Roughly 200 human rights organizations are asking the United Nations to declare that the United States is a violator of “international human rights law” because some states have passed pro-life laws after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Given that many countries ban and heavily restrict abortion, it is a pitch that is unlikely to gain traction at the U.N. However, the premise shows a significant escalation of rhetoric by groups like Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch and other organizations.
The 53-page letter informs the U.N. that there are a host of barriers now in place for women and girls in the United States that deny them their human rights. Some of the alleged denials of health care are contestable under existing laws. For example, they claim that there are barriers to “accessing abortion in cases of miscarriage” and “denial of care in cases of ectopic pregnancy.”
The signatories make an “urgent appeal” that “by overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion, and through the passage of the state laws discussed above, the US is in violation of its obligations under international human rights law.”
These include:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (unratified)
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (unratified)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),188 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
While the cited states are seeking to protect what they view as the lives of the unborn, the letter accuses the United States of contravening its “human rights obligations to respect the right to life and the right to health.”
The 13 states expressly named are: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. Georgia is also named for its severe limitation on abortion rights.
It also shows an increasing effort by individuals and groups to enlist other countries in core fights over rights in the United States. For example, figures such as Hillary Clinton have enlisted foreign governments to compel the censoring of fellow citizens: If Twitter can’t be counted on to censor, perhaps the European Union will be the ideal surrogate to rid social media of these posters if U.S. companies or courts will not do so.
The letter raises a long-standing debate over the role of international law as precedent in U.S. court. The Supreme Court has long debated the question with sharply different views.
In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy referenced foreign precedent and practice in his majority opinion declaring sodomy laws to be unconstitutional. Justice Scalia shot back in dissent that “constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence … because foreign nations decriminalize conduct.”
Scalia repeatedly warned about the application of international law as precedent in U.S. cases, as in his concurring opinion in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain where the Court considered whether the Alien Tort Claims Act granted a private right of action to individuals for torts under the law of nations. He wrote:
“The notion that a law of nations, redefined to mean the consensus of states on any subject, can be used by a private citizen to control a sovereignís treatment of its own citizens within its own territory is a 20th-century invention of internationalist law professors and human-rights advocates. The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty, … could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.
… We Americans have a method for making the laws that are over us. We elect representatives to two Houses of Congress, each of which must enact the new law and present it for the approval of a President, whom we also elect. For over two decades now, unelected federal judges have been usurping this lawmaking power by converting what they regard as norms of international law into American law. Today’s opinion approves that process in principle, though urging the lower courts to be more restrained.”
Ah, more of Turley’s paid BS which I stopped reading at the headline. Uh, Turley, “pro-life” really means “anti abortion”, but it seems negative to appear to be “anti” anything, so they adopt what sounds like a friendlier name–all part of the sales game. And, at the end of the day, it depends on whether someone believes there’s constitutionally-protected “life” the moment a sperm penetrates the outer cell wall of an ovum, at which point, other people not involved in the pregnancy acquire a right superior to the woman with the ovary to decide whether she may end the pregnancy. Most people don’t believe that, prior to viability, other people have a right superior to that of the woman to make this decision, especially in cases of rape and incest in which a pregnancy is forced on a woman. Also, most people don’t believe that an undeveloped fertilized egg has constitutional rights. And, Turley, you know very well that this is just another hook for the gullibles who are on the “noble mission” to “save unborn babies”–all part of the culture wars pushed by your employer. How ironic that culture warriors want to talk about “freedom” while censoring reading material, dictating what teachers are and aren’t allowed to teach and how they address students, and making it a felony for someone to perform a drag act.
“And, at the end of the day, it depends on whether someone believes there’s constitutionally-protected ‘life’ the moment a sperm penetrates the outer cell wall of an ovum, at which point, other people not involved in the pregnancy acquire a right superior to the woman with the ovary to decide whether she may end the pregnancy.”
– NUTCHACHACHA
________________
There is a very good reason no citations are included in this semantic catastrophe.
After 24 hours of fertilization, “…at the end of the day…,” abortion is required to accomplish the termination of the human life involved.
In the absence of counterintuitive and insane abortion, the related human being will develop for an average of 76 years.
Abortion, or termination of human life, is referred to as murder or homicide.
No woman is provided any right or freedom, superior or inferior, by the Constitution to murder or commit homicide against a separate and distinct human being.
This self-deluding buffoon should be banned for life based on its oxymoronic nature alone.
While the cited states are seeking to protect what they view as the lives of the unborn . . .
Why the hedging “what they view as” language? It’s basic biology. Abortion kills the life of the unborn, and restrictions on abortion by definition protect those lives. Unless there is a new, expansive view of the term “abortion” which includes activities like starting a car, toasting bread, and putting on one’s socks.
So in the same vein: laws that criminalize murder represent the state’s interest in protecting what they view as the lives of human beings; laws defining theft as a criminal offense protect what states view as private property; immigration laws (which are barely enforced anyway) seek to regulate the inflow of what they view as human beings from what they view as other countries into what they view as this country.
A fertilized egg that doesn’t resemble anything recognizable as a human is not an “unborn baby”. It’s an undeveloped baby that very often dies of its own accord. Not everyone agrees that a woman many not terminate an undeveloped, primitive form of person that cannot survive outside her own body, or one that is malformed and may die shortly after birth, or one whose continued existence is a threat to her very survival because she has a fundamental right to personal autonomy over her own body. Where does what a state “VIEWS as a human being” trump the individual right of privacy and liberty up to the age of fetal viability? That’s where this discussion begins and ends. Whose “rights” are superior prior to the age of viability? Roe v. Wade answered that question in a manner that the vast majority of Americans agree with.
Gigi – hello! I elicited a response from you. Will wonders never cease.
The language used is important. Prof. Turley used the phrase “the unborn.” Contrary to your comment above, I never used the term “unborn baby.” An embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation is, by definition, unborn. Do you disagree with that basic fact of biology?
Given how generic and undeniable true the fact is, that an embryo or fetus is unborn, I was wondering why Prof. Turley would hedge by saying some people view it as unborn. What else could it be?
Best wishes,
Uncle Henry
I mostly don’t read Turley past the headline, because I have learned that he just spouts the Fox (fake) News culture wars BS he’s paid to promote.
Gigi – but you must have read my comment, the one you responded to. I quoted Turley and, like him, I didn’t use the term “unborn baby.” You responded to that term as if I had used it.
Sincerely,
Uncle Henry
I mostly don’t read Turley past the headline,
Thats why your always wrong. You dont know the topic
“I mostly don’t read Turley past the headline,”
Gigi, you would have been more correct if you said, “I mostly don’t read”
When I was a young man I some fringe groups called for the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. I thought that was nuts. I no longer think it’s nuts.
Whatever the UN started out as, it has devolved into a cabal of anti-American, antisemitic thugs, and now I guess it’s even anti-life.
1.) I’m sick of hearing the praises of Justice Scalia, as if he were some sort legal genius.
2.) Abortion rights isn’t a pro-life issue at its core. It is a religious belief being forced upon unbelievers by largely Catholic Justices who are undermining the constitutional freedom of religion for women who don’t ascribe to the same beliefs as these justices. Hence, their decision is actually the government forcing a particular religious ideology onto American women. It consequently takes away their right to autonomy.
3.) I find it interesting how little Christian pro-lifers know about compassions of God and His Christ. It’s the very foundation of of the Word of God and the New Covenant Jesus surrendered his life.
But also their ignorance of biblical end time prophesies which point to the final world empire as caring for no god but exalting himself above every god, even denying the god for women.
So, in actuality, these religious justices have denied the very God they claim to believe in. They also refused the invitation by Jesus to accept this New Covenant founded upon mercy and not judgement. This rejection of God’s love leads them to rule by their own self righteousness. In so doing, they crucify the Lord all over again because their only God is Caesar. Today they are Caesar. The only difference between Caesar and them is that Caesar felt remorse for what he’d done, thus washing his hands of Jesus blood as he acted by the laws of his day. These justices today, who shouldn’t be bound by law because God’s Word says “no one can be declared righteous by law,” totally made up an excuse to make women second class citizens. Of course, it wasn’t their rendering. It was the judgment of false preachers inside false religions whom they obey rather than God Almighty and His Christ.
I have my issues with Scalia. His particular concept of originalism is deeply flawed.
His view of the constitution is too close to whatever is not specifically prohibited government is allowed.
Our constitution was written to specify what government can do – all else is prohibited.
Where we decide government needs more power – we amend the constitution.
The explicit presumption of the 9th amendment is that individual rights are nearly limitless and protected against government interferance. Yet neither the right nor the left ever allows the 9th amendment to thwart more power for government.
Beyond that criticism I would suggest you consider
Johnson v. Texas,
King v Maryland
Merchants Assoc. v California.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Nearly all modern restrictions on government power to search and seize are Scalia opinions.
Scalia vastly shifted power from judges to juries.
He was a very strong first and 2nd amendment voice.
There are many decisions by Scalia that I find offensive – but the same is true of Ginsberg
There is no perfect supreme court justice.
Your religion argument is garbage.
There is no problem making a constitutional argument for a right to life without ever refering to religion.
So, justifiable homicide is murder due to the “inconvenience” of motherhood.
How in the world can you and the immature young women you brainwash rationalize murder while rejecting adoption.
I don’t suppose you realize how ——- insane that is.
Simple question: Where’s the future in abortion?
Oh, yeah, there is none.
I suspect you would have been burned at the stake as a witch or otherwise lunatic in centuries past.
One can only hope that you have no bearing on the future.
Abortion rights isn’t a pro-life issue at its core.
That’s one thing you’ve got right. At its core, it’s about life. The life of the mother and the life of the unborn human. I will add when that unborn human life is the result of rape or incest, then it’s the right of the mother to choose to remain pregnant. None of that requires a belief in God.
I am struck by the smugness of the petitioners! Do they think that they are the 21st Century Philosopher Kings? It looks like one more step in the march toward globalism – and one that should be soundly rejected. Thank you, Professor Turley, for bringing these dangerous developments to our attention.
“One more step in the March towards globalism”? In what century are you living? Globalism is completely here. It’s the seven headed ten horned beast and the diadems are on the horns now. The succession of empires laid out in the book of Daniel, affirmed by Jesus and John, has already culminated in the oppression of the masses worldwide through austerity politics. Now it’s just a matter of how low can it go. I think pretty low. Read Revelation 16 and tell me if you see it. The beast just forced a vaccine upon the world that they knew was useless. But the “love of money” is what drives the beast to carry out all its evils. It believes wealth is its salvation rather than God. They are robbing mankind of their divine inheritance as outlined in Genesis chapters 1 & 2. They have stolen our god given inheritance and are selling it back to us for a price. If you can’t afford it, they blame you rather than the beast who stole it from you in the first place.
Abolish or walk away from the UN, IMF, World Bank, WHO, etc. etc.
This endless dance around the issue will never stop until the Court makes clear what defines human life. How much more time and resources will be wasted until the decision is made?
We do not need a court to define human life. Everyone knows what human life is. Difference is some value life while others do not. Thus we either all value life or we all get to choose individually who lives or who does not. Simple
Imagine if we all carried lethal objects like a machete and each individual was capable of ending the life of anyone on a whim like abortionists do. That would end poorly ….or not
One thing about the “pro life” crowd in their minds women don’t deserve life. I get it…women are just incubators to be used an disposed of. No man would put up with indignities women are forced to accept. I for one am sick of it. No one seems to or cares to understand that the plethora of medical procedures and treatments outlawed by alleged pro life laws are not limited to abortion. But then doesn’t matter women aren’t human so no human rights violation there.
Think about a young woman being forced to carry a dead fetus to term. Or another one whose menstrual cycles are being monitored in case something suspicious happens. Women of child bearing age are now under suspicion at all times. Targets on their backs for the next round of fanatics and their new ideas as how to keep women under control. Men generally don’t see the urgency until it happens to their wife, daughter, sister or friend.
Justice Holmes wrote, “One thing about the “pro life” crowd in their minds women don’t deserve life.”
That is verifiably false and you know it; therefore, you’re a lying internet troll, aka a liar.
Think about a young woman being forced to carry a dead fetus to term
That’s not a thing. Whats full term for ‘dead’>
It should be understood through the evidence presented by Justice Holmes that pro-abortion people will say anything to further the death mill. Lets see, a dead rotting body remaining in the womb for nine months is what Justice Holmes believes the pro-life people are calling for. Sooner or later the idiocy boils to the surface. A definition of extremism could not be more aptly illustrated.
So you deny nature, God or both?
Women perpetuate the species; women make men and more women whose existence you would similarly deny.
You engender incoherent pejoratives.
Hopefully, you who reject perpetuation are few.
You are bent on and bound for extinction.
Exactly what kind of rational thesis is that.
What a damnable fool.
Holmes: You should mansplain your wholly unsupported theory about why pro-lifers oppose abortion to the many female leaders of the pro-life movement: Lila Rose; Penny Nance; The Susan B. Anthony List; Feminists for Life; among many others. I’m quite sure they oppose abortion because they have a moral conscience that informs them that killing a developing innocent human life is immoral and evil.
Go ahead and mansplain to them that what they really believe is that women do not deserve to live.
“Think about a young woman being forced to carry a dead fetus to term. ”
Dunderheaded!
Was she forced?
“A doctor from her Ob-Gyn’s office called her to confirm that the pregnancy had ended in a miscarriage. They laid out her options: Take medication to make the pregnancy tissue come out faster, have a dilation and curettage or D&C procedure to remove the pregnancy tissue from her uterus, or wait for it to come out on its own.”
The extremists on both sides need to cut it out. Where there are arguments to be had on both sides, the “default” position is for the government to let people alone unless there is a government (community) interest.
The “right to life” position based on religious belief in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception — a religious that is not held by all. Not everyone believes in the “soul”, let alone that God sticks one into every two-celled zygote. Thus these beliefs simply do not form an appropriate basis for government action. We are not a theocracy. Conversely, the “I should be able to kill it so long as its in my body” position is equally flawed since it fails to consider the development of consciousness, the individual pain and suffering of a fetus, or weigh this against an obligation of personal responsibility to take action earlier on the pregnant mother.
What few fail to note is that even constitutionally recognized rights only accrue with age and competence. Children, for example, have no right to “liberty” or “association” (or other “rights”) until an artificially agreed-upon age or meeting of certain conditions. The right to life does not necessarily commence at conception but only at the point at which there is consciousness and appreciation for that life. And moreover, it ends when there is permanent “brain death” notwithstanding a beating heart, brain death being an artificial line-drawing in what is actually a process of dying. The fetus does not have legal personhood; it is, rather, in almost all statutory and case law, mostly recognized as essentially human property (why, e.g., the parentmay have a cause of action for the loss of a fetus from wrongful action, but the fetus itself does not.)
“Life” isn’t enough. “Unique human life” isn’t enough. The question that needs to be asked is when does the government (community) have an interest in intervening, contrary to the default of letting people alone, and WHY. That “why” has to be rational, not religious, and based in reality. Until the pro-life crowd refashions an argument this way, the other side will only continue responding in another irrational manner. Neither looks at facts, neither attempts to come up with good reasons.
As for international “law”, a largely bogus concept based on ultimately unenforceable treaties and understandings, well most of those exalted “western nations” limit the “right” to an abortion to around 14-15 weeks. I guess that suits neither of the extremes.
Irrational hysterics on both sides will get nowhere and resolve nothing.
outhousecounsel wrote, “The “right to life” position based on religious belief…”
That argument is so absurdly false that I think it’s an intentional lie to deflect.
Human right to life is based on the basic human condition NOT religion. Your argument is such that non-religious persons, like atheists, don’t believe that human beings have the human right to life. Your argument is completely absurd and verifiably false; ask anyone if they have a human right to life and they will tell you they do.
What do you mean by “the basic human condition”? (And what are you basing this on?)
On a tangential note, how does this comport with pulling the plug or harvesting organs after “brain death”? Or draftees ordered into a suicide mission on Hamburger Hill? What “basic human condition” are you referring to that is not based on a religious belief?
outhousecounsel wrote, “What do you mean by “the basic human condition”? (And what are you basing this on?)”
I explained it if you actually read and understand all that I wrote. This is common sense ad I’ve proven this without a doubt to myself by simply asking non-religious persons the question like I stated.
outhousecounsel wrote, “On a tangential note, how does this comport with pulling the plug or harvesting organs after “brain death”? Or draftees ordered into a suicide mission on Hamburger Hill?”
Deflections.
outhousecounsel wrote, “What “basic human condition” are you referring to that is not based on a religious belief?”
Now you’re being obtuse, it’s already been explained.
You explained nothing. You made the bare statement “Human right to life is based on the basic human condition NOT religion” using a phrase that you did not define. What is the “basic human condition”.
Proof of a right to life is trivial.
Assume there is no right to life and produce a workable society that humans would agree to live in.
If you can not get to one – there must be a right to life.
Absolutely everything is relative and fungible – so long as you do not require a result that works.
It is not possible to prove or disprove anything – without assuming that the end result must work.
We also typically require that it not merely work, but that it be consistent with known facts in the real world.
I can hypothesize a world without sub atomic particles, without a solar system, without black people.
I can not do so producing a result that works and is consistent with the real world.
outhousecounsel wtote, “You explained nothing. You made the bare statement “Human right to life is based on the basic human condition NOT religion” using a phrase that you did not define. What is the “basic human condition”.”
You’re either a bald-faced liar or a blithering idiot, there are no other choices in this regard.
So at this point in the conversation I’m supposed to be applying Hanlon’s Razor to your comments, you know that old adage that states “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. So you’re portraying that you’re box-o-rocks stupid, as in a blithering idiot that can’t understand what is right in front of your face. Sobeit.
Paragraph: a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme.
The paragraph I wrote from top to bottom…
…is all themed on the basic human condition and you have completely ignored the second two sentences I wrote in the paragraph which are the sentences that describe the basic human condition that human beings believe that they have the human right to life and want to live and it’s got absolutely nothing to do with religion. You cannot get any more basic in the human condition than human beings simply wanting to live. From what I gather, since you’re actively trying to smear religion, that you’re not religious but I ‘d bet a piece of pie at Perkins that you personally believe that you have the human right to life and you what to live.
Personally I don’t think you’re quite as stupid as you’re portraying; therefore, what you must be doing is pure trolling and pure malice by intentionally try to defame those you’re conversing with with borderline libelous statements.
Why do you expect people who graduate without learning to read, write or do basic math to be able to understand complex topics such as no one is free to take your life from you ?
There is no scientific agreement on when human life begins.
A discussion by a developmental biologist: https://web.archive.org/web/20030511191256/http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=21&id=162
you are wrong
No, Scott Gilbert, the developmental biologist who wrote that text isn’t wrong.
LOL
After 24 hours of fertilization a human being exists and will develop for an average of 76 years, if it is not criminally murdered, as homicide, by abortion.
After 24 hours of fertilization, a zygote exists and will most likely quickly die of its own accord, most often prior to implantation.
8 billion human beings on the planet and this clown says fertilized eggs all die.
Work on your reading comprehension.
your handlers are not sending their better trolls
Life begins at conception
The egg and sperm are alive.
And most zygotes quickly die of natural causes.
After 24 hours of fertilization a human being exists and will develop for an average of 76 years, if it is not criminally murdered, as homicide, by abortion.
And you’re a ——- idiot.
Is there anyone who takes you seriously?
The “right to life” position based on religious belief…
An elaborate strawman you built there. And so skillfully deconstructed.
The sanctity of life requires no religious affiliation. Those of a religious background, have just as much a right to an opinion as atheists.
But Dobbs, correctly leaves the issue to the voters regardless of religion.
You are desperately seeking a boogy man because you fear the People creating the laws that govern their lives.
What “sanctity” (the state or quality of being holy or sacred)? Where does this come from and when does it apply? Who determines?
Life is sacred because humans hold it as sacred.
Christians do.
Athiests do.
If you do not – you are free to end your own life, and the debate is over.
I strongly suspect you will not. Therefore you must consider atleast your own life scared.
The sanctity of life is a precept that exists in ethics as well as religion.
Children, for example, have no right to “liberty” or “association
You have no concept of rights. Of course children have all the rights enumerated by the constitution. Pre Dobbs, your contention would allow the govt to ban abortions on females not yet 21. Because they don’t have rights?
,
Children have rights that cannot be infringed by the govt. Right to a trial. Right to speech. (see Tinker). Some full autonomy takes some time to kick in, but the Bill of Rights restricts the Govt, not the individual.
You are blowing and blathering, about things you don’t comprehend. My guess driven by a hatred of the importance of God in our Nations founding.
Outhousecounsel does not seem to grasp that with respect to government children have all the rights of adults.
What they do not have is the right to autonomy regarding their PARENTS.
While children and others with competence issues do not have all their rights vested in themselves.
They still have the same rights, those rights are just vested in a parent or guardian.
“They still have the same rights, those rights are just vested in a parent or guardian.”
Yeah? Do parents get to cast votes for them? Specious. Rights are accrued with age and competency. And the argument can be made that a few-celled zygote simply does not have a “right to life”.
(By the way, do pro-lifers not understand that far more zygotes are spontaneously aborted via “late periods” and flushed down toilets than induced abortions?)
I care about beings that can feel pain and fear for their own lives. I really don’t care if leftists want to abort their offspring so long as they do it at a time at which it is not causing pain and suffering to a conscious or semi-conscious being.)
“Do parents get to cast votes for them?”
There is no actual constitutional or natural right to vote.
“Specious. Rights are accrued with age and competency.”
And yet voting – what you think is a right, is not restricted to the competent.
In otherwords your claim is “specious”.
“And the argument can be made that a few-celled zygote simply does not have a “right to life”.”
You can make whatever you argument you want. Regardless AGAIN you confuse rhetoric with reality.
There is no actual right to life – otherwise a natural death would be unconstitutional.
Rights are limits primarily on government, but sometimes limits on individuals barring them from acting to limit another.
There is no right to life, there is a right to not be killed by another.
Rights absolutely NEVER place limits on nature – that would be ludicrously stupid and unsustainable.
“(By the way, do pro-lifers not understand that far more zygotes are spontaneously aborted via “late periods” and flushed down toilets than induced abortions?)”
Do left wing nuts understand that EVERYONE dies eventually – Rights are limits on people, not nature.
“I care about beings that can feel pain and fear for their own lives. I really don’t care if leftists want to abort their offspring so long as they do it at a time at which it is not causing pain and suffering to a conscious or semi-conscious being.)”
Care about whatever you want. Rights are not determined by feelings.
A man said to the universe: “Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe, “The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation.”
Crane
Is there any foundation, any principle of any kind to your arguments ?
It is quite trivial to make the kind of arguments you are making if you have no principles at all and do not care about
facts, logic and reason.
Humans die for an infinite number of reasons all the time., All humans eventually die.
That does not mean you are free to kill them.
Pro-Life Values = Pro Christian Values. Yet another attack on Christianity IMHO. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
A few years ago some nitwit from the UN made a proposal for a tax on Americans paychecks. For any of you who have actually made out paychecks for employees,you know there are two exemptions for Medicare and social security. Well this guy at the UN wanted a third deduction for a UN tax for third world countries. International welfare. Fortunately it didn’t go anywhere. Could you imagine if there was one world government.
This petition is totally self contradictory. Please point out to me where it says abortion with the death of an unborn fetus is a right of all people. Who petitions for the unborn child or is their advocate. A rush to kill as defined by a “right to life and health”.
The United States has a means of conforming to International law and that is by signing a treaty AND having 2/3 of the Senate vote in affirmation of that. Unless the United States is bound by a treaty affirmed by the Senate then International Law can “pound sand”. We have so called democracies that fail to have accountability of their courts, executives, and legislatures to the people. Some nations feels self appointed courts are sacrosanct. Nothing made by man is sacrosanct and unaccountable. We almost always get into trouble when we have groups and governments that feel and act as though they are not accountable to anyone.
Thank God for the Constitution, imperfect as it is, it is still the best instrument of government on the planet.
The petition is nonsense.
The world is on the cusp of a very serious demographic collapse. Many nations – China, Japan, Russia are already well into it an face relatively short term economic problems that have NEVER been successfully navigated before.
The problem is not as immediate in Europe, but just as real, they only have longer to prepare.
In the US it is manageable – with immigration rates of 2-4M/year.
China has moved from the draconian one child policy to advocating for families with 3 or 4 children and they need that NOW – or a decade ago. It is China so we can expect encouragement to shift to FORCE soon enough. I expect abortion is already difficult in china, it will likely be illegal soon enough.
In parts of europe women are being paid to have children. Again as the demographics worsen we should expect abortion to become illegal and impossible.
This is one of the problems with left wing ideology. There is no real foundation in rights.
For those on the left abortion is good – so long as the malthusian nonsense of over population permeates academia.
When the realities of population collapse dawn on them – policies will reverse in an instant.
If you are on the left – your rights are only what those in power deem are good for them.
What wise people should fear from the UN declaring abortion a right, is that all to soon they can just as easily decide to force childbirth on you.
If you can not find a foundation for a right, you should not expect enduring protection for that right.
If the uber-rich are not going to reinvest their wealth in productive economic assets, but instead use it to donate to these 200 far left anti-American activist groups, then maybe AOC is right and their marginal tax rates need to be raised back up to 90%. Freeze spending at current levels and use the money confiscated from the rich from the increase in marginal tax rates to pay down part of the federal debt.
Obviously, if Congress is appropriating taxpayer dollars to any of these 200 fake “human rights groups”, then that needs to stop.
These idiots are completely ignoring the basic human responsibilities regarding sex (as usual) and just exposed themselves to a world-wide human right to life of he unborn human being argument. I think abortion advocates just shoved both their feet in their mouth and this won’t likely bode well for the abortion movement.
Choices have consequences.
SW, have you noticed that the phrase “Pro Choice” has disappeared? Maybe that’s because some of the abortion activists finally stopped to think that, subject to certain exceptions, the choice had already been made. Why aren’t we looking at this as a risk management issue?
I miss Antonin Scalia.
I miss Justice Scalia too. I’m raising a glass to him.
Good to know the world is in such great shape the UN has all this free time.
I’m still looking for some benefit coming out of the UN.
I would think cutting baby humans up into little pieces would generate some angst from the activists.
Dont these progressives ever sleep?
The radicalized activists who foresee a one world global system despise the United States because of the check and balance system.
The rank and file citizen goes to work, raises the kids, catches a ball game or two on the weekend—Hangs out with friends or family. The rabid activists continually plot to take down our way of life. They abhor the individual human and his or her right to decide for themselves.
Regarding the unborn child, they are given no say in their life.
Develop an artificial womb and a means of transplantation. The issue is whether they have a right to use a woman’s womb without her consent.
The I guess it’s time to withdraw from all those treaties
Saving lives is a human rights violation, when we have the RIGHT TO LIFE?? How can you be any more ridiculous??
It is counter-intuitive to be sure!