Below is my column in The Hill on reaction to the refusal of the Supreme Court to enjoin the Texas abortion law. The order of the Court expressly did not reach the merits and certainly did not, as claimed, overturn Roe v. Wade. The Texas law is not even the greatest threat to Roe. Not only is there a pending case on the docket of the Court that has long been viewed as a serious threat to Roe, but the White House and the House of Representatives are threatening immediate actions that could also create new challenges for pro-choice litigants.
Here is the column:
It is often said that “in the midst of chaos, there is opportunity.” Widely attributed to Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, that saying came to mind when President Biden declared this week that the Supreme Court “unleashed unconstitutional chaos” by declining to enjoin a Texas abortion law. In this self-described chaos, Democratic leaders moved to renew efforts to pack the court with a liberal majority, end the filibuster and federalize abortion laws.
The problem with chaos, however, is that it can be easier to fuel than control. Indeed, Democrats may undermine abortion rights with plans for ill-conceived federal regulations and legislation.
Just before midnight on Wednesday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 not to grant an emergency injunction of a Texas law allowing citizens to enforce a highly restrictive abortion law. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) promptly declared that the court “overturned” Roe v. Wade, and she demanded immediate action; many media flogged the same narrative that conservative justices killed Roe in a midnight attack.
Both were legally and factually wrong.
The Texas law was enacted in May — but challengers waited until shortly before it was to take effect on Sept. 1 to demand emergency court intervention. It was a gamble that backfired when the court refused to intervene. However, the decision neither upheld Texas’s law nor reversed Roe.
Not only was the court’s order removed from the actual merits of the law, but the majority expressly acknowledged that “the applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue.” The rejection of the injunction was because the challengers are suing a state judge and clerk who are not actually tasked with enforcing the law. They were virtually randomly selected in a challenge that seemed more improvisational than procedural. The majority stated that “federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves.” Even in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts admitted 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.”
It also is untrue that the court’s decision prevents the law from being challenged. The law can — and will — be challenged in both state and federal courts. (Indeed, it has already been enjoined by a state judge). If anyone seeks to use this law, it will be challenged and likely expedited on review. Moreover, lower courts are likely to find the law unconstitutional under existing law.
The law’s drafters knew that setting the cutoff date before “viability” would conflict with the case law building on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was designed to force a new review by the Supreme Court, the only body that can set aside or reverse its prior rulings.
Future abortion rights do not run through Texas or Congress. Challenges to the Texas law will take months. But the most immediate threat to Roe is already on the docket. When Texas was enacting its law in May, the Supreme Court accepted a Mississippi case with a fundamental challenge in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case was accepted for one unambiguous question: “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” That case will allow the court a direct, clear case to reconsider the basis for abortion. The final decision in Dobbs will likely long precede any final decision on Texas’s law.
Of course, in some ways, the legacy of Roe is one of chaos. After that decision in 1973, there were widespread protests. Indeed, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a critic of Roe who saw it as too sweeping in supplanting state laws. She later blamed the case for reversing the trend toward more pro-choice states as the issue became a national political rallying cry.
Ginsburg’s criticism is reflected in polls showing the country still deeply divided on the issue; Gallup’s most recent polling shows 49 percent for to 47 percent against abortion — largely unchanged from 2019, when it showed 49 percent to 46 percent. (Notably, the number of citizens who want to see Roe overturned is lower.)
It is not just citizens but jurists and legal experts too who remain divided. For 50 years, the court has faced close votes on the issue. In 1989, a fractured court upheld a restrictive Missouri abortion law in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. In 1992, Roe was barely saved by a simple plurality of the court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In 2000, a 5-4 vote in Stenberg v. Carhart struck down a partial-birth abortion law in Nebraska. But in 2007, the court voted 5-4 to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Throughout this history, when abortion rights were upheld by a core of five liberal justices, it was called pure constitutionalism. Now, when a core of conservative justices threatens such rights, it is called pure chaos. When the court voted for pro-choice litigants, it was deemed “balanced.” Now, with a possible majority willing to curtail such rights, Biden is calling for action to “restore balance” to the court.
That brings us to the pledge by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to codify Roe. Pelosi denounced the “Supreme Court’s cowardly, dark-of-night decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health.” Putting aside that there was no vote on the merits of the law, Pelosi could be creating an opportunity for pro-life advocates in such a move. The House already has moved to federalize elections. This move could effectively federalize abortions if it mandated a single standard for abortions.
Roe affirmed a federal constitutional right to an abortion. Yet the court has always recognized that states continue to exercise authority over abortion services subject to that constitutional standard. If the House just affirms the constitutional standard, it would be a meaningless exercise. Presumably, the House would federally enforce that standard, which could create a new basis for challenge. It could create additional federalism issues that might alienate some on the court, including Chief Justice Roberts, and improve the strategic position of pro-life litigators.
Following a poorly crafted federal lawsuit with a poorly crafted federal law is hardly an improvement for pro-choice voters.
Biden may magnify those problems by pledging a “whole-of-government response” to the court’s order. There is a real possibility that Democrats could lose ground in Dobbs. Moreover, the civil abortion provision may indeed be replicated in other states. However, the range of permissible state action is likely to be decided not by Congress but by the court, based not on a Texas law but on a Mississippi statute.
Roe has long been the battlefield described by Napoleon as “a scene of constant chaos” in which “the winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.” The problem is that Biden cannot control that chaos any more than his predecessors and may, in fact, make it far worse.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Turley Says “Don’t Panic”
But Health Stats For Texas Less Than Reassuring
TEXAS LAGS BEHIND 33 OTHER STATES in terms of public health—this according to a recent report by the United Health Foundation, the nonprofit arm of insurance company UnitedHealth Group.
While the state’s ranking in 2019—34th—is an improvement from its 2018 ranking of 37th, we still have a ways to go, specifically in terms of the high percentage of uninsured people (Texas is ranked last), low rate of mental health providers (ranked 49th), and high prevalence of diabetes (ranked 40th).
Now in its 30th year of publication, the America’s Health Rankings report raises awareness of where states stand on important measures of public health. As the longest-running state-by-state analysis of the nation’s health, the report uses data from a variety of sources to compare how Texas stacks up to other states year-over-year.
In 2019, the report revealed several pressing challenges that Texas currently faces:
17.5 percent of the state does not have health insurance.
12.6 percent of adults are living with some form of diabetes, up by 6 percent from 2018.
Texas has 111.8 mental health providers per 100,000 residents. In contrast, Massachusetts has nearly six times more: 626.6 providers per 100,000. Texas ranks last for policy measures.
Obesity among adults in Texas has increased by 5 percent since 2018.
21.1 percent of Texas children live below the poverty line.
Suicide has increased by 6 percent since 2018.
Drug-related deaths have been increasing since 2007 and currently stand at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people.
Edited from: “Just How Healthy Is Texas?”
Houstonia Magazine, 1/15/20
Texas is fine. It’s the radical Dims that are terminal.
Anonymous the Stupid, you might not realize ,but Californians and New Yorkers are moving to Texas. One wonders how you ever became so Stupid as to keep linking to things without first looking at what actual people say.
For those that keep talking but never listen and prefer to be stupid I am going to repost P.Hamburger’s article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
The Constitution Can Crack Section 230
Tech companies think the statute allows them to censor with impunity. The law is seldom so simple.
By Philip HamburgerJan. 29, 2021 2:00 pm ET
Thanks.
In return, here’s a critique by Mike Masnick: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210130/01201046152/columbia-law-professor-spews-blatantly-false-information-about-section-230-wall-street-journal.shtml
Anonymous the Stupid, obviously you posted this to show how smart you are in comparison to the writer of the article. He’s a kid with no training in the law and his only job is to do what you do, write cr-p. This is another one of your links that says nothing, but you, without the ability to understand Section 230, proudly copy to pretend you are smart. Instead you prove once again that you are Stupid and post links you can’t defend.
I recommend everyone read the cr-p in that article (one only has to go a couple of sentences in to get a feel for the idiocy that follows.) If one reads it they can see what Anonymous the Stupid is made of; cr-p.
You call it cr-p, but you don’t quote a single thing and provide evidence that the quote is cr-p.
You claim that I cannot defend it, but you don’t quote a single thing and ask me to defend it in order to test your conjecture.
You again fail to control your desire to denigrate.
“you don’t quote a single thing”
Why should anyone do that for you even though many provide excellent sources over and over again. You provide BS you haven’t even read. You provide cr-p and when it is legitimate you generally can’t incorporate it into an intelligent argument. It is your right to remain Stupid.
Again, I truly feel sorry for you that you are filled with such a desire to denigrate.
Research: Women Denied Abortion More Likely To Live In Poverty
Women who presented for abortion just before or after the gestational age limit of 30 abortion facilities across the United States between 2008 and 2010 were recruited and followed for 5 years via semiannual telephone interviews. Using mixed effects models, we evaluated socioeconomic outcomes for 813 women by receipt or denial of abortion care.
Results. In analyses that adjusted for the few baseline differences, women denied abortions who gave birth had higher odds of poverty 6 months after denial (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.77; P < .001) than did women who received abortions; women denied abortions were also more likely to be in poverty for 4 years after denial of abortion. Six months after denial of abortion, women were less likely to be employed full time (AOR = 0.37; P = .001) and were more likely to receive public assistance (AOR = 6.26; P < .001) than were women who obtained abortions, differences that remained significant for 4 years.
Conclusions. Women denied an abortion were more likely than were women who received an abortion to experience economic hardship and insecurity lasting years. Laws that restrict access to abortion may result in worsened economic outcomes for women.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304247
Turley Is Maliciously Disingenuous Regarding Effects Of Texas Law
Professor Turley writes:
“Challenges to the Texas law will take months. But the most immediate threat to Roe is already on the docket. When Texas was enacting its law in May, the Supreme Court accepted a Mississippi case with a fundamental challenge in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization”.
………………………………………………………………..
See that: “Challenges to the Texas law will take months”.
If indeed this is the case, it totally undermines Turley’s dismissive attitude towards the reaction of Pro-Choice forces. Just four days ago Turley’s initial column on this issue contained the following passages:
“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”.
“The trigger of this apocalyptic coverage–
…………………………………………………………………….
Turley’s dismissive attitude towards mainstream media coverage, and the reaction of feminists, is insulting at best. Especially when Turley admits that challenges to the Texas law “will take months”. That’s great news for the women of Texas!
And what about that Mississippi law coming before the court. Save The Children offers this interesting factoid regarding Infant Mortality:
“Mississippi has the nation’s highest rate of children dying before their first birthday: 8.5 deaths per 1,000 live births – well above the national average of 5.6.”
See that?? Mississippi expects the nation to emulate their abortion restrictions. Yet they lead the nation in Infant Mortality. ..Great role model to copy..!!
The New York Times carries this recent piece regarding Mississippi’s totally broken healthcare system:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/29/us/when-the-new-covid-surge-struck-mississippi-was-uniquely-unprepared.html?fbclid=IwAR1k_laq-Tulg9Orlu6YZuzWzTadWser7497ET23VJYIBZrpTtzmkYGWT4s
False logic. A higher than average infanta mortality rate is not grounds to kill more babies.
https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/7501.pdf
Info on infant mortality in Mississippi:
Avg infant mortality rate (IMR) for US is 5.9 deaths per 1,000 births. In 2016, Miss IMR decreased from 9.2 to 8.6 deaths per 1000 live births. There was a 9.6% increase in white IMR (6.2 to 6.8 deaths/1,000 births), and a 12% decrease in black IMR (13.0 to 11.4). Leading cause of deaths are preterm birth, SIDS, and birth defects. The mother’s health is of especial concern as it directly impacts IMR. Major issues include tobacco or drug use, chronic medical conditions such as hypertension or diabetes, and if the woman was planning on getting pregnant. For instance, a woman doing drugs or drinking alcohol would not be taking care of herself.
The leading cause of IMR in Miss is preterm birth. The second leading cause is Sudden Unexpected Infant Death, often caused from unsafe sleeping practices, for example where the baby gets accidentally smothered or strangled by items in its crib.
Mississippi’s Covid death rate per 100,000 people was 287. New York was 280. The rate was higher in NYC.
Here is how Covid affected the black community in Miss. Medicaid and Obamacare individual policies provide substandard care compared with employer polices. Since black people suffer poverty at a higher rate, then they also receive this substandard care at a higher rate. Poverty is also associated with obesity, as cheap processed food and fast food is unhealthy. These are also risk factors for Covid complications. Black and Latino people are more likely to work essential jobs rather than an office job they could do at home, so they were exposed to Covid at greater rates.
If you recall, the CDC flubbed the Covid test, which flagged distilled water as positive. Trump had to throw it open to private industry to get tests made. This meant that getting all those tests manufactured and available took longer than it should have. We should go to private industry first next time, and leave the CDC to getting quail high on cocaine.
Frankly, if you want lower rates of Covid, then you shut down the border. Allowing over 1 million illegal immigrants into the country in less than a year is akin to negligent homicide. These immigrants are sent to TX, FL, and many other places, often sick with Covid.
Canada has very strict travel and quarantine rules. So does New Zealand. New Zealand was able to continue a fairly normal existence because it barred access to almost all travelers. It’s a small country surrounded by ocean, so it isn’t pummeled daily with thousands of illegal immigrants. Yet we don’t hear New Zealand accused of xenophobia. Since they controlled who entered the country, enforced quarantine, and had strong contact tracing, they never had a terrible outbreak. I think they only lost around 2 dozen souls during the entire pandemic so far.
It’s a real pity that Democrats fought so hard to maintain travel and immigration during the Covid pandemic, calling all efforts to stop or reduce it xenophobic. They made political hay at the cost of lives.
Karen, did Yogi Berra craft this response for you?
“A higher than average infant mortality rate is not grounds to kill more babies”.
No, it was crafted by Aristotle.
KAREN WRITES:
“Mississippi’s Covid death rate per 100,000 people was 287. New York was 280. The rate was higher in NYC”
……………………………………………………
Karen, New York City has 8 million people densely packed together. Mississippi has only 2 million people scattered over hundreds of miles. The fact that Mississippi’s Covid rate is equal to New York City’s is a terrible, terrible statistic!!
NYC is dense. Upstate New York is not. The mortality rate for Covid was for the entire New York State. It was actually higher than that just for NYC. Putting Covid positive patients into nursing homes would do that.
See the article with the comments about how Medicaid and Obamacare individual policies provide substandard care, yielding worse outcomes for chronic health conditions, and higher Covid risk. In addition, the poor tend to suffer more often from obesity and hypertension, because subsidized processed food is cheaper than healthy food. Again, risk factor for Covid. Of course Covid is going to impact poor areas more. We are not doing a good job with public health. Our medical system chases symptoms instead of emphasizing whole body health. Our Welfare system also tends to make it easier to buy processed junk food than healthy food.
Karen, Mississippi doesn’t have Obamacare and never did. In fact, The New York Times article makes a point of noting that Mississippi refused Obamacare to the detriment of its people. So I don’t why you’re trying to link Obamacare to high Covid rates. It makes no sense whatsoever!
It makes no sense whatsoever!
True. Quoting the main screed media makes no sense whatsoever and yet you do it ad nauseam ad infinitum. Its like your Anonymous left wing friend on here who uses Wiki to support his unscientific claims in rebuttal to my numerous scientific journal and embryology textbooks. You folks look desperate. Are you viable? Hmmm,
The Media Fell for a Viral Hoax About Ivermectin Overdoses Straining Rural Hospitals
https://reason.com/2021/09/06/ivermectin-overdoses-oklahoma-hospitals-rolling-stone-hoax/
It was a story that appeared to confirm many of the mainstream media’s biases about the recklessness of the rubes. But it’s extremely misleading. There is, in fact, little reason to believe a purported strain on Oklahoma hospitals is caused by ivermectin overdoses; one hospital served by the doctor quoted in the KFOR article released a statement saying it has not treated any ivermectin overdoses, nor has it been forced to turn away patients.
This is yet another example of the mainstream media lazily circulating a narrative that flatters the worldview of the liberal audience, without bothering to check on any of the details.
“Its like your Anonymous left wing friend on here who uses Wiki to support his unscientific claims in rebuttal to my numerous scientific journal and embryology textbooks.”
My claims weren’t unscientific, and you neglect to acknowledge that the wiki source was a Penn State wiki, and the page was created by a biologist on their faculty for a course.
You were unwilling to respond to the following:
* Life is continuous. Except for abiogenesis eons ago, life doesn’t spring from non-life. If you think that my statement “The life cycle of mammals is continuous: living mammals create living mammalian gametes, living mammalian gametes fuse and create a living mammalian zygote, the living mammalian zygote develops into a living mammal capable of creating living mammalian gametes” is false, then identify the error.
* Do you dispute that a genetically distinct human zygote often has no biological capacity to develop into a person due to chromosomal abnormalities, and other times, it develops into 2 or even 3 people, or it merges in the early embryo stage with another embryo and they jointly develop into a single person? If so, please say why. Otherwise, glad we agree about this.
As for your “numerous scientific journal and embryology textbooks,” anti-abortion sites like LifeNews put together lists of quotes that one can crib from; all of your quotes were included on their page. Of course they do not attempt to include scientific quotes that are contrary to their anti-abortion views. But these exist too, such as “there is no consensus among scientists as to when human life begins” (Gilbert, S. F., 2008. When “personhood” begins in the embryo: avoiding a syllabus of errors. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 84: 164-173). You might also see Gilbert’s discussion in the following: Gilbert, S. F. 2002. Genetic determinism: The battle between scientific data and social image in contemporary developmental biology. In On Human Nature. Anthropological, Biological, and Philosophical Foundations. (Grunwald, A., Gutmann, M., and Neumann-Held, E. M., eds.) Springer-Verlag, NY. pp. 121-140). For example, “The metabolic view of life claims that there is no point when life begins. Therefore, the metabolic view invalidates the entire question of ‘when does life begin,’ for the answer is that it never ended” (p. 122), and he then discusses other views.
As developmental biologist P.Z. Myers wrote, “it is absurd to talk about a life beginning at conception because it didn’t begin then: the precursors to the zygote were also alive. The only “beginning” of life that we could talk about occurred a few billion years ago, and even that wasn’t discrete, but the product of a gradual progression from chemical replicator to functioning cell, a cline upon which there was no point where one could say that everything before was dead, and everything after was alive. … Now this person wants a specific quote from a biology text that has the words “human life does not begin at conception” in it. That would be tough, because it’s a sentence that rather boggles the brain of any developmental biologist — we also tend not to write sentences like, “human beings are not flies”. We kind of expect that anyone intelligent enough to read the textbook doesn’t need their hand held in superfluous explications of the bleedin’ obvious. But you will find us saying simple things like that in email and conversations and even popular lectures to lay people…”
Gray Anonymous, you’re just Estovir coming back with a different handle. And that’s what wrecks this blog: ‘Too many puppets’.
For some reason, my reply to you was decoupled and got posted at the top of the thread: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/06/the-appeal-of-chaos-how-politicians-and-pundits-are-misconstruing-the-supreme-courts-order-on-the-texas-abortion-law/comment-page-2/#comment-2120094
Yellow-and-Purple Anonymous (PLEASE PICK A NAME):
You said, “Mississippi doesn’t have Obamacare and never did. In fact, The New York Times article makes a point of noting that Mississippi refused Obamacare to the detriment of its people.” NYT has a paywall.
I was referring to the general problem of Medicaid and Obamacare individual policy substandard care leading to riskier health in the poor in a general manner. Poor health is one of the risk factors for Covid, and the poor tend to have worse health. Poor quality of care is one of those reasons. When you made this statement, I looked it up and found the following link to enroll in Obamacare Plans in Mississippi. So??? Were you trying to say they did not expand Medicaid? Because they do have a link to the Exchange for Obamacare.
They have the federal exchange on Healthcare.gov. They used to have a small business exchange called One Mississippi, but they disbanded it in favor of the Federal Exchange. The feds require small businesses to enroll directly through insurers.
https://www.healthinsurance.org/states/mississippi/
I used to have an Obamacare individual policy, and I can tell you from personal experience that the care was garbage. I never found a doctor who accepted it. You had to go to a high throughput facility like County, where you only had access to lower quality doctors. I had to pay out of pocket to see a good doctor. The deductible went to $6,000, then $12,000. The monthly payment was $1,000. A lot of medications were taken off formulary, and they abolished off formulary benefits. So you’d still have to pay out of pocket for a prescription, on top of paying the equivalent of a mortgage payment. It’s nuts. I think the only people who keep promoting how wonderful Obamacare is either don’t have it, or they’re subsidized. I used to take photos of the “We don’t accept Obamacare policies” signs in all the doctors offices to text to my doubting friends. If you don’t know how awful Obamacare is, call a doctor, and say you have this great employer policy, but you’ve heard that Obamacare individual policies are wonderful. You’re thinking of canceling your employer policy and replacing it with an Obamacare policy. Then report back what they tell you, which is probably to not be an idiot.
Oh, and most major cancer treatment centers don’t accept Obamacare policies. If you get cancer, you’ll have a shiny, subsidized nearly worthless insurance card. It most certainly does not give quality care.
If you’re wondering why in the world 12 states have not expanded Medicaid, read this. It explains how the federal funds are only temporary, and that doctors don’t want to take Medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement rate. It doesn’t solve the problem. It’s already hard for Medicaid patients to find a doctor. By adding more patients to the rolls, without expanding places to get care, it will make it harder to get an appointment.
Personally, I don’t think we need health insurance. It’s not insurance when you have a truck towed to the mechanic, and buy insurance to cover the accident you had yesterday. We need affordable health CARE. People don’t care how the cost of health care is spiraling out of control. They don’t care what the insurers pay. They care about what they pay – premium, deductible, out of pocket. Since there is that insulator between them and the actual cost, there aren’t much brakes on health care costs. I don’t think our current system is working well, I also don’t want a bureaucracy like the DMV managing my heath care in single payor, either. Would you really want the people who mucked up the Afghanistan withdrawal and abandoned our people to be in charge of your healthcare?
https://galen.org/2013/why-states-should-not-expand-medicaid/
“Our Welfare system also tends to make it easier to buy processed junk food than healthy food.”
No, welfare doesn’t do that. Capitalism does that.
“subsidized processed food is cheaper than healthy food”
Perhaps you mean subsidized processed food is often cheaper than subsidized healthy food? Food stamps can be used to buy both. Or are you talking about government agricultural subsidies for the production of things like corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, dairy, and livestock? If so, that applies before they’re turned into either processed or unprocessed food. What’s noticeable is that we don’t subsidize the production of healthy foods like fruits and vegetables.
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/covid-19/border-closures-and-exceptions
The above is New Zealand’s travel policies. Note the strict rules. It’s safe to say that New Zealand will not be accepting over 1 million unvetted illegal immigrants, some of them sick with Covid.
They also limited Afghan resettlement visas to those who specifically helped New Zealand forces, along with only their immediate families. Those visa applications closed on 8/25/21. Their border has shut with a clang even on this mission.
Is New Zealand xenophobic, or are they trying to curtail this pandemic to protect its people?
The Professor Misleads Again!
What Turley’s Gallup Poll Really Says:
Turley writes: “Gallup’s most recent polling shows 49 percent for to 47 percent against abortion”.
It isn’t the least bit clear what numbers Turley is citing here. According to this poll, 77% of U.S. adults OPPOSE overturning Roe vs Wade. Only 33% support.
77%! That’s an overwhelming majority. Yet Turley attempts to tell us “47% are against abortion”. It’s a mystery where Turley gets that number. In any event, it shows how chronically disingenuous Turley really is.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/350804/americans-opposed-overturning-roe-wade.aspx
You have to look at how these polls are worded.
Most people polled believe that abortion should be available at least on some level, including the morning after pill and for ectopic pregnancies. Most people also think abortion should have limits.
“Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (34%) or illegal (26%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25%) or illegal (13%).”
So, only 25% of Americans polled believe abortion should be legal in all cases. Most people believe there should be some limits. THAT’S an overwhelming majority, too.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Both Roe and Casey allow limits. The question is: what are appropriate vs. inappropriate limits? People’s opinions about that vary a lot.
Karen, 64% of Americans think there should be restrictions on guns. Yet Texas just passed an Open-Carry law.
And one can bet that the Anti-Abortion crowd is almost all the same people as the Second Amendment fans. They’re not too concerned with life when it comes to guns.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/548127-2-in-3-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-poll?amp
Anonymous, there are restrictions on guns. For instance, felons or those determined mentally unstable by a judge may not have them.
There are a great many people with concealed carry. They are walking around, right next to you, armed. But since you don’t see the gun, you are not alarmed. But they are there, all the same. All open carry does is you don’t have to conceal it. Same people. Same guns. I understand how this would make people feel uncomfortable. These people are strangers to them. So are CC holders.
I think someone’s comfort level with firearms depends on how they were raised, and where they are. When I was a kid, people had gun racks in their trucks. Ever season hunters would come back with deer in the truck bed. Every kid’s house you played at had guns.
Of course, guns are dangerous, and of course they should be kept away from curious children or depressed people, especially teenagers. However, the way I was raised, they are a tool. My father’s father wore a gun as part of his daily uniform, and in war. My father was in the military. Many of my ancestors were in the military. Some of my relatives and friends are in the military. They all had firearms in the military as teenagers. Having the gun didn’t turn them into criminals.
If I was in gangland, and felon gang members were walking around with guns, I would be thinking of the crime statistic where most gun violence is perpetrated by gang members. However, if I had to live in gang neighborhoods, I would absolutely want a gun in my home for self defense. This is because the only thing that stops an armed criminal or maniac is someone with a gun.
I live in a rural area. Police response time was always slow. Due to the defund the police movement, we have been informed that response time will be at least 45 minutes, more if they can’t find the dirt road. You’re pretty much on your own out here. Cops aren’t going to get there in time to stop any violence.
Why do the same people who want to defund the police also want to erode people’s right to armed self defense? Is it that they don’t want anything slowing the criminals down?
People believe in the 2nd Amendment because history has proven that governments to bad things when they disarm a people. Even our own government has proven this maxim. In addition, the right of self defense is one of the most basic human rights. Most women cannot physically fight most men. Her only hope is a firearm. As someone who had a violent stalker years ago, I know first hand what it’s like to be completely, totally helpless, and why a gun is an important self defense tool. We also regularly use them to dispatch rattle snakes out here. I also have kept a gun on me when I had a close encounter with a mountain lion, who kept close to the place for a while.
We don’t want to preserve the 2nd Amendment because we want to murder people.
Why do you think that if believe there should be limits on abortion, that you should lose the 2nd Amendment? Both beliefs are protective. People are thinking about the helpless unborn baby, as well as the protective element of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense. A measure of protection against tyranny. Most abortions are not done for medical reasons. They are because the mother broke up with the father, she doesn’t want to raise a child, she doesn’t want to give the child up for adoption either, she already has children, she’s not married and not ready for children, she works and doesn’t have the time. You can look up the reasons. Unless someone advocates for the interests of the unborn, abortion could become legal in all states up until birth, where the only difference between abortion and infanticide is a lungful of air. That’s why this tension between those who speak for the mothers, and those who speak for the unborn, is probably the only way to arrive at just laws.
One of my relatives was adopted. When I think of the danger he was in while in the womb, I shudder. We could have never known one of the most wonderful people on the planet, but at the time he was in the womb, he was unplanned and unwanted. Perhaps because of that, I often think of the adults many of these aborted babies would have, could have, grown up to be. It’s sobering.
I don’t know what the best legislation would look like. But I would like people to remember that this isn’t a ball of cells, or a bunch of tissue. It’s a little developing fetus, and perhaps if women could see what their babies looked like in that moment, maybe they wouldn’t have the heart to hurt them.
Funny, but the highest death rate from guns occur where guns are most controlled.
How many on average are killed in Chicago by a gun?
You are the cause of gun deaths.
“Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8”
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-regarding-texas-sb8-0
The 1994 FACE Act that Garland refers to passed with support from 16 Republicans, including Mitch McConnell.
Look at how ultra Left Nike treats pregnant athletes. Sure, you can get pregnant while representing Nike, but perhaps they’d rather they chose to abort the baby than carry it to term. They’re Nike. They don’t have time for mother athletes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/opinion/nike-maternity-leave.html
Nike isn’t ultra left. It’s ultra pro-corporation, just like other corporations.
Well, that may be true, but it’s chosen a marketing strategy that alienates conservatives and appeals to the hard left.
Kaepernick, for example.
I know I donated and discarded all my Nike shoes and clothing after it supported Kaepernick, with his cops are pigs socks, disrespecting the flag of the country that made him wealthy. Disney lost its appeal to me Jack Morrissey publicly fantasized about murdering the falsely accused Covington High School kids by feeding them, alive and screaming, into a wood chipper.
Woke companies are a turn off. They so often lecture while misbehaving, rather like Gov Newsom lecturing us on staying home while he had a dinner party at the French Laundry.
What is or isn’t a turn-off is a matter of opinion, and people’s opinions clearly vary a great deal. For example, I’m turned off by companies that pay huge amounts to their CEOs but won’t pay a living wage to a lot of their employees, and by companies that do great harm to the environment. I consider those forms of “misbehaving.”
Anonymous, I also care about worker conditions. This is why I’ve tried to change my shopping habits to stop buying fast fashion. This is where companies pay pennies to third world countries to produce cheap garments in unsafe worker conditions. The factory collapse in Bangladesh was a terrible example. I used to think I was thrifty if I bought an inexpensive shirt. However if you buy a t-shirt for 5 dollars, that has to pay for the fabric, thread, cost of shipping materials to the manufacturer, the rent or mortgage of the factory, the utilities, and the cost of shipping it to the distributor, and the cost of shipping it to retailers. How much could possibly be left over to pay those who actually sewed the garment?
Of course you should use your money to support causes and businesses that you like. That’s not the same as cancel culture, in which you would try to prevent someone from selling anything to anyone, just because you don’t agree with their politics.
As for CEO’s, I’m turned off by golden parachutes. I’m going to try to get this right, but forgive me if I flub it. I recall my Dad saying that a board of directors used to invest their own money in the company. They were conservative in their decisions, and they all personally suffered for bad choices. However, nowadays, companies are publicly traded. A CEO can plow a company into the ground, and then get a golden parachute severance, while the employees themselves get laid off, stockholders loose, and the company gets re-orged.
As for peoples’ opinions differing, that’s true. I would say, however, that the public has been turning on woke sports and woke companies. During the Olympics, many Americans openly rooted for whoever was playing a woke US sports team. When sports get into divisive politics, they only appeal to a portion of the fans. If they had not gotten political, then sports could have been a venue where everyone could share a common interest. I read a humorous review where the author disdained ever buying Gillette razors again. He said he had enough on his plate without getting lectured on his gender being toxic by his shaving utensil, specifically marketed to that very gender. Get woke, go broke certainly applied, as Gilette lost $8 billion. Although its messaging certainly applied to some consumers, it unfortunately turned off others. Marketing departments are not usually supposed to alienate prospective buyers.
They made a fatal marketing flaw. You don’t just want brand recognition; you want positive brand recognition. When a telemarketer calls you 37 times a day, oh, you’ll remember that company, all right. You’ll remember never to buy from them for the rest of your life. By the same token, many people have sworn off ever buying Gillette again. I’ll probably remember to avoid this brand when I get my son his first razor. There are probably companies that have similarly alienated you.
You talk as if you know, but you don’t know. You guess and use that guess to promote argument. Would you also say the CEO of Twitter is not a leftist? He is and he will cost Twitter money to promote his leftism. You talk without knowledge.
SCOTUS should not have fabricated a constitutional right, skipping the state and federal legislative process. This was one of the times I agreed with the late Ginsburg.This matter should have been left to the states, so that laws could evolve reflecting the values and will of the people. That way, people would feel like they had a say over the matter; that it wasn’t being shoved down their throats.
Instead, it’s increased the fighting. Roe v Wade is even considered the most pressing issue on the matter of the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Conservatives don’t want any more legislation from the bench, while Democrats want to build on Roe v Wade, perhaps until the country is like New York, where unwanted newborns born alive after a third trimester abortion will be made “as comfortable as possible” while the mother decides whether to allow them care.
If the people had a direct say, then perhaps it would tone down some of the rhetoric.
But don’t expect any reason to be applied by the Democrats. They are materially and deliberately misrepresenting the SCOTUS decision, predictably insulting and maligning Justice Barrett. SCOTUS did not rule on the Texas law itself; only on a fatal flaw in the case in its naming of defendants. You can’t just arbitrarily sue someone who has nothing to do with the creation of the law. But Machiavelian activists don’t worry about the law, or fairness, or justice. All they care about is winning at any cost. They would have applauded allowing the suit to go forward against people who had nothing to do with the law’s crafting, as long as they like the end result.
Remember that, because one day it might be you who’s unfairly at the end of their sights, in their way by means of converting oxygen to CO2.
In the meantime, I don’t know what an ideal law on abortion would look like. Women can find all kinds of ways to harm the life inside of them. But I am glad that there are people who advocate for the unborn. Without someone to speak for the silent, we could easily end up on the razor edge of infanticide. After all, a lungful of air is now the only distinction between infanticide and abortion in NY. It is only through the tension of one side speaking for pregnant women and the other side advocating for the voiceless unborn human beings that we have any hope of a fair law. Even Roe v Wade acknowledged that the unborn’s interests do become compelling over and above the mother’s right to privacy.
The right to privacy is not a “fabricated … constitutional right.” Why do you think the Founders included the 9th Amendment — “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” — if not to make explicit that people have rights that aren’t enumerated in the Constitution? This is not “legislating from the bench.”
“New York, where unwanted newborns born alive after a third trimester abortion will be made “as comfortable as possible” while the mother decides whether to allow them care.”
What are you quoting from?
“Even Roe v Wade acknowledged that the unborn’s interests do become compelling over and above the mother’s right to privacy.”
No, it didn’t, and I’ve tried explaining this to you before. Roe did not say anything about “the unborn’s interests.” It spoke of the State‘s rights and interests and the woman’s rights and interests. The State and the unborn are very different entities.
As an aside, I regret that you didn’t respond to my response to you here: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/02/supreme-court-rejects-injunction-of-texas-abortion-law-media-erupts-with-roe-obituaries/comment-page-3/#comment-2119470
I haven’t ever advocated euthanasia, and I wish we could clear that up.
There is a human and civil right to privacy, but not to elective abortion for causes other than self-defense. While there are edge cases to be considered under the latter (four choices and still six weeks), there is no mystery in sex and conception, and the wicked solution that accompanied social progress. The Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset (a la slavery, diversity [dogma]).
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Others retained by the people. Not new rights, others retained.
The problem with Roe, SCOTUS granted a right. Rights granted by the govermnent can be taken by the government
“The problem with Roe, SCOTUS granted a right”
Arguably, SCOTUS acknowledged a right already retained by the people. Just what is your evidence that it was granted rather than retained?
“Rights granted by the govermnent can be taken by the government”
I agree. But this takes us back to the question: was the ruling granting a new right, or was it instead enumerating a natural right already retained by the people?
We have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The first being life. If the heart is beating, it is alive.
You’re referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Only two views-you believe life begins at conception or you don’t. No amount of word salad is going to change those that believe in the former. Some in the “choice” area May shift their thinking like I did. I don’t think you can shift towards pro choice. Just my thoughts so don’t hate me.
I believe that life begins with sperm. Those who wipe it off and up with toilet paper and flush it are killers.
In a representative form of govt you have the unique power to elect those that represent you and like minded individuals to make that happen. Go forth and prosper!
Let’s have some fun. Why did Dorothy Parker name her canary “Onan”?
Because he scattered his seed upon the ground.
Why do you believe life begins at conception? Do you think that the sperm and unfertilized egg aren’t alive?
Separately, sperm and egg do not evolve as human life. Their merger during conception is the source, the “big bang” as it were, of human life, that progresses until Her Choice or her Choice.
Nobody is this dense. Sperm and ovum are living human cells, not human life. Individually they are just a cell
According to you, what characteristic does “human life” have that different from “living human cells”?
You are playing with words and making a mess out of yourself. The concept under discussion is human life. Do you consider yourself a cockroach or termite? If not then you understand that the discussion evolves around human life but you want to make a nuisance of yourself. That seems to be what you do. You certainly don’t add anything productive to the blog.
On the contrary, Allan S. Meyer, I’m talking about human life and the fact that scientists don’t all agree with the claim “life begins at conception.” I addressed that in more depth here: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/06/the-appeal-of-chaos-how-politicians-and-pundits-are-misconstruing-the-supreme-courts-order-on-the-texas-abortion-law/comment-page-1/#comment-2120045
Your insults, as always, only reflect on you.
Anonymous the Stupid, science accepts differences of opinion. That is good because the discussion moves people forward. Your problem is a lack of credibility and your inability to understand much of what you post. We can add to that that you post a lot of junk and lie.
Yes, Estovir represents one side of the spectrum. He isn’t wrong. His conclusions are based on how he weighs the data. Other people can be on the other side of the spectrum without being wrong as well.
Your problem is that you can’t discuss anything involving opinion because you believe your opinion is a fact when it isn’t. That makes you someone who doesn’t understand what science is.
You claim expertise in a field. That may be true or just another one of your lies. However, I can tell from your postings here that though you might be good technically in your field, you are not an expert because you don’t understand science no matter how hard you protest that you do.
I truly feel sorry for you that you are filled with such a desire to denigrate.
Anonymous the Stupid, do you not notice how you are invariably the recipient? Ever wonder why?
“President Biden declared this week that the Supreme Court “unleashed unconstitutional chaos” by declining to enjoin a Texas abortion law. In this self-described chaos, Democratic leaders moved to renew efforts to pack the court with a liberal majority, end the filibuster and federalize abortion laws. The problem with chaos, however, is that it can be easier to fuel than control.”
Is that “self-described chaos” actual chaos? You’re trying to play it both ways.
“Throughout this history, when abortion rights were upheld by a core of five liberal justices, it was called pure constitutionalism.”
This is false and comes across as ignorant or dishonest. Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2. Five of the justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, and only 2 of those might have been accurately described as liberal. At no point since then have there been 5 liberal justices on the court simultaneously. Abortion rulings have not been called “pure constitutionalism.” As someone else tweeted in response, “roe v. wade resulted in conservatives screeching about “liberal judicial activism” for a half century and building an entire legal academic movement in response.”
Liberal as in divergent,yes, who manufactured a right… rite under the Twilight Amendment (“penumbras and emanations”) for social (keep women appointed, available, and taxable – dreams of feminists and masculinists) and medical progress. The Republican party was established to confront systemic and progressive slavery and diversity, but not every Republican is Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under the Constitutional framework, but rather tag along to get along for secular “benefits”.
I still question the entire notion that it is a woman’s right to choose when there is now clearly identifiable singular and distinct DNA of a separate human involved in this decision. When will some one call for a court appointed advocate for that unborn but separate human (as evidenced by it’s own DNA). There has now been established, through advancements in science, that this is not just a matter of privacy between a woman and her doctor but a discussion involving 3 entities.
“singular and distinct DNA” doesn’t create rights.
You have more than one distinct type of human DNA in your body. Did you know that?
Did you know that an entity with “singular and distinct [human] DNA” often has no biological capacity to develop into a person, and other times will develop into 2 or 3 people, or will merge with cells with other “singular and distinct DNA” and jointly develop into a person?
You may want “singular and distinct DNA” to be sufficient for your argument, but it is not.
“singular and distinct DNA” doesn’t create rights.
How do rights get “created”?
Run’s counter to the declaration that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.
The constitution is clear on when anyone has those rights. When a person is born. Not before, not even at the moment of conception.
If the justices are truly constitutional textualists they will be required to acknowledge that those rights are applicable only after birth.
Yes, the antiscience belief and ethical rite to socially justify and distance under the Twilight Amendment, not limited to elective abortion under the color of privacy.
Taney as a textualist refused to acknowledge that rights belong to slaves.
The Declaration of Independence doesn’t protect our rights, nor is a reference to “certain unalienable rights” a reference to all rights. Do you seriously believe that all rights are inalienable? Consider the three that the Founders listed: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If life were actually an inalienable right, how do you explain the death penalty?
Which inalienable rights do you believe an entity with “singular and distinct [human] DNA” have? Please do list some of them and let’s test your list.
The death (i.e. abortion) penalty is restricted to capital crimes. The exception granted for her Choice is based on the prevalence of social progress (“normalization”) a la slavery and diversity, and the uniqueness of human evolution and her Choice (in lieu of Her Choice) a la demos-cracy is aborted in darkness.
Please do list some of them and let’s test your list.
Your lack of understanding of the purpose of the bill rights, and structure are not at all surprising given your flailing about and lack of a inconstant position
The bill of rights does no list rights, They wisely set out to protect rights, by specific prohibitions on Federal Government powers. Knowledge a middling student in the 7th grade retains all of their live.
Your response is a straw man argument that pretends we were discussing the Bill of Rights. We weren’t. I didn’t say or imply anything about the Bill of Rights. Your claim, “Run’s counter to the declaration that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights,” is a claim about the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights, and I responded about the Declaration of Independence. The difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights is “Knowledge a middling student in the 7th grade retains all of their live.”
Either you’re willing to list some of the rights that you consider “inalienable rights” or you aren’t.
” is a claim about the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights, and I responded about the Declaration of Independence.
This discussion as about the government recognizing rights. Never before was the idea of possessing inalienable rights to all the people. Not rights given by the Aristocracy, or the Church, or the Crown, but rights endowed by our creator. So no earthly enitity could take them, only abuse them.
As I stated earlier. we know the Constitution recognizes the State has an interest in a baby after 3 months gestation. The Government has several defined functions. Provide for the common defense, Protect the rights of the people. What interest does the state have in a person a 3 months gestation? Protect the inalienable right to life, applies nicely in this discussion.
“we know the Constitution recognizes the State has an interest in a baby after 3 months gestation”
Wrong. The State can have interests in both the zygote and the woman starting at any time, including the first trimester. The trimester framework (which, again, was already overturned in PP v. Casey) is about when the State’s interests in both the woman and the (at that point) fetus are sufficient to create various regulatory rights for the State. Casey is framed in terms of viability, not trimesters.
“What interest does the state have in a person a 3 months gestation? Protect the inalienable right to life, applies nicely in this discussion.”
It’s not a person at 3 months, it has no rights at 3 months, and again: despite the words of the DoI, there is no inalienable right to life. The government kills people (e.g., the death penalty, legal actions by LE, war), and it sometimes allows others to legally kill people (e.g., self-defense).
You were once that distinct DNA inside your mother’s womb. The fact that the possibility existed that you would complete the development process to full adulthood makes it even more imperative to protect that actual developing person until the process is complete. This is outside the scope or control of the mother, she is just the vehicle for the process that was started at conception and attempting to shroud that developing human with words such as “clump of cells, or non-entity” is pernicious word play at best. The left lauds science, well science has shown that this is not an unidentifiable clump of cells that belong to the mother.
Alma Carman,
“ This is outside the scope or control of the mother, she is just the vehicle for the process that was started at conception and attempting to shroud that developing human with words such as “clump of cells, or non-entity” is pernicious word play at best.”
It is certainly a non entity at the early stages. It’s not sentient, it’s not independent of the mother either. It’s totally reliant on the mother. The most basic problem of course is what business it is of yours or anyone else to demand what a pregnant woman do? Under what right should you or anyone be able to dictate what they should decide?
If it’s acceptable to dictate what a woman should decide why shouldn’t the government or anyone else dictate how you should live your life? You’re in effect claiming the right to dictate how someone else should make decisions. It’s contrary to the notion of “liberty” and “freedom”.
I contend that the mother’s rights do not extend beyond the scope of her distinct DNA body. She has no rights over the other human developing within her. She is the host only, not the owner.
What right do you have to force her to “host”?
What you call “the other human” is using the mother’s lungs and cardiovascular system to get oxygen, using the mother’s digestive system to get nutrition, …
There is no mystery in sex and conception, thus the recent movements that allege a rape… rape-rape culture and systemic diversity (e.g. sexism) to justify social progress (keep women appointed, available, and taxable – dreams of feminists and masculinists). People aren’t so green. That said, four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and still six weeks. Baby steps.
Are you willing to discuss the science?
If so, then I invite you to answer the questions I asked:
* You have more than one distinct type of human DNA in your body. Did you know that?
* Did you know that an entity with “singular and distinct [human] DNA” often has no biological capacity to develop into a person, and other times will develop into 2 or 3 people, or will merge with cells with other “singular and distinct DNA” and jointly develop into a person?
“… that actual developing person …”
You are begging the question by assuming that it’s a person. DNA does not establish personhood.
“the mother, she is just the vehicle for the process…”
No, she’s a person with rights. She is not “just a vehicle.”
“attempting to shroud that developing human with words such as “clump of cells, or non-entity””
I’ve never called it a “clump of cells, or non-entity,” so I suggest that you not invoke that straw man argument.
please cite the science that claims that we cannot identify singular humans by a DNA analysis.
I didn’t say “we cannot identify singular humans by a DNA analysis,” which is not the same thing as your earlier claim, and I have no burden to demonstrate claims I haven’t made.
Please deal with what I actually wrote. For the third time:
* You have more than one distinct type of human DNA in your body. Did you know that?
* Did you know that an entity with “singular and distinct [human] DNA” often has no biological capacity to develop into a person, and other times will develop into 2 or 3 people, or will merge with cells with other “singular and distinct DNA” and jointly develop into a person?
Do you need me to cite science for what I actually wrote? If so, just say “no, I didn’t know that, please show the science that shows this. On the other hand, if you do know this, then the answer would be “yes, I know that,” and you don’t need me to cite the science behind it.
That’s a strawman apology. There is no mystery in sex (not “sexual” relations including oral and anal) and conception. The DNA evidence establishes the baby (the technical term of art “fetus” to socially distance) as a unique human life that will evolves until Her Choice or her Choice. The issue for civilzied society is the latter taken in cases other than self-defense, where there are four choices and still six weeks. In other considerations, the cases of rape…rape-rape (i.e. involuntary exploitation) and incest (i.e. biological dysfunction) are considered separately, and while politically congruent (“=”), are not equal. Also, the witch hunts and warlock judgments based on allegations and assertions of rape… rape-rape culture and systemic diversity while plausible, are neither probable nor actual. A progressive path and slope.
“. . . she is just the vehicle for the process . . .”
That is a clear, concise statement of everything that is evil about the anti-abortion movement.
First, dehumanize her. Make her a non-person, a non-individual, a non-entity — just a “vehicle.” Then make someone else the driver of that “vehicle” — the state, the mob, the church. Then you can justify sacrificing her (an actual individual) to the fetus (a *potential* individual). There is, after all, no reason to consider the rights, happiness, future, finances — of a “vehicle.”
A strawclown apology masquerading in strawman clothing. A human life evolves until Her Choice or her Choice. As a matter of human rights, and civilized civil rights, elective abortion is only a defensible choice in self-defense.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. Four choices and still six weeks to relieve the “burden” for social and medical progress.
Baby steps.
Alma Carman, the unborn have no rights. If this is seen in strictly technical terms like mentioning separate DNA, it’s still the mother’s choice on what to do. The embryo, unborn, or whatever term anyone wishes to call it it’s still essentially the property of the mother and father and no one else. It’s ironic that currently in Florida there’s a fight for parental rights that they alone are the ones who ultimately decide if their child should be vaccinated or not wear a mask in the face of a threat to the child’s health or life. Single mother’s have full control of their own decisions on whether to keep or not keep their own pregnancies. The most basic argument against the Texas law is that what the mother decides is nobody’s business but her own and too many people are not comfortable with the idea that they have no say in that decision.
People are getting upset and offended at being told to wear a mask or get vaccinated, often claiming “my body my choice”. But not when it involves a complete stranger who is pregnant. It’s the biggest hypocrisy there is. You’re not going to support that child, you’re going to vote against government paying for welfare for these single mothers. Nope. Not a care of what happens to the child once born. In fact it will eventually be the target of scorn because they are sucking up your tax dollars supporting that person and child thru welfare.
The best way to avoid that is to support comprehensive sex education in schools and east access to contraceptives. That has actually been more effective at preventing abortions in the long run.
I think the easiest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies would be do mandate child bearing females get vaccinated against embryos.
Why only the females? How about mandatory vasectomies? After all it is the majority of men who rape women and seek sex. Right? After all it is always said among conservatives that men are weak minded and can’t resist a woman who dresses provocatively and such. When a guy is committed to having a child the vasectomy can be legally reversed.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. This is why they tried to claim there was a rape… rape-rape culture and systemic diversity (e.g. sexism).
That said, this discussion is about the fifth choice, the wicked solution (planned parent/hood), under the Twilight Amendment. The Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset.
What about the father? does he not have an equal say in whether his offspring survives or is this just more of the selfish “Me-ism” of the feminist movement. This will never be seen as only the decision of a woman who could have (in all instances other than rape) prevented this from happening in the first place.
“What about the father? does he not have an equal say in whether his offspring survives…”
He doesn’t have an equal say in whether the embryo uses the woman’s body. If he wants a say, let him develop a uterus and a means of transplantation, and then he can use his own body to gestate the embryo.
the unborn have no rights
The constitution says that State is interests in the baby at three months of gestation. If that interest is not to protects the babies rights, exactly what interest does the State have?
“The constitution says that State is interests in the baby at three months of gestation”
No it doesn’t. You seem to be referring to Roe v. Wade, not the Constitution.
“If that interest is not to protects the babies rights, exactly what interest does the State have?”
The State is interested in its own rights. Which is why Roe explicitly refers to the State’s rights and interests, but does not ever claim that the embryo or fetus has rights or interests. If you want more details about the State’s interests and rights as outlined in Roe, I encourage you to read it.
Svelaz: “Alma Carman, the unborn have no rights.”
***
Svelaz, I am not going to put a dog in that fight. It is very complicated and an ex cathedra statement like yours is likely to have some flaws.
For amusement’s sake, consider the inchoate rights of in vitro embryos. I think there have been instances where eggs were fertilized in vitro and preserved frozen for future use but were still frozen when both parents were killed in accidents. I assume that there were heirs to the estate, but if those embryos were implanted and brought to term as natural children of the deceased they would probably be first in line to the estate. Those fertilized eggs are not entirely devoid of rights; they have a right to a right not yet realized. I imagine the heir next in line after the eggs would want to find some reason to carefully carry the container to the nearest toilet but that could be a problem too. The fertilized eggs aren’t persons so they are property and therefore a part of the estate and may have rights incorporated into any will that exists.
Technological advances have opened many opportunities for legal confusion. I know this is not the only one.
Denying rights to fetuses reminds me of the Dred Scott decision’s denying rights to slaves.
The prochoice people’s absolutism about women’s rights against fetuses reminds me of slavery defenders’ absolutism about the property rights of slaveholders.
“Denying rights to fetuses reminds me of the Dred Scott decision’s denying rights to slaves.”
Most abortions occur during the embryonic and pre-embryonic stages, not the fetal stage. Embryos and pre-embryos are quite different than slaves. Embryos and pre-embryos lack the capacity to think or feel, and especially at the pre-embryo phase, they often lack the biological capacity to develop into persons; when they do develop into persons, they might develop into 1, or 2, or even 3, or they might merge with another pre-embryo and jointly develop into a person. Slaves were thinking, feeling people.
I’m pro-choice, and I don’t have an absolutist view about “women’s rights against fetuses.” I think that abortion after viability, which is most of the fetal stage, should generally be illegal (one of a few exceptions would be if the woman’s life is endangered).
Lets face it, abortion provides two critical protections for progressives. 1) It enables women to engage in casual sex without fear or consequences (other than the emotional consequence of being objectified as merely a pleasure vessel). 2) Its a feminist gift to randy young men whose only goal in life is to objectify women via treating them as nothing more than sexual gratification. Abortion allows progressives to engage in a level of self gratification just one level above animals.
SCOTUS has ruled that the decision to abort is the woman’s and the woman’s alone. I am looking forward to SCOTUS hearing a case brought by a young man sued by a pregnant women for child support and then having to rule against the woman because its the woman’s decision to carry it to term and the woman’s alone per SCOTUS ruling.
The delicious irony is feminists crying about being viewed as just sexual objects when it was they themselves that argued for a right that empowered men to treat them as sexual objects with no consequences.
Do you view women just as sexual objects?
If so, that reflects poorly on you. If not, then you undermine your own argument.
It is the natural course and imperative of most males of any species to be driven to procreate. To deny that is a philosophical lie.
If you deny that members of our species, H. sapiens sapiens, have brains that enable us to make choices, then that’s a scientific lie.
One of those choices is not to think of females just (solely) as sexual objects.
And another is NOT to kill an innocent baby that YOU made the choice to make.
“Do you view women just as sexual objects?
If so, that reflects poorly on you. If not, then you undermine your own argument.”
That would all be both false and irrelevant.
FACTS do not care about the views of those who express them.
If Hitler recites Newton’s third law – that would not falsify it.
You fixate on feelings and mind reading, but truth is established by facts.
Anonymous the Stupid, that was a dumb question meant more to provoke another than to deal with the question at hand.
There is no mystery in sex and conception. Four choices and still six weeks. Baby steps.
That said, the Pro-Choice religion, not limited to the wicked solution, denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset.
Keep women appointed, available, and taxable is the dream of feminists and masculinists, alike.
Being pro-choice is not a religion.
A religion is a behavioral protocol. Pro-Choice is an “ethical” religion, not limited to the wicked solution.
Using your bizarre definition that “A religion is a behavioral protocol,” you apparently consider driving, playing basketball, and making dinner to be religions.
Anonymous the Stupid, your religion seems to incentivize you to pray at the alter of Turley and throw out insults to everyone you meet.
But, playing basketball is a religion…
lol….
sorry, old basketball player here…driving and making dinner are two totally different stories though.
eb
You would not know this with some of the proponents of the butchers cut. More akin to a cult of the butcher. You just refuse to see this element of it.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is a duck. The adults in the room recognize a cult when they see one.
Being pro-cheoice is not a religion.
Liberalism is a religion. Abortion is one of your sacraments.
Liberalism isn’t a religion either.
When I was at the Capitol one of Ocasios clerks was there in the hall offering her three shirt buttons to wear. One said: I’m a looker and a hooker. Another one said: Walk like a toad. The third one she chose and put on her shirt:. Pork em if ya gottem.
The devil is in the details. This is a diversion from the Afghanistan debacle. The 24 hour news machine has to be fed. “Squirrel!!!!”
The problem is that Biden cannot control that chaos any more than his predecessors and may, in fact, make it far worse.
There used to be a highway to hell. Biden and his handlers have made it inevitable for all Americans, and given Lil Nas X video with 341,769,877 views since Mar 25, 2021, the end is near. Only the Taliban can save us now
/sarc
Sorry, Turley. No one is misconstruing anything. This is a train wreck that highlights what happens ‘when the dog actually catches the car’. I know the forces on you to try make this situation ‘palatable’ but it is definitely not going to work. SCOTUS silence on the Texas case speaks volumes.
eb
“This is a train wreck that highlights what happens ‘when the dog actually catches the car'”: As it did in Brown v. Board of Education?
Eb,
It’s find it convenient for Turley to completely ignore the real options the Supreme Court had in dealing with the Texas law. They could have stayed it until the other case was resolved. The very fact that it is obviously unconstitutional should have been enough to issue a stay even with the “technicality” of lack of standing. Because it was not just lack of standing for abortion rights advocates it’s also a denial of due process.
I still believe that any case that does end up in Texas court where a citizen or anti abortion groups sue an individual cannot not be legally enforced. Judges in Texas are indeed state officials and employees. By their own law they can’t enforce it. They can’t even preside over it. How can an officer of the state enforce the $10,000 bounty when the law prohibits him from enforcing it?
The only way to find out is to actually force a court to answer the question. If judges in Texas can’t be sued because they are not allowed to enforce the law how can they preside in any case that requires them to…enforce the law?
If I lived in Texas, I’d publicly declare that I intend to “aid[] or abet[] the performance or inducement of an abortion” by contributing to “paying for … an abortion” in Texas for a needy woman (quoting from the Texas law), and I’d invite someone to sue me. I bet pro-choice people around the country would cover my court costs via GoFundMe.
Sorry EB but Turley is correct.
The TX law has taken effect, it is now possible to challenge the constitutionality of the law both facially and as applied.
For numerous reasons – including the mechanism that allowed it to survive PP’s efforts to enjoin the law, the TX law is unlikely to be upheld.
The real danger to the left is that the law might remain in effect for months without the world coming to an end.
There is plenty of data that demonstrates that restrictions on late abortions does not result in less abortions it just results in earlier ones.
There are infinite methods of contraception that are cheap. Plan B and RU 486 are available to address careless moments of passion.
There are means to conduct abortions before 6 weeks.
I would imagine that almost 100% of the country would fully support those who wish abortions doing so as early as possible.
The great danger to the left is that the TX law does NOT result in large numbers of illegal abortions or of women fleeing the state.
If in practice the impact of the law is negligable by the time this reaches SCOTUS – then the TX law might be upheld.
the other issue – and a part of why the court did not fell any need to address the constitutionality of the TX law is that they already have an abortion law case before them. However they decide that will directly impact TX.
“ The real danger to the left is that the law might remain in effect for months without the world coming to an end.”
The real danger is in the law being enacted in other states if it remains in effect for months. It would create a precedent that may ultimately be more acceptable in the near term and cause real harm by women seeking illegal abortions however they can.
“ There are infinite methods of contraception that are cheap. Plan B and RU 486 are available to address careless moments of passion.
There are means to conduct abortions before 6 weeks.”
That won’t stop legislatures from banning the use of such methods either. There are already restrictions on their availability and there’s no telling how those intent on suing to claim that a pharmacist is enabling an illegal abortion.
“ If in practice the impact of the law is negligable by the time this reaches SCOTUS – then the TX law might be upheld.”
That’s seriously doubtful, if it were upheld it’s guaranteed other states will use it against 2nd amendment supporters. What about free speech? Religious liberty? Citizens would be free to sue and seek punitive damages instead of the government. It’s a really bad idea and I’m sure you agree.
What can happen in the months the law is in effect is that there will be an underground movement to facilitate the needs of women needing an abortion thru covert means or simply flouting the law. Companies effectively boycotting the state or refusing to cater for groups such as right to life in Texas. Godaddy already denied them their ability to put up they’d websites and even those that cater to extremist groups see the notion of snitching on others as a line too far.
I think a case will present itself sooner than a few months.
“The great danger to the left is that the TX law does NOT result in large numbers of illegal abortions or of women fleeing the state.”
This clown show is aimed at the poor, the people who can’t leave the state. Exactly the conditions pre-Roe. The daughter/wife/girlfriend of a state rep that voted for this can easily hop a plane to get an abortion elsewhere. The poor won’t find it nearly as easy. But even women of means will have a hard time determining whether they’re pregnant in six weeks.
Seems the conditions for enforcement are beyond bizarre as well. As the law is written just about any entity that aids a woman in getting an abortion at 6 weeks & one day can be dragged into the suit. That means Texas can sued for having highways that women travel to go to another state. And most women have no clue they’re pregnant at 6 weeks. That only gives someone days after realizing they’re late and getting tested.
Joke of a law that needs its enforcement arm spammed into oblivion.
eb
I will be happy to elimiate or revise the court concoted doctrine of standing such that Sotomayor and the rest of the court can directly address the TX law on the merits, but you seem to forget that every single election related legal victory by the left rests on the exact same standing doctrine.
Should Biden be suggesting a “cure” for the abortion dispute, which should never have been a federal issue? Is he able to manage the border with criminals, drugs and Covid crossing over? No. Democrats like chaos and do not care about American citizens.
The hysteria on the left served several purposes. First, it took the heat off Biden’s disaster in Afghanistan — even if for only a while. Second, the Dems know that this case was not “the big one,” but it’s a trial balloon, a dress rehearsal. They’ll be better prepared when the Mississippi case comes up. And finally, abortion is about the only issue the Dems can count on to rile up their hysterical base, and for 2022 they’ll need all the help they can get. So while Turley provides a great service by explaining the reality of the Texas case to the public, tribal politics will trump reality anyday.
“it’s a trial balloon”
Should NY and CA follow its lead and pass similar laws with respect to gun sales?
Or do you agree with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent that “It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry”?
Anonymous the Stupid should take you back to section 230, where the government outsources speech codes that would be unconstitutional if the government did it.
Anonymous the Stupid, I noted the last posting on my computer yesterday was one of yours. This morning I noted the first posting on my computer was one of yours.
You talk about others being on the blog too much, but your activities here are ridiculous—day and night, with most of them consisting of Stupid, meaningless comments.
Quote the speech codes in Section 230 that you claim the government is outsourcing.
You won’t be able to. You are either ignorant or lying.
This is a stupid argument.
First S230 either grants a priviledge and expects something in return or it is unconstitutional.
As written S230 expects those accepting the privildge of immunity to provide an Neutral public platform – that is the language of the law,
NPP is a defined legal term of art – it is the constraints that apply to govenrment censorship.
Essentialy S230 says that SM is immune from lawsuits if it conforms to the same censorship rules as apply to government.
But lets assume for the sake of argument – that is not so.
Can the government enact a law that says George Sorros is immune from prosecution for any murders he might commit ?
Can governmetn enact a law that exempts the print media from discrimination laws ?
Of course it can not – that would be a violation of equal protection.
the DMCA can only grant liability protection in return for some specific benefit – otherwise it violates equal protection.
The alternative is that the DMCA can not grant protection from liability at all.
“This is a stupid argument.”
It isn’t. Allan S. Meyer (aka the anonymous commenter who posted the September 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM comment) is arguing that they’re analogous, which is false.
“First S230 either grants a priviledge and expects something in return or it is unconstitutional.”
It probably expects that society is better off with the law than without, and that people will abide by the law or risk civil consequences. Don’t most of our civil laws expect that?
“As written S230 expects those accepting the privildge of immunity to provide an Neutral public platform – that is the language of the law …”
No, Section 230 doesn’t contain the phrase “Neutral public platform,” and it does say “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
“(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230). That is explicitly NOT neutral with respect to content.
“Essentialy S230 says that SM is immune from lawsuits if it conforms to the same censorship rules as apply to government. ”
Wrong again. The government has to refrain from restricting “constitutionally protected” content, and as is shown in what I just quoted, providers do not. I’m not interested in further discussing it when you cannot get basic facts right.
“It isn’t. Allan S. Meyer (aka the anonymous commenter who posted the September 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM comment) is arguing that they’re analogous, which is false.”
That wasn’t the analogy. That is your problem. You assume so you don’t read carefully and analyze. You are always missing the boat.
John say,
“ Essentialy S230 says that SM is immune from lawsuits if it conforms to the same censorship rules as apply to government.”
No it doesn’t do that. The government granting SM immunity from lawsuits doesn’t make them a defacto arm of the government. It’s a fallacious argument because it is dependent on an assumption, not an actual statute claiming it true.
Even getting rid of section 230 won’t prevent SM. from censoring or removing people or organizations from their platforms. Their own terms of service provide ample protections from liability as well. The moment people agree to those terms and conditions they willingly or stupidly give away their rights. This is eco Trump’s own lawsuit seeking to get reinstated won’t be successful. Trump still has to prove he didn’t violate they terms and conditions he agreed to when he used Twitter and Facebook.
And before you go on about “original contracts” argument they are no longer applicable because the contract agreed to originally has stipulations that give the SM platforms the right to change the terms and conditions at any time and for any reason. It’s part of the “original” agreement.
DMCA doesn’t stipulate that as a condition of the immunity it must operate as a government entity and abide by the rules they are obligated to follow.
We have had numerous appeals and consultations between those in the Biden administration as well as Faucci regarding what Social media should censor.
That makes the DMCA as applied unconstitutional.
Government may not accomplish by proxy what it can not do directly – and this is why the TX abortion law will ultimately fail.
John say,
No. Your assumption is based on an argument that ignores the basics of the statute.
SM is not obligated to observe the same restrictions as government because it granted them immunity from lawsuits in section 230. SM is not bound by any “expectation” from government unless it is directly stipulated in the statute.
You’re foolishly trying to argue that an expectation not directly stipulated is binding. It’s not and no law states such an expectation is binding. Wanting it to be binding doesn’t make it binding as you claim.
DMCA as applied is not unconstitutional. Wishing that it was doesn’t make it binding.
“We have had numerous appeals and consultations between those in the Biden administration as well as Faucci regarding what Social media should censor.”
That is where Section 230 leads and with that SM becomes a proxy for government censorship. I do not believe Svelaz is able to carry one thought to the next.
On several other threads I have posted my arguments about Section 230 and posted the complete WSJ article by Hamburger along with the WSJ address for the article multiple times. You were too Stupid then to read and understand what was being said and you are too Stupid now. You couldn’t adequately debate it then and you won’t be able to do so now or in the future. You are too Stupid. I don’t care if a Stupid person disagrees with me or the eminent Mr. Hamburger..
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Anonymous the Stupid should take you back to section 230, where the government outsources speech codes that would be unconstitutional if the government did it.”
What speech codes? Section 230 has no “speech codes”.
Of course Section 230 doesn’t have speech codes, SM does. Section 230 aids SM companies that inhibit free speech.
Try tying the two together and think of a very silent quid pro quo.
Allan S(tupid) Meyer, since Section 230 doesn’t have speech codes, the government cannot possibly “outsource speech codes” via Section 230. Social media may have speech codes, but they aren’t outsourced by the government. And most importantly vis-a-vis Justice Sotomayor’s quote, the government is not “outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.”
“Section 230 aids SM companies that inhibit free speech. ”
Without Section 230 protecting them, social media companies would likely inhibit free speech much more than they currently do. Because otherwise they’d be co-defendants whenever users were sued for content that breaks other laws, such as defamation.
Anonymous the Stupid, I wouldn’t think a Stupid guy like yourself could listen to what has been said by the Biden administration and I wouldn’t expect you to understand a silent quid pro quo where one hand feeds the other. As far as I am concerned you can live with your Stupidity.
Nothing of what you just claimed addresses Justice Sotomayor’s statement.
“As far as I am concerned you can live with your Stupidity,” you say, looking in the mirror.
“Sotomayor’s quote, the government is not “outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.”
That demonstrates you do not know the difference between opinion and fact. That is her opinion and she doesn’t have exceptional knowledge on the subject. This is why what you say is such cr-p. This is why you don’t understand science. You don’t know the difference between opinion and fact and evidence.
Elective abortion rites are found under the Twilight Amendment, not the Constitution. Planned parent/hood has a nearly 100% casualty rate and collateral damage.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. Four choices and still six weeks. Baby steps.
Sotomayer’s statement is CLOSE to correct, and that is likely why the TX law will fail when it faces facial or as applied constitutional challenges. but Sotomayor is incorrect with respect to the case that was before her.
the plantif’s were asking for a TRO – and as Turley noted repeatedly TRO’s enjoin people, the Plantiff’s did not proceed against a defendant who could be meaningfully enjoined.
The rule of law requires following the actual law – as it is.
I would further note that had the Court enjoined TX they and myriads of other courts would have been extremely hypocritical.
The challenge to the TX law was like most of the election challenges – it was rejected on near identical procedural grounds.
Anonymous, regarding whether or not NY and CA should allow similar suits with respect to gun laws we already have suits against gun manufacturers, just as we had suits by smokers against tobacco companies. It is you that is the hypocrite when it is suddenly clinics being sued.
PS. I am 90% conservative, I dislike ALL of Biden’s moves and decisions, but I am still somewhat pro-choice. I believe in some guard rails, but the TX law goes to far in my opinion. I also believe that politically the right is giving the left a cause and lots of headlines away from Biden and Afghanistan, the border, inflation, lack of jobs, gas prices, hatred of white people and his asinine attacks on reasonable voting laws.
“regarding whether or not NY and CA should allow similar suits with respect to gun laws we already have suits against gun manufacturers, just as we had suits by smokers against tobacco companies. It is you that is the hypocrite when it is suddenly clinics being sued. ”
Have you read the text of the TX law? I doubt it, though I could be wrong. **Unlike the TX law**, the existing state laws about guns and tobacco (a) are not contrary to existing SCOTUS precedent, and (b) do not prevent the government from filing civil suits or bringing criminal charges, so they do not “outsourc[e] the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.” Yours is an inapt analogy. I am not a hypocrite. I am someone who has read the TX law and the opinion and dissents, and who understands the difference.
Obamawars 2.0, shared/shifted responsibility, premature withdrawal, transnational and catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (e.g. refugee crisis).
Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to manufacture it.
Let’s strip you of your constitutional protections through a cowardly use of a bogus standing argument and see how you like it. A refusal to hear allows the legislation to stand. Don’t have to be a law professor to know that. Too bad Turkey has been listening to Chris Christy for his legal analysis.
Let’s strip you of your constitutional protections through a cowardly use of a bogus standing argument and see how you like it
You’re commenting on the wrong thread. This is about abortion. Not thed ozens of legal challenges concerning the 2020 Elections.
So how many times can you be wrong. The issue of validity was not before the Court as I understand it – only whether the party was entitled to an injunction. Maybe you need to return to procedure 101
Another example of politicians and media lying to the gullible to rile them up.
Question for Lefties: “Do you like being lied to?”.
Lefty posters on this blog frequently amplify media lies; are they naive dupes, or wilful liars?
One of diverse handmade tales brayed for social/political progress with “benefits”.