In the aftermath of the historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, politicians and pundits have denounced the Supreme Court justices and the Court itself for holding opposing views on the interpretation of the Court. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the justices “right-wing politicians” and many journalists called the Court “activists.” Most concerning were legal analysts who fueled misleading accounts of the opinion or the record of this Court. Notably, it is precisely what the Court anticipated in condemning those who would make arguments “designed to stoke unfounded fear.”
Vice President Kamala Harris and others repeated the claims that same-sex marriage, contraceptives, and other rights are now in danger. The Court, however, expressly and repeatedly stated that this decision could not be used to undermine those rights: “Abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.'” The Court noted:
“Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.” The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a “potential life” as a matter of any significance.”
Indeed, I cannot recall an opinion when the Court was more adamant in prospectively blocking the use of a holding in future cases. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, suggested that the Court should reexamine the rationale for such rights but also emphasized that the majority of the Court was clearly holding that the opinion could not be used in that way. Thomas wrote:
“The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
Nevertheless, on CNN, legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers echoed the common claim that this decision could now be used to unravel an array of other rights and “criminalizing every single aspect” of women’s reproductive healthcare. However, Rodgers went even further. She suggested that states could ban menstrual cycle tracking: “Are they going to be able to search your apps—you know there’s apps that track your menstrual cycle. You know how far are these states going to try and go?”
On ABC, legal analyst Terry Moran declared “We are in a new era where the reaching for the center to keep the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public, to keep the debate going, is over.” I do not want to be unfair to Moran. I understand that Moran was referring to how the Court would be perceived by the public, though many citizens obviously support this ruling.
The comment reflects the view of many that the legitimacy is now lost because a majority follow a narrow constitutional interpretative approach rather than the preferred broad interpretative approach. That sounds a lot like your legitimacy is based entirely on whether I agree with your constitutional views.
Moran said that this reflected a “new era” of the “activist court.” However, the Court has actually rendered a high percentage of unanimous or near unanimous cases. I have been writing for a couple years how the Court seems to be speaking through its decisions in issuing such rulings in contradiction to such claims of rigid ideology. Justice Stephen Breyer and other colleagues have swatted back such claims that this is a “conservative court” driven by ideology.
Even ABC itself has recognized this record, writing in an earlier story:
“An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court’s opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.
That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.”
None of that has stopped legal analysts from portraying the court as “activist.” Of greater concern are the attack on the justices themselves, including the entirely false clam that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch committed perjury in their confirmation hearings.
One can obviously disagree with this interpretation. I have long disagreed with some of these justices on rights like privacy. However, this is a good-faith constitutional view that is shared by many in the legal profession. Of course, few law professors share this view because there are comparably few conservatives left on law faculties. There are even fewer conservative or libertarian legal analysts with mainstream media. That creates a misleading echo chamber as legal experts and media figures dismiss the decision of the Court as “activist” and “political.”
During the Trump Administration, many of these same figures denounced former President Donald Trump for his attacks on judges who ruled against his cases. Many of us noted that those judges had good-faith reasons for their rulings and their integrity should not be questioned. Yet, it now seems open season on any justice or judge who follows a more narrow, textual approach to constitutional interpretation.
Media figures and legal experts are not just content with disagreeing with the Court’s analysis but want to trash these jurists as craven, unethical people. Politicians like Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., called the justices “far-right, racist.”
There was a typical exchange on CNN Tonight between conservative former Politico reporter Carrie Sheffield and former Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-IA). Sheffield said:
“I personally prefer that, but I know that people on the other side don’t prefer that. That is the beauty of federalism to say that people will migrate. They will vote with their feet at the end of the day. So, as much as I would like to see a federal ban, I know that is politically unlikely. So, that, I think, is the best compromise. In fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg said …”
Sheffield was then cut off by Finkenauer, who said, “Do not say her name tonight from your mouth.”
That is a curious moment since Ginsburg herself criticized the opinion as going too far. At The University of Chicago Law School, Ginsburg stated on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that Roe gave
“the opponents of access to abortion … a target to aim at relentlessly and attributed not to the democratic process, but to nine unelected old men.” She added that “the history of the year since then is that the momentum, momentum has been on the other side. The cases that we get now on abortion are all about restrictions on access to abortion and not about expanding the rights of women.”
On “The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations” in 2019, Ginsburg noted:
“The court had an easy target because the Texas law was the most extreme in the nation,” she maintained. Ginsburg explained that based on the Texas law at the center of Roe v. Wade, “abortion could be had only if necessary to save the woman’s life” with no exceptions for rape or incest.
I thought that Roe v. Wade was an easy case and the Supreme Court could have held that most extreme law unconstitutional and put down its pen,” she added. “Instead, the court wrote an opinion that made every abortion restriction in the country illegal in one fell swoop and that was not the way that the court ordinarily operates.”
Finkenauer’s insistence that pro-life advocates could not utter the name of Ginsburg did not apply to pro-choice advocates, even those who blame the late justice for the Roe reversal. I wrote during Ginsburg’s service that she was taking a huge risk by declining to retire to guarantee that her seat would be filled by someone appointed by a Democratic president. I specifically noted that Roe could be reversed and her legacy lost due to a desire to remain on the Court for a couple more years. I was criticized for that column. However, now liberals are raising that decision and blaming Ginsburg for Dobbs.
Hollywood Reporter columnist Scott Feinberg tweeted “the terrible irony is that her decision to stay too long at the party helped lead to the destruction of one of the things she cared about the most. Sadly, this will be a big part of her legacy. Journalist Eoin Higgins was more direct “Thanks especially to RBG today for making this possible.” In a particularly offensive posting, writer Gabrielle Perry declared “Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slow roasting in hell.”
This reckless rhetoric is becoming the norm in our discussions of this and other legal controversies. We are losing a critical mass of mature and sensible voices in discussing such cases. Instead, analysts are expected to reinforce a narrative and amplify the anger in the coverage of such cases. That is a great loss to our profession and only will fuel the unhinged rage of some who only consider the conclusion, and not the analysis, of this opinion.
I’d like to thank the dims for my free trial of communism, but after the last 15 months I’d like to cancel my subscription. Thank you.
Ind. Bob…..The uniforms were just way too drab, don’t ya think?
THE ORIGIN OF YOUR “FREE TRIAL OF COMMUNISM”
ABRAHAM LINCOLN – KARL MARX’S “…EARNEST OF THE EPOCH TO COME…”
FREE AMERICA EXISTED FOR A MERE 71 YEARS
LINCOLN WAS THE INFLECTION POINT FOR THE INCREMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM IN AMERICA
UASR – THE UNION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
EVERY ACT OF LINCOLN WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND, LIKE ROE, MUST BE RESCINDED AND FULLY ABROGATED
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
“RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD”
The Supreme Court decided that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional.
Now the Supreme Court must decide that secession was and is fully constitutional, and that Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” were and are unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Karl Marx congratulated and commended Abraham Lincoln, as “…an earnest of the epoch to come…,” for his leadership “…through the matchless struggle…” toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx, Letter to Abraham Lincoln – https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
_________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
When you keep saying that you don’t read…. you’re a Democrat.
And assigned to repeat history. Hitler and his cadre are so proud of the democrats.
Jonathan while you point your supercilious criticism of the media, look at your own post you couldn’t even bother to use a photo with Amy phoney Barrett who deserves the infamy attached to this decision, SHAME on you, for trying to besmirch the late great RBG by association.
I have long stopped admiring you; but I now consider you nothing more than a desperate money grubbing HACK.
Well, reading your juvenile post was definitely one minute of my life I will never get back…
Another example of how the political class has destroyed the rule of law and the basic understanding of where our rights and laws come from. It appears that Democrats and Republicans have so politized the electorate that the voters have utter disregard for the rule of law set fourth in the Constitution. Now they have been revealed to put their faith in politicians who are bought and sold like whores on the corner. I see this as just the latest example where people have misplaced their faith in political propagandists with an agendas versus the courts and the rule of law. We see Democrat politicians now openly defying the rule of law and encouraging others to do it.
Biden is speaking and doing so incoherently. Halting, stuttering, lying as usual. Not doing the abortionists any favors. No word about the violence of his followers
To your point, there is a video post on RCP that shows his written instructions on an index card in his hand for an event yesterday concerning wind power. He had to be told to 1. Enter the room, 2. Sit down, 3. Stand up and read from the teleprompter, 4, Ask a specific person a question, 5. Ask no more questions and leave the room. Of course the video where she’s dragging him backwards while he’s holding out his hand to shake (with no one there) is a good example too
So they say Abortion is not in the constitution so there is no right to an abortion. Yet Kavanaugh wrote that there is a “constitutional right to interstate travel” Could somebody please point me to the section of the constitution that talks about a right to interstate travel?
Sweetheart, when have you ever been with a real woman? That TRANS with a small 🍆 from last night doesn’t count
Yes, Art. I section 8 of the Constitution. And have you heard of ANYONE refused entrance to another state by any Congressional law prohibiting intrastate travel? Whether by Car, bus, airplane, bicycle, pedestrian or any other way. It has been true since the Constitution was signed in 1787 over 235 years ago. The right exists until Congress says otherwise for a valid reason related to commerce, which by the way includes people and their belongings not just products and services.
Not only has the Left managed to have their way for almost 50 years on this topic, but also most of the Right. Repubs could simply hide behind Roe and say they were personally against abortion but that Roe was “settled law”. Well, “settled law” has a whole new meaning now. We’ll see how this changes the Repubs approach to abortion at the national and state level now.
Rage, rage, next page.
Banana fanna foe sage.
Fee fi Doe rage.
Finally our Supreme Court has become Dragnet in defense of our highest law.
Just the Constitution ma’am, just the Constitution.
It appears that many of the comment writers have not read the decision either. You want the “abortion right” then you get out and convince people and win elections. Thats what the pro-life people have done for decades and they were rewarded. Roe vs Wade was gross over reach by the Supreme Court and generated widespread condemnation in 1972. I was in Med School at the time. The left should be thrilled. They now have the right to get out and craft the abortion bill that they want in their state and then vote it in. What could be more democratic than that. All of this about women being enslaved and cast aside is nonsense. There are many sensible remedies to prevent pregnancy. A short list would be tubal ligations, vasectomy, birth control pills, condoms, IUD’s, IUD’s with a hormone assist, spermicides, diaphragms, all with 98+% success when used correctly. Just means some thought and some pre planning. If Planned Parenthood really stood by it’s name then that would be a real growth area for them. They should think of it as an opportunity instead of selling body parts for “cost”
I saw one writer who suggested aborting all Down’s Syndrome individuals. I find that absolutely repugnant and reprehensible. You would rarely, if ever hear that in a family that has a Down’s Syndrome child. Does it have something to do with their intelligence. Anyone who has cared for these individuals know there is a wide range in intelligence form low normal to more profound loss. Where will you make the cut. There is no intrauterine IQ tests you know. Their are many Down’s Syndrome people who are significantly smarter than “normals”, including some who have commented in this blog.
I always found my Down’s syndrome patients to be my favorites with their love and sunny disposition. Always happy to see them. They lit up my office.
GEB——-Wonderful comment! I have read that, in the U.S., at least 75%-80% of fetuses with Downs are aborted. The % is higher in Canada,…….and is 100% in Iceland.
I have always been amazed and repulsed by the hypocrisy of the Kennedy family as founders and sponsors of Special Olympics, yet staunch and faithful supporters of the Democrat Party….the political party that celebrates abortion, especially abortion of Downs’ babies!
Down’s children are so precious and special, like all other children.
Writing this from a few miles from the Kennedy Compound on Cape Cod… when it comes to Kennedy family hypocrisy, that one is a 2 on a scale of 1-10. The list of 8’s and 9s and 10s above it is too long for a comments page
GEB,
Well said!
GEB,
You raise an interesting point. A some of us realize, the Dobbs decision does not outlaw abortion, it simply declares that abortion is not considered to be one of the unenumerated rights described in the 14th amendment and is therefore an issue for the States to decide.
The States that legislatively favor abortion will be able to continue to do so. The difference now is that the States that oppose abortion will be able to legislatively restrict it.
The key word is ‘legislatively’. In other words, the People’s representatives in each of the various States could decide this matter based on the desires of their constituency and could establish State law declaring such. In addition, the Federal Congress could legislatively resolve this matter and establish Federal law if the Representatives and Senators from the various States vote to do so. This is the fundamental principle upon which our Nation is founded.
So, the questions to ask is “why is the left in such an uproar”? If the People in the various States so heavily favor abortions rights as we are led to believe, it should be no problem for the State legislatures, or even the Federal Congress, to pass laws codifying the right to an abortion. What is the problem?
Lived through the days when it was illegal everywhere and knew several friends who had risky illegal abortions – one almost died. The line back then was white males have no business telling us what to do and today I would say that males just cannot contemplate what a prolonged commitment means to a woman who is single and needs to work often forever. What concerns me is there is no talk going on about Plan B where a woman can buy an OTC pill that will prevent conception as of the morning after. Think it would be smart to let woman have one of those pills in her purse. Planned Parenthood is a business and they, too, should not be allowed to push themselves forward as the only option because they are not.
I realize some women can’t make that rather fast decision but it does put the ball completely in their individual carts. It really is the only decision where I could care less what a male thinks and hope we can move away from having lawyers involved in any shape whatsoever other than I supposed trying to get child support if it is appropriate.
I watch Biden and boy has he changed from that “devout” Catholic he claims to be. Hunter recently fathered a child out of wedlock and not one single Biden including Hunter has ever seen the child or even mentioned it as being part of the family even though distant. Perfect example of why men really do not belong in this one particular forum.
No Catholic is “devout”. The majority of Catholics in this country support the option of abortion, contraception, even same sex marriages. Catholics have seen their “church” spout moral virtues while being immoral itself. Pedophiles within the clergy, and hypocrisy all staunchly defended by the hierarchy of the church. Catholics always have an excuse not to follow certain rules. It’s no different I’m any other religion.
Jesus loves all people. You however not so much
😅
AFJ, you’re right. If Jesus were to meet a gay man face to face, I believe he’d stick out his hands and say, come brother.
How do you figure a grandchild is a remote member of a family?
FG, “…I would say that males just cannot contemplate what a prolonged commitment means to a woman who is single and needs to work often forever…” Really??
As a single dad who raised his son on his own, and has coached quite a few other single dads doing the same thing…while there are more single mothers, single dad’s make up around 20% of singe parent households and that number is rising. And that’s not even addressing the laws that are still out there favoring the child being with the mother.
So your Position from Authority fallacy is just that.
If the year was 1938, and Kristallnacht had just occured, there would probably be a few conservative law professors trying to reassure jews that they shouldn’t read too much into what had happened.
Me, I take seriously the evidence of patriarchal, misogynistic fascism’s increasing control over large regions of the U.S.
I take seriously the evidence of patriarchal, misogynistic fascism’s increasing control over large regions of the U.S.
As we all should. To be clear, what evidence are you referring to? Please be specific.
Biologist, so now conservative lawyers should be considered on the same level as those who killed millions of Jews. Do you include conservative Jewish lawyers in your basket of deplorables. Does your bigotry have no limit?
Facts not in evidence, Biologist – unless you are referring to the increasingly Stasi-like fascistic approach the Biden DoJ and FBI are taking toward anyone they perceive to be an enemy of the Democratic Party…
You may want to take seriously the fact that Americans and America are vanishing due to a fertility rate in a “death spiral.”
The population of Americans in America is down to 61.6%, American women have become ersatz men, and American babies are persona non grata.
That you are misandrist, does not perpetuate the species, the only thing of truly lasting value that women can do.
Professionals should note that proper nurturing and education through maturity are as essential as birth.
Off to work you go, Missy.
Enjoy!
Some on this blog have written that Mike Pence has called for abortion to be banned in every state. Here is what he said. “By returning the question of abortion to the states and the people, this Supreme Court has righted a historic wrong, and reaffirmed to right of the American people to govern themselves at the state level in a manner consistent with their values and aspirations.” He went on to say that in the future the sanctity of life should be considered in every state. The leftist leaders want to eliminate the death penalty for those who commit heinous murders and use the sanctity of life as their argument while at the same time saying that the sanctity of life should not apply to those who are not yet born. Mercy for the worst criminals but no mercy for the unborn. What’s a few dead babies if it means they will stay in power.
“ The leftist leaders want to eliminate the death penalty for those who commit heinous murders and use the sanctity of life as their argument while at the same time saying that the sanctity of life should not apply to those who are not yet born.”
The Catholic Church also wants to eliminate the death penalty. Are they leftists too?
A fetus has no rights. It’s not a person legally. It has no name, no gender, no function as a person yet. A man on death row has rights, is fully sentient, and is already recognized as a person. There is a very bright line of distinction. They are not the same.
All of the actions taking place around the country and all of the rhetoric of such heavyweights as AOC and Maxine Waters will probably kneecap the J6 Hearings. It is hard to hold hearings about an “insurrection” in the middle of video of leftists storming statehouses in AZ and other places. It is hard to want to arrest Trump for his words when AOC is literally screaming that “we have to take to the streets”.
One last note: The left’s love affair with Liz Cheney is now officially over. I’m guessing Liz will wake up and think sadly about the team she aligned herself with and supported.
Moran said that this reflected a “new era” of the “activist court.”
I agree, but not as I believe Moran implied.
What is an activist court? Is it a Republican-nominated (conservative) majority ruling against the interests of the Democratic party (liberal) and their base? Is it reversal of those roles? Or is it much more than that?
Progressives in both parties would want their constituents to believe an activist court is only one that the other party packed to rule against their interests. That however is a lie used to divide citizens along party lines. The reality is progressives in both parties have worked for 100+ years to condition the citizens to accept the centralizing of federal power at the expense of the states and the people. And SCOTUS has been the reliable activist anchor preventing any of those consumed powers from returning to the states and the people.
The Dobbs decision is a major blow to progressivism and their hideous administrative state. The decision does more than return the legality of abortion back to the states. It removes it out of the Judicial branch and puts it in the state legislatures. That’s unheard of; giving power away…willinly. And what Justice Thomas’ concurrence did was tell the progressives (both parties) that this court would no longer be trusted partners to their schemes to consume power.
Stare Decisis be damned.
Here’s one view of “judicial activism”:
“The Facts About Judicial Activism”
https://reason.com/2011/09/28/the-facts-about-judicial-activ/
Thank you
Olly says:
“It removes it out of the Judicial branch and puts it in the state legislatures.”
As long as the Affordable Healthcare Act pays for a woman’s travel to, and lodging in, a provider state, I can live with it.
Great idea. We could call it the Marin County Travel Tax: 5% on the actual value of the home and double tax for everything else.
Imagine if you will that NY or CA has an onerous permitting law in order to carry a firearm and because of those laws the people of TX or FL riot and attack their own statehouses, the capitals that have gun friendly permitting laws.
The leftists in NY, CA, MA, NJ, IL and other deep blue states are out there marching because Mississippi and OK want to have strict abortion laws????
When Roe was announced did the right riot? Did the right want to pack the Court? Prior to Heller, did the right riot? Did the right try to pack the Court? Every time the left loses something they riot or claim the Court should be ignored. Don’t pass the Voting Rights Bill…pack the Court and end the filibuster.
Now imagine that the right takes the House and the Senate in November and they promulgate a bill banning abortion nationwide but before they put the bill up for a vote they…………………………………………………………………………………END THE FILIBUSTER, a move that the Democrats have been fighting for for almost two years. This is how dumb the Dems are, they keep arguing to end the filibuster in a year where they will possibly lose the senate. They play checkers as McConnel is playing the Queen’s Gambit.
“In the aftermath of the historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” the people’s religious states can treat a woman like a farm animal with a womb.
That’s what happened prior to Roe. It’s going to happen again. adoption agencies are not regulated. Once a woman signs her rights to the baby away she is nothing more than a human version of livestock.
adoption agencies are not regulated.
Liar! I am both a well-regulated foster parent and parent of an adopted son. By the time his birth parents waived their rights, 1.5 years of regulations protecting their rights had to be exhausted.
Since when do you expect Svelaz to get anything right. There are federal and state laws as you have proven. I wonder if he is a product of “a human version of livestock.”
Never. I look for how egregiously wrong Svelez is and go from there. I have to triage the comments due to the sheer volume.
Denounce it all you want.
One thing is clear.
The Constitution does not stop states from banning abortion.
Sam…….If a woman has such little command over herself, so that she becomes pregnant without wanting or intending to, then, it seems like she cannot be trusted to have “control” over her body. Plus, what happened to the Morning After Pill??
Hey, girls, this isn’t the 1950’s. Grow up.
Right on Cindy. So tired of men portraying women as needing the help of hypocrites like Sam
So tired of the religious right treating women as chattel.
Hey, tyrannical ones, this is not the medieval era. Grow up and join the Enlightenment.
Democrats are Fascists who don’t believe in the rule of law….they use Government, business, media, education…to Destroy those they disagree with.
Democrats are fighting a CIVIL WAR….and no one else is!
Who was it that voted to not certify votes of several million People for the last presidential election? I’m pretty sure it was republicans that wanted to not count all those votes.
One of the problems for the left is State’s Rights here. It’s much easier to control people and messages through a Centralized Government and a very willing centralized parroting media. Thats why they like things like the Interstate Commerce Clause – it works on everything just like Windex.
anonymous: “it works on everything just like Windex.”
Thank you, Gus Portokalos! 🙂
My unpublished letter to the editor on the issue
4 West Eden Court
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Tel.734/477-9942
June 24, 2022
letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: When I was a graduate student decades ago at the
University of Michigan a petition was circulated in our Disciples
Church to make abortions safe and legal in the state. At that time
I didn’t sign it, but had I known what I understand now I would have.
In certain cases it is in my judgment immoral not to abort: A situation
like the Finkbine Thalidomide case, the presence of Tay-Sachs Disease
and Down Syndrome in a fetus and situations like pregnancies in 13
year olds as a result of rape. But on the other hand, there are situations
in which I would regard abortions as immoral such as the infanticide of
a perfectly healthy viable fetus.
But having said that, I find myself encourage that the Supreme Court’s
latest abortion decision has overturned Roe v. Wade. Like the 18th
Prohibition Amendment, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was an unwise
attempt by our Supreme Court to de facto legislate morality that has
seriously politicized our judiciary and polluted our federal political
processes.
For those of us who believe that abortions should be safe, legal
and in may cases individual decisions, the proper response is to
recognize the wisdom of overturning Roe v. Wade and turning to
working on the state level as did those who circulated the petition
in my church decades ago.
Sincerely Yours,
John Howard Wilhelm, Ph.D.,
Economics
John Howard Wilhelm, Ph.D.:
“In certain cases it is in my judgment immoral not to abort: A situation like the Finkbine Thalidomide case, the presence of Tay-Sachs Disease and Down Syndrome in a fetus and situations like pregnancies in 13 year olds as a result of rape.”
********************************
What was that country in Europe in the 30s, Professor, that sough to eliminate people based on their perceived imperfections, mental deficiencies and claimed deviances from the master norm? While you’re thinking about that, maybe you could explain why a child conceived in rape bears any responsibility for the criminal act? And more importantly why should it be punished with death – a punishment we reserve for only the most vile, incorrigible offenders?
Economists certainly can and do explain in convicing detail the reasons for the rise of corn prices in Des Moines. What they seem to have trouble doing is explaining how trading one life for the convenience of another is a moral imperative.
The Democrats new mantra “abortion will be on the ballot”, maybe? For those I know the outrageous cost filling their vehicle tanks, the cost of food, crime, the lack of or shortage of basic foods, their investments, their kids education and the horrible state of the nation will be on the ballot.
Abortion will be decided state by state and will be available to those for whatever reason they require one.
Hunter Biden, and all that he has been embroiled in for the past 15 years, will be on the Ballot —- Critical Race Theory will be on the Ballot — Joe Biden’s and the Democrats’ attempts to rip rights away from Parents in the schooling of their kids is on the Ballot — Maxine Waters flagrant instigations of confrontation in the streets in places she most definitely does NOT represent is on the Ballot …..$9.00 per gallon gasoline by this fall will be on the ballot — and so much more —