I support a woman's right to end a pregnancy, at least in the early stages. This is part of the right to privacy enshrined in the Due Process Clause. No such right is explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights, but I believe the founders very much intended that government should interfere as little as possible with our freedom. The Declaration of Independence, which should be read together with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, indicates that the "unalienable" rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are "self evident." There is no need to expressly state that this includes an abortion in the early stages of a pregnancy. Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. I respect that opinion, but absent proof, I see no reason to change the common law practice of allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy before she is visibly pregnant.
This is basically what the Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade. I'll concede that the opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun is long on history but short on analysis. He completely misses the "self-evident" and "unalienable" rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. While this 1073 decision is a precedent, I agree with Justice Amy Coney Barrett' assertion, made during her confirmation hearings, that it is no super precedent. In fact, the ruling was revised in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
While I support a woman's right to choose, I was disgusted that some clerk in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion to the media that might be reversing this decision. This is no less an assault on our government than the January 6 attempted coup.
I have since read news accounts that Democrats in Congress might try to pack the Court ... again.
This is stupid.
Let's say Democrats succeed in packing the court with more justices who are willing to do their bidding. This will only last as long as they remain in power, which seems to coming to an end. Then Republicans could pack the court with even more justices who are loyal to them. Before you know it,the Supreme Court will be just as large as Congress and just as political.
Instead of packing the courts, no judge or justice should ever be appointed for life. Nothing in the Constitution requires that federal judges can sit on a bench forever. Federal judges should be appointed to serve one and only one term for a designated number of years . This will prevent the ruling party, be they Democrats or Republicans, from selecting judges that fit their agendas.
While rumors like the Democrats may pack the Supreme Court are being mentioned, let's not look past the real possibility that a clerk for a conservative justice leaked this draft opinion, in order to lock in the conservatives to their position.
ReplyDeleteYes, but such a new rule would also see a more intense whipsawing of the court from every administration. What is needed is stability. A strict following of the constitution should do that. The nation will benefit by letting the states experiment with different approaches to these social issues. Hopefully less anger and division in the long run.
ReplyDeleteMitch McConnell has already said that if Republicans take control of the Senate in November, Biden won't get another supreme court nomination. It's simple. Republicans cheat. Period.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there are currently 7 Catholics on the Supreme Court. Their religion, not the Constitution, surely affects their decisions and the fact that Trump repeatedly said that he'll only nominate justices who'll overturn Roe V. Wade. Yet, they lied under oath at their confirmation hearings and said Roe was settled law and they had no intention of overturning it. Why this surprises anyone is preposterous. Truly deplorable...or a few deplorables.
Two of those Catholics are Justices Sotomayor and Roberts, both of whom appear unlikely to sign this supposed majority opinion. There are Catholics on both sides of the court on this issue. What those of you dissatisfied with the likely decision in Dobbs fail to acknowledge is an obvious reality: five Justices on the Supreme Court of staked their careers on the idea that judges need to interpret the text of the Constitution according to what it meant when it was passed. When the Constitution was ratified, there eas no text in there that hinted at a right to abortion. It's just not in there. None of these arguments that Dobbs is a religious opinion, a conservative policy decision, an assault on women, acknowledge the simple and obvious truth. There is no right to abortion written in the Constitution and we finally have five justices who acknowledge that.
DeleteI am aware who are Catholic on the Supreme Court. I often opine that if the Court had 7 Jewish Justices, or 7 Atheist Justices or even 7 (gasp) Muslim Justices, the right would lose their collective sh*t, and you know it. Again, why did Trump say continuously that he'll only appoint justices who'll overturn Roe V Wade. It was a coup from the beginning, just like January 6th. I believe that Trump probably would have won this past election and not have to incite an insurrection had he not taken this position and not nominate three wacky people to the Supreme Court. And, I noticed that your response to me didn't address Mitch McConnell's statement that if Republicans take control of the Senate, Biden won't get another supreme court nomination, as he did with Merrick Garland. The rule of law is dead in the Republican party, so don't lecture me on what the founding fathers meant by the Constitution and how it should be interpreted.
DeleteAny thoughts on the length of that term? If this country finally decides to uphold that it is the woman's right to choose, can we please stop calling this bit of humanity just a "bit of tissue" or the other euphemism "product of conception"? Let's own our decision to abort the unwanted, inconvenient or what is called 'defective" child. Perhaps in the future over coffee we women will discuss our abortion as easily as we discuss our gallbladder surgery or tummy tuck.
ReplyDelete"No such right is explicitly expressed in the Bill of Rights, but ..."
ReplyDeleteThen STFU and stop doing gymnastics to justify your lust for the blood of minority children at a rate eight times that of you wrinkled racist whiteys. You are demonic. You contribute nothing to society and have taken more than you'll ever be able to give. I like the ice floe idea for worthless old takers like you and your ilk. Man up and cut yourself a piece of ice. Racism doesn't go away until racists like you do.
Hasn't the GOP "packed the court" by blocking the President from filling a vacancy and then rushing a confirmation while Americans were electing a new president?
ReplyDelete"Any thoughts on the length of that term?
ReplyDeleteI am talking about one term. No re-appointments. It would need to be a lengthy term, but not for life. I would say 15 years but am open on that. Also, there would be no age barrier.
" such a new rule would also see a more intense whipsawing of the court from every administration."
Not at all. These would be lengthy terms and would be staggered between both Dem and GOP administations.
"Then STFU and stop doing gymnastics to justify your lust for the blood of minority children"
ReplyDeleteI am reading a founding document literally. It does say that certain rights are "unalienable" and "self-evident." They do not have to be expressly uttered. This certainly includes a right to privacy, even for minority women.
I believe all choices against life are wrong, but do not presume to know precisely when that life starts.
Reading the founding documents literally, where do you see a "right to privacy?" I don't know where that is in the Constitution.
DeleteTERM LIMITS FOR ALL POLITICAL POSITIONS AND GOVERMENT AGENCIES.
ReplyDeleteYou have politicians (example Biden) who have been in Government their entire lives, and sucking off the t*t of the American people.
Enough is enough. I really would like to know how we can get this train back on the track. Government is "for the people, and by the people". So "people" how can we impose term limits? The politicians in charge of making the rules are the very ones we need to oust!
Talk about the fox and the henhouse.
This problem truly seems insurmountable at this point........
From the original post: "I respect that opinion, but absent proof, I see no reason to change the common law practice of allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy before she is visibly pregnant. This is basically what the Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade."
ReplyDeleteBut that's not the way radical, liberal judges have interpreted Roe, nor is it what radical, democrat politicians are demanding.
They want abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time up to (and even after) birth.
If you want to blame anyone for Roe possibly being overturned, blame the democrat radicals who are never happy and always want more.
The reality is that Roe was a bad ruling and always on shaky ground. Even Ruth Ginsburg admitted that.
I certainly won't like that some states will adopt the radical democrat position that it's ok to abort babies that are partially born, and others might not like that some states will go back to the original confines of Roe.
But it is an issue that rightfully belongs to the states and should be legislated, not mandated by any court. The more that we look to the courts to decide, the more we divide our country.
If we want to include one viewpoint or another at the national level, there is a process for amending the Constitution. Until then, allowing the states to decide issues like this is the compromise that our Union is based on (Federalism).
Get serious help immediately.
Delete7:19, I see that you have bought into the lie that abortion rights are a eugenic plot to reduce the Black population. This, in fact, was not the motivation for the expansion of planned parenthood, and although Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, she was focused on eliminating people with disabilities, not Black people (this is obviously still very bad, but does not support the racial eugenic plot being attributed to her). Sanger herself was also opposed to abortion, generally, except in cases where it saved the life of the mother. She was mainly focused on providing broad access to contraception, and sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit.
ReplyDeletePromoting abortion was not generally the main strategy of racial eugenicists, either, who wanted white women to have more children.
Finally, allowing people to make their own decisions about their family is not "eugenic", which is a direction of features of the population at the population, rather than individual, level.
here is a brief, but thorough debunking of this myth: https://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/
"I am reading a founding document literally. It does say that certain rights are "unalienable" and "self-evident." They do not have to be expressly uttered. This certainly includes a right to privacy, "
ReplyDeleteWow. You're embarrassing yourself, now. What is self-evident is the right to LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Those are the ACTUAL words. You cook up privacy like Harry Blackmun. But LIFE is there in print. Your argument is beyond weak. It's ridiculous. That's why Roe is being overturned as the incredibly bad law it is. Bad law kept slavery legal for a while, too. You think the way to cure poverty for dark children is to kill them. Sick. Racist.
You and the pro-death penalty demons always glaze over the God-given right to life we're supposed to recognize from our founding documents. It's no wonder life is so cheap these days. You and the death penalty nuts have made it that way. What's a few dead n*****s, right? A pox on all of your houses. You all fight for the same thing: dead minorities.
We don't need to pack the court, and we don't need to eliminate lifetime appointments.
ReplyDeleteWe need to have judges (and justices) that realize their job is to interpret the law, not create it.
And we need to elect politicians that believe the same to appoint those judges.
Some of the greatest current divisions in our country have come from the courts expanding their power and deciding issues that rightfully belong to the legislature. I understand that for those bringing the cases that this route is easier than actually making your case politically for a new law (or change in an existing one), but it is a recipe for division.
Similar division is caused when the executive branch attempts to make policy by executive order or regulation without legislative approval. Again, it's easier than getting enough support for what you want but takes the people out of the process and again creates division.
If we could agree to solve our problems through reasoned debate and well-thought-out legislation to address the issues we face, we'd be much better off. I think that's what the founders intended when they wrote our Constitution, and what we're missing today.
Term limits are really necessary. McConnel needs to go- he's got a stranglehold on any Republicans who are not in lock-step with him. Locally I'm ashamed at the dismal offerings by the republican party in this primary. I'm most distressed by Lisa Scheller's lies. In two recent mailers from her she describes herself as "A Conservative Outsider." This is just a lie- she was married to Wayne Woodman, former Lehigh County Republican Chairman for how many years? That's pretty "inside." She and her ex maxed out their legal donations to Trump's 2016 election Trump's endorsement comes from paying tribute. Under her direction Silberline created more jobs in China while reducing positions in the US.
ReplyDeleteShe tries to tie inflation to Biden but this is a play on the ignorance of voters. The president doesn't control prices. We live in a market driven economy. Oil and gas production was down because the price was low and reserves were high. Oil and gas production has risen as the price has risen to encourage more production. If you want to see real inflation use price controls to end an economy. Biden didn't raise your gas prices. As a registered republican I hate Republican candidates lying and assuming voters are too ignorant, or lazy, to check it out.
Our system does not work and will not work--only way out of this is to change the system big time and as you know our pollical class will never do that. term limits are a must, or we will continue to end up with people like BIDEN AND Pelosi and many others. Also the money must be taken out of the system, lobbyist and any government official involved must be jailed for life.
ReplyDeleteSo we're interpreting the Constitution by the letter of how and when it was written...
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing everyone will be OK with banning any private ownership of guns beyond muskets for hunting purposes?
This is a slippery slope SCOTUS and this country is one right now, and a VERY big "careful what you wish for" is very much in order. The logic and reasoning by the court majority that anti-abortion voters are cheering for right now has a myriad of consequences for other "presumed" rights a lot of us take for granted right now.
The moronic assumptions and accusations that all Democrats are blood thirsty baby killers is delusional at best. Its a very difficult and emotional, but above all personal decision that people have to make for any number of reasons, some good, some bad.
The same people cheering this decision will also be the first to whine and moan about higher levels of poverty, welfare costs and crime in 20 years (yes there is a correlation between unwanted pregnancies/children and increases in crime/poverty), assuming most of these Boomers are even alive in 20 years.
The legitimacy of the Supreme Court has been eroding for the last decade. Most recently, McConnell, Trump and the conservative majority have politicized the Court to a point where we now need major reform. We need to expand the Court AND establish term limits. The best plan I've seen called for 18-year terms and every president appoints 1 justice in his/her 1st year in office and another in their 3rd year.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution as it stands, is an outdated document, written by rich land and slave owners, and does not reflect the diversity of todays America.
ReplyDeleteWe the people, didn’t mean black or brown people, therefore, it should be overhauled to be more equitable to our current population.
Anonymous May 12, 2022 at 10:24 AM
ReplyDeletePity you stopped your research with Facebook, and from 2011 to boot.
"The removal of Margaret Sanger's name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood's contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color," said Karen Seltzer, the chair of PPGNY's board. "Margaret Sanger's concerns and advocacy for reproductive health have been clearly documented, but so too has her racist legacy."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/us/margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-trnd/index.html
It is fantastic that this blog attracts so many of the Lehigh Valley's best and brightest constitutional scholars to comment here. Right up there with the numerous Economists and Foreign Relations specialists who freely share their wisdom with all of us.
ReplyDeleteBernie said:
ReplyDelete"I see no reason to change the common law practice of allowing a woman to choose to end a pregnancy before she is visibly pregnant."
Basing a limitation on whether someone "looks pregnant" would effectively ban abortions for all Walmart shoppers and most participants in Women's Rights protests.
11:08 I think you have an argument in search of a problem. Does privacy bring happiness to people? Ignorance speaks first and loudest. It's a wee bit more complicated than your narrow interpretation. This is why we have lawyers.
ReplyDelete11.08
ReplyDelete"LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."
that is from the Declaration of independence.
but ok-- so i get a law passed that as an employer say (hobby lobby) that anyone who had an STD must disclose this and i want a central database of all folks having an STD to verify their answer-that" no problem?
"God-given right to life "
try
https://www.christianity.com/bible/niv/numbers/5-19-22
"to put the woman under this curse-"may the Lord cause you to become a curse[1] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell."
Course no mention of which God was being referred to
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteYou truly are full of shit.” I was disgusted that some clerk in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion to the media that might be reversing this decision. This is no less an assault on our government than the January 6 attempted coup.”
Really! Your man Trump is no different then Putin. Your Republican Party is the most corrupt pieces of shit and they have sold their souls to gain power.
They are mocking your constitution, bill of rights and all laws. A Nothing will ever happen to any of them for the crimes they committed against this country and you and a majority of your cohorts on this blog are Trumpers and believe the lies. What a bunch of fools you are.
Maybe it time to start buying crypto currency…,,,,,,,……,,.
"You truly are full of shit.” I was disgusted that some clerk in the Supreme Court leaked a draft opinion to the media that might be reversing this decision. This is no less an assault on our government than the January 6 attempted coup.”"
ReplyDeleteAnyone who reads this blog knows I condemned the attempted coup on January 6, which was an assault on democracy. They know I detest Trump.
Having said that, the Clerk who leaked that draft opinion is guilty of an assault on the court that protects our Constitution.
Both the Jan 6 mob and this elitist clerk have the same goal - overturning our democratic institutions.
10:07,
ReplyDeleteOk, so as a liberal who is far to the left of most federal judges appointed by Democrats, I want to clarify that nobody wants or is advocating for abortions after viability except in cases of miscarriage or to save the life of the mother. And absolutely NOBODY wants "abortion" to be allowed after birth. That is just straightforwardly murder, and nobody wants that or understands Roe to protect it.
Additionally, the term "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term, but a political one made up by anti-choice groups like the National Right to Life Committee. It does NOT refer to the killing of an infant part-way through labor. Generally it refers to a procedure called dilation and extraction (or D&E), in which an abortion is performed late in a pregnancy by dilating the cervix and extracting the whole fetus. This is performed in less than 1% of abortions, and the alternative is dismembering the fetus in utero (which "partial-birth" abortion bans do not prohibit). The reason courts have struck down bans on this procedure is that they often do not contain exceptions for the mother's health.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg didn't oppose Roe on the merits, she favored the same outcome, but thought that reasoning grounded in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was stronger than a right to privacy implied in the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
All of you arguing over what "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means should know that that phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution is the basis of our country's laws, the Declaration explained to the king why we were leaving the UK.
What Alito refers to as unenumerated rights are specifically considered in the tenth amendment and reserved for "the states respectively, or to the people". Roe protected the right to privacy and reserved it to the people by protecting it from the states. The end of Roe doesn't transfer authority over abortion from the federal to state governments, it removes the protections FROM state governments offered by the federal government.
2:26, I didn't stop my research at facebook, you did.
ReplyDeleteYour CNN article linked to this one from TIME, that (again) makes clear that conservatives have repeatedly pulled Sanger's quotes out of context so that they mean the opposite of how she intended them. She was a eugenicist, to be clear, and that is bad. But she did not support eugenics to further racism. If you don't believe me, here are MLK's words: “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision.”
https://time.com/4081760/margaret-sanger-history-eugenics/
Our founding fathers created a Democratic Republic and is for a moral and just people. The trouble at hand is that we no longer have moral or just people in our government. If we do, they far and few between and get lost in class warfare our parties have created.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the founding fathers can eat shit. They were racist, misogynistic, child rapist and career criminals that are NOT to be revered. Hypocrites.
DeleteWe now need term limits at every level of government and that includes local offices.
ReplyDeleteSanger proudly addressed the KKK. Thanks for playing, racist. The lengths lefties go to to justify slaughtering the dark children they hate is remarkable.
ReplyDelete"Having said that, the Clerk who leaked that draft opinion is guilty of an assault on the court that protects our Constitution."
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think it was a clerk?
Ginny Thomas would have access to it and she's very much known to be a conservative activist who's cause would also benefit from "exposing" the ruling in advance.
I like the idea of an 18 year term on a 9 member SCOTUS to be staggered every 2 years so that each Presidential term would appoint 2 justices.
ReplyDeleteFurther, once the Senate approves any individual for being a Federal Judge on a District or Appellate Court, they are immediately in a pool of justices who can be elevated to SCOTUS with no dog & pony show required, much less political shenanigans' over judiciary committee control and assignments.
May 12, 2022 at 9:34 PM
ReplyDeleteYeah yeah yeah, another citation from years ago.
That's why Planned Parenthood itself RECENTLY felt the need to apologize for her racist behavior. Again:
"Margaret Sanger's concerns and advocacy for reproductive health have been clearly documented, but so too has her racist legacy."
Hard to prettify that up, but if you want to make it your life's work...
@2:00 sounds more like you are talking about many of the current republican politicians. And note that I called out the politicians as not to confuse them with teh failures and losers who support them no matter what they do.
ReplyDelete