The response to the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a torrent of outrage on the left. While many are calling for marches and sweeping new legislation, some are focused on calling out the justices in the majority for alleged “perjury” or “lying” in their confirmation hearings, particularly Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. In reality, they did not lie in testimony in referencing Roe as established precedent. The suggestion of perjury is utter nonsense.
The draft opinion written by Justice Alito declares “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) declared that some of the conservative justices “have lied to the U.S. Senate.” Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) publicly decried what she claimed were false or misleading answers on Roe by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh.
No less a legal figure as Stephen Colbert declared “They knew, that if they were honest, they wouldn’t get the job. So they lied, which I think is perjury. But what do I know? I’m no Supreme Court justice, I’m not a good enough liar.”
In recent hearings, some of us have criticized Democratic members for demanding assurances on how nominees would vote on particular cases or issues. However, both Democratic and Republican nominees have largely stuck to rote responses on Roe and other cases to refuse to make such commitments. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously insisted, there would be “no forecasts, no hints.”
The problem is that politicians often display a type of selective auditory attention problem: they hear what they want to hear. Indeed, confirmation hearings are highly choreographed on both sides. Each senator seeks to secure a thirty-second clip showing that he or she secured assurances or trashed a nominee.
For pro-choice senators like Sen. Collins, it is essential to have some answer that would support a claim that, despite seemingly antagonistic judicial philosophical views, a nominee would not likely overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Notably, however, these same senators have supported the Ginsburg Rule, which is customarily cited to refuse to make promises or predictions on votes. Indeed, I have long been a critic of the rule because it is used to refuse to even discuss judicial philosophy. So nominees now just restate elementary points of judging without saying anything of substance.
Most of those crying “perjury” do not cite the specific perjurious language.
Take Alito. Many of us said when Alito was nominated that he was presumptively opposed to the logic of Roe. After all, in 1985, Alito wrote as a Justice Department lawyer that the Constitution does not contain a right protecting abortions.
However, appearances had to be observed.
The late Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), asked him if he agreed with that statement today and Alito responded in classic confirmation nonspeak. He first repeated the facts (by noting that he was a Justice Department attorney at the time) and then went rote: “Today if the issue were to come before me. The first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of stare decisis. And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, I would approach that question with an open mind.”
That says absolutely nothing but how every jurist approaches case precedent. You begin with the touchstone of stare decisis and the preference for preserving precedent. You then approach the countervailing question with “an open mind.”
When Sen. Dick Durbin (D., IL.) pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious:
“Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged in a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday. And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision–sometimes on the merits; sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis. And I believe when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis…”
That again says nothing. Indeed, it was decided in 1973 and that is a long time ago. Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for 58 years before it was overturned in 1958. It was also supported by stare decisis but it did not matter.
He never pledged to preserve Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind on such cases.
Then came Gorsuch.
I testified in the Gorsuch hearing and he was widely viewed as a Roe skeptic. After all, he wrote a book that declared the “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
When asked about that statement in the context of Roe, Gorsuch responded: “Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
When Durbin asked if he accepted that, Gorsuch stated another truism: “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” In other words, he accepted that Roe is the established precedent. That is about as earthshaking as saying he accepts that the Supreme Court sits in Washington. Likewise, then-senator Al Franken asked Gorsuch if he viewed Roe as “settled law.” Again, that is like asking for the location of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared “It is absolutely settled law.”
Then came Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh also stated the obvious in calling Roe “important precedent” and noting that the Court strives to preserve precedent. When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Cal.), he again said that such cases are “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis” and “one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.”
Kavanaugh succeeded in repeating nothing but verbal nullities.
The one exception to this pattern of confirmation nonspeak was Barrett. At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define[s] cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.).
What is most striking about these claims that the justices lied is that most of these critics insisted during their confirmations that they were clearly antagonistic toward Roe. Nothing that they said changed any minds on their judicial philosophy as hostile to the logic of Roe.
Notably, liberal nominees have used the same language about cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, supporting gun rights. They acknowledge that it is a settled precedent but that does not guarantee that they will vote to preserve it. Indeed, they have voted to limit or overturn past cases with which they disagree. No one called for perjury prosecutions or denounced them as liars.
None of this is likely to matter in the echo-chambered news today, particularly with the approaching midterm elections. That is why Bismarck warned that “people never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”
I agree with every sentence of this column. The idiot that leaked it didn’t seem to realize it wasn’t a formal ruling, basically just a memo, so to speak. This is madness. I have never seen the likes of desperation that our left is employing. It is unbelievable. Clearly people do not like their policy, and this is the best they can do? The past six years have pretty much taken off the masks forever. There is no low too low. I’m with Elon and Bill Maher – I used to be center left, I haven’t changed, they moved so far into the freaking stratosphere of not making sense and representing anything but fairness and equality – sheesh. This is fascist level stuff, guys and gals.
After reading all these responses by those stating that the nominees did lie, I think I’ll go with Prof. Turley’s take. He is imminently qualified in this area and a self proclaimed liberal Democrat – one of the only true liberal Democrats left in this world. I disagree with him on many issues, but he looks for the truth, even though the “new” left can’t stand it. Keep up the good work Prof. Turley! America needs critically thinking people now more than ever.
Dan Richardson praises Turley:
“America needs critically thinking people now more than ever.”
I agree. Turley was perceptive enough to know a conman when he saw one in Trump. You seem to be new around here, so you may not be aware that Turley dismissed Trump as a “carnival snake charmer.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/
Turley has never praised Trump’s character since. This country needs more NeverTrumpers like Turley now more than ever.
Turley participated as a Republican witness in impeachment hearings and removal trials in Congress, including the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and both the first and second impeachments of President Donald Trump.[2][3] Turley supported the impeachment of Democratic President Bill Clinton and opposed the impeachment of Republican President Donald Trump.[4] (according to Wikipedia)
Turley believed Trump’s conduct was impeachable but the Democrats needed more evidence to convict him in the Senate.
Saying that a law is established is not the same as saying that it is a good law. The consideration of precedence is important but it is not sacrosanct. Consider the established laws written in the south that lasted from 1896 until 1954 https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/two-landmark-decisions-fight-equality-and-justice. The leftist in favor of abortion hide behind the idea of established law. The laws upholding discrimination against the black man in the south were established for 58 years. Based upon the lefts reliance of established law the laws in favor of discrimination in the south should still be on the books. Simply saying that laws are established does not mean that such laws should never be reviewed concerning their constitutionality. Oh well, the Democrats have found their talking point for the midterms. Ethics continuing on The Supreme Court staff be damned.
And at one time the approach to slavery was “let each state decide for itself.” How did that work out? The state-by-state approach failed; the various compromises failed; and then we got to the most horrific war in our history and Congress finally recognized the necessity of passing constitutional amendments to settle the issue once and for all.
“Congress finally recognized the necessity of passing constitutional amendments to settle the issue once and for all.”
That is one way to do it. Nine justices shouldn’t make that decision for the entire country.
CA has a right of privacy in its constitution and I believe it’s well past time for the U.S. Constitution to have one as well. It’s not just about the right to procreate or not, or inter-racial marriage, etc. It’s also about not having your identity sold by data brokers so anyone, including criminals bent on fraud, can purchase your personal info on the internet. Despite the oft repeated phrase that the U.S. Constitution does not recognize a right of privacy, I do believe that it was recognized in the 4th Amendment where it specifically recognizes the right of people to be secure in their “persons, homes, papers and effects” against searches and seizures absent a warrant. Thus the Const. recognizes that you have a right of privacy and the government can’t arrest you or snoop through your home and papers without a judicial search warrant. If this isn’t good enough, then it’s time for an amendment specifically addressing some of the additional privacy issues that are of particular relevance today.
“CA has a right of privacy in its constitution and I believe it’s well past time for the U.S. Constitution to have one as well.”
I agree with much of what you say. The left has been violating the privacy of the right on an almost continuous basis. I do not argue with any attempt to pass a privacy amendment. We should be firing our leaders for invading our privacy through FISA, essentially illegal search and seizures and our freedom of speech.
When governments act in totalitarian ways like the present one, it is easy for them to violate our rights.
Then amend the constitution.
Anyone who did not be think that that the Republican nominees would overturn Roe was delusional.
I love to see our morally superior, erudite s@@tliibs get all worked up over wokeness issues.
First it was Elon Musk and the possible restoration of free speech on twitter and now the abrogation of that constitution aberration known as Roe v. Wade. Of course, “my body, my choice” is not applicable when not wanting to inject a poorly tested “vaccine” (and one that really doesn’t work) for a virus with a 99% survival rate into one’s body. Those people should not have a choice, right? S@@tlibs do know what’s best for all of us. That’s why they are morally superior.
If we are lucky our s@@tlib brethren will take us up on that divorce I have been proposing for a while but I won’t hold my breath.
antonio
Good morning Antonio the s**tslinger.
Are you aware that your claim “Of course, “my body, my choice” is not applicable when not wanting to inject a … “vaccine”” is false?
I’m one of the liberals you insult and lie about in your comments. You should have the right not to be vaccinated — not only should you, but you do! There is no law requiring you to be vaccinated, and if someone attempted to pass such a law, I would absolutely argue that it’s up to the individual person to make that decision about their own body.
“Those people should not have a choice, right? ”
Of course they should. And they do!
But don’t let facts like these get in the way of the s**tslinging lies you’re so fond of.
1st right I’ve heard of that gets you fired for exercising said right.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. I am not surprised.
You have speech rights, but people can be and have been fired for things they’ve said on the job.
You have 2nd Amendment rights, but people can be and have been fired for bringing guns onto work property.
Etc.
Those are employment contracts.
They’re still counterexamples to your claim “1st right I’ve heard of that gets you fired for exercising said right.”
Anonymous, should you be allowed to keep your job if you have not been vaccinated? If you have had COVID and have natural immunities should you be required to get the vaccine? If you are under twelve years old and your chance if dying from COVID are less than four-tenths of one percent even considering the cases of co-morbidity? These things were not written into law but were encouraged by the Biden administration. This mandating of vaccination was encouraged by the government and the mandates were carried out in both government and private entities. I would like to know were you stood on these mandates and if you spoke out against them. It would be appreciated if you would provide a source where you annotated your protest of these edicts by the federal government. Please, by all means share your protests.
Please, by all means, stop moving the goalposts.
We might just run out of popcorn before that happens, Antonio!
Antonio says:
“If we are lucky our s@@tlib brethren will take us up on that divorce I have been proposing for a while”
I’m listening…
Again Turley? are you saying this too does not rise to the level? Turley just whipped out his same excuse he used for Trump. If Turley wants to walk and talk like a political operative, then he should be called out on it.
There are laws on the books today that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be charged and found guilty of a double homicide.
So let me get this straight: if the fetus while in the womb is not a person until the moment of birth, how can it be a double homicide when the pregnant mother is murdered?
And to the writer above who said that all or nearly all politicians are lying while taking their oath of office, that’s fairly obvious. They take the oath because they have to but for all intents and purposes, it’s a sham.
Maybe you should read the text of the laws you’re referring to.
For example, Alabama:
“… (2) HOMICIDE. A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person.
“(3) PERSON. The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.
“…
“(d) Nothing in Article 1 or Article 2 shall permit the prosecution of (1) any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for which consent is implied by law or (2) any woman with respect to her unborn child.
“(e) Nothing in this section shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal. Nothing in this section shall be construed to make an abortion legal which is not otherwise authorized by law.”
Perhaps you do not understand how legal definitions work. They’re saying that an embryo or fetus is considered to be a person for the purposes of defining “criminal homicide or assault,” but not for other purposes, including abortion.
Do you get that straight?
So it’s not a baby. It’s Schrödinger’s cat.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to make an abortion legal which is not otherwise authorized by law.”
Abortion is a right…as long as legislation so declares abortion a right.
That’s not how Rights, work
Yes, I think Richard Lowe has it straight. It is a crime when you ILLegally and intentionally take a life (as in murder), but it is not a crime if you LEgally and intentionally take a life (as in capital punishment or abortion). By the way, “perhaps you don’t understand” what a “legal definition” is.
Depends on the state. Generally, the fetus must be viable – far enough along that it could live independently outside the mother’s womb in order to support a murder charge. Or the law comes into play when the woman is killed by her husband or boyfriend to prevent her from having a child, which is more common than you might think. I read a statistic that the most dangerous time in a woman’s life is during pregnancy, because with DNA, the father of the child can’t avoid supporting a kid that he doesn’t want for 18 years, so he kills the mother when he learns she is pregnant.
Gorsuch: “[Roe] is absolutely settled law.”
That was clearly a lie. He does not believe that it’s settled law, which is why he’s willing to overturn it.
Sen. Collins, talking about Kavanaugh: “We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law. He said that he agreed with what Justice Roberts said at his nomination hearing, at which he said that it was settled law.” If that’s what Kavanaugh said, then he was lying.
“Gorsuch: “[Roe] is absolutely settled law.”
That was clearly a lie.”
For one, who has difficulty extracting the truth from ideology, it is understandable that ideology comes out ahead of the truth.
When a judge says to a murderer that the ten-year minimum for his crime is settled law, it is the truth until the legislature changes the law.
Credibility is easy to lose but very hard to get back.
All precedents create settled law until they are overturned. There is a long list of overturned cases in Alito’s opinion. Plessey was settled law for well over 50 years. None of these Justices said they would not consider overturning Roe/Casey if a case raising that question came before them. In fact, the opinions overturning cases define the factors that should be considered when the question arises. Alito used the factors laid out in a Kavanaugh concurring opinion in an earlier case to do just that.
If a Senator wanted to know if a nominee would rule out overturning Roe/Casey he or she should have asked exactly that. Coney Barrett was asked that in effect when she was asked if Roe was a “super precedent” like Brown v Board, to which she said no. None of the others appear to have been asked that.
These are the strongest and most important words spoken by Alito “It is time to heed the Constitution”. It should be heeded on all subjects before the court by all the justices.
Here are the words of the Constitution:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Those should indeed be heeded.
Now that you have shown the ability to copy the words of the Constitution, one hopes you can understand them.
Both the left and the right ignore these as necescary.
It is rarely necescary for the right to ignore these provisions of the constitution and bill of rights.
It has ALWAYS been necescary for the left to ignore them to do ANYTHING
Of course, they lied. They knew what their testimony would be understood to mean and they knew what they had been appointed to do. I know you love your expert gigs for the radical reactionary Republicans who dream about a theocratic dictatorship where they can criminalize being a woman who does not cow-tow to the pressures of men who worry about their masculinity and pop little blue pills while lecturing women on the way they should live but really. The ultimate goal is to drag us back to pre-civil war jurisprudence and make it known that no rights are sacred except the right to carry a weapon to intimidate and murder. Of course, they lied.
“Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) publicly decried what she claimed were false or misleading answers on Roe by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh.”
She was talking in part about what they said to her in the private meetings that nominees have with Senators, not just in their public hearings. Collins: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” Turley does not know what they said to her in her office.
Roe is settled law. So there is no lie.
Can SCOTUS overturn stare decisis?
Sure.
It clearly isn’t settled law, which is why they’re wiling to overturn it.
That means the question asked was wrong. Is any Supreme Court decision settled law? No.
Further, tell us where Alito said Roe was settled law and could not be overturned.
If Collins wished to make a claim, she had an opportunity to do so in the hearings or at the very least release a text of what the justices said. Unfortunately for your credibility, you more often than not, use anonymous or incorrect statements in your replies having to do with truth and fiction.
Good morning S. Meyer, I see that you’re out for your morning troll.
ATS. you never could respond to a comment that shows you for what you are. Your response tells us that you haven’t learned much over time.
Meyer the Troll Liar, aka the one and only Anonymous the Stupid (ATS), you wish me to pretend that you are a good-faith discussant. But you are a Troll, so I will not treat you as a good-faith discussant. As ye sow, so ye shall reap.
When one talks about good faith discussants, one is not talking about Anonymous the Stupid. ATS lies, deceives, uses links he hasn’t read, relies on old material, depends upon pretend friends, uses multiple aliases, etc. Others talk in good faith. ATS does not, which is evident based on most of his arguments, especially when his opponent knows the facts and demonstrates that ATS either doesn’t know or is lying.
Once again, Turley chooses not to write about the draft opinion itself.
He is a law professor who prefers not to discuss the law.
No, Turley is a law professor who turned into a political operative.
Leave if you don’t like it. Nobody will care.
You are so juvenile. Turley chooses his topics and likely uses what he writes in the classroom. You are not content to deal with the subject matter. Your sole desire is to tell Turley and others what to say.
Since he believes the leak is an abomination, he rightly should not analyze the opinion until it is formally released.
I expect that Turley will comment after the opinion is issued.
Here’s the real issue. When life begins is to a large extent a “religious” question. For some, life begins at birth, for others, life begins at conception, for many others, it is somewhere in between. The justices are clearly taking a minority view (just look at the poles) that life begins at conception. Isn’t a religious law against the constitution?
The justices are clearly taking a minority view (just look at the poles) that life begins at conception
SCOTUS is directed by the Constitution. The Constitution offers no direction. The People and the States take over.
“The Constitution offers no direction.”
Sure it does.
9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
14th Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Notice that the text there refers to **people**, not to life. Women are people. Embryos are NOT people.
Nope, looked in the Constitution. Embryo not mentioned
Women aren’t mentioned in the Constitution either.
But “people”/”person(s)” are mentioned multiple times, and the Constitution lets us know that women are people and embryos are not people.
How does the Constitution do this? For example, it says “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years…”
And EVERY single time the actual enumeration has been carried out, women were counted as “persons,” and embryos were NOT counted as “persons.”
Perhaps you haven’t read enough of the Constitution.
lots of words, still not addressing when rights attach to a baby in utero.
Because that is up to the People. NOT the federal Government.
The court is supposed to determine cases based on the law, not what a majority or minority want. The Constitution does in fact offer direction by not making a protected right. The states can make it legal or illegal.
As much as I don’t like the draft, nowhere does it take the position that life begins at conception. No need to lie about what it says.
When life begins is to a large extent a “religious” question. For some, life begins at birth, for others, life begins at conception, for many others, it is somewhere in between.
Your examples are to a large extent philosophical. There is a scientific answer that is to a very large extent informed by the scientific response to it. If it’s not alive, then there is no need to kill it. Plan B, or the Morning After Pill is intended to prevent fertilization. All other options after that, like RU-486, are considered abortions. Plan B = preventing life; everything after that = taking a life. The pro-choice crowd knows this, they just can’t say it. So we get the viability defense. Scientifically, viability could be argued anywhere from conception to when a child can survive independently after birth. And we’re already on that slippery slope with some arguing in favor of what amounts to infanticide.
OLLY, life began about 3.5 billon years ago. Both the egg and the sperm are alive before fertilization. Learn some basic, middle school biology.
Wow, that’s a really long pregnancy. I wasn’t aware that the egg and sperm have been around for about 3.5 billion years. Anyway, I will go study basic, middle school biology and I suggest you go study some basic, elementary school reading comprehension. Then get back to me when you comprehend the subject when human life begins as it relates pregnancy.
OLLY, you left out the word “human”. Learn to write precisely what you mean.
Oops, my bad. I hadn’t considered the possibility that someone following a blog topic involving Roe v Wade might be thinking it’s about a case where people wading in water were killing fish eggs.
On second thought, no, not my bad. If you need clarity, ask for it.
OLLY, the point is that both the egg and the sperm have to be alive already for the fusion into a zygote to take place. Hence, “life” did not begin at that moment. As I said, learn some elementary biology.
Is there a reason you did not attempt to correct BabyTrump 8 hours ago when he started this thread, thus avoiding jumping into the middle of a conversation and looking stupid because you lacked the context of the thread? Forget the notion of learning reading comprehension, you need to learn some basic manners.
OLLY, I have other matters to attend to.
OLLY, I have other matters to attend to.
I agree. I recommend putting this on your “to do” list.
https://allen-faulton.medium.com/a-guide-to-conversational-etiquette-816e4febefbf
David, I am very surprised at what you have written, you of all people. I would expect a more academic contribution from you on this topic. As far back as 1919, these issues were addressed:
It [fertilization] is the central decisive event in the genesis of all sexually produced animals and plants. Thus from one point of view it envisages the entire problem of sex; from another point of view it constitutes the basis of all development and inheritance. The elements that unite are single cells, each usually incapable, under natural conditions, of continued existence or development—on the point of death; but by their union a rejuvenated individual is formed which constitutes a link in the eternal procession of life by virtue of its power of reproduction. [1]
[1] = Lillie F. 1919. Problems of fertilization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Continuing….
Despite this early scientific interest in fertilization, it was not until almost 60 years later that Lionel Jaffe and co-workers discovered that the sperm initiates a wave of calcium (Ca2+) across the egg (as initially proposed by Dalcq in 1928 [2]) and that this signal triggers the formation of a ‘rejuvenated individual’—the newly developing embryo [3,4]
Stein P, Savy V, Williams AM, Williams CJ. 2020 Modulators of calcium signalling at fertilization. Open Biol. 10: 200118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsob.200118
…
TL;DR: a single cell (e.g. sperm cell, ovum, neuron, skeletal muscle cell, epidermal cell, etc) is not capable of doing anything on its own. OTOH, the joining of a sperm to an ovum = life.
David, I would expect sophomoric tripe from Peter Shill / Natacha / Svelaz, et al, but not you. Cmon, up your game.
Great contribution Estovir.
Estovir, a dead egg or a dead sperm cell cannot form a zygote. Life does not begin at the fusion of a live egg cell with a live sperm cell. What does begin, often, is a zygote which often develops further. However, this process “oft gang agley” and spontaneously aborts. The result is, at most, a missed menstrual period.
If you want more, ask a biologist.
OLLY says: May 4, 2022 at 7:35 PM
Great contribution Estovir.
Thanks.
If you recall last year I commented several times on this blog that T cells save us from COVID. T cells are part of the adaptive immune system, but they are activated by the innate immune system cells called monocytes, macrophages and dendritic cells. Bear with me…
It has been said for over 100 years that all innate immune cells come from the bone marrow. As I tried to tell Prairie Rose, our understanding of immunology has changed phenomenally these past 3-5 years. It turns out we were wrong about the bone marrow being the source of all innate immune cells. As early as Day 9 of the Embryo (E.9), Tissue Resident Innate immune cells are programmed in the yolk sac, and stay in place in specific tissues like the heart, lung, liver, etc. The tissue resident innate immune cells that signal to the adaptive immune cells like T cells are formed post-fertilization. That is to say, those first few days immediately post-fertilization are not only crucial, they determine who lives and who dies for COVID, atherosclerosis, stroke, and so many other pathologies involving inflammation. People who succumbed to COVID failed to have a robust innate immune system activation of the adaptive immune system because of faulty tissue resident innate immune cells. The embryo is key
IOW: the embryo is hardly a blob of tissue. Your life depends on it.
See:
Mass E and Gentek R (2021) Fetal-Derived Immune Cells at the Roots of Lifelong Pathophysiology. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 9:648313. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.648313
An entire issue of one journal was devoted to this topic:
“Fetal/Embryonic Hematopoietic Progenitors and Their Impact on Adult Diseases”
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/13151/fetalembryonic-hematopoietic-progenitors-and-their-impact-on-adult-diseases#articles
David B Benson says: May 4, 2022 at 7:40 PM
Estovir, a dead egg or a dead sperm cell cannot form a zygote.
How do you know they are dead? Fatal vital signs, no respiration, no EKG, flatline EEG, no respiration, no brain waves?
Fun fact: There are two types of Alzheimer’s Disease:
1. Familial which begins at the fourth and fifth decade of life
2. Late-onset
I am guessing you are not in your 50s, so you should touch base with your
sperm,ovum,biologistPrimary Care physician😉
🤔🤣
Estovir, can you tell a dead drone ant from a live one? Much the same as for sperm but a microscope is not required.
Maybe you could keep to the topic under consideration?
Maybe you could keep to the topic under consideration?
Bwahahahahaha! 😀😁😂🤣😃😄😅😆
Damn Benson, your conversational narcissism still has you outside the topic of consideration.
Estovir, you say you’re a physician, so it’s surprising that you seem not to understand that a zygote is single-celled.
Olly, the human egg and human sperm are already alive. If they aren’t alive, the gametes cannot fuse. Human life began when our species evolved. The rest is just a continuous cycle of life.
“The rest is just a continuous cycle of life.”
I don’t want to get kicked off the blog, so understand I am not advocating the extermination of any life, but if life is a continuous cycle, why limit “abortion” to the fetus? If continuity is all that counts, isn’t what is good for the fetus good for you?
Poor reading comprehension + trolling = your 9:32pm comment.
You say that only because you lack a response. You can cover it up by blaming others. That is something you rely on too frequently.
An embryo or fetus is alive, but that does not imply that the life began at conception. Unfertilized eggs and sperm are also alive. If they weren’t alive, the sperm would not be able to swim to the egg and the gametes couldn’t fuse.
Plan B does not “prevent life.” It prevents fertilization. Those two things are not biologically equivalent.
Yes, an elective abortion kills a living embryo or fetus.
Viable means able to live on its own with assistance provided by other people (feeding, changing, keeping it warm, perhaps medical intervention, …). Viability does not start at conception. It is unable to live on its own at conception, even with assistance from multiple people; it quickly dies unless it implants or is frozen. Most infants are viable at birth: they need assistance but that assistance can be provided by diverse people. If they aren’t able to live on their own with assistance, then they die after birth.
Life begins at conception. That something alive needs help from others to survive is not unusual. We see the need for help amongst our elderly that mostly require more and more until the end while the fetus, in a short time, can live outside the womb and grow in a caring environment.
Life doesn’t begin at conception. The egg and sperm are alive prior to conception. If they’re not alive, conception cannot occur.
No matter how many times you repeat a false claim, it’s still false.
You can pretend to know what you are talking about, but human life begins at conception. The egg and sperm are living. However, until conception, they do not represent a future human being. If you wish to believe your own life began as a frog, do so. A frog is alive as well but is not a future human being.
Are you preparing to abort grandma? She fits one of your criteria for extinguishing life. Are you going to abort her?
Learn more science:
Developmental Biology: When Does Human Life Begin?
https://web.archive.org/web/20030511191256/http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=21&id=162
The egg and sperm are living. However, until conception, they do not represent a future human being. If you wish to believe your own life began as a frog, do so.
Now, back to grandma, who needs assistance to survive. Are you ready to abort her?
Meyer the Troll Liar, I see you were out for your morning troll.
One of my grandmothers died ~60 years ago, the other died ~80 years ago. But do continue to troll about their deaths, it reveals your vile nature.
I was being polite using your grandmother. I wanted to tell many how older adults need assistance like the fetus. I didn’t want to bring one that was likely still alive into the argument.
You cannot see the link between the two and your argument that the fetus cannot survive without the help of another. That is your problem.
I prefer via ability or able to live on ones own as the yard stick. When able to eat breathe drink to any extent the child can and should have the protection of our society.Not be subject short of a medical circumstance to be suffer a death sentence without a trial. Obviously those who seek to take away that right an and should be tried and convicted in the living childs place.
Isn’t it simply that they are and were saying that Roe is precedent, but that correcting a wrong decision outweighs (is more important than) precedent in deciding this case? Precedent is one factor to consider but not the only one, and having it doesn’t automatically mean the law is etched in stone.
Of course they lied, in a manner not to meet the legal definition of perjury. After four years (and continuing) of Trump, we know there will be no ramifications. You can throw in Bill Clinton if you like. If there is never a penalty, there is no reason not to lie.
“Of course they lied”
Enigma, When called for jury duty, I listened to all the questions asked, which almost wholly outlined the case at hand. The defense attorney didn’t directly ask me how I felt but asked questions that one could be considered at the same levels as those asked of the justices on Roe. I answered honestly and thought the defense attorney crazy when he accepted me for the jury because my only question (to myself) was how stiff a sentence the defendant would get. I was afraid I would be facing the rest of the jurors, thinking the opposite.
When we went back for deliberations, one-third were for conviction, one-third were on the fence, and the rest were convinced the defendant was not-guilty. I argued against guilt.
When you imply what you did, you call people liars, but that is not necessarily true. We all have our opinions but are willing to hear the evidence. Some people are never ready to listen to the evidence and close their minds refusing to change views. Those are the ones most likely to call the justices liars. I hope you are not one of them.
I suppose you could say that having no fear of penalty is also a major reason why crime in our cities is up so dramatically. — No reason not to loot your local Walgreens. There is no penalty.
We have a whole category crime where the dollars involved are many multi[ples of shoplifters or even armed robbers and the penalties are generally less severe. White collar crime which is typically white people crime.
“Black Lives Matter is imploding in scandal — a lesson about causes deemed beyond question”
By Post Editorial Board
“It appears that the house of cards may be falling,” says Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the legal entity that snarfs up most cash donated to the BLM movement. Indeed, “this happens eventually with nearly every scam, scheme or illegal enterprise.”
It’s not just Indiana: The states of Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia have all revoked BLMNGF’s charitable registration, while California and Washington are threatening to hold the nonprofit’s officers personally liable for its lack of financial transparency.
The outfit has failed to file taxes for 2020, the year it raised tens of millions after George Floyd’s death at police hands and the rioting and protests that followed. It has no official leader overseeing its $60 million war chest after its co-founder resigned in May.
And that co-founder, Patrisse Cullors-Khan, is tied to several other fundraising organizations whose finances raise “potential red flags,” New York magazine reports. Meanwhile, she’s been on a personal real estate buying spree, while BLM funds transferred to a Canadian nonprofit run by her spouse have gone for other dubious purchases.
Vast giving by deep-pocketed donors linked to Facebook, Twitter and Netflix — as well as by corporations rushing to show the “right” political consciousness — may have funded rank peculation by those entrusted with the funds.
In the end, Black Lives Matter is turning into an oft-told tale: Big piles of cash wrapped in moral fervor invite corruption. And the more the cause is deemed beyond questioning, the faster the scammers move in.”
Name an organization dedicated to helping Black people that those in power didn’t try to discredit or label? Who is credible in these efforts? The FBI (COINTELPRO), the Justice Department, (Black Identity Extremists)? I would suspect any Black organization or leader not under attack by white people, that would mean they aren’t in any way effective. Every Blacl leader and organization is under constant attack and you are apparently part of the gang wanting to bring them down. When you spend equal time condemning the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, and the multiple iterations of the Klan (along with the Republican Party where they all gather) I’ll pay attention to you.
Senator Robert Byrd would have a word with you if he were alive.
Will Smith, is that you?
Does a Democrat in the Klan do anything to take away from my point? Nobody Black from the NAACP (which included white members and founders) to MLK escaped attack from our government and white leaders.
After this “leak” people are now trying to charge certain Justices with “lying under oath”. The story remains and should only remain is how this document was leaked. These antics have become a familiar refrain.
This “back door” leaking reminds me so much of the Kavannaugh hearing where Feinstein held back the letter by Christine Ford because “she wanted to remain anonymous”. Of course Feinstein played no part but some mysterious staffer “leaked” to the press so Feinstein had no choice but to divulge the Ford letter.
Personally, I firmly believe Feinstein acted deliberately withholding the Ford document in order to delay the committee vote on Kavannaugh, demand the FBI background check, etc., all in the hopes of sinking the Kavannaugh nomination.
The leaker (though even a fewer number having access to the Ford letter) was never identified, despite the following investigation.
As with the original bathroom Clinton mail server, the Steele document leak, the Comey Flynn setup, the Comey Trump meeting leak, the Vindman leak, the Feinstein leak, this SCOTUS leak, and the latest Elon Musk free speech panic, I have become so jaded I expect no less these leaks and other antics from a certain Political Party.
Civilized discourse has been tossed in the trash.
Some of the things you’re calling “leaks” were not leaks.
For example, what you call “the Vindman leak” went through legal whistleblower channels — a report legally filed with the Inspector General’s office. The call transcript was not leaked. The whistleblower’s report was not leaked.
Vindman was not the whistle blower. Vindman leaked to Eric Ciaramella, the whistle blower
What inspector general? Not the one for the White House.
Wow. So you never bothered to look up the answer to that in several years time?
The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6430358-ICIG-Letter-Whistleblower-Complaint
As for your claim that “Vindman leaked to Eric Ciaramella, the whistle blower,” if you have proof of that, contact the FBI.
The Intelligence Community?
How does a Presidental phone call fall under the operations or accounting of the the intelligence community?
Exactly who in the IC was violating IC rules of opperation?
Barack Obama stated that marriage was a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman, when addressing Rick Warren’s church.
Bill Clinton made similar declarations. Joe Biden once declared that women do not have the sole right to choose.
Were that all lying?
All politicians sometimes lie. You can add lots of other examples, such as Trump saying in 2014 “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that.”
Lying to the public is not the same as lying under oath. Lying under oath **by a nominee to SCOTUS** is especially heinous, even if it doesn’t meet the legal standards of perjury.
It’s all theater. The liberal states will make their territory an abortion wonderland. The conservative states, not so much. But, before that, we will be treated to riots and threats and who knows what else so the pro-death side will let everyone know that they feel killing the unborn is a blessed sacrament to them. Yeah, we knew that already.
If liberal states wanted to “make their territory an abortion wonderland,” they’d have done so long before now.
“If liberal states wanted to “make their territory an abortion wonderland,” they’d have done so long before now.”
In 2017 31,4% babies in NYC were aborted.
The liberal states are making themselves into “abortion wonderlands” right now.
They aren’t.
“The suggestion of perjury is made-for-television nonsense.” This can be said about anything emanating from the flapping gums of ANY dem. This was a calculated attempt tp manipulate the vote by enraging enough tuned out dems to show up at the poles. Yes, the dems have repeatedly shown that they will go as low as needed – the ends justify their means – to maintain their power to accomplish the destruction of this nation.
Alma says:
“the dems have repeatedly shown that they will go as low as needed – the ends justify their means – to maintain their power to accomplish the destruction of this nation.”
Well, at least Democrats didn’t vote for an “absurd reality television star” as Turley dismissed Trump years ago- a liar for whom Turley admitted he never voted.
Susan Collins is actually a Democrat in a Republican coat. She, like too many, are behaving as if their “opinion” on a position, should bind the Supreme Court Justices. I is a certainty, that Democrats will use Sen. Collin’s statement, as a way to fundraise and get votes in November. Where is the oath that lawmaker’s take to uphold the Constitution and the laws? I would use the same argument against her and her Democrat Senator allies. They should all be “impeached” for lying when they took their oath of office.
Lefties are showing their ugly side.
Again.
Monument, I am beginning to think that ugly is the only side they have.
Is it the only side you have?
The projection from the MAGA cult is pathetic and very sad, very sad.
Okay Groomer.
From what I’ve seen, you’re more likely to be the Groomer than FishWings.
Do they even have another side?