to life or other human rights. For instance, you don’t get to kill someone without cause if they were not born in the US:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
“Note that the 14th Amendment addresses citizenship, and how representative are apportioned, not the right to life or other human rights.”
It also addresses that persons are born.
Embryos have no “right to life.” There is no right for an embryo or fetus to use a woman’s uterus, her lungs, her digestive system, her circulatory system, … against her will prior to viability.
Embryos have no “right to life.” There is no right for an embryo or fetus to use a woman’s uterus, her lungs, her digestive system, her circulatory system, … against her will prior to viability.
You have to explain the origin of rights.
Now try to fit your meaningless word salad into that explanation.
LOL, no, I don’t “have to explain the origin of rights” simply because you want me to. If you need a tutor, find one for yourself.
LOL, Truth is hard. “rights” indeed
Rights are not granted. That’s why the constitution protects rights. We already have them. You can use the term “natural rights” but my guess, is that too,makes you uncomfortable with the position you have staked out for yourself.
No, truth isn’t hard, and I’m not uncomfortable with the term “natural rights.”
Anon likes to kill things.
Kill babies, Kill speech, Kill Americans left behind, etc. Amazing how the capital letters add up to KKK.
BTW, if you think that’s a word salad, it suggests that you don’t understand how embryos and fetuses get the oxygen and nutrition that they need to grow, how they dispose of CO2, … Maybe you should read up on it.
understand how embryos and fetuses get the oxygen and nutrition that they need to grow, how they dispose of CO2,
Bacteria do all those same things. In fact bacteria, 39 trillion bacterial cells, in the body outnumber human cells in the human body, 30 trillion bacterial cells in the body, 84% of which are red blood cells. You could use a 10 blade scalpel to remove all of those pesky bacteria but alas that would leave you dead. Please dont try this at home. Me thinks you work for the CDC
😅
Source:
Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533
NB: 39 trillion bacterial cells vs 30 human cells
” oxygen and nutrition that they need to grow, how they dispose of CO2,”
Whoever this is is an idiot.
S. Meyer, aka Anonymous the Stupid, is the idiot here. Perhaps he thinks that the embryo is inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2 itself, or is even stupider and thinks that they don’t need oxygen and don’t produce CO2.
Anonymous the Stupid, I am now first reading some of the comments you made intending to insult me. I looked over the debate, and whoever called you an idiot was correct. I thought Estovir explained things very nicely to you, but you are too Stupid to listen to anyone who has something to say.
I note several others have responded to you. At least one other, if not more (I have skipped over so many), irked you, so you insulted me. That is OK. It appears you have problems with a few others that have decided to take a more direct approach with you.
Some of the other comments noted were that you “wing” things are evasive, lie, etc. All those things and more are true. You have zero credibility. Live with it.
SM
S. Meyer, you are a troll. Live with it.
Anonymous the Stupid, it seems you have great difficulty articulating your concerns. I am free for a bit longer, so I expect you to respond. I will probably skip it like I have skipped so much of the garbage you spew.
You are again having a problem distinguishing one person from another, so I am now temporarily placing my initials at the bottom. I’ve read part of your discussion with Iowan. I don’t have to agree with one party to recognize how you create your own dictionary and encyclopedia based on what you think rather than helpful facts.
SM
Anon- “There is no right for an embryo or fetus to use a woman’s uterus, her lungs, her digestive system, her circulatory system, … against her will prior to viability.”
***
How did it get there? Parthenogenesis, did it just elbow its way in and take over, or did the woman have something to do with it?
Anon: “It also addresses that persons are born.”
***
I suspect you are right…to a degree. The Constitution draws heavily on common law. Bracton thought abortion was murder, but Coke and later Blackstone, whose Commentaries educated many of our original lawyers, took the approach that killing an unborn is not murder but misprision, a wrong but not a murder. A charge of murder was not possible unless the child had been born. It is likely that the authors of the Constitution had that idea in mind when they used the word ‘person’ as meaning an individual who had been born.
Thus an abortion could be unlawful but not rise to the level of murder. In sum using only the Constitution and the common law we would say a ‘person’ is only someone who has been born but that there is no inherent constitutional right to an abortion.
Modern techniques, ultrasound and other tools, plus the ability to save the lives of infants who are premature–even very premature–compels us to modernize our concept of ‘person’ and limit abortion after a certain degree of development. Most of us are not uncomfortable with an intervention very early in a pregnancy but we become increasingly disgusted as the time for abortion is extended. At some point most of us would view an abortion as malum in se rather than malum prohibitum. The revelations of Planned Parenthood ripping apart fairly well developed near-infants to sell body parts has inspired considerable revulsion, enough for many people to want to call a halt to the entire procedure.
Jonathan:….And I have it on good authority that our version of the Taliban are now in full control in Texas. Texas women: Better apply for your S-1 visas..or put on your burkas!
Taliban kill….just like Democrats.
The Supreme Court could issue a writ of prohibition against a lower court from deciding a lawsuit if it lacks jurisdiction, and courts in the United States of course lack jurisdiction to hear lawsuits arising from an unconstitutional law.
But issuing such a writ requires an existing lawsuit before the lower court.
“U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing examining the Supreme Court’s abuse of its ‘shadow-docket,’ particularly its order permitting Texas’s extreme new abortion restrictions to take effect this week. … ‘The Supreme Court must operate with the highest regard for judicial integrity in order to earn the public’s trust,’ said Durbin. ‘This anti-choice law is a devastating blow to Americans’ constitutional rights—and the Court allowed it to see the light of day without public deliberation or transparency. At a time when public confidence in government institutions has greatly eroded, we must examine not just the constitutional impact of allowing the Texas law to take effect, but also the conservative Court’s abuse of the shadow docket.’”
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/senate-judiciary-committee-to-examine-the-texas-abortion-ban-and-the-supreme-courts-abuse-of-its-shadow-docket
and the Court allowed it to see the light of day without public deliberation or transparency
Exactly who is SCOTUS supposed to enjoin? Laws are never judged, only govt actors enjoined from enforcing them.
Write out the SCOTUS ruling and lay out exactly how the court would eliminate the law.
Go over to the Volokh Conspiracy. They lay out exactly why SCOTUS did not act. They are not happy about, but they are honest about the law.
There is no action to take. Durbin knows this, he is lying to his constituents and the media, as usual, are aiding and abetting the lie.
What part of “without public deliberation or transparency” did you not understand?
Perhaps you don’t understand what the shadow docket is and that there are no public arguments before the court in shadow docket cases?
Lots of people are upset about the shadow docket. The concern is apolitical, or just depends on who owns the OX
What exactly is the legislature going to do about it? Plenary Power, I suggested a while back you should look the term up. It is not just something the Executive branch enjoys. All three branches posses plenary powers. You think congress can tell another branch of Government how to execute their constitutional duties? Durbin is pandering and everybody know it. Hell, even you know it.
But that ignores the basic fact. SCOTUS had no judicial avenues available. NONE. (prove me wrong) Durbin is fully aware.
“You think congress can tell another branch of Government how to execute their constitutional duties?”
No, I think Congress can ask members of the Court and legal scholars what kind of use of the shadow docket best serves the country’s well-being and urge the court to act accordingly.
“SCOTUS had no judicial avenues available. NONE. (prove me wrong)”
Have you tried reading the dissents?
For example, Chief Justice Roberts, “I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner. … I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims.”
Or Justice Sotomayor, “It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry. Moreover, the District Court held this case justiciable in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion after weeks of briefing and consideration. … At a minimum, this Court should have stayed implementation of the Act to allow the lower courts to evaluate these issues in the normal course.”
For example, Chief Justice Roberts, “I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect
The courts cannot strike down a law. All the courts can do is order around government officials. They enjoin a person from carrying out the intent of the law. In this case, who would you enjoin?
I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 Great, Preclude WHO? There is no enforcement in the law
There are no government actors. NONE
It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.
The law is not unconstitutional. Not a single judge has made that ruling.
I did read the dissents. As I referred to earlier, go over to Volokh and read their analysis. They hate it, but they cant get around the structure of the law that has NO government actors to sue.
I imagine lawsuits are being drafted and searching for litigants. IANAL but there seems to be a blank where “defendant” would be named.
“In this case, who would you enjoin? … Preclude WHO?”
State officers of the court. They are government officials. Just how are these vigilante citizens going to act on the law without using the courts to do so? Did you read the law and see all of the references to the court acting by making decisions, determining standing, awarding relief and damages, etc.?
“There are no government actors. NONE ”
How can you argue that officers of the court are not government actors?
“The law is not unconstitutional.”
Sure it is. “a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child” is obviously contrary to Roe and Casey if the embryo or fetus is not yet viable. Are you seriously saying that we can’t make claims about the constitutionality of laws until a judge says so? That’s ludicrous. Lawyers make claims about unconstitutionality in their arguments before the court rules on the constitutionality! Non-lawyers can also make these claims. It’s facially unconstitutional.
That is your opinion. Not a judges opinion.
The SCOTUS majority explains their ruling.
“For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention.”
Hate on the results all you want, but you have to credit the court from following the rule of law.
The dissenters say SCOTUS should intervene but are silent about how that would be accomplished.
But they weren’t silent about how to accomplish it. For example, C.J. Roberts (with agreement from the other 3): “At a minimum, this Court should have stayed implementation of the Act to allow the lower courts to evaluate these issues in the normal course.” There was nothing preventing the majority from agreeing to stay implementation of the law while it worked it’s way through the lower courts. They did that recently with a different law in CA.
No, I think Congress can ask members of the Court and legal scholars what kind of use of the shadow docket best serves the country’s well-being and urge the court to act accordingly.
And I can ask Santa Clause for a new F 150 Platinum edition….and I will get exactly the same results as Durbin will get. Like my request to Santa is fantasy, and I know it. Durbins request is also fantasy and he knows it.
I would love for SCOTUS to hold a hearing with political scholars about what the legislature should be doing to further the best interest of the Nation. Pelosi might have a stroke.
SCOTUS doesn’t hold hearings where they invite scholars to opine. The only time they hear from scholars is if they’re either parties or amici in a case, and even then SCOTUS hears from their lawyers, not directly from the scholars. Congress does hold some hearings where scholars opine. Turley is one of the people who has been invited to speak at such hearings. Or are you going to say it was just a fantasy that he’s spoken more than once before Congress?
Jonathan: People in Texas can now carry a gun in public without a permit but can’t get an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy. So a Texan who prizes his “freedom” to carry a gun on his hip can prevent a woman from exercising her Constitutional “freedom” to choose. Trump’s wall was built on the wrong side of the border. Perhaps the wall should encircle the entire state to prevent the crazies there from getting out!
The gun isn’t killing babies. It is being carried. The gun is for protection, much like a condom. Use one, and other birth control, and you don’t have to worry about killing your own baby.
All forms of birth control sometimes fail.
Women and girls who are raped sometimes become pregnant.
Women and girls still die from pregnancy-related complications.
Fetuses sometimes develop conditions that will prevent life after birth.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one.
That doesn’t answer the question at hand. That is evasion. An anonymous answer before evaded as well. Was that you? An anonymous question was raised in response.
====
“Viability is about the boundary in the tension of rights between the woman’s right to an abortion and the state’s right to ban abortion. It’s not the boundary for personhood.”
– – – – –
When is personhood?
Who decides?
Does location determine personhood?
When is personhood?
Who decides?
Not SCOTUS. Those powers not enumerated in the constitution are left to the states or the people.
Wow, you need to reread the Constitution.
Article III:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. … The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution …”
You seriously believe that the definition of “person” is not a constitutional issue?
Start with the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. …”
So, yes, SCOTUS.
Anonymous:
Take another look at the 14th Amendment. It delineates the requirements for citizenship, due process, and how representatives are apportioned. Freed slaves born in the US became citizens upon its passing.
It does not, in any way, address when human rights begin. SCOTUS explicitly declined to answer when life begins. One should also note that as the decades passed, the gestation of viability changed. We also now have data on when a fetus feels pain that was not available to the Court or the appellants at the time.
For example, you cannot kill without cause someone just because they were not born in the United States. Being born in the US is not when human rights begin, or even when our laws begin to apply. Of course an unborn child is not going to be considered a citizen, as someone could visit the US while pregnant, go home to Lithuania, give birth, and that child is not a US citizen merely because it was on US soil en utero for a short while.
Roe v Wade decided on the grounds of the right to privacy, the due process clause of the 14th, and when the interests of the child become compelling, based on current medical knowledge. It acknowledged that citizenship is not conferred until birth. It acknowledges at least the potential life of the unborn, and that at some point, their interests become compelling above the right to privacy of the mother. For SCOTUS, the gestation when those interests become compelling is after the line in which the State may fully regulate abortion. For the Court, viability was when the unborn had a right to life, unless the life of the mother was at risk. Frankly, I’ve never understood that last bit. If the fetus is viable, and the pregnancy risks the life of the mother, then you perform an emergency C section or induce labor. For instance, my own pregnancy became life threatening. My baby was delivered within the hour of determining this. My baby had his own team of medical professionals who thankfully ascertained he was OK. How can late term abortion activists justify the act on the basis of being a threat to the life of the mother, when the procedure takes longer and carries higher risk to the mother. How does the extra step of killing a fetus in a late term abortion, AND THEN removing it in pieces, over the course of a few days, mitigate the risk to the life of the mother better than delivering the infant alive? It does not appear to. Rather, it is a means to justify killing an unwanted child. The mother would rather see her viable infant dead than alive and adopted. Perhaps the argument is that adopting out a child who might grow to resent them would create psychological harm to the birth mother?
The Court made the following statement in regard to the unborn child:
“Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.”
“The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is per- formed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emer- gency that might arise. The prevalence of high mor- tality rates at illegal “abortion mills” strengthens, rather than weakens, the State’s interest in regulating the con- ditions under which abortions are performed. More- over, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman’s own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.
The third reason is the State’s interest-some phrase it in terms of duty-in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 5 The State’s interest and general obliga- tion to protect life then extends, it is argued, to pre- natal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state in- terest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.”
…
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her.pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.
T”he Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas pro- tected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safe- guarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy,
these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abor- tion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy pre- viously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.”…
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal pri-
vacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against impor- tant state interests in regulation….
The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus…The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or
marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisen- stadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have inti- mated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of poten- tial human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly…
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the
pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”
“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mor- tality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preserva- tion and protection of maternal health…
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifica- tions.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf
“It does not, in any way, address when human rights begin. ”
I agree. I didn’t suggest that it addresses human rights. The Constitution doesn’t frame things in terms of human rights. It addresses the legal rights of “persons.” Legal persons might be biological persons or they might be things like corporations. Clearly some rights only apply to biological persons and not corporate persons.
“Being born in the US is not when human rights begin, or even when our laws begin to apply.”
You keep using the phrase “human rights.” The Constitution simply doesn’t address that. It addresses the rights of persons. An embryo is not a legal person. If you think that embryos should count as a legal person, the Constitution will have to be amended. Keep in mind unintended side-effects, such as counting persons in the Census: are you going to count frozen embryos? Lots of women have miscarriages: are you going to require that a court determine for each one whether it was a miscarriage vs. manslaughter vs. murder?
“Roe v Wade decided on the grounds of the right to privacy, the due process clause of the 14th, and when the interests of the child become compelling, based on current medical knowledge. ”
No, Roe (which again is no longer precedent, as it was supplanted by Casey) addressed when the interests of the State become compelling, both for the State’s interest in the woman’s health and the State’s interest in the fetus. It’s important not to confuse the State, which has legal rights, with the embryo or fetus, which does not have legal rights. The ruling addressed the interests of the State, not the interests of the fetus.
“For the Court, viability was when the unborn had a right to life, unless the life of the mother was at risk.”
No. You are continuing to misread what the Court said. They did NOT say that the fetus ever has a right to life. In Casey, they said that once the fetus is viable, the State has a right to restrict abortions except where the woman’s life or health are endangered. The State has rights, not the fetus.
“If the fetus is viable, and the pregnancy risks the life of the mother, then you perform an emergency C section or induce labor.”
Often that’s the case, but it’s not always that straightforward, since a woman may be pregnant with twins, triplets, even quads or more, and the fetuses don’t all become viable simultaneously. Some fetuses never become viable because they have a condition like anencephaly that’s incompatible with life after birth. Or maybe the baby’s gestational age is one where some fetuses are viable and others aren’t, and this particular fetus isn’t, and it’s too unsafe for the mother to wait a few weeks until it becomes viable. Sometimes the risk to the mother’s life is that she’s suicidal for some reason that’s related to the pregnancy (mental health is complex, just like physical health is complex). … There are all sorts of individual situations that arise in pregnancy. If this is something that you really want to understand, perhaps it would help to read stories of individual women who had abortions later in pregnancy. Here are a few — https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.html — and that links to a website where there are more, abortionpatients.com
I’m glad that they were able to perform an emergency C-section for you and that your baby was OK, and I hope that there were no long-term complications for you.
The constitution is silent on when life begins.
Your reliance on the word person, forces you to limit SCOTUS to the words used in the constitution, and eliminates all the cases based on emanations and penumbra.
The fact remains, we are a self governing representative Republic. Ruled by the people through their elected representatives.
Abortion was legal across the nation, and throughout the States, with local jurisdictions enforcing the social mores of the community. It worked great until SCOTUS decided NYC and Wichita, had exactly the same social mores, or more precisely that some jurisdictions did not meet the high standards as determined by 5 unelected rulers.
Elite Americans often wistfully desire that we should be more like our “enlighten” European brethren. But not concerning abortion. The laws are stricter, and the people are happier….because the people decided what was best, and crafted the laws they would liver under. They did not have laws forced on them by the unelected
“The constitution is silent on when life begins.”
Yup, because science tells us that life is continuous. The only time that life sprang from non-life was eons ago, when life first began on Earth. The unfertilized egg is alive. The sperm is alive. They join to form a fertilized egg that’s also alive.
“Your reliance on the word person… Ruled by the people through their elected representatives.”
You don’t even notice your own reliance on “people.”
Are conjoined twins one person or two?
After brain death, is the person still alive, or is there only a living body but the person has died?
Should frozen embryos be counted in the census?
Personhood is at the center of this debate!
“You seriously believe that the definition of “person” is not a constitutional issue?“
Again you duck the issue. You also fail to understand the Constitution.
What is personhood?
When is personhood?
You can continue with the game of winging it, but everyone can easily see how you are evading the question.
To the anonymous commenter who posted the September 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM comment, and who also posts under the name S. Meyer:
I consider you (S. Meyer) a troll. You have proven time and again that you are an abusive, dishonest, insincere person. I don’t care that you find my replies unsatisfying.
iowan – you are right.
The Constitution only states that US citizenship begins at birth. It does not mention the unborn, or even when human rights begin, rights that do not rely upon citizenship.
In Roe v Wade, the Court determined that a woman had a right to privacy until the end of her first trimester. After that point, as abortions become more medically risky, states had an interest in regulating abortion. The Court acknowledged that a fetus has at the very least a potential life, whose interests at some point become compelling over and above the mother’s right to privacy. Based on medical information available at the time, the Court decided that a fetus had a compelling right to life at viability, with the exception of where the mother’s life was at risk.
I’ve long wondered how a late term abortion can save a woman’s life, as it takes the extra step of killing and dismembering the baby, a process that takes several days, includes labor, and is high risk. Compare with a pregnancy that is deemed either a threat to the woman’s health, or where the baby is at risk. Doctors perform an emergency C section, or induce labor, to deliver the infant as quickly as possible. That is the fastest way to end the pregnancy, and thus the risk to the woman’s health.
I was diagnosed with preeclampsia a few weeks before my due date. My pregnancy was a risk to my health, and my baby was at risk. I was delivered via C-section within less than an hour of diagnosis. My husband barely made it in time, and was still breathing hard from running. Luckily, our medical care was excellent and both I and my baby were just fine. The surgery itself seemed to take minutes. It took longer to prep me, and then patch me up afterwards, than it did to actually deliver the baby.
A late term abortion of a viable infant means the mother would rather see him or her dead than alive, and she’s willing to draw out childbirth for days to make sure that happens. If her reasoning is humane euthanasia of a non viable or disabled infant, then that’s the way the argument should be crafted, not that it’s about the mother’s health.
I have not yet heard any cogent argument as to a benefit to the woman’s health to undergo the days’ long process of late term abortion, instead of an emergency delivery. As far as I know, the latter is the fastest, and least risky, way to end a pregnancy that is a threat to a woman’s health. And that’s what childbirth is – the end of the pregnancy.
Since I have personally had an emergency delivery of a pregnancy diagnosed as a risk to my health, I do not understand any medical justification based on the mother’s health for late term abortion if the infant is viable. If there is one, then it is unknown to me.
“The Constitution only states that US citizenship begins at birth.”
No, it says a lot more.
For example, it says that “persons” have rights. Legal persons, which can either be biological persons or legal creations like corporations.
“the Court decided that a fetus had a compelling right to life at viability, with the exception of where the mother’s life was at risk. ”
No, it absolutely did not. It said that at viability, the STATE has a sufficient interest in the fetus that the STATE has a right to outlaw abortion with few exceptions. The court did not establish any rights for the fetus. None.
“I’ve long wondered how a late term abortion can save a woman’s life, as it takes the extra step of killing and dismembering the baby, a process that takes several days, includes labor, and is high risk. ”
Have you ever tried looking it up? If you need help finding medical discussions, I will help you find them. Just let me know what search terms you used. Also, you yourself note that it doesn’t have to include labor or last several days.
No, it absolutely did not. It said that at viability, the STATE has a sufficient interest in the fetus that the STATE has a right to outlaw abortion with few exceptions. The court did not establish any rights for the fetus. None.
Now you are talking in circles.
Now you are saying abortion is a raw medical procedure. NOT anything to do with a human life. So I am confused exactly what is the States interest?
“Now you are talking in circles.”
No, I’m not. I’m making a very straightforward distinction between the fetus itself having rights (it doesn’t) and the State having rights later in the pregnancy (it does).
“Now you are saying abortion is a raw medical procedure. NOT anything to do with a human life.”
No, I didn’t say that. If you quote where you *think* I said it, I’ll clear up your mistaken inference.
“I am confused exactly what is the States interest?”
Have you tried reading what SCOTUS said about the State’s interests in Roe? After all, that’s what I correcting Karen about. Here’s their summary, and you’ll find more discussion in the opinion:
“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
“(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
You might also read Casey, since that’s actually the precedent now.
STATE has a sufficient interest in the fetus that the STATE has a right to outlaw abortion with few exceptions.
What interest in a fetus?
The fetus according to the pro abortion class, is a tissue mass. no more no less. The state has no defined interest in a tissue mass.
IF the State as an interest because the State is protecting the life of a baby, the only way the State’s interest supercedes the interest of mother, is because the State has an obligation to life.
“The fetus according to the pro abortion class, is a tissue mass.”
I don’t know anyone who is “pro abortion.” I’m pro-choice, not “pro abortion.” If no one ever has an abortion, that’s totally OK with me.
I certainly don’t argue that embryos and fetuses are nothing more than “a tissue mass.” Lying about the people you disagree with is neither honest nor productive.
“That doesn’t answer the question at hand.”
The September 3, 2021 at 9:35 AM comment I was responding to didn’t ask any questions.
As for YOUR questions, if you want answers, look them up for yourself.
No need to look anything up. You make a lot of comments unidentified so no one can tie one to another. Others take note of that as well. You have made a lot of statements that don’t seem to advance any type of discussion. I will reproduce what was written before.
You don’t have to respond with an answer. I am used to reading a lot of pointless responses.
====
“Viability is about the boundary in the tension of rights between the woman’s right to an abortion and the state’s right to ban abortion. It’s not the boundary for personhood.”
– – – – –
When is personhood?
Who decides?
Does location determine personhood?
Get one in 6 weeks, and you don’t have to worry about it. There are exceptions. The number of abortions being done tells me they all aren’t getting raped or having incest. YOU should know when you have sex. It’s sick that so many use it as birth control.
67 people rushed in to kill their babies yesterday. 67 less Progressively brought up haters. Maybe use protection…and you wouldn’t have to worry about killing your own child.
“can now carry a gun in public without a permit but can’t get an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy.”
What do they have to do with one another?
Your flawed partisan over reach is sickening. You parade forth the ability to kill an unborn child as a constitutional right…like it’s some sacred satanic religious ritual you demand to exercise. The Talleywhackers of afgaffistan are the lefto fascist like yourself. It is as if you are on a socialist crusade. You have zero tolerance for opinions other than yours…demand death of babies in the womb…just because. If a woman in Texas wants to snuff out her childs life before it’s time..she can run over to one of the other leftist states that rejoice in “fetalcide”. So all your crowing is bunk…they can still make hamburger out of their offspring if they wish , they just have a longer ride to get there.
Turley says:
“legal experts are expected to drive ratings and readership with breathless, partisan takes on every story.”
Ain’t that the dyin’ truth! You did your job, Turley, a bit too well it seems in assisting Fox News to defame (allegedly) Smartmatic and Dominion in your partisan effort to drive its ratings. Will you reveal if you have been subpoenaed?
Ever notice that Turley NEVER praises or compliments ANY legal expert? You would think that only Turley manages to rise miraculously above the partisan fray— notwithstanding his being on Fox’s payroll.
Lucky for him Trumpists will swallow anything…
If you swallow, you don’t have to murder your baby.
“Ain’t that the dyin’ truth! You did your job,”
What job is Turley supposed to do?
Turley’s job as a Fox employee is to give legal credence to the reckless claims made by the Fox prime time hosts. For example, when Hannity invited Turley onto his program to ask him what he thought of Trump’s lawyers arguing that the election was stolen, Turley dutifully stated that they had the right to file claims because there were legitimate questions.
Had Turley himself investigated the merits of those claims? Doubtful. Had he, he would have realized, as do the Judges now, that they were frivolous and fraudulent. Yet Turley recklessly endorsed these meritless lawsuits, and now Fox is being sued for billions for defamation. Turley has a job to do as a Fox employee- provide legal commentary that bolsters Fox’s narratives against the MSNBC and CNN, its media competitors.
Had Turley himself investigated the merits of those claims? Doubtful. Had he, he would have realized, as do the Judges now
No judge ever allowed any evidence to be presented in court under oath. Mainly because the relief sought was uncomfortable.
Iowan2,
You are lying. The claims of the Trump lawyer’s were fraudulent which is why they have been sanctioned by the Michigan district judge and referred for potential disbarment. Even Turley would not defend the baseless claims of the Trump lawyers nor criticize the judge’s opinion. Turley did NOT publicly discourage these frivolous lawsuits from proceeding at the time. And now his boss, Fox, is being sued for endorsing the Big Lie. It is a shameful stain on Turley’s career.
Iowan2,
True. I said here immediately after the election that I thought the issues would be too big to be handled by the courts or the Court, and so it has been.
But I did not anticipate just how cowardly the courts would be using procedure to avoid ever having to look at the evidence.
My respect for the courts has diminished significantly. Too many judges are activists or cowards rather than defenders of the rule of law.
I resigned to thinking they would at least be sound on property issues but then came the eviction moratorium and Kavanaugh’s idiotic decision to say it is unconstitutional but okay for now.
Young says:
“My respect for the courts has diminished significantly. Too many judges are activists or cowards rather than defenders of the rule of law.”
It perplexes me that you and every other Trumpist here believes that despite the fact that Turley does not share your contempt for judges. Nothing he has ever said would lead any rational person to think so. He must me saddened to think that he has led anyone to lose their faith in the law which he has spent his career teaching respect for. If only he would look you in the eye and tell you how wrong you are.
A lawyer who doesn’t recognize that one can believe legitimate questions exist without first examining the questions.
That is not an intelligent lawyer. Turley doesn’t have to investigate everything he talks about and can depend on context and other things.
This comes from a person who makes claims and doesn’t investigate them and refuses to say what the claims are. This lawyer(?) prefers libel.
SM
Without a hint of self awareness or irony, Fox News regular and writer of one way columns always critical of leftists and Democrats, Turley writes;
“Legal analysts once prized our role of transcending the political rhetoric and offering detached and honest appraisals of legal decisions and developments. However, in the age of echo journalism, legal experts are expected to drive ratings and readership with breathless, partisan takes on every story. Some of that analysis constitutes raw conspiracies theories dressed up as legal analysis …”
Is this guy really this dense? Does he think he’s invisible and no one can see him peeking between his fingers?
Turley consistently gives a coherent and properly cited legal opinions, unlike those “legal experts” or commentators mentioned in his article. The fact that he’s on TV, Fox News or otherwise, is irrelevant. He’s supporting his position with evidence and clear rules derived from caselaw which s the exact opposite the behavior he’s criticizing. If you don’t agree with him or like that he goes on Fox that’s fine. Rebut the argument, but don’t whine about it bc you generally disagree or dislike with the network that’s provided him a platform.
Anonymous says:
“Turley consistently gives a coherent and properly cited legal opinions, unlike those “legal experts” or commentators mentioned in his article.”
Don’t be a sap. Turley flatters himself that he is above all the rest of the legal experts on cable because he is none partisan. He is no better than the rest. He has a job to do for his employer Fox News. Turley earns his wage from the the prime time hosts who fuel the rage in our politics that Turley rightly denounces. He is a hypocrite who picks the speck out of the mainstream media’s eye while ignoring the plank in his own, namely, Fox.
Don’t be a sap. Turley flatters himself that he is above all the rest of the legal experts
So you lack a single thing to substantiate your baseless accusations? I challenged eb to name one time Turley posted an opinion not full supported by the Constitution. He also refused to support his allegations.
Iowan2,
I have never challenged Turley’s opinion on the Constitution. I agree with his opinions. I object to his ignoring more flagrant journalistic abuses at his employer Fox which he *rightly* points out at Fox’s media competitors. That’s Turley’s job as hypocritical as it is. He is no less a partisan than the other legal experts he vilifies.
Tell me, is it not odd that Turley cannot find one legal analyst to praise in the media apart from patting himself in the back?
I object to his ignoring more flagrant journalistic abuses at his employer Fox
two people can read the same paragraph and me moved to respond to entirely different but equally accurate issues raised.
You insist that some random opinion writer see things exactly as you see them. He is not required to see things as you see them.
That does not make Turely wrong, nor is your understanding of the issue wrong. The exact same picture seen from two different perspectives.
Stop demanding all see only your perspective.
Boom!
Iowan2 says:
“Stop demanding all see only your perspective.”
I simply state my opinion. Take it how you like.
Jeff is the perfect definition of the word envy.
SM