Below is my column in the Hill on the focus on abortion in this election, including the advocacy of an absolute right to abortion by many Democratic candidates. President Joe Biden has voiced such a rule that any abortion decision should be left entirely to women. When media pressed to confirm that the President does not believe that there should be any restrictions, the White House has simply refused to say. Thus, the President continues to campaign on the issue while refusing to answer questions on how he defines the right and any restrictions. It is the same approach that the President took during the last presidential campaign where he simply refused to state his position on court packing until after the election. This is an obviously important and valid issue to campaign on for the midterm elections. Abortion is clearly rallying many to the polls due to the support for Roe. However, candidates of both parties should be clear on the meaning and scope of this right. Indeed, it is interesting to see the level of focus on this right with little substantive discussion on the scope of the right in campaigns.
Here is the column:
“A blessing in disguise.” Those words from a Democratic political consultant refer to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, which he described as giving “Democrats a renewed optimism about this year.”
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court returned the question to the citizenry to determine whether there is a right to abortion in any given state. What happened next, though, is a bit curious: Most Democratic politicians, including President Joe Biden, are declaring that a woman alone should make any decision in consultation with her doctor — an absolute interpretation of the right that was not supported in Roe and that runs counter to the view of most voters.
For that reason, when pressed, most candidates are steadfastly avoiding questions on any restrictions, including questions about late-term abortions.
Senate candidate Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) has adopted an absolute position that there should be no limits on a woman’s right to abortion — far beyond anything in Roe or Casey — and has refused to address whether this would mean that a fully formed baby in the ninth month of pregnancy could be aborted.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) has been accused by her opponent, Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R), of opposing any restrictions on the right. But when asked by the media, Kelly has replied: “You know, I have never said that.”
The question is what politicians on both sides have to say about specific restrictions and not just about the right.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler on Thursday swatted down questions about late-term abortions as being “disingenuous.” Instead, he insisted these are questions involving “painful, emotional and even moral decisions.” They are. But they also involve the very legal questions addressed in past Supreme Court cases, including Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding Congress’ right to ban late-term abortion techniques.
While Kessler focused on whether late-term abortions are “common,” the issue is whether a woman has a constitutional right to late-term abortions. The answer to that question can help understand the meaning of this right and any balancing of interests recognized in cases like Roe. (While states could adopt a more permissive approach under Roe, it stressed that the state had a powerful interest later in a pregnancy to protect the life of the baby.)
Late-term abortions are rare, but they do occur — for a variety of medical and personal reasons. Kessler admits that “in 2021, state records show, about 1.8 percent of 11,580 abortions in Colorado took place after 21 weeks, but just 60 took place at 25 weeks or later.” That is 268 late-term abortions in Colorado in one year, a small percentage but not inconsequential. More importantly, the question is whether a woman has an absolute right to demand such an abortion and, if not, why? Even if statistically rare, the answer is legally significant in understanding the meaning of this right.
The fact is that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to a claimed right to late-term abortions. Indeed, a majority supports limits on abortion after 15 weeks.
Polls show most Americans reject extreme or absolute positions on either side of the abortion issue. Polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third.
The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks; 47 out of 50 European countries ban abortions at around 15 weeks. Such bans are found in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Spain.
Rather than address the legal and policy questions of when a right to abortion is limited or extinguished, many politicians repeat the mantra that the decision rests entirely with the woman. There is a preference to discuss anything other than restrictions of the right.
That was evident in a recent interview with Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is running for Georgia’s governorship. Abrams was discussing abortion as an issue in the upcoming election and declared that “there is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”
Abrams voiced a position put forward by Planned Parenthood, which changed its prior position of a “very basic beating heart” at 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy. Now, it maintains that a “part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it’s not a fully-formed heart.”
The point is that people do not have to think of this as a heartbeat but rather as “cardiac activity [that] sounds like a heartbeat.” Although Abrams put it in the more sensational terms of a male conspiracy against women, it is a distinction drawn by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which says that, since the chambers of the heart are not fully formed, it is “clinically inaccurate” to call it a heartbeat.
Recognizing a heartbeat no more concedes abortion as a right than it supports the right. The question is, first, whether such a right exists under state or federal law (as most Americans believe it does) and then whether that right is absolute or diminishes with the term of a pregnancy.
That is why late-term abortions are relevant in this debate if we are to understand a candidate’s view of this right. When pressed, there has been backtracking or evasion on both sides of the abortion issues, including by some Republicans who are taking back earlier, more extreme positions.
In the case of Abrams, she previously rejected limits and said it should be left up to a mother and her doctor, which means legally leaving it up to the mother. Recently, Abrams declared she would support a right “until a physician determines the fetus is viable outside of the body, except in the case of protecting the woman’s life or health.” The question is the scope or meaning of the health exception.
There should be clarity on precisely how far this right extends, even in the relatively rare cases of late abortions. Those extremes not only define the scope but the right itself. They may also determine the support of the public, which is far more moderate than their leaders on this issue.
Whatever the “blessing” of Dobbs proves to be in this election, the absolute, unlimited right to abortion finds little support in either Roe or the public.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Calling someone a liar is defamation.
The obligation to prove that rests with the person making the moral claim.
What is it that I have posted that is false ?
If your response to assertions of fact or opinion that you disagree with is insult and defamation without addressing those facts or providing actual facts of your own – why should you be beleived ?
You rant about being censored – while I see nothing in your posts that warrants censorship.
There is also nothing in them that merits attention.
What have you posted that anyone should read ?
You do not provide your own arguments.
You do not address the actual arguments you disagree with.
Even your defamation is non specific. You do not say “your wrong about X”, but “Your wrong”
begging the question – About what ?
The State of Idaho has canceled free speech about abortion.
David, that is an overly broad statement which might indicate you heard something but don’t know what it is.
Do you want to be more specific?
According to the local paper, councillors at the University of Idaho must not offer any advice about abortion, under penalty of a recently signed law. The best they can do is point out that their advisees can come across the border to here in Washington for such advice.
Can you tell us what constitutes “councillors at the University of Idaho”?
Can you tell us why they should be engaged in that type of discussion and what discussion they had previous to the law?
In detail @ UofI I don’t know. Over here, @ WSU the student health service provides councilling.
In other words you don’t know what actually is occurring. We have heard these things repeatedly only to find out that the left made claims that were wrong.
Example: Florida law to protect K-3 The left lied and made it into something completely different. They lied. It’s about time we grownups learn how to read the news.
The Moscow/Pullman Daily News is hardly the “left”.
Don’t be more of a fool than you can help, hmm.
David, you are hopeless. I judge news media on their accuracy and their ability to separate news from opinion.
You know nothing about what you read. That summarizes your contributions. I don’t think I will respond to more of your foolishness here unless you can provide fact.
An online newpaper article:
https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/09/26/university-of-idaho-releases-memo-warning-employees-that-promoting-abortion-is-against-state-law/
Not a local paper.
This is the meat of the article.
“prohibiting public funds from being used to “procure, counsel in favor, refer to or perform an abortion.”
State funds come from all the people, not just the people that you have agreement with. You don’t know how to get along in a population with diverse ideas.
As I said, a law restricting freedom of speech.
David, what consequence does your ignorant statement have? If you walk into a courtroom in progress, do you have the right to shout your goofy thoughts? Of course not. If you did so, the police would throw you out and arrest you if you persisted.
That is not uncommon with people who aren’t quite right. They cannot exert common sense as psychologically intact people are. On this blog, many of your statements fall into that group of people lacking common sense.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Turley to write about it.
What I find most disturbing about the evolving Democratic rhetoric on abortion is how it is attempting to dehumanize the fetus in order to push the termination line further and further away. This tactic follows other Democratic attempts to dehumanize their opponents (“semi-fascists,” “domestic terrorists,” etc.) in order to legitimize violence against them. These are Nazi tactics, and the Democrats are the party using them.
Some believe that a fetus has rights. If that’s your view, then you must know what a right is. And presumably you know the definition of a “right.”
So what is a “right” and what is its definition?
“So what is a “right” and what is its definition?”
Crickets. Just as I anticipated.
It is beyond me how an intellectually honest person can use a word (“rights”) without knowing what that word means.
Something that is inalienable with or without the govt.
The statistic cited is eitehr factually correct or factually incorrect.
Given no one has challenged the factual claim I presume it is factually correct.
The analysis of that statistic is all speculative. It does not alter that the statistic is correct, and has SOME meaning.
It is NOT innocuous.
A viable snail darter or redwood does not become a human.
We do tolerate killing other animals – except when we do not.
Cruelty to animals is a real crime and people are prosecuted all the time.
“D’s have abortion”
Which according to polls have energized slightly more people against democrats than for them.
“infrastructure,”
Really ? I see democrats selling roads and bridges that are not even pipedreams ?
“environment”
You have spend hundreds of billions to accomplish nothing. Not something I would be proud of.
“Medicare collective bargaining against the pharmaceutical industry”
There is only one solution that works to reduce prices of ANYTHING – free markets.
I have no idea what you mean above. I doubt you have any idea what you mean.
“student debt relief”
Which more people oppose than favor, which has tremendous moral hazard, which will cost each of us $4000
and which is unlikely to actually happen.
“successful vaccination roll out”
Really ? The death rate for Trump’s 11 month’s of Covid is the same or lower than Biden’s 22.
It is arguable that Democrats did more to fight Covid. It is not arguable that they accomplished anything beneficial
But they did make many things worse.
“financial relief during covid,”
The relief is a response to the disasterous impact of ineffective Covid policies.
There is littlerally no difference between Covid outcomes during Trump than Biden.
There is no difference in releif.
But there is a difference in that the relief by Democrats is the proximate cause of current high inflation,
and the reccession we are in the early stages of.
“the inevitable leaving of the money pit occupation of the Middle East”
Really ? Biden has returned US troops to places like Somalia and Yemen.
Biden delayed and then botched the withdraw from Afghanistan. Regardless the only credit he gets is not backing out of That particular committment of Trumps.
“successful guidance of the Ukrainians in the invasion of their territory,”
Unbelivably stupid and paternalistic and false remark.
Ukraine was invaded because:
US and global energy policy effects national and global securtity.
Bad energy poly like Biden’s leads to War.
Biden and EU members started once again stupidly discussing Ukraine NATO membership.
Biden’s conduct in Afghanistan and elsewhere left him looking weak.
While Biden has not been a complete Fup – I will credit him with AFTER triggering the war MOSTLY not making things worse.
Finally – it is Ukrainians who are dying – not americans. It is Ukraine that was invaded – not the US.
I am mostly in agreement with the aide we are providing Ukraine. But this is their war not ours.
Its sucess will be theirs. not ours. the blood price will be theirs not ours.
“Inflation is a wash because neither party will actually sue the corporate lobby for price gouging.”
INflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena – Milton Friedman.
The Covid financial releif you touted above is the cause of the current inflation.
You took the credit, you get the blame.
“And yes, Biden should’ve removed trump’s tariff taxes on the grain industry after trump almost killed that industry in America.”
There are a few Trump policies Biden has NOT reversed.
Biden left afghanistan – delayed,. botched but still left.
Biden left intact the strategic shift of focus from Russia to China.
Biden left intact and to a small extent expanded the relationships that Trump developed with Asia countries to contain China.
Tariffs are ALWAYS a losing game as trade policy. But they are often valuable as national security policy
Biden has left intact most Trump Tariffs because though Trump often sold them as Trade related they are actually national security related.
Separately no Tariff on the export of commodities that are essential and where global demand is sufficient significantly harm the nation imposing them. Trump’s China Tariffs increase costs to China significantly. They have a much smaller impact on US farmers. China is forced to pay the tariff OR buy elsewhere on the global market. Unless that global market is incredibly elastic, US Farmers simply sell to the former customers of whoever sold tariffed goods to china.
Biden has generally F’d up in the mideast. He pissed off the Saudi’s and then had to come begging and they made him look like a weak fool.
He is still trying to make the Deal with Iran work – which was absolutely NEVER a good idea. Iran is a more dangerous regime than Cuba ever was and we have not normalized relations with Cuba. While there are few good guys in the Mideast. Iran is one of the worst actors.
I have noted some of the global security and national security impacts of Biden’s bad energy polices, but those in conjunction with bad economic policies are making the world a far more dangerous place.
The War in Ukraine – which no matter how well it might go is STILL Biden’s fault, has serious negative impacts on global food security.
US Inflation is not only driving US food prices up – but global prices even further. The US destabalization of money supply has destabalized global money supply. These are all highly likely to trigger violence in the Mideast – we have seen more violence in Israel, but we will likely see it throughout the mideast and Africa as people accross the world become less able to afford food.
For all the problems Americans see with our economy – the prognosis globally is worse – and that is atleast partly our fault.
While Putin does not get off the hook for invading Ukraine, it still is not likely to have happened under Trump.
Putin has very successfully blunted the impact of US tariffs, But he has done so buy using a huge horde of cash reserves that will run out in the next year plus. They will likely run out whether Putin loses of wins. The economic future of Russia looks bleak. Putin’s recent mobilization will only accelerate the rush to the point of no return.
No Sane US foreign policy wants to gamble on a destabilized Russia. Only an idiot wants to see economic collapse and revolution in the nation with the most nukes in the entire world. Ultimately there are times we must fight – whatever the cost. But what is happening in Russia today was avoidable. Trump avoided it. Biden is rushing headlong towards the collapse of Russia.
We should all pray that if Biden gets what he wants that it does not go sideways – because it very easily can.
Nor Is China the worst problem on the horizon. US intelligence on China is poor. But for all indications China has a credit bubble that is bursting that is almost the size of the entire Chinese economy. When Biden says that the increase in inflation recently was zero – that is primarily because China is seeing deflation. Small levels of deflation are good economically. What is headed for China appears to be disasterous.
Again it is very bad to wish to see the worlds 2nd largest superpower facing a possible economic collapse that makes the great depression look tiny. The good news is that Biden did not cause this. Frankly, I think he is MOSTLY doing a good job with China. We can not prevent whatever is happening in the Chinese economy. but we can decrease the odds of a war with China – and doing that requires China to be unwilling to start a war to hide their economic problems. Biden or the chldren running the WH have done pretty well at leaving China bewildered about possible US reactions to agressive moves targeting Tiawan.
The gist is that the global outlook economically and in terms of global and national security is pessimistic right now.
I hope I am entirely wrong. But I highly doubt it.
Biden has done abysmally economically. He is so far dealing mostly tolerably on foreign policy EXCEPT that most of the problems he is dealing with are of his own creation.
“the R’s basically have Matty Gaetz, Jim Jordan, MTG and Bobo Skanks.”
They will be in the majority in January, and they will be seeking revenge for 4 years of botched democratic leadership and abuse of power – often targetting them. Do you think that Gaetz or MTG are going to be looking favorably at a DOJ/FBI that were weaponized against them ?
OT: FBI whistleblower says SWAT teams being misused, J6 defendants’ rights trampled
Suspended agent says he and others are being listed “as Affiants on search and arrest warrant affidavits for subjects” whom they “have never investigated or even interviewed.”
Quotes from Agent Friend.
“”There are active criminal investigations of J6 subjects in which I am listed as the ‘Case Agent,’ but have not done any investigative work,”
“I was also told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies,”
“I believed the investigations were inconsistent with FBI procedure and resulted in the violation of citizens’ Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights,”
“I believed the investigations were inconsistent with FBI procedure and resulted in the violation of citizens’ Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights,”
“I suggested alternatives such as the issuance of a court summons or utilizing surveillance groups to determine an optimal, safe time for a local sheriff deputy to contact the subjects and advise them about the existence of the arrest warrant.”
“overzealous charging by the DOJ and biased jury pools in Washington D.C.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/fbi-whistleblower-says-swat-teams-being-misused-j6-defendants-rights
FBI responds to suspension of whistleblower, says it follows ‘objective administrative process’
FBI Special Agent Stephen Friend says he was suspended after raising concerns about treatment of Jan. 6 suspects, use of SWAT teams.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/fbi-responds-suspension-whistleblower-says-it-follows-objective?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
The recent use of an armed SWAT team comprising dozens of men carrying long guns at the home of an anti-abortion proponent who is a father of seven for a minor altercation in 2021 that had been thrown out of court this summer is another example of gross abuse of power.
From Column Turley Linked
This is the Glenn Kessler article that Professor Turley links. It debunks the false claims about European laws.
…………………………………………..
This month, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) proposed a bill that would ban abortions nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy, saying this would end what he called “late-term abortions.” He argued such a standard would put the United States on a par with Europe, saying that 47 out of 50 countries there did not allow abortions after 15 weeks gestation.
The website of the Center for Reproductive Rights has an interactive world map of abortion laws that would seem to support Graham’s assertion. But Kelly Krause, a CRP spokeswoman, said legal limits do not reflect the experience women have in those countries. “Where countries impose earlier gestational limits for abortion on request, there are often very broad exceptions to these limits — such as socioeconomic concerns, or to preserve the person’s mental health — that extend at the least through viability and often longer,” she said.
Germany, for instance, on paper has a 12-week limit for abortion on request — but the law in reality permits abortions as late as 22 weeks after conception (24 weeks gestation). A woman can seek an abortion that late when, after counseling, she determines an abortion would avert “grave impairment to the pregnant woman’s physical or mental health and if the danger cannot be averted in another manner which is reasonable for her to accept,” section 218 of the criminal code says.
In a 2021 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court when it reconsidered Roe, a group of European law professors said 37 European countries had broad exceptions that allowed abortion through at least 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Moreover, abortion in many European countries is often subsidized or fully funded and women do not face legal hurdles like mandatory waiting periods, making it easier to obtain an abortion before the deadline.
Edited From:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/gop-claim-that-democrats-support-abortion-up-moment-birth/
1. As WaPo function as propaganda outlet for DNC, they like to pick those cherries that support their narrative but let the rest aside that doesn’t fit to their storytelling.
2. When it comes to Abortion, the member states of European Union (EU) have the say what’s legal and what’s not (e.g. Polen & Ireland have a much stricter law than Netherlands & Sweden). If we compare EU with US (which is not as easy at it looks at the first place) the jurisdiction is in line with SCOTUS.
3. To single out Germany is one of the weakest examples to build the case:
(a) Abortion is forbidden (§ 218 StGB)
(b) No penalty within the first twelve/24 weeks after fertilization (§ 218a StGB, cases 1 & 4), if the pregnant woman demands the abortion from a doctor and can prove that she has participated in a pregnancy conflict counseling (three-day cooling-off period). Though penalty in case 4 for doctor possible.
(c) No penalty for medical indication (§ 218a StGB, case 2): Roughly 5K/year
(d) No penalty for criminal indication within first twelve weeks after fertilization (§ 218a StGB, case 3): Less than 50/year.
(e) Nobody (e.g a doctor) is obliged to participate in abortion.
(f) Neighboring Netherlands elective abortion care up to the 24th week of the pregnancy. However, for women who live in Germany those jurisdictions apply.
4. That “any abortion decision should be left entirely to women” doesn’t pass the litmus test: Think of these examples:
* Bill has an “inappropriate” and “wrong” relationship with Monica. She is proud to be pregnant and want name her girl “Hillary” (with double ll).
* The “happily” married lawyer is also engaged with his assistant, which expect a baby, or
* The couple who have different living plans: He like work overseas, she is pregnant.
5. On a very personal note: We should not compare an unborn with a hardware that we draw back to “Walmart’s” after we found out that it doesn’t fit our needs. We will buy it when we are in a better mood (hopefully it holds). Some of us may have a friend who gave birth for someone else or decided to let her baby adopt: Later, they like to reverse their decision. Or they have catholic faith and were raised pro live. Maybe one or the other is member of “Catholic Democrats”. Does such a sensible topic fit for a political referendum on absolutes?
Professor Turley last’s sentence: “Whatever the “blessing” of Dobbs proves to be in this election, the absolute, unlimited right to abortion finds little support in either Roe or the public” nailed it.
15 WEEK BAN IS PHONY TALKING POINT
When Republicans say that a 15 week ban is ‘reasonable’ they don’t mean for the whole country. Red states would still be free to ban ALL abortions!
Instead this 15 week ban would apply primarily to blue states. Which completely contradicts the former talking point that ‘legislatures should decide’.
Yeah, ‘legislatures can decide’ as long as they’re restrictive. But if they’re not restrictive enough, then congressional Republicans need to pass a national 15 week limit.
The federal abortion ban will be challenged on Article I grounds.
The government will cite Wickard v. Filburn to defend the law.
Lower courts will reject Article I challenges due to Wickard.
The Supreme Court overrules Wickard and holds that the national abortion ban exceeds Congress’s Article I powers.
Is that bad?
From Pew Research Linked By Turley
72% Say Decision Should Be Woman’s
Among Americans overall, most people (72%) say that “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman” describes their views at least somewhat well, and more than half (56%) say the same about the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights.”
Moreover, the survey finds a distinction between how Americans feel about abortion in moral terms and in legal terms. While many (47%) see abortion as morally wrong in most or all cases, fewer (22%) say that abortion should be illegal in every situation where they believe it is immoral. Nearly half of U.S. adults (48%) say there are circumstances in which abortion is morally wrong but should nevertheless be legal.
And while nearly six-in-ten adults (57%) say they think stricter abortion laws would reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, similar or larger shares say that increasing support for pregnant women (65%), expanding sex education (60%) and increasing support for parents (58%) would have the same effect.
Edited From:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
…………………………………………………………
This poll captures the many conflicting views Americans have on abortion. Generally speaking most people want to limit abortions to the first trimester. But this does ‘not’ mean they want 15 weeks to be a carved-in-stone barrier. Pregnancy complications may not be detected until the second or even the third trimester. For this reason Democrats defer to doctors.
Yes, do both. There is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman and man have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. Close the abortion chambers and Mengele clinics. Keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the “burdens” of evidence sequestered, is a progressive path and slope.
“For this reason Democrats defer to doctors.”
************************************’
Yeah like that funny little German guy with the bad mustache did with Dr. Mengele and we Virginians did, to our everlasting shame, with Doctor Ralph Northam.
Jews were a “burden” for Nazi’s progress, but contained profitable parts for Mengele mandates. Other forward-looking societies looked to planned parenthood (e.g. one-child, selective-child), some to planned parent/hood (e.g. grannies in several Democrat districts), and other to excess females (judged and labeled a defect) in the conceived population. There are diverse precedents for wicked solutions that remove obstacles to social progress, clinical progress, affordability, availability, and redistributive schemes.
That said, the Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather special, peculiar, and wicked causes.
Estovir Writes:
“Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity:
Yeah, Estovir, woman have more dignity in jail.
“Jews were a “burden” for Nazi’s progress”
n.n, that statement confuses me and I hope you can explain.
The burden was the Nazi dismissal of Jews. As an example, 15% of physicists were dismissed from German universities. Based on citations, the Jewish physicists dismissed accounted for 64% of them. Three of the displaced physicists were Nobel laureates in physics, and five more would receive the prize later. I am sure you are familiar with some of them Einstein, Schrödinger, Franck, and the three B’s Block, Born, and Bethe. One can’t forget Edward Teller or Stern, yet there were more.
One other example. Many don’t realize that Germany was at the center of activity in the clothing industry, and, for the most part, they were Jewish as well. I can’t remember his name, but one of them started making pre-made clothing based on sizes. These Jewish clothiers were taken over by the Nazis. It was this industry that clothed the German soldiers.
I won’t mention the numerous other highly skilled German Jews that helped build Germany before the war. Germany’s loss was America’s gain, and those that remained alive and working in Germany advanced the German military machine.
Their accomplishments were huge, so the Nazi racism set Germany back, not forward.
Take note, not all German physicists were born in German. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, is an example as he was born in Hungary but trained and worked until the 30s in Germany.
Jews were a “burden ” h/t Obama to Nazis in the manner that babies are a burden to progressive liberals.
Thank you n.n. I thought that might be the case, but I didn’t want anyone to get the wrong opinion. Thanks.
Mespo, if you had cancer, who would you consult? A doctor or a Republican legislator?
Several republican legislators ARE doctors.
I would note if I have cancer – and my son-in-law had cancer – twice. My mother died of Cancer, my father-in-law died of complications from cancer. My wife had cancer – twice. And recently I had very minor cancer.
In each of these instances, I, my family, consulted a significant set of resources, multiple doctors, medical journals and papers, web resources.
And then we made OUR OWN decisions.
I consult my doctor on my health. I do not cede control of my health to my doctor,
Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) supports absolute, unlimited right to abortion
As you gave credit to President Biden for another time, this is a legitimate question upfront:
Who are President Biden’s handler?
While the content of “2020 Biden-Sanders Manifesto” [1] was also hidden like everything else what could prevent electorate to vote for a DEM ticket [2], then candidate Biden was labeled – in contrast to # 45 – as a moderate who will unite Americans. Problem was/is: He was promoted BECAUSE those behind the “Biden-Sanders Manifesto” don’t get a pass in a nationwide election. For that purpose, Joe Biden was the perfect candidate [2].
What puzzles me is this: Why are so many fellow Americans – especially those Republicans who do politics for a living – surprise about some moves of Biden-Harris administration? such as:
* U-turn in immigration (as described in pages 38-41 & 102-110),
* Student Loans Forgiveness (as described in pages 85-86),
* Repeal fossil fuel subsidies (as described in page 50),
* Overhaul the criminal justice system from top to bottom (as described in pages 7-10), and
* Democrats stand ready to take immediate, decisive action to pull the economy out of President Trump’s recession by investing in infrastructure, care work, clean energy, and small businesses to put tens of millions of Americans to work in good-paying jobs, shoring up state and local budgets to save jobs and protect public health (as described in pages 11-21).
In short: Most issues President Biden took credit recently, was proposed in “2020 Biden-Sanders Manifesto” , widely unknown by the electorate.
As President Biden’s mental wellbeing is on the brink [3], “some of ask” will ask who acts on his behalf or in other words: Who manages his job? Without going into details, I would look at people who worked for President Obama: Be sure, they know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Democrats favor an absolute position on abortion
Starting nine years ago, Democrats pushing WHPA to permitting abortion for any reason until the moment of birth without restrictions imposed by individual states. The bill passed the House mainly along party lines, 219-210, with Henry Cuellar (D-TX # 28) voting with Republicans. Senate voted 49-51, with Joe Manchin (D-WV) defected, therefore eleven votes short of the 60-vote threshold.
[1] https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf
[2] Shortly after the election, Time magazine bragged about how a “cabal” of business, media and government folks “saved” the election by ensuring that Biden took office.
[3] Check his acceptance speech: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/biden-dnc-speech-transcript/index.html
[4] To make it clear: I neither see a path nor a benefit to use 25th amendment: Those – like NYP – should think about the replacements 1st before writing about this.
I am thoroughly sick of you Trumpsters repeating the Hannity/Tucker/ Ingraham/Levin lie that Joe Biden has cognitive disabilities and that this country is being run by his “handlers”. Did you forget that he kicked your hero’s ass in the debates? Where were his “handlers” during the debates when he bested your hero repeatedly? He’s gotten passed the Chips Act, historic infrastructure act, COVID relief, burn pit legislation and has gotten America back on track, reversing the Trump recession. He has helped unite us with our EU and NATO allies that Trump alienated. If there’s any person in the national spotlight with proven mental problems, it’s Trump–he is a chronic, habitual liar and malgnant narcissist, proven by: 1. decided before Election Day to claim that his “landslide victory” would be “stolen”. Bob Woodward’s excellent book, “Rage”, which was released in September, 2020, recounts witnesses to this. Obviously, Woodward couldn’t have known that Trump was going to lose 2 months before Election Day, but he did report what Trump was going to say if he DID lose. Now, Roger Stone has been recorded saying the same thing. The reason: all polls predicted his loss, but the implications for his mental health and fitness for office (overlooking the fact that he’s incomptent and that everything he touches turns to sh*t) are that he’s not man enough to accept the will of the American people. He has a delicate ego that requires affirmation, even at the cost of American democracy, so he lies about winning, knowing it’s a lie, stirring up guillible people to believe that the system was rigged, knowing it wasn’t; multiple investigations prove the validity of Biden’s victory, but he still won’t admit he’s wrong–keeps on stirring the pot–keeps on dividing Americans; this is just like Trump’s “birther” lie about Obama not being born in Hawaii. He told Meredith Vieira of the “Today Show” that he sent investigators down to Hawaii, and “you won’t believe what they found”. They found absolutely nothing other than additional proof that Obama was born in Hawaii; 2. So, to soothe his damaged ego, he goes on “Stop the Steal” campaigns because his mental stability requires cheering crowds; he gets them to cheer by lying to them, criticizing Democrats, stirring the culure wars; 3. starts an insurrection because he lost 60+ lawsuits claiming fraud, all without any evidence; can’t bully GA and other Secretaries of State to “find” votes he didn’t receive; can’t bully Pence into refusing to accept certified votes; so, as a last resort, gets supporters to invade the Capitol, beat police officers, and try to force their way onto the floor of the House to stop Biden’s victory certification; 3. Is compelled to keep on lying about his “victory” being “stolen”; every conspiracy theory gets shot down, but he just can’t stop lying; 4. stole classified and top secret papers, after being told not to, lied about returning them, keeps stirring the pot by lying about “declassifying them” by mental telepathy, and is fundraising over this crisis HE caused and which should have been averted by just giving the papers back or not stealing them in the first place; 5. Refuses to go away, shut up and let the leader chosen by the majority of Americans to do the job we elected him to do, free of criticism and lies.
To make it clear: Trump is the biggest existential threat to American democracy and freedom, and it’s because he has a mental disability called “narcissism”. Everything in the world revolves around him: praise, adulation, power, attention…he MUST have these to survive emotionally. To hell with the will of the American people–this is about the ego of one person who lies about being fabulously wealthy, who has a string of business failures, bankruptcies, and history of filing false financial statements and tax returns. Biden won simply because more Americans selected him over Trump. THAT’S a fact. There’s no “cabal” of people that manipulated the election–another pro-Trump lie. The American people saw how Trump took the successful economy he inherited from Obama and turned it into a recession, a pandemic was allowed to get out of control because he was clueless as to what to do and his ego won’t let him defer to public health people who are more knowledgeable, so schools and businesses were forced to mostly shut down for about 2 years while Trump lied repeatedly and downplayed the seriousness. Over a million Americans died. And yet, somehow, you think that after 4 years, most Americans hadn’t had enough of Trump, his lying, his alienation of our allies, his lack of much in the way of legislative and other achievements and general lack of leadership abilities? Maybe YOU ought to stop smoking weed or whatever else causes you to believe lies.
Natacha: Your hatred for Trump–(and waxing eternal of same, ad nauseam), –is way beyond what I would consider normal/natural. I can tolerate your opinions, but they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. And again, on and on and on and on and on.
Why don’t you just post two brief sentences, to wit: “I disagree. Please read my previous comments.”
It would help us move on to more SUBSTANTIVE commentary for consideration and debate. Thanks
lin, on the contrary, Natacha has one of the finest commentaries here.
RE:”I am thoroughly sick of you Trumpsters ” Talk to the hands or, better yet, the Democrats who eschew any idea of Biden running for re-election. What else but cognitive decline the motive? Until Election Day, keep taking your lithium as prescribed. That TDS of yours appears to be waaaay out of control. Lord know what you might require afterwards.
After 24 hours of fertilization, a developing human being, that requires physical support, protection and nurturing, exists and will continue to develop for ~ 78 years.
To cause the termination of that developing human being constitutes homicide.
Most often, that fertilized egg will die before even implanting, due to seriously flawed DNA.
And people die after birth. What is your point ?
Nature is harsh and hostile, until very recently childbirth resulted in the death of the mother a fairly large portion of the time.
Until recently many children never lived to be adults.
We do not decide that you can kill pregnant women because many of them used to die in childbirth
We do not decide you can kill children because many of them used to not make it to adulthood.
You often have difficulty following threaded exchanges John.
George made the false claim “After 24 hours of fertilization, a developing human being … exists and will continue to develop for ~ 78 years,” and I pointed out one reason it’s false.
Why do you have such difficulty following exchanges?
I have no problem following exchanges, but that is irrelevant.
Your specific rebuttal of George was obviously false.
It rested on a false perception of reality.
My reply was independent of George’s remarks.
It was specifically about yours.
Your response to me appears to be little more than a fallacious claim that it is OK to be wrong about the significance of the facts, if you are on the subjectively right side of the issue.
“Your specific rebuttal of George was obviously false.”
It isn’t, and you don’t provide any evidence that it’s false.
You are correct – your rebuttal was not false, it was fallacious.
It was wrong.
Corrected: “Your specific rebuttal of George was obviously falacy.”
It is correct that many embryo’s are naturally aborted.
It is fallacious that has any bearing on the abortion debate.
My accurate rebuttal is that nature is harsh.
Nature does all kinds of things that would be crimes if a human did them.
At least 8 people were killed by Hurricane Fiona recently.
Did Fiona commit murder ?
Would those deaths have any relevance on a discussion of fentanyl overdoes or gang shootings in Chicago ?
Pregnant women have natural abortions, they get sick and die. They get hit buy a bus. Myriads of bad things happen to them that take the life of the mother and/or fetus.
None of that has any bearing at all on the morality or legality of abortion.
Your facts were correct, you argument was fallacy – wrong.
I support the right of people to have control of their own bodies. To mask or not as they chose, to vaccinate or not as they choose.
To inject heroin or not as they chose. I support the freedom of people to control their own lives – even when they make bad choices that only harm themselves. I support the freedom of people to make choices that are immoral – for themselves – I am not convinced that an abortion is always immoral. I am convinced that it is nearly always immoral. But that does not mean I would make it illegal for a woman to have a fetus removed from her body. At the same time it is not a violation of a woman’s right to control her own body to require that every effort is made to ensure the survival of that fetus. A woman’s absolute right to control her own body, does not extend to killing the fetus.
Today it is certain that early in the pregnancy – nature will kill the fetus for her.
Nature is good at killing things. Everyone dies. Everything dies. Humans must engage in substantial effort to survive the 78 odd years that are the average life for a human today.
Those of you on the left would be wise to remember that. If you are not actively engaged in assuring your own survival – then someone else is doing that for you – otherwise your dead.
I correctly my mistake of calling a fallacious answer false.
What are the odds you will correct your fallacious argument ?
I didn’t claim or imply that it has “any bearing at all on the morality or legality of abortion.”
I claimed that it shows George’s claim, “After 24 hours of fertilization, a developing human being … exists and will continue to develop for ~ 78 years,” to be false.
That’s all.
Nothing you’ve said refutes that.
Those who live by pedantry die by pedantry.
You did not disprove George’s claim.
Except that you did not disprove George’s claim.
All claims about the future have some uncertainty. that is not news.
Further George did not assert an outcome. He asserted a direction.
Again: the majority of embryos die either prior to implantation or in the first trimester, often before a woman is even aware that she’s pregnant.
The “direction” George asserted only occurs a minority of the time.
His claim was false.
Your initial claim was “Your specific rebuttal of George was obviously false.” You admitted you were wrong about that, but substituted a new false claim “Your specific rebuttal of George was obviously falacy,” inventing out of whole cloth a pretense that I had suggested my reply implied something about “the morality or legality of abortion,” when I did not imply any such thing.
You apparently cannot admit that you are ALSO wrong about your second false claim. C’est la vie.
Again 100% of us die.
Great point.
Your rebuttal of George remains a fallacy – a formal fallacy at that. Those are far more fundimental, and rarer.
I addressed all of this entirely in the response where I corrected my claim from your statement is flase to your statement is fallacious.
I have rebutted all this nonsense, once.
I need not repeat myself.
And as predicted, you are completely unwilling to correct YOUR errors.
Democrats once said that the police should be defunded. Now those same Democrats say there should be more funding for police once they experience being personally mugged. They won’t say if there should be any limits on abortion. They may say one thing but we all know what they will do once they are positioned in a place of power. Granted, some people are forever gullible and some people gleefully accept the fact that they don’t really mean what they say or what they won’t say. Where are you?
Liar,
It was Bernie Bros who said ‘Defund The Police’.
And they were trying to sabotage Biden when they coined that term.
Republicans showed what they think of cops on January 6th.
They thought that everyone was allowed to protest, to petition the government in the capital, to excercise free speech.
And on J6 they learned that was wrong.
Only left wing nuts are allowed to run hysterically through the capital, taking axes to senators doors, yelling at them in elevators, and bursting into hearings.
When government takes peoples ACTUAL rights away, there is significant risk of violence. On J6 you got remarkably little violence given the egregiousness of locking down the capital.
Conversely the left does not need to be denied a single actual right to start throwing molotov cocktails and burning things down.
There were two deaths at J6 – both women, one elderly, neither violent, both killed by black police officers.
What republicans learned from J6 is that if they behave 10 times better than those on the left – they will still be the ones demonized by the press.
You do know that a substantial portion of the J6 protestors are law enforcement, former law enforcement. military and former millitary ?
The left has asked the police to stand up to police who abuse the constitutional and civil rights of others.
On January 6th republicans – many law enforcement did exactly that.
The Capital police are not the political tool of the left. We have seen law enforcement used politically by the left all over the world.
I have asked this repeatedly HERE.
Can any of you provide a reason that the Capital was locked down on Jan 6th ?
Can you provide an instance it was ever locked down before while congress was in session ?
If people are not free to go to the capital to protest – there is no reason to have a capital. no reason to have a congress.
I agree with your statement. Many at j6 were law enforcement and stood for law enforcement. They wanted their (and our) government to know they supported our Republic and its laws, along with those enforcing them. They also wanted to point out how the left was functioning lawlessly.
Many in the crowd tried to help the police while legally protesting, and they did so. In the end, 4 people were killed. 2 from direct violence by the police and 2 from percussion bombs that landed far from the area of potential conflict. All four were protestors. No police died because of the protestors.
Trump offered troops that Nancy Pelosi rejected. That act proves he wanted more manpower to protect the police. Nancy Pelosi refused those troops demonstrating that she desired violence here police and others might be injured or killed.
The left stands for violence. We saw that with a summer of riots by Antifa and BLM. We face that today in many urban areas where the police don’t arrest violent people, and when they do, those violent people are not jailed.
Anonymous, thank you for bringing this subject up. People that are libertarian, conservative, and the like are generally law-abiding. People on the left have been supporting violence and crime.
And just what did the several dead policemen die from, prey tell?
?????? “several dead policemen?”
None of them were killed by protestors but protestors were killed by police. Ashli Babbitt was shot in cold blood. Roseanne Boyland was beaten by a black policewoman before she died.
If you provide the name of the police that were killed, maybe we can look it up.
Be careful, because I just posted a Covid death who was 96 years old with congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. People on the left, not you of course, will add that death to the Covid death roles. You don’t want to be part of that hypocrisy.
One of the policemen was beaten with a fire extinguisher so badly that he soon committed suicide. One or more other suicides right after Jan 6.
David, maybe you should choose different news sources since the fire hydrant story was a lie.
You need to check your facts out with news media that is careful about their facts.
Nobody picked up a fire hydrant.
Maybe you shouldn’t have so much to drink before you comment.
Your insults reflect your ignorance.
SM
So you agree with SM and then piss on him ?
There are stories in the news that are accurate and ones that are not. It is getting harder all the time to determine what is true.
But there is a pattern – When the truth is harmful to the left it gets supressed. When a lie is beneficial to the left it gets amplified.
But in the end what was supressed gets out, and what is a lie gets found out.
Two people were killed in the Capital protests.
Both women, Both unarmed, Both by the capital police. Both murdered.
Myriads of claims by the left – like the fire extinguisher story, and the defecating in the capital story have been debunked.
Given the scale of the event it is near certain that some negative stories about the protestors will prove true.
You can not deny thousands of people their first amendment rights and expect that every single one of them will behave well.
Regardless, the most egregious violence that day was by Two capital police officers.
There is a reason that there were no firearms at J6. There is a reason there were no weapons.
These people came to protest. They needed to get inside the capital to do so. They fully expected to be allowed to. They also expected to go through metal detectors. They did not bring weaposn because they expected to be allowed in.
It is also evident that many of the capital police were sympathetic. To Trump ? Probably not, this is DC. To protestors who were having their rights violated – yes. Nearly all the protesters in the capital were let in.
Regardless, everytime one of you left wing nuts talks about an insurection – you make a fool of yourself.
April 19, 1775 was an insurrection. The protesters came with guns. 70 redcoats died.
That is what an actual insurrection looks like.
I do not know what the future brings. But contra the left and president dementia, the violence we are seeing is from the left.
It is pro-life clinics that are being attacked – 104, with many being firebombed. Left wing nuts are murdering teens they THINK are MAGA.
100 Antifa destroyed the Starbucks in portland – not in 2020, but After J6.
I was wrong. It was a metal pole that he was beaten in the head with:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dc-police-officer-died-suicide-jan-6-riot-declared-line-duty-death-rcna19433
Total of 5 officers dead and another 140 injured:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/02/3rd-police-officer-gunther-hashida-kills-himself-after-capitol-riot-by-trump-mob.html
Meaningless.
SM
One of the problems with this claim is that as none of these officers died as a direct result of J6, trying to link them is dubious and even if true may not produce the results you wish.
Officers could have committed suicide – because they were ashamed of their own conduct on J6.
And the fact that these are listed as Line of duty deaths just demonstrates the corruption of the left.
Alishi Babbet was formerly in the military – I guess her death was line of duty too.
correlation is not causation.
SM
I followed your link. It does not provide the evidence for the claims in it.
It claims there is body cam video – and provides a link that is supposed to be to that.
But following the link – still no body cam video, just claims of what the video not provided might show.
Thus far I am not aware of anyone convicted of throwing a metal pole at a capital police officer.
There are lots of quotes in the linked articles. All of which show that the protestors are angry with the capital police for refusing to allow them into the building – total shocker.
It is stuff like this that destroys our trust in you and the press.
I have no doubt that some people were violent at the capital – there is definitely evidence that the police – particularly at the west tunnel violated the rules of engagement for the event, initiated the violence, and used techniques that the Capital Police procedures identify as deadly force under circumstances where deadly force was not permitted.
It is likely – near certain that once the Capital Police initiated violence – protestors responded.
One protestor charged with assaulting a police officer was outside the capital and claims that all he did was get between the black female capital police officer when when was beating Rose Boylan – including on the head with her baton – which is considered deadly force, after Boylan was down and unresponsive. There is multiple video that appears to confirm that – though the officers body cam video has still not been made public.
If the protestor in question attacked a capital police officer that was NOT engaged in the use of deadly force against an unarmed and non-threatening person – Then he should be prosecuted.
If however as appears to be the case a CP officer was striking a protester who was down on the ground and not responding with a batton in the head – then the protester is acting justifiably in defense of others.
I would note that Boylan died at the Capital. She with near certainty died of injuries inflicted by the police. There is little doubt that she was brutally beaten. There is no evidence at all that Boylan was ever a threat to anyone.
I did not read everything in the article you linked. I did read purportedly damning quotes by protestors. None of them were.
None of them come close to those made by protestors on the left all the time.
If capital police officers committed suicide – we do not know why.
But one plausible reason is that they started a conflict – not with rock throwing left wing nuts, but with middle aged current and former police, and current and former military. and they realized they were in the wrong.
I do not know that no one protesting the election at the capital on J6 acted improperly. Given the numbers it is unlikely that all protestors behaved perfectly until the capital police violated the rules of engagemnt.
What I do know that is in case after case – the claims of the left and the media do not hold up, or the purportedly damning evidence is not being made public.
There is thousands of hours of video of J6 that has not been made public.
All of it should be.
And then let the chips fall wherever they may.
“Thus far I am not aware of anyone convicted of throwing a metal pole at a capital police officer.”
John, what David doesn’t recognize is the difference between saying something and fact. Whereas we see no video of David’s incident with a pole, there is a video of a black female police officer beating Roseanne Boyland with a baton or stick while Boyland was on the ground. Boyland died shortly after.
I wish I could think of the simple word that describes David’s inability to distinguish substance from trash.
As I have argued here repeatedly
RELEASE ALL THE VIDEO.
The left and right can both have a field day crowd sourcing reviewing it.
Find evidence of protestors behaving badly – and I am fine with prosecuting them.
Though yesterday Judge ABJ sentenced a protestor to 7 years for:
Passing a stun gun to another protestor – no one used it, and this person merely passed it forward.
And grabbing the forearm of a CP office after that officer shoved him.
I can not see a criminal conviction of any kind at all for this.
If this is the standard – thousands would be in Jail for the summer of rage.
Virtually every protestor in the Laffeyette park mess was released without charges – even though many police were injured.
Many protestors were even paid by government – because 2 blocks away in an independent police action the Metro police actually used tear gas against violent protestors.
We got endless rants from the media over the false narative that Laffeyette park was cleared for a Trump photo OP despite the fact that the decision to clear the park was made almost 24hrs earlier based on the violence that was occurring every night,
and the photo op was decided by the WH spur of the moment after the park was cleared
Yet, no one – left or right, besides me seems to be questioning WHY was the capital locked down ?
And we have this absolutely insane narrative that this was an insurrection.
Lets take a look at actual reality
These rants were all about preserving the “peaceful protest” narrative.
Correlation does not imply causation. If you haven’t learned that, there is no point discussing anything of substance with you.
SM
A causality from correlation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality
Care to discuss that, hmm?
Do you read your own links ?
the link you cite describes a very narrow way to determine something that granger refuses to call causality, using additional rigorous mathematical steps.
Is Led Zepplin an actual dirigible ?
Granger causality is not causality.
I would further note that the true assertion that correlation is not causality, is NOT the same as the false claim that no correlations are a reflection of causation.
Causation is something that must be proven.
Strong correlation can be a first step towards that. It is far from the end of the journey.
Do not nit pick the answers of others if your own answers do not hold up.
Regardless, you constantly disappoint. You are aware of a great deal of data, but you are quite poor at converting it into knowledge.
You rebutted a perfectly accurate argument that correlation is not causation – with a link to granger causation that had you read it undermines rather than supports your rebuttal.
You are also making a fundimental – possibly the most fundimental logical fallacies of trying to reverse and implication.
DB: Did you read the article you posted, or like Natacha, just rely on selective searches to learn new things. Here is a sentence from the article you posted:
“Granger also stressed that some studies using “Granger causality” testing in areas outside economics reached “ridiculous” conclusions.[6] “
So they died of suicide, not January 6th.
Got it.
How so?
The mineapolis city counsel is all Bernie Bros. Seattle ? New York City ? Los Angeles ? ….
These are SOME of the places that slashed police budgets.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.
Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.
Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.
When people begin to ignore human dignity, it will not be long before they begin to ignore human rights.
G.K. Chesterton
I believe this guy was on to something.
“Was Overturning Roe a “Blessing”? Only if Democrats Can Avoid the Details of the Right to Abortion”
– Professor Turley
______________
Overturning irrefutably unconstitutional Roe was a simple act of fundamental law enforcement which occurred 50 years retroactively.
The Supreme Court must now act 100 years retroactively to overturn the antithetical and “injurious” 19th amendment.*
The Supreme Court must also act 150 years retroactively to overturn every unconstitutional act of Lincoln and his successors, from Lincoln’s denial of fully constitutional secession to the corrupt, antithetical, unconstitutional and improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments,” which were imposed under the duress of brutal, post-war occupation and oppression, and derived from the thesis of the decidedly anti-Constitutional, anti-American Karl Marx.
The Supreme Court may elect, in lieu, to act to support the Communist Manifesto and its anti-American, anti-constitutional principles; that would be an impeachable crime of high office.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
The heart of a fetus has developed enough to begin circulating blood by the fourth week of embryonic life. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ap2/chapter/development-of-blood-vessels-and-fetal-circulation/. The question of when a heart is a heart has been answered. The question still unanswered is if some adults have a heart or if they are more concerned with their own inconvenience.
Under the Pro-Choice ethical religion, human rites are performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. A wicked solution to a hard problem: keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the “burden” of evidence sequestered in darkness.
That said, some even offer apologies for a minority report and diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) that socially justifies elective abortion of excess girls in some societies, Down’s Syndrome babies in others, Jews in a final solution, etc. A progressive path and grade.
15 Weeks Is False Threshold
No woman should think her pregnancy is safe simply because she’s past the 15 week mark. A number of complications can still be found ‘after’ 15 weeks. Below is a CDC description of Second Trimester Screenings and what they might detect.
…………………………………………………….
Second Trimester Screening
Second trimester screening tests are completed between weeks 15 and 20 of pregnancy. They are used to look for certain birth defects in the baby. Second trimester screening tests include a maternal serum screen and a comprehensive ultrasound evaluation of the baby looking for the presence of structural anomalies (also known as an anomaly ultrasound).
Maternal Serum Screen
The maternal serum screen is a simple blood test used to identify if a woman is at increased risk for having a baby with certain birth defects, such as neural tube defects or chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome. It is also known as a “triple screen” or “quad screen” depending on the number of proteins measured in the mother’s blood. For example, a quad screen tests the levels of 4 proteins AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), hCG, estriol, and inhibin-A. Generally, the maternal serum screen is completed during the second trimester.
Fetal Echocardiogram
A fetal echocardiogram is a test that uses sound waves to evaluate the baby’s heart for heart defects before birth. This test can provide a more detailed image of the baby’s heart than a regular pregnancy ultrasound. Some heart defects can’t be seen before birth, even with a fetal echocardiogram. If your healthcare provider finds a problem in the structure of the baby’s heart, a detailed ultrasound may be done to look for other problems with the developing baby.
Anomaly Ultrasound
An ultrasound creates pictures of the baby. This test is usually completed around 18–20 weeks of pregnancy. The ultrasound is used to check the size of the baby and looks for birth defects or other problems with the baby.
Edited From:
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html
No woman should think her….
Alas you are not a biologist
An ultrasound creates pictures of the baby. This test is usually completed around 18–20 weeks of pregnancy. The ultrasound is used to check the size of the baby and looks for birth defects or other problems with the baby.
Note to Attorney General Merrick Garland: Russians may have sabotaged the CDC website with subversive, misinformation. The above citation indicates the fetus is a baby. If Hispanic voters were to learn of this medical opinion, it would cause a miscarriage of the Democrats chance of aborting the United States Constitution.
Word for the wise, Peter: read your copy/paste articles before you plaster them on the forum. Otherwise you might look stupid, and you wouldn’t want that to happen. It is time for another COVID booster shot, Peter, because we care about you.
😉
So?
One would think that a wiseoldlawyer wouldn’t miss the point.
A human life, barring Her Choice or her Choice, is viable from six weeks and may exhibit evidence of defects in the mother’s womb, through birth, at birth, as a child, as a teenager, as an adult, and as a senior citizen. Most people… persons avoid passing judgment and assigning labels in a minority report.
Eugenics
Nice to know that you’d have wanted to force this couple to give birth and then watch their newborn suffer before dying soon after birth: https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899
Professor Turley,
I am confused by this paragraph:
“Senate candidate Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) has adopted an absolute position that there should be no limits on a woman’s right to abortion — far beyond anything in Roe or Casey — and has refused to address whether this would mean that a fully formed baby in the ninth month of pregnancy could be aborted.”
If Tim Ryan adopted an “absolute position that there should be no limits on a woman’s right to abortion,” then why would there by any question regarding whether a baby could be aborted in the ninth month of pregnancy? “Absolute” would mean no exceptions. But, the video you linked to does not confirm he supports an absolute right. It just sounds like he evaded the question, which is a tactic every politician does to avoid gotcha questions from journalists.
For example, how is this different from NC Senate GOP Candidate Ted Budd’s response (at about the 5min mark of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcce180TUzY. When asked about a total ban on abortion vs exceptions for the health of the mother he evaded the question twice. His second response was: “You need to look at it as a tragedy, and let’s engage this person, let’s talk with them. But let’s also realize there’s a second life there. And you had to look at it through those lenses in why would you want to take a second life for something that’s already been harmed.”
This was a very uneven article.
‘Professor Turley, I am confused . . .’
Finally some truth from Anon.
“it was done by removal of a civil right.”
Nope
“A historical first.”
Have you read the alien and sedition act of 1798 ?
Dredd Scott ?
Wickard v. Filburn ?