THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 AT 2:55 PM
Paul Plante says:
VII. How militant and violent Pro-Abortion Whackos supported by American autocrat Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior and the Democrats are a clear and present danger to the rest of us who do not for a minute believe Jesus told Gavin Newsom of California that he was a proponent of abortion on demand in California.
Yes, people, if we are to believe Democrat GREAT WHITE HOPE Gavin Newson of California, the plastic Jesus Gavin Newsom has riding on the dashboard of his car, so that Gavin doesn’t have to care, like the rest of us, whether it rains or freezes, has told Gavin Newsom that he really is not only a proponent of abortion on demand, but a supporter, as well, as we clearly see by going to a Fox News article titled “Christians slam Newsom for ‘disgusting’ pro-abortion billboards quoting Jesus: ‘Satanic'” by Jon Brown on 22 September 2022, where we have as follows, to wit:
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking flak from Christians who are offended by his multi-state billboard campaign that promotes abortion by quoting Jesus.
end quote
Which raises the serious question of which Jesus Gavin was quoting from.
Jesus Christ Superstar, maybe?
Or Black Jesus who signifies a radical faith without content; a faith which encourages believers to attentively listen for the personalized divine call echoing within their own unique experiences?
And while we try to puzzle that out, that story continues as follows:
Last week, Newsom took to Twitter to tout the billboards his gubernatorial campaign is erecting in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and four other “anti-freedom” states where abortion is restricted or outlawed.
end quotes
Ah, yes, people – FREEDOM!
That is really what this is all about – the UNRESTRICTED FREEDOM for women to kill unborn children without question, because they want to rid themselves of a nuisance before they have to change its diapers and lose their freedom by having to care for it, and besides, there is a growing industry that needs aborted fetuses for various commercial reasons, so it is win-win all the way around as far as they and the Jesus of Gavin Newsom, who may or may not be the Jesus of Joe Biden, a very devout Catholic himself who believes in abortion is a good thing for the Democrat to push as an issue, but there are certainly a lot of similarities, if they are not the same.
Going back to Jesus wanting women to come to California for their abortions, the story continues as follows:
Some versions of the billboards, all of which urge women in such states to come to California to get abortions, advertise the state’s easily obtainable abortions by quoting Mark 12:31, where Jesus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
“There is no greater commandment than these.”
end quotes
And no, people, I did not write those words, and no, I am not making this stuff up, either, because if I tried to make it up, people wouldn’t believe it. because it sounds so goofy.
Going back for more, we have some serious and welcome pushback as follows:
“The idea that Newsom is using the words of Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, to promote the killing of unborn children as somehow loving and commanded by God is quite frankly disgusting,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, in a statement to Fox News Digital.
“This is a blatant, political fundraising ploy to boost his own political profile and presidential aspirations.”
end quotes
And my goodness, people, of course it is a blatant, political fundraising ploy to boost his own political profile and presidential aspirations, for what else could it possibly be, other than the ravings of a madman, which brings us to this:
“The people are smarter than that.”
“It just won’t work,” Sekulow added.
end quotes
But are they really, people?
Are the people really smarter than that, or is that just wishful thinking on this dude’s part, keeping in mind that it is some of those people who saddled us with Joe Biden and who saddled to people of California with Gavin Newsom?
Going back to the pushback, we have more, as follows:
Many Twitter users echoed Sekulow’s sentiment, including Matthew P. Schneider, a Roman Catholic priest who serves as adjunct professor of theology at Belmont Abbey College in Charlotte, North Carolina.
He described Newsom’s billboards as “one of the [worst] distortions of a Bible passage I’ve ever seen.”
“Shame on [Newsom] and his government,” Schneider said.
“The most basic level of loving your neighbor as yourself is not killing your neighbor, yet that’s exactly what abortion does.”
“This is satanic,” tweeted Ryan Hilderbrand, a Roman Catholic priest from Indiana.
“Imagining the devil in his advertising office at the top of the highest skyscraper in hell giggling to himself as [Newsom] uses Jesus’ own words to support killing babies,” said Catholic Answers, a Catholic media ministry that went on in a nine-tweet thread to excoriate the Democrat governor for having “twisted” the words of the Bible.
Explaining how the verse Newsom cited was removed from the context of Jesus affirming the Old Testament command “to love the Lord your God with all your heart” as “the greatest commandment,” Catholic Answers tweeted, “No surprise here.”
“Satan, having no imagination, can only ‘create’ by perverting the good not of his making.”
“Likewise, it seems, for Gavin Newsom.”
“Wow …”
“So murdering your innocent unborn child is somehow ‘loving your neighbor,’” tweeted The Christian Outlook, a Christian media outlet.
“Let’s all pray for [Newsom], that he might get saved and see the value God places on every life, born and unborn.”
“Your religious beliefs have no place in our politics.”
“Except when we want to use them to troll people we hate, that’s fine,” tweeted canon lawyer Ed Condon, who also founded Catholic publication “The Pillar.”
“‘Good Catholic’ [Newsom] is now using Bible scriptures to encourage women to come to California to abort their babies,” wrote David Giglio, a former congressional candidate who is also a Catholic.
“A truly shameful display.”
“Meanwhile, in CA crime continues to skyrocket, the cost of living is out of control, and the state can’t even keep the lights on.”
The official Twitter account of the Mississippi GOP replied to Newsom’s taunt by tweeting simply: “Hey, [Newsom]. Is your electricity back on?”
Newsom’s campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment by time of publication.
end quotes
And in the meantime, while that is all going on, we head over to the Washington Examiner for the other, far more serious side to this story of Joe Biden and the Democrats putting the full protection of the law over on the abortionists and baby killers, while at the same time, stripping those of us who do not believe like Joe Biden that killing unborn babies is the right thing to do, to a story titled “The Biden administration has launched its war on pro-lifers” by Timothy P. Carney on 26 September 2022, where we have the reality those of us who are not like Joe Biden PRO-ABORTION face, to wit:
The FBI on Friday morning arrested a pro-life activist at his home for a 2021 scuffle with a Planned Parenthood activist.
The family and friends of Mark Houck said the scuffle involved an abortion activist harassing and screaming at Houck’s 12-year-old son until Houck shoved the man to the ground.
In response, Houck’s family and friends have told reporters, the FBI this weekend sent a platoon of agents with weapons drawn to arrest Houck at his house.
Even if you take only the FBI’s version of the tale, the Biden administration assembled a grand jury, secured an indictment, and charged a man with a federal crime possibly carrying an 11-year sentence because he shoved another man who received “injuries … that required medical attention.”
Because there is an extraordinary federal law protecting abortionists from protesters, sidewalk counselors, and rosary prayers, Houck is now charged with a federal felony.
This only makes sense in a political context.
Specifically, the Biden White House and the Democratic Party on the state and federal levels have declared a legal war on pro-lifers, while vigilante abortion defenders wage a parallel war of arson, vandalism, and harassment.
The vice president, who has said she approaches abortion policy like “a prosecutor,” is siccing state attorneys general on the nonprofit organizations that serve mothers in crisis pregnancies because those nonprofit organizations don’t abort the babies that come through their doors.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has said she wants crisis pregnancy centers “shut down.”
That was the same day a crisis pregnancy center outside of Detroit was attacked for the second time, with death threats spray-painted.
More than 70 such attacks have happened in the past few months, and the Biden administration has said and done nothing about it.
It’s as if they’re fine with the threats, arson, and vandalism.
end quotes
And you know what, people – THEY ARE!
So will I have a platoon of FBI agents now coming after me with drawn guns for speaking out in here?
Will they have a heavily-armed SWAT team coming after Wayne Creed for even daring to host a discussion like this that is critical of Joe Biden’s stance on abortion?
Stay tuned is all I can say.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
FOX NEWS
"AOC: Abortion is an economic issue because giving birth 'conscripts' parents to work ‘against their will’"
Peter Kasperowicz
29 SEPTEMBER 2022
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued Thursday that access to abortion should be treated as an economic issue because policies that force women to have children also force them to work so they can afford to raise those children, which she said was a form of economic conscription.
"Abortion is an economic issue," Ocasio-Cortez said in a House hearing called by Democrats to discuss restrictions on abortion.
"Forcing poor and working-class people to give birth against their will, against their consent, against their ability to provide for themselves or a child, is a profound economic issue and it’s certainly a way to keep a workforce basically conscripted to large-scale employers and to employers to work more against their will, to take second and third jobs against their desire and their own autonomy," she said.
Ocasio-Cortez was responding to comments from Rep. Jake LaTurner, R-Kan., who criticized Democrats for focusing on abortion instead of economic issues like inflation and energy policy.
She said it’s "disappointing" to hear that point of view from someone who has "never had to contend" with bearing a child, and said abortion is a "profound and central economic and class issue."
Ocasio-Cortez also replied to another Republican lawmaker who sparred with a Democratic witness when he asked whether biological men can get pregnant.
The witness, a doctor who is director of trans care for Planned Parenthood, said men "can have pregnancies, especially trans men."
Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., argued back that "men cannot get pregnant," and asked why Democrats would call up a director of trans care to the hearing.
Ocasio-Cortez accused Clyde of dismissing the needs of trans people.
"The same folks who… told us that COVID’s just a flu, that climate change isn’t real, that January 6 was nothing but a tourist visit… are now trying to tell us that transgender people are not real," she said.
"And I would say that their claim is probably just as legitimate as all their others, which is to say not very much at all."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-a ... 79899c7b0b
"AOC: Abortion is an economic issue because giving birth 'conscripts' parents to work ‘against their will’"
Peter Kasperowicz
29 SEPTEMBER 2022
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued Thursday that access to abortion should be treated as an economic issue because policies that force women to have children also force them to work so they can afford to raise those children, which she said was a form of economic conscription.
"Abortion is an economic issue," Ocasio-Cortez said in a House hearing called by Democrats to discuss restrictions on abortion.
"Forcing poor and working-class people to give birth against their will, against their consent, against their ability to provide for themselves or a child, is a profound economic issue and it’s certainly a way to keep a workforce basically conscripted to large-scale employers and to employers to work more against their will, to take second and third jobs against their desire and their own autonomy," she said.
Ocasio-Cortez was responding to comments from Rep. Jake LaTurner, R-Kan., who criticized Democrats for focusing on abortion instead of economic issues like inflation and energy policy.
She said it’s "disappointing" to hear that point of view from someone who has "never had to contend" with bearing a child, and said abortion is a "profound and central economic and class issue."
Ocasio-Cortez also replied to another Republican lawmaker who sparred with a Democratic witness when he asked whether biological men can get pregnant.
The witness, a doctor who is director of trans care for Planned Parenthood, said men "can have pregnancies, especially trans men."
Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., argued back that "men cannot get pregnant," and asked why Democrats would call up a director of trans care to the hearing.
Ocasio-Cortez accused Clyde of dismissing the needs of trans people.
"The same folks who… told us that COVID’s just a flu, that climate change isn’t real, that January 6 was nothing but a tourist visit… are now trying to tell us that transgender people are not real," she said.
"And I would say that their claim is probably just as legitimate as all their others, which is to say not very much at all."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-a ... 79899c7b0b
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"On abortion, AOC is a corporate stooge"
Opinion by Zachary Faria
30 SEPTEMBER 2022
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks that pro-lifers are corporate puppets.
But, as is often the case with the Democratic Party, it is she who is shilling for corporations and elitists.
“I think it’s important to state that abortion is an economic issue,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“Forcing poor and working-class people to give birth against their will, against their consent, against their ability to provide for themselves or a child is a profound economic issue and it’s certainly a way to keep a workforce basically conscripted to large-scale employers to work more against their will.”
Of course, this makes no sense.
To hear her tell it, pro-lifers are trying to force people to get pregnant so that...corporations can have a slave labor force?
If that were the case, why would most corporations hold the same position on abortion that Ocasio-Cortez does?
Several major companies and corporations announced after the overturning of Roe v. Wade that they would pay for employees to travel out of state for abortions if their state imposed restrictions on abortion.
That includes Amazon, Bank of America, Bumble, Cigna, Citigroup, Conde Nast, CVS Health, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Disney, Estee Lauder, Goldman Sachs, Hewlett Packard, JPMorgan Chase, Kroger, Lyft, MasterCard, Meta (the company formerly known as Facebook), Microsoft, Paramount, Starbucks, Target, and Tesla.
It also includes media companies such as BuzzFeed, CNN, the New York Times, and Vox Media.
So, if this is a “class struggle,” as Ocasio-Cortez claims, how is it that banks, Big Tech, retail giants, and establishment media ended up on her side?
Corporations would rather reimburse workers for traveling from Texas to California to have their unborn child killed than to have to pay for parental leave or find replacements while their workers take maternity leave.
Amazon, for example, offers up to five months of fully paid leave for “birthing parents” (that's "mothers" in normal, non-woke English) and up to six weeks for supporting parents.
If a man and a woman in a relationship both work for Amazon and the woman becomes pregnant, the company is looking at paying them for 26 weeks of no work.
It’s much cheaper for a corporatoin to offer $4,000 for an out-of-state abortion.
Ocasio-Cortez’s conspiracy theory about pro-lifers wanting a slave labor force for corporations is every bit as implausible and delusional as it sounds.
But it is probably the only way she can mask the fact that she takes the side of the rich and powerful against the most vulnerable.
If anyone is supporting a “conscripted” workforce, it is Ocasio-Cortez, who supports businesses paying women to get rid of their unborn children so they can get back to work on Monday.
While Democrats pretend they are the party of the poor and downtrodden, their positions are increaseingly shared by corporate giants, establishment media, celebrities, the entire entertainment industry, and higher education.
They are the party of the rich and the elites — Ocasio-Cortez is one of those Democrats who wants to be let into the club.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lif ... 235281a0c1
"On abortion, AOC is a corporate stooge"
Opinion by Zachary Faria
30 SEPTEMBER 2022
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks that pro-lifers are corporate puppets.
But, as is often the case with the Democratic Party, it is she who is shilling for corporations and elitists.
“I think it’s important to state that abortion is an economic issue,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“Forcing poor and working-class people to give birth against their will, against their consent, against their ability to provide for themselves or a child is a profound economic issue and it’s certainly a way to keep a workforce basically conscripted to large-scale employers to work more against their will.”
Of course, this makes no sense.
To hear her tell it, pro-lifers are trying to force people to get pregnant so that...corporations can have a slave labor force?
If that were the case, why would most corporations hold the same position on abortion that Ocasio-Cortez does?
Several major companies and corporations announced after the overturning of Roe v. Wade that they would pay for employees to travel out of state for abortions if their state imposed restrictions on abortion.
That includes Amazon, Bank of America, Bumble, Cigna, Citigroup, Conde Nast, CVS Health, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Disney, Estee Lauder, Goldman Sachs, Hewlett Packard, JPMorgan Chase, Kroger, Lyft, MasterCard, Meta (the company formerly known as Facebook), Microsoft, Paramount, Starbucks, Target, and Tesla.
It also includes media companies such as BuzzFeed, CNN, the New York Times, and Vox Media.
So, if this is a “class struggle,” as Ocasio-Cortez claims, how is it that banks, Big Tech, retail giants, and establishment media ended up on her side?
Corporations would rather reimburse workers for traveling from Texas to California to have their unborn child killed than to have to pay for parental leave or find replacements while their workers take maternity leave.
Amazon, for example, offers up to five months of fully paid leave for “birthing parents” (that's "mothers" in normal, non-woke English) and up to six weeks for supporting parents.
If a man and a woman in a relationship both work for Amazon and the woman becomes pregnant, the company is looking at paying them for 26 weeks of no work.
It’s much cheaper for a corporatoin to offer $4,000 for an out-of-state abortion.
Ocasio-Cortez’s conspiracy theory about pro-lifers wanting a slave labor force for corporations is every bit as implausible and delusional as it sounds.
But it is probably the only way she can mask the fact that she takes the side of the rich and powerful against the most vulnerable.
If anyone is supporting a “conscripted” workforce, it is Ocasio-Cortez, who supports businesses paying women to get rid of their unborn children so they can get back to work on Monday.
While Democrats pretend they are the party of the poor and downtrodden, their positions are increaseingly shared by corporate giants, establishment media, celebrities, the entire entertainment industry, and higher education.
They are the party of the rich and the elites — Ocasio-Cortez is one of those Democrats who wants to be let into the club.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lif ... 235281a0c1
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE HILL
"The Pagan roots of Democrats’ abortion extremism"
Opinion by Graedon Zorzi, Opinion Contributor
1 OCTOBER 2022
Arizona’s recent ruling on abortion will set women “back more than a century,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed last week.
But it’s the Democrats who are trying to turn the clock back on abortion.
Democrats, including President Biden, are quickly moving toward the extreme position that a woman alone can, in consultation with her doctor, make any decision at any time on abortion.
That position would set women back all the way to the first century, a brutal age that ended only when the Christian era brought new protections for infants before and after birth.
Jean-Pierre’s comments followed a ruling in Arizona that reinstated a law banning abortions except in cases when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
Arizona passed the law in 1864 and reenacted it several times, most recently in 1977.
Arizona’s law includes prison sentences for those who help women get abortions.
After the law was reinstated by Judge Kellie Johnson on Friday afternoon, the president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, Brittany Fonteno, responded, saying, “No archaic law should dictate our reproductive freedom.”
But Democrats’ position on abortion is the archaic one.
Abortion is an archaic practice.
In Pagan Rome, abortion was commonplace, performed by a variety of surgical and medicinal methods and taken for granted by philosophers.
Plato, for example, laid out in Book V of the “Republic” various regulations for what offspring should be conceived and prescribed abortion for any infants conceived outside of those regulations, including by women older than 40 and men older than 55.
The ancient Pagans largely accepted infanticide as well, and the exposure of infants was common.
The Greek father had an absolute right to expose his children.
Exposure of infants, especially girls, was common and often linked to economic concerns about raising too many children.
But even in large families “more than one daughter was practically never reared.”
Termination of female infants was so common as to contribute to a dramatically skewed sex ratio, estimated at “131 males per 100 females in the city of Rome, and 140 males per 100 females in Italy, Asia Minor, and North Africa.”
This archaic willingness to dispose of infants fit into a broader callousness toward human life.
As historian Tom Holland put it, the Romans had a “genius for making a show out of death” that showed up in many places, including in the cheering crowds that packed amphitheaters to watch people thrown to animals, forced to fight one another to the death and subjected to cruelly inventive forms of torture.
The standard archaic Pagan position on the value of the lives of infants is reemerging today.
A leading voice has been Princeton professor Peter Singer, who holds that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.”
According to Singer, the normal reason to care about protecting the life of a newborn is not because of some intrinsic value in the baby itself but because “most infants are loved and cherished by their parents.”
Mainstream Democrats are not quite ready to align with Singer in fully embracing the ancient Pagan disregard for the intrinsic worth of infants.
But Democrats are becoming gradually bolder in championing the notion that infants matter only when they are wanted by an adult.
Perhaps that notion is captured by the slogan – “my body, my choice” – chanted by protestors in Arizona Friday night.
With Roe v. Wade overturned, Democratic politicians seem to be working out in real time how extreme a position on abortion can be politically viable.
Stacey Abrams, hoping to make abortion a central issue in her Georgia gubernatorial race, previously rejected limits on abortion and advocated leaving the decision up to the mother and doctor.
Now she has hedged that position by suggesting that the right to abortion ends at the point of viability except in order to protect the woman’s “life or health” — leaving open a significant question about the “scope or meaning of the health exception.”
A similar caginess can be seen in the Women’s Health and Protection Act, recently passed by the House of Representatives.
Without too explicit an embrace of late-term abortions, that bill would nevertheless have made it very difficult to limit abortions up to the point of birth.
The approach to abortion codified in the recently reinstated Arizona law represents the newer position, historically speaking: to find intrinsic value in the life of the infant.
Christians adopted the Jewish rejection of all forms of abortion and infanticide.
That rejection of the killing of infants was as offensive to ancient Pagans as it is to many Americans today.
The Roman historian and politician Tacitus called the Jewish teaching that it was “a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child” one of their “sinister and revolting” practices.
From its earliest days, the Christian church rejected abortion and infanticide based on recognition of the intrinsic value of infants, even while speculating about how body and soul intersect in the womb.
The oldest extant Christian catechism, “the Didache,” written right around the end of the first century, commanded, “thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born.”
And the “Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,” one of the earliest extant works of Christian apologetics, explained what “distinguished” Christians “from other men” by saying, “they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.”
The victory of the Jewish-Christian position over the Pagan was so lasting as to lead to Arizona’s 1864 law as well as the 1977 reenactment of it.
The caustic responses to Judge Johnson’s Friday decision recall Tacitus’s disgust with the teaching that killing an “unwanted child” is “a deadly sin.”
Jean-Pierre’s statement on the ruling claims that its potential consequences are “catastrophic, dangerous and unacceptable.”
Such strong reactions signal political will to undo centuries of moral progress.
Graedon Zorzi is assistant professor of theology and philosophy at Patrick Henry College. He holds a PhD from Yale University in political science and religious studies. He is an ordained Anglican priest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 6c8f784afd
"The Pagan roots of Democrats’ abortion extremism"
Opinion by Graedon Zorzi, Opinion Contributor
1 OCTOBER 2022
Arizona’s recent ruling on abortion will set women “back more than a century,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed last week.
But it’s the Democrats who are trying to turn the clock back on abortion.
Democrats, including President Biden, are quickly moving toward the extreme position that a woman alone can, in consultation with her doctor, make any decision at any time on abortion.
That position would set women back all the way to the first century, a brutal age that ended only when the Christian era brought new protections for infants before and after birth.
Jean-Pierre’s comments followed a ruling in Arizona that reinstated a law banning abortions except in cases when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
Arizona passed the law in 1864 and reenacted it several times, most recently in 1977.
Arizona’s law includes prison sentences for those who help women get abortions.
After the law was reinstated by Judge Kellie Johnson on Friday afternoon, the president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, Brittany Fonteno, responded, saying, “No archaic law should dictate our reproductive freedom.”
But Democrats’ position on abortion is the archaic one.
Abortion is an archaic practice.
In Pagan Rome, abortion was commonplace, performed by a variety of surgical and medicinal methods and taken for granted by philosophers.
Plato, for example, laid out in Book V of the “Republic” various regulations for what offspring should be conceived and prescribed abortion for any infants conceived outside of those regulations, including by women older than 40 and men older than 55.
The ancient Pagans largely accepted infanticide as well, and the exposure of infants was common.
The Greek father had an absolute right to expose his children.
Exposure of infants, especially girls, was common and often linked to economic concerns about raising too many children.
But even in large families “more than one daughter was practically never reared.”
Termination of female infants was so common as to contribute to a dramatically skewed sex ratio, estimated at “131 males per 100 females in the city of Rome, and 140 males per 100 females in Italy, Asia Minor, and North Africa.”
This archaic willingness to dispose of infants fit into a broader callousness toward human life.
As historian Tom Holland put it, the Romans had a “genius for making a show out of death” that showed up in many places, including in the cheering crowds that packed amphitheaters to watch people thrown to animals, forced to fight one another to the death and subjected to cruelly inventive forms of torture.
The standard archaic Pagan position on the value of the lives of infants is reemerging today.
A leading voice has been Princeton professor Peter Singer, who holds that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.”
According to Singer, the normal reason to care about protecting the life of a newborn is not because of some intrinsic value in the baby itself but because “most infants are loved and cherished by their parents.”
Mainstream Democrats are not quite ready to align with Singer in fully embracing the ancient Pagan disregard for the intrinsic worth of infants.
But Democrats are becoming gradually bolder in championing the notion that infants matter only when they are wanted by an adult.
Perhaps that notion is captured by the slogan – “my body, my choice” – chanted by protestors in Arizona Friday night.
With Roe v. Wade overturned, Democratic politicians seem to be working out in real time how extreme a position on abortion can be politically viable.
Stacey Abrams, hoping to make abortion a central issue in her Georgia gubernatorial race, previously rejected limits on abortion and advocated leaving the decision up to the mother and doctor.
Now she has hedged that position by suggesting that the right to abortion ends at the point of viability except in order to protect the woman’s “life or health” — leaving open a significant question about the “scope or meaning of the health exception.”
A similar caginess can be seen in the Women’s Health and Protection Act, recently passed by the House of Representatives.
Without too explicit an embrace of late-term abortions, that bill would nevertheless have made it very difficult to limit abortions up to the point of birth.
The approach to abortion codified in the recently reinstated Arizona law represents the newer position, historically speaking: to find intrinsic value in the life of the infant.
Christians adopted the Jewish rejection of all forms of abortion and infanticide.
That rejection of the killing of infants was as offensive to ancient Pagans as it is to many Americans today.
The Roman historian and politician Tacitus called the Jewish teaching that it was “a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child” one of their “sinister and revolting” practices.
From its earliest days, the Christian church rejected abortion and infanticide based on recognition of the intrinsic value of infants, even while speculating about how body and soul intersect in the womb.
The oldest extant Christian catechism, “the Didache,” written right around the end of the first century, commanded, “thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born.”
And the “Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,” one of the earliest extant works of Christian apologetics, explained what “distinguished” Christians “from other men” by saying, “they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.”
The victory of the Jewish-Christian position over the Pagan was so lasting as to lead to Arizona’s 1864 law as well as the 1977 reenactment of it.
The caustic responses to Judge Johnson’s Friday decision recall Tacitus’s disgust with the teaching that killing an “unwanted child” is “a deadly sin.”
Jean-Pierre’s statement on the ruling claims that its potential consequences are “catastrophic, dangerous and unacceptable.”
Such strong reactions signal political will to undo centuries of moral progress.
Graedon Zorzi is assistant professor of theology and philosophy at Patrick Henry College. He holds a PhD from Yale University in political science and religious studies. He is an ordained Anglican priest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 6c8f784afd
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 2, 2022 AT 10:12 PM
Paul Plante says:
IX. No, Joe, the right-wingers and MAGA Republicans did not get Roe v. Wade overturned, and it is very stupid to say they did.
To see exactly what I am talking about here, let’s go to a USA TODAY article titled “Remind me why the Biden administration is in court fighting publication of the ERA?” by Carli Pierson, a New York licensed attorney and an opinion writer with USA TODAY and a member of the USA TODAY Editorial Board, on 1 October 2022, where we have this very stupid and ridiculous statement from her to consider, to wit:
Now, lawmakers and right-wing organizations are pushing back against the ERA because they worry that, if published, it would again consecrate women’s rights to abortion care after they got Roe v. Wade overturned.
end quotes
Lawmakers and right-wing organizations were the ones who got Roe v. Wade overturned?
That’s daft, people, and it serves to demonstrate just how stupid this New York licensed attorney really is, and how ignorant of how the law works in this country she really is, because right-wing organizations had absolutely nothing to do with getting Roe v. Wade overruled.
And according to the Court, Roe v. Wade was overruled because it was BAD LAW and a case of JUDICIAL OVERREACH, but that is a totally separate matter.
Had not someone with actual standing to sue filed the lawsuit in the first place, Roe v. Wade never would have been challenged, or overruled, because despite this toxic and misleading rhetoric about MAGA Republicans stealing an alleged “Constitutional right” from women that they never had in the first place, MAGA Republicans had no standing to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, NOR DID THEY.
Roe v. Wade was overruled because of the state of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which act provides that “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”
The lawsuit that resulted in Roe V. Wade was not brought by MAGA Republicans or other right-wingers to challenge that act.
The challenge to the act was made by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors, who challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833.
They did that, made that court challenge, of their own volition.
No MAGA Republican or other right winger held a gun to their heads and made them file a losing lawsuit so the MAGA Republicans could steal an alleged Constitutional right from women in order to give the Democrats an emotional issue to make hay of going into the November 2022 mid-terms.
And when that lawsuit was filed, it went not to the Supreme Court, but to a District Court which granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortion violates this Court’s cases forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viability.
So that is where this whole thing began, and it had nothing to do with MAGA Republicans, at all.
That is one of Joe Biden’s toxic great big lies we are confronting in here, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, as we head into November, where the fate of OUR Republic and OUR Constitution are going to be determined one way, or the other.
Going back to the lawsuit, after the decision by the District Court, it next went to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court ruling.
Only then did it finally move to the Supreme Court, and before the Supreme Court, the petitioners, those who were originally sued, defended the Act on the grounds that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.
NOWHERE ARE MAGA REPUBLICANS INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT, AND IT IS BULL**** FOR JOE BIDEN OR ANYONE ELSE TO SAY THEY WERE!
And what was the result of all that?
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
In other words, people it was DEMOCRACY that prevailed, not MAGA Republicans.
The decision says nothing about MAGA Republicans having any role to play here.
Its language is very specific, to wit:
THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ABORTION IS RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE AND THER ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!
So stop lying to us, Joe Biden and the Democrats, by telling us otherwise.
The authority to regulate abortion was not handed over to MAGA Republicans or any other right wing group.
That authority was returned to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and OUR elected representatives.
So don’t be fooled, people, by these GREAT BIG TOXIC BIDEN LIES.
Be better than that for the sake of the nation and our collective future.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Paul Plante says:
IX. No, Joe, the right-wingers and MAGA Republicans did not get Roe v. Wade overturned, and it is very stupid to say they did.
To see exactly what I am talking about here, let’s go to a USA TODAY article titled “Remind me why the Biden administration is in court fighting publication of the ERA?” by Carli Pierson, a New York licensed attorney and an opinion writer with USA TODAY and a member of the USA TODAY Editorial Board, on 1 October 2022, where we have this very stupid and ridiculous statement from her to consider, to wit:
Now, lawmakers and right-wing organizations are pushing back against the ERA because they worry that, if published, it would again consecrate women’s rights to abortion care after they got Roe v. Wade overturned.
end quotes
Lawmakers and right-wing organizations were the ones who got Roe v. Wade overturned?
That’s daft, people, and it serves to demonstrate just how stupid this New York licensed attorney really is, and how ignorant of how the law works in this country she really is, because right-wing organizations had absolutely nothing to do with getting Roe v. Wade overruled.
And according to the Court, Roe v. Wade was overruled because it was BAD LAW and a case of JUDICIAL OVERREACH, but that is a totally separate matter.
Had not someone with actual standing to sue filed the lawsuit in the first place, Roe v. Wade never would have been challenged, or overruled, because despite this toxic and misleading rhetoric about MAGA Republicans stealing an alleged “Constitutional right” from women that they never had in the first place, MAGA Republicans had no standing to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, NOR DID THEY.
Roe v. Wade was overruled because of the state of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which act provides that “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”
The lawsuit that resulted in Roe V. Wade was not brought by MAGA Republicans or other right-wingers to challenge that act.
The challenge to the act was made by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors, who challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833.
They did that, made that court challenge, of their own volition.
No MAGA Republican or other right winger held a gun to their heads and made them file a losing lawsuit so the MAGA Republicans could steal an alleged Constitutional right from women in order to give the Democrats an emotional issue to make hay of going into the November 2022 mid-terms.
And when that lawsuit was filed, it went not to the Supreme Court, but to a District Court which granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortion violates this Court’s cases forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viability.
So that is where this whole thing began, and it had nothing to do with MAGA Republicans, at all.
That is one of Joe Biden’s toxic great big lies we are confronting in here, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, as we head into November, where the fate of OUR Republic and OUR Constitution are going to be determined one way, or the other.
Going back to the lawsuit, after the decision by the District Court, it next went to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court ruling.
Only then did it finally move to the Supreme Court, and before the Supreme Court, the petitioners, those who were originally sued, defended the Act on the grounds that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.
NOWHERE ARE MAGA REPUBLICANS INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT, AND IT IS BULL**** FOR JOE BIDEN OR ANYONE ELSE TO SAY THEY WERE!
And what was the result of all that?
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
In other words, people it was DEMOCRACY that prevailed, not MAGA Republicans.
The decision says nothing about MAGA Republicans having any role to play here.
Its language is very specific, to wit:
THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ABORTION IS RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE AND THER ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!
So stop lying to us, Joe Biden and the Democrats, by telling us otherwise.
The authority to regulate abortion was not handed over to MAGA Republicans or any other right wing group.
That authority was returned to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and OUR elected representatives.
So don’t be fooled, people, by these GREAT BIG TOXIC BIDEN LIES.
Be better than that for the sake of the nation and our collective future.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 3, 2022 AT 8:10 PM
Paul Plante says:
X. The abortion lies of Joe Biden and the Democrats are just plain stupid, uninformed and ignorant.
Yes, people, take the Reuters article “Biden suggests support for filibuster change to legalize abortion,” for example, on September 23, 2022, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) – President Joe Biden challenged Democratic voters on Friday that if they elect at least two more senators in November elections, it would open the possibility of Democrats removing the filibuster and restoring federal abortion rights for women.
end quotes
Focus on that phrase “restoring federal abortion rights for women,” because that is just plain stupid talk from Joe Biden, as women in America have no federal abortion rights that Joe Biden and his pack of lying Democrats can restore, and as an American citizen, I personally am damn sick and tired of living in a nation where all we can count on, besides incompetence and inefficiency, is getting lied to repeatedly by our “national leaders,” so thanks to the Grand Palladium of Liberty the Cape Charles Mirror, I am speaking out about those lies as an act of citizenship, which takes us back to that article for more of Joe Biden’s idiotic abortion lies, as follows:
Biden has made restoring protections lost in the Supreme Court’s June decision to reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case a central theme of his stump speeches in the lead-up to the Nov. 8 congressional elections.
“If you give me two more senators in the United States Senate, I promise you, I promise you, we’re going to codify Roe and once again make Roe the law of the land,” said Biden.
end quotes
With that moronic statement from Joe that “I promise you, I promise you, we’re going to codify Roe and once again make Roe the law of the land,” I am very willing to bet that Joe Biden has never once actually read Roe v. Wade, and I am further willing to bet that Joe Biden has no clue as to what Roe v. Wade actually does say, nor do the people who listen to him and believe him when he says he is going to “once again make Roe the law of the land,” because if Joe Biden and the Democrats did “codify” Roe V. Wade, what they would be making “law of the land,” is as follows. because here is what Roe v. Wade actually did say about this supposed “right to choose” way back in 1973, to wit:
* Though the State cannot override that right (right to a QUALIFIED ABORTION), it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
* For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation MUST be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
* For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, MAY, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are REASONABLY RELATED to maternal health.
* For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, MAY, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
* The State may define the term ‘physician’ to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
end quotes
That, people, is what Roe v. Wade actually does say, so if Joe Biden is going to “codify” it, then he and the Democrats are stuck with what Mr. Chief Justice Burger stated in plain and simple language that even a dull-wit like Joe Biden should have been able to comprehend and understand in concurring in Roe v. Wade, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quotes
And goofy old Joe Biden, himself a lawyer, is trying to tell the women of America otherwise, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
Biden exhorted women voters to help elect Democrats.
end quotes
And good luck there, Joe, because if we go to the Quinnipiac Poll site for July 20, 2022, we find an article titled “Biden Approval Hits New Low Amid Public Discontent With Both Parties, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Nearly Half Of Americans Worry About Being Mass Shooting Victim” where we have the priorities of the American voters listed for the up-coming mid-terms, as follows:
Asked to choose the most urgent issue facing the country today, inflation (34 percent) ranks first followed by gun violence (12 percent).
No other issue reached double digits.
Among Republicans, inflation (48 percent) ranks first followed by immigration (16 percent) with no other issue reaching double digits.
Among Democrats, gun violence (22 percent) ranks first followed by abortion (14 percent), inflation (14 percent), election laws (12 percent), and climate change (11 percent).
Among independents, inflation (41 percent) ranks first with no other issue reaching double digits.
Two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) say the country is worse off today than it was a year ago, while 26 percent say the country is better off and 4 percent volunteer that it is the same.
end quotes
So while Joe Biden and the Democrats seem to feel that running on “codifying” Roe v. Wade is a winning issue, the reality seems far different when we look at actual polling data.
Yes, among some Democrats, it is, but even so, that is only 14%, which takes us back to Reuters for more, as follows:
“I don’t believe the MAGA Republican have a clue about the power of American women.”
“Let me tell you something, they’re about to find out.”
end quotes
And you have to pardon Joe here, people, because he is so obsessed with “MAGA Republicans,” a stupid term he made up that means nothing, that he now has “MAGA Republicans” on top of his mind, as his MINISTER OF STATE PROPAGANDA Karine Jean-Pierre calls it, and they haunt his every thought to the point of where he spends his nights dreaming about them, and how to get his revenge against them, if it is the last thing he does.
And quite personally, I don’t believe that Joe Biden and his pack of Democrats have a clue about the power of American women, because there are actually women in America, as hard as it is to believe today in this day and age of loose morals, no values and the “GET RID OF THE NUISANCE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO CHANGE ITS DIAPERS AND GIVE UP YOUR LIFESTYLE” culture that now exists all across America, and especially places like Hollywood, who are against abortion as a means of ridding oneself of a burden or nuisance, and they do vote and they vote AGAINST those politicians like Joe Biden and his Democrats who are for abortion convenience stores where you can walk in, get rid of the nuisance on demand, and be back on the street partying tonight.
So it is going to be an interesting next few weeks as we head towards November and the future of our nation, and in the meantime, with the courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, I am going to keep debunking these toxic Biden administration GREAT BIG WHOPPER LIES, so next up will be Joe’s executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris whining about abortion on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd on September 11, 2022, so please, stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Paul Plante says:
X. The abortion lies of Joe Biden and the Democrats are just plain stupid, uninformed and ignorant.
Yes, people, take the Reuters article “Biden suggests support for filibuster change to legalize abortion,” for example, on September 23, 2022, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) – President Joe Biden challenged Democratic voters on Friday that if they elect at least two more senators in November elections, it would open the possibility of Democrats removing the filibuster and restoring federal abortion rights for women.
end quotes
Focus on that phrase “restoring federal abortion rights for women,” because that is just plain stupid talk from Joe Biden, as women in America have no federal abortion rights that Joe Biden and his pack of lying Democrats can restore, and as an American citizen, I personally am damn sick and tired of living in a nation where all we can count on, besides incompetence and inefficiency, is getting lied to repeatedly by our “national leaders,” so thanks to the Grand Palladium of Liberty the Cape Charles Mirror, I am speaking out about those lies as an act of citizenship, which takes us back to that article for more of Joe Biden’s idiotic abortion lies, as follows:
Biden has made restoring protections lost in the Supreme Court’s June decision to reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case a central theme of his stump speeches in the lead-up to the Nov. 8 congressional elections.
“If you give me two more senators in the United States Senate, I promise you, I promise you, we’re going to codify Roe and once again make Roe the law of the land,” said Biden.
end quotes
With that moronic statement from Joe that “I promise you, I promise you, we’re going to codify Roe and once again make Roe the law of the land,” I am very willing to bet that Joe Biden has never once actually read Roe v. Wade, and I am further willing to bet that Joe Biden has no clue as to what Roe v. Wade actually does say, nor do the people who listen to him and believe him when he says he is going to “once again make Roe the law of the land,” because if Joe Biden and the Democrats did “codify” Roe V. Wade, what they would be making “law of the land,” is as follows. because here is what Roe v. Wade actually did say about this supposed “right to choose” way back in 1973, to wit:
* Though the State cannot override that right (right to a QUALIFIED ABORTION), it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
* For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation MUST be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
* For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, MAY, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are REASONABLY RELATED to maternal health.
* For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, MAY, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
* The State may define the term ‘physician’ to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
end quotes
That, people, is what Roe v. Wade actually does say, so if Joe Biden is going to “codify” it, then he and the Democrats are stuck with what Mr. Chief Justice Burger stated in plain and simple language that even a dull-wit like Joe Biden should have been able to comprehend and understand in concurring in Roe v. Wade, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quotes
And goofy old Joe Biden, himself a lawyer, is trying to tell the women of America otherwise, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
Biden exhorted women voters to help elect Democrats.
end quotes
And good luck there, Joe, because if we go to the Quinnipiac Poll site for July 20, 2022, we find an article titled “Biden Approval Hits New Low Amid Public Discontent With Both Parties, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Nearly Half Of Americans Worry About Being Mass Shooting Victim” where we have the priorities of the American voters listed for the up-coming mid-terms, as follows:
Asked to choose the most urgent issue facing the country today, inflation (34 percent) ranks first followed by gun violence (12 percent).
No other issue reached double digits.
Among Republicans, inflation (48 percent) ranks first followed by immigration (16 percent) with no other issue reaching double digits.
Among Democrats, gun violence (22 percent) ranks first followed by abortion (14 percent), inflation (14 percent), election laws (12 percent), and climate change (11 percent).
Among independents, inflation (41 percent) ranks first with no other issue reaching double digits.
Two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) say the country is worse off today than it was a year ago, while 26 percent say the country is better off and 4 percent volunteer that it is the same.
end quotes
So while Joe Biden and the Democrats seem to feel that running on “codifying” Roe v. Wade is a winning issue, the reality seems far different when we look at actual polling data.
Yes, among some Democrats, it is, but even so, that is only 14%, which takes us back to Reuters for more, as follows:
“I don’t believe the MAGA Republican have a clue about the power of American women.”
“Let me tell you something, they’re about to find out.”
end quotes
And you have to pardon Joe here, people, because he is so obsessed with “MAGA Republicans,” a stupid term he made up that means nothing, that he now has “MAGA Republicans” on top of his mind, as his MINISTER OF STATE PROPAGANDA Karine Jean-Pierre calls it, and they haunt his every thought to the point of where he spends his nights dreaming about them, and how to get his revenge against them, if it is the last thing he does.
And quite personally, I don’t believe that Joe Biden and his pack of Democrats have a clue about the power of American women, because there are actually women in America, as hard as it is to believe today in this day and age of loose morals, no values and the “GET RID OF THE NUISANCE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO CHANGE ITS DIAPERS AND GIVE UP YOUR LIFESTYLE” culture that now exists all across America, and especially places like Hollywood, who are against abortion as a means of ridding oneself of a burden or nuisance, and they do vote and they vote AGAINST those politicians like Joe Biden and his Democrats who are for abortion convenience stores where you can walk in, get rid of the nuisance on demand, and be back on the street partying tonight.
So it is going to be an interesting next few weeks as we head towards November and the future of our nation, and in the meantime, with the courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, I am going to keep debunking these toxic Biden administration GREAT BIG WHOPPER LIES, so next up will be Joe’s executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris whining about abortion on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd on September 11, 2022, so please, stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 5, 2022 AT 7:23 PM
Paul Plante says:
XI. The abortion lies of Executive Deputy Autocrat Karmela Harris on Meet the Press are even more stupid, uninformed and ignorant than those of Joe Biden, and she is a former prosecutor who should know better.
Yes, people, Joe Biden’s executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris sounded like the world’s most ignorant person with regard to the subject of abortion on Meet the Press on September 11, 2022, 1:05 PM EDT, where the show started as follows:
CHUCK TODD: This Sunday: My interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.
CHUCK TODD: On the rightward shift of the Supreme Court:
VICE PRES. KAMALA HARRIS: I think this is an activist court.
CHUCK TODD: And its abortion decision:
VICE PRES. KAMALA HARRIS: It is not right that we take a constitutional right from the women of America and deprive them of the ability to make decisions about their own body.
end quotes
And there she is, being real stupid right out of the gate and talking like an idiot, because NO constitutional right was taken from women, and nobody has deprived them of the ability to make decisions about their own body, and as she has previously served as the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017, she is the one person in the Biden regime who should know better, OR you would be led to believe that, anyway, although these days, the fact that somebody was elected as an attorney general doesn’t mean anything at all.
As to the supposed “constitutional right” which doesn’t exist, and didn’t exist before Dobbs was decided, in concurring in Roe v. Wade, Mr. Chief Justice Burger of the United States Supreme Court stated in plain and simple language that even a slack-wit lawyer like Karmela Harris should have been able to comprehend and understand, presuming that she ever bothered in the first place to exert herself to read it, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quote
And seriously, people, how many years of law school does it require to be able to read and understand what that sentence is saying?
Is the phrase “rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand” really that hard to understand or comprehend that a trained lawyer like Karmela Harris would be stumped or mystified or stymied by it, especially where the word “reject” is taken to mean “to refuse to accept, use, or believe something?”
And Dobbs DOES NOT deprive women of the ability to make decisions about their own body, and it is so stupid and tedious of Karmela Harris to state or imply that it does.
First of all, Dobbs only involved the constitutionality of the state of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which act provides as follows:
“[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”
A PERSON SHALL NOT PERFORM OR INDUCE AN ABORTION AFTER FIFTEEN WEEKS!
Fifteen weeks is roughly THREE MONTHS, or what is known as the first trimester, the earliest phase of pregnancy which starts on the first day of one’s last period and lasts until the end of the 13th week.
So how is that different than what Roe v. Wade provided for?
And the answer is that it is no different at all, as we see from Roe v. Wade, to wit:
For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation MUST be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
end quote
Dobbs does nothing to change that, because that was never an issue in Dobbs.
The challenge in Dobbs was specifically to Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.
That challenge was made by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors.
They challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833.
And having failed to logically and rationally prove their points in their briefs to the Supreme Court, they lost that argument.
In plain language, Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act was held to NOT VIOLATE Roe v. Wade, or Casey.
Those people, are the facts.
If you don’t believe me, read the cases for yourself, and you will see those same words, given that I cut and pasted them straight from those decisions.
And then ask yourself this important question:
WHY IS KARMELA HARRIS TELLING US THESE EGREGIOUS LIES JUST BEFORE THE NOVEMBER MID-TERMS?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY IS KARMELA HARRIS LYING TO US ABOUT ANTHING, AND ESPECIALLY SUCH AN EMOTIONAL SUBJECT AS ABORTION?
Think about it, people, while there is still time!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Paul Plante says:
XI. The abortion lies of Executive Deputy Autocrat Karmela Harris on Meet the Press are even more stupid, uninformed and ignorant than those of Joe Biden, and she is a former prosecutor who should know better.
Yes, people, Joe Biden’s executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris sounded like the world’s most ignorant person with regard to the subject of abortion on Meet the Press on September 11, 2022, 1:05 PM EDT, where the show started as follows:
CHUCK TODD: This Sunday: My interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.
CHUCK TODD: On the rightward shift of the Supreme Court:
VICE PRES. KAMALA HARRIS: I think this is an activist court.
CHUCK TODD: And its abortion decision:
VICE PRES. KAMALA HARRIS: It is not right that we take a constitutional right from the women of America and deprive them of the ability to make decisions about their own body.
end quotes
And there she is, being real stupid right out of the gate and talking like an idiot, because NO constitutional right was taken from women, and nobody has deprived them of the ability to make decisions about their own body, and as she has previously served as the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017, she is the one person in the Biden regime who should know better, OR you would be led to believe that, anyway, although these days, the fact that somebody was elected as an attorney general doesn’t mean anything at all.
As to the supposed “constitutional right” which doesn’t exist, and didn’t exist before Dobbs was decided, in concurring in Roe v. Wade, Mr. Chief Justice Burger of the United States Supreme Court stated in plain and simple language that even a slack-wit lawyer like Karmela Harris should have been able to comprehend and understand, presuming that she ever bothered in the first place to exert herself to read it, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quote
And seriously, people, how many years of law school does it require to be able to read and understand what that sentence is saying?
Is the phrase “rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand” really that hard to understand or comprehend that a trained lawyer like Karmela Harris would be stumped or mystified or stymied by it, especially where the word “reject” is taken to mean “to refuse to accept, use, or believe something?”
And Dobbs DOES NOT deprive women of the ability to make decisions about their own body, and it is so stupid and tedious of Karmela Harris to state or imply that it does.
First of all, Dobbs only involved the constitutionality of the state of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which act provides as follows:
“[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”
A PERSON SHALL NOT PERFORM OR INDUCE AN ABORTION AFTER FIFTEEN WEEKS!
Fifteen weeks is roughly THREE MONTHS, or what is known as the first trimester, the earliest phase of pregnancy which starts on the first day of one’s last period and lasts until the end of the 13th week.
So how is that different than what Roe v. Wade provided for?
And the answer is that it is no different at all, as we see from Roe v. Wade, to wit:
For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation MUST be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
end quote
Dobbs does nothing to change that, because that was never an issue in Dobbs.
The challenge in Dobbs was specifically to Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act.
That challenge was made by the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors.
They challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833.
And having failed to logically and rationally prove their points in their briefs to the Supreme Court, they lost that argument.
In plain language, Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act was held to NOT VIOLATE Roe v. Wade, or Casey.
Those people, are the facts.
If you don’t believe me, read the cases for yourself, and you will see those same words, given that I cut and pasted them straight from those decisions.
And then ask yourself this important question:
WHY IS KARMELA HARRIS TELLING US THESE EGREGIOUS LIES JUST BEFORE THE NOVEMBER MID-TERMS?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY IS KARMELA HARRIS LYING TO US ABOUT ANTHING, AND ESPECIALLY SUCH AN EMOTIONAL SUBJECT AS ABORTION?
Think about it, people, while there is still time!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... 13#respond
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 9, 2022
Op-Ed: Dobbs for Dummies
The following Op-Ed was written and submitted by Paul Plante
As I sit here typing these words, one old grandfather and disabled combat veteran without political clout or financial means out here in what the slick and sophisticated city folks would call a cultural backwater tucked back into the mountains, where it is still the 1800’s, and really cool dudes like Hussein Obama mock the people, working-class voters the majority of them, who have become frustrated with economic conditions, saying to the world, as if someone from Chicago like him who has never really been to America would even have a clue, “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” none of which is really true, the Democrats are spending millions of dollars promoting abortion, and in the course of doing, openly and blatantly spreading what I call a GREAT BIG TOXIC ABORTION LIE for no other purpose than to provoke and incite violence, including violence towards members of the Supreme Court, by stoking the passions and emotions of women with outright lies, as we see by going to an article in the Albany, New York Times Union titled “Ad spending shows Dems hinging midterm hopes on abortion” by Steve Peoples and Aaron M. Kessler of the Associated Press on September 20, 2022, as follows:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are pumping an unprecedented amount of money into advertising related to abortion rights, underscoring how central the message is to the party in the final weeks before the November midterm elections.
With the most intense period of campaigning only just beginning, Democrats have already invested more than an estimated $124 million this year in television advertising referencing abortion.
That’s more than twice as much money as the Democrats’ next top issue this year, “character,” and almost 20 times more than Democrats spent on abortion-related ads in the 2018 midterms.
end quotes
So, some really BIG MONEY in the game here, people, which should raise the question in the minds of all Americans – WHY?
Specifically, WHY are the Democrats spending more than twice as much money on abortions as they are on their next top issue this year, that being “character,” of which they are sorely lacking?
WHY is abortion so much more important to Democrats than character, when it is character that is so much more important to me?
Which takes us back to that article, as follows:
The estimated spending figures, based on an Associated Press analysis of data provided by the nonpartisan research firm AdImpact, reveal the extent to which Democrats are betting their majorities in Congress and key governorships on one issue.
That’s even as large majorities of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the economy is in poor condition.
end quotes
Which seriously blows my mind – yes, people, the country is indeed heading in the wrong direction, the economy is in poor condition and is about to get worse, your credit card interest rate is going up, you can’t afford food, or to pay your rent, your neighbor’s smarmy son who went to Harvard law school and now makes his living going after college students who can’t pay their student loans and evicting people who can’t pay their mortgages just got his student loans canceled by Joe Biden, and you can’t find katsup on the shelf to make katsup soup with to feed your children, but buck up folks, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure you can still get an abortion, which takes us back to that article for more, as follows:
Since the high court’s decision in June to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion, roughly 1 in 3 television advertising dollars spent by Democrats and their allies have focused on abortion.
end quotes
And whoa, right there, people – because there is the Democrats’ GREAT BIG TOXIC ABORTION LIE staring us right in the face there, because there was NO high court decision in June to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.
THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION TO ELIMINATE IN JUNE BECAUSE IN JUNE, SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION DID NOT EXIST, PERIOD!
In concurring in Roe v. Wade in 1973, Mr. Chief Justice Burger stated in plain and simple language that even dull-wits like the Democrats should be able to comprehend and understand, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quote
And there is where it all begins and ends, people, with those fourteen (14) words written by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1973.
So WHY are the Democrats lying to us today, trying to tell us something different?
Because they think we are all stupid and easy to deceive and mislead?
And let me make an important point here – NO, you do not need to be a lawyer to read Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade or Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., No. 19–1392, decided June 24, 2022, nor do you need a JD from Harvard to understand and comprehend what the decisions are saying, since the decisions are meant to speak to us, the common folks in this land, so that we can understand what the law really is without having to keep a lawyer on retainer like the organized crime dudes do.
And that goes for members of the press who keep misrepresenting Roe v. Wade, and Dobbs, as well, which is why I am stepping up to the plate here to confront these lies with a little more than four weeks until the all-important mid-terms elections which are going to determine the fate and future of OUR Republic in the face of a Democrat onslaught to strip us of not only our liberty, but essentially, our citizenship rights if we are not pro-abortion, as we see in this Fox News article titled “AOC wonders if pro-life Democrats should continue to serve: ‘We really need to reassess'” by Cortney O’Brien on 26 June 2022, to wit:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., suggested in an Instagram video Saturday night that pro-life Democrats should no longer serve in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
end quotes
Think about it, people!
Think about what AOC is really saying there.
IF you do not believe fervently and whole-heartedly with women having abortions any time they want them, on demand, then you should not be represented in the Congress of the United States of America.
If you are cool with that, then your choice is obviously already made, so there is probably nothing here of interest to you, since your mind is already closed.
If, on the other hand, you are really concerned about the direction the Democrats want to take this country, and want to know more about what Roe v. Wade and Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al. really do say in simple and easy to understand terms straight from the decisions themselves, as opposed to from the Democrat PROPAGANDA MILL, stay tuned.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s/#respond
Op-Ed: Dobbs for Dummies
The following Op-Ed was written and submitted by Paul Plante
As I sit here typing these words, one old grandfather and disabled combat veteran without political clout or financial means out here in what the slick and sophisticated city folks would call a cultural backwater tucked back into the mountains, where it is still the 1800’s, and really cool dudes like Hussein Obama mock the people, working-class voters the majority of them, who have become frustrated with economic conditions, saying to the world, as if someone from Chicago like him who has never really been to America would even have a clue, “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” none of which is really true, the Democrats are spending millions of dollars promoting abortion, and in the course of doing, openly and blatantly spreading what I call a GREAT BIG TOXIC ABORTION LIE for no other purpose than to provoke and incite violence, including violence towards members of the Supreme Court, by stoking the passions and emotions of women with outright lies, as we see by going to an article in the Albany, New York Times Union titled “Ad spending shows Dems hinging midterm hopes on abortion” by Steve Peoples and Aaron M. Kessler of the Associated Press on September 20, 2022, as follows:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are pumping an unprecedented amount of money into advertising related to abortion rights, underscoring how central the message is to the party in the final weeks before the November midterm elections.
With the most intense period of campaigning only just beginning, Democrats have already invested more than an estimated $124 million this year in television advertising referencing abortion.
That’s more than twice as much money as the Democrats’ next top issue this year, “character,” and almost 20 times more than Democrats spent on abortion-related ads in the 2018 midterms.
end quotes
So, some really BIG MONEY in the game here, people, which should raise the question in the minds of all Americans – WHY?
Specifically, WHY are the Democrats spending more than twice as much money on abortions as they are on their next top issue this year, that being “character,” of which they are sorely lacking?
WHY is abortion so much more important to Democrats than character, when it is character that is so much more important to me?
Which takes us back to that article, as follows:
The estimated spending figures, based on an Associated Press analysis of data provided by the nonpartisan research firm AdImpact, reveal the extent to which Democrats are betting their majorities in Congress and key governorships on one issue.
That’s even as large majorities of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the economy is in poor condition.
end quotes
Which seriously blows my mind – yes, people, the country is indeed heading in the wrong direction, the economy is in poor condition and is about to get worse, your credit card interest rate is going up, you can’t afford food, or to pay your rent, your neighbor’s smarmy son who went to Harvard law school and now makes his living going after college students who can’t pay their student loans and evicting people who can’t pay their mortgages just got his student loans canceled by Joe Biden, and you can’t find katsup on the shelf to make katsup soup with to feed your children, but buck up folks, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure you can still get an abortion, which takes us back to that article for more, as follows:
Since the high court’s decision in June to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion, roughly 1 in 3 television advertising dollars spent by Democrats and their allies have focused on abortion.
end quotes
And whoa, right there, people – because there is the Democrats’ GREAT BIG TOXIC ABORTION LIE staring us right in the face there, because there was NO high court decision in June to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.
THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION TO ELIMINATE IN JUNE BECAUSE IN JUNE, SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION DID NOT EXIST, PERIOD!
In concurring in Roe v. Wade in 1973, Mr. Chief Justice Burger stated in plain and simple language that even dull-wits like the Democrats should be able to comprehend and understand, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quote
And there is where it all begins and ends, people, with those fourteen (14) words written by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1973.
So WHY are the Democrats lying to us today, trying to tell us something different?
Because they think we are all stupid and easy to deceive and mislead?
And let me make an important point here – NO, you do not need to be a lawyer to read Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade or Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., No. 19–1392, decided June 24, 2022, nor do you need a JD from Harvard to understand and comprehend what the decisions are saying, since the decisions are meant to speak to us, the common folks in this land, so that we can understand what the law really is without having to keep a lawyer on retainer like the organized crime dudes do.
And that goes for members of the press who keep misrepresenting Roe v. Wade, and Dobbs, as well, which is why I am stepping up to the plate here to confront these lies with a little more than four weeks until the all-important mid-terms elections which are going to determine the fate and future of OUR Republic in the face of a Democrat onslaught to strip us of not only our liberty, but essentially, our citizenship rights if we are not pro-abortion, as we see in this Fox News article titled “AOC wonders if pro-life Democrats should continue to serve: ‘We really need to reassess'” by Cortney O’Brien on 26 June 2022, to wit:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., suggested in an Instagram video Saturday night that pro-life Democrats should no longer serve in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
end quotes
Think about it, people!
Think about what AOC is really saying there.
IF you do not believe fervently and whole-heartedly with women having abortions any time they want them, on demand, then you should not be represented in the Congress of the United States of America.
If you are cool with that, then your choice is obviously already made, so there is probably nothing here of interest to you, since your mind is already closed.
If, on the other hand, you are really concerned about the direction the Democrats want to take this country, and want to know more about what Roe v. Wade and Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al. really do say in simple and easy to understand terms straight from the decisions themselves, as opposed to from the Democrat PROPAGANDA MILL, stay tuned.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s/#respond
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al.
United States Supreme Court
(b)The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey.
Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.
It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 455.
It “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827.
And it restrains judicial hubris by respecting the judgment of those who grappled with important questions in the past.
But stare decisis is not an inexorable command, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233, and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interprets the Constitution,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235.
Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 491 (overruling the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, and its progeny).
The Court’s cases have identified factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___.
Five factors discussed below weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.
(1) The nature of the Court’s error.
Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.
Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side.
Those on the losing side — those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life — could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views.
The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.
(2) The quality of the reasoning.
Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.
Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong.
Then, after surveying history, the opinion spent many paragraphs conducting the sort of fact-finding that might be undertaken by a legislative committee, and did not explain why the sources on which it relied shed light on the meaning of the Constitution.
As to precedent, citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy.” Id., at 152.
But Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600.
None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.”
When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with,” among other things, “the relative weights of the respective interests involved” and “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 165.
These are precisely the sort of considerations that legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that accommodate competing interests.
The scheme Roe produced looked like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body.
An even more glaring deficiency was Roe’s failure to justify the critical distinction it drew between pre- and post-viability abortions. See id., at 163.
The arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roe’s central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion.
The most obvious problem with any such argument is that viability has changed over time and is heavily dependent on factors — such as medical advances and the availability of quality medical care — that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus.
When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning.
The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846.
The controlling opinion criticized and rejected Roe’s trimester scheme, 505 U. S., at 872, and substituted a new and obscure “undue burden” test.
Casey, in short, either refused to reaffirm or rejected important aspects of Roe’s analysis, failed to remedy glaring deficiencies in Roe’s reasoning, endorsed what it termed Roe’s central holding while suggesting that a majority might not have thought it was correct, provided no new support for the abortion right other than Roe’s status as precedent, and imposed a new test with no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent. Pp. 45–56.
(3) Workability.
Deciding whether a precedent should be overruled depends in part on whether the rule it imposes is workable — that is, whether it can be understood and applied in a consistent and predictable manner.
Casey’s “undue burden” test has scored poorly on the workability scale.
The Casey plurality tried to put meaning into the “undue burden” test by setting out three subsidiary rules, but these rules created their own problems.
And the difficulty of applying Casey’s new rules surfaced in that very case. Compare 505 U. S., at 881–887, with id., at 920–922 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The experience of the Courts of Appeals provides further evidence that Casey’s “line between” permissible and unconstitutional restrictions “has proved to be impossible to draw with precision.” Janus, 585 U. S., at ___.
Casey has generated a long list of Circuit conflicts.
Continued adherence to Casey’s unworkable “undue burden” test would undermine, not advance, the “evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 827.
(4) Effect on other areas of law.
Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part).
(5) Reliance interests.
Overruling Roe and Casey will not upend concrete reliance interests like those that develop in “cases involving property and contract rights.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 828.
In Casey, the controlling opinion conceded that traditional reliance interests were not implicated because getting an abortion is generally “unplanned activity,” and “reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.” 505 U. S., at 856.
Instead, the opinion perceived a more intangible form of reliance, namely, that “people [had] organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society . . . in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” and that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Ibid.
The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women as well as the status of the fetus.
The Casey plurality’s speculative attempt to weigh the relative importance of the interests of the fetus and the mother represent a departure from the “original constitutional proposition” that “courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 729–730.
The Solicitor General suggests that overruling Roe and Casey would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause.
The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.
Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.
(c) Casey identified another concern, namely, the danger that the public will perceive a decision overruling a controversial “watershed” decision, such as Roe, as influenced by political considerations or public opinion. 505 U. S., at 866–867.
But the Court cannot allow its decisions to be affected by such extraneous concerns.
A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command.
If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy would still be the law.
The Court’s job is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.
(d) Under the Court’s precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard to apply when state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge.
Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729–730.
That applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance.
A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319.
It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Id., at 320.
Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act is supported by the Mississippi Legislature’s specific findings, which include the State’s asserted interest in “protecting the life of the unborn.” §2(b)(i).
These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents’ constitutional challenge must fail.
(e) Abortion presents a profound moral question.
The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.
Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.
The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
945 F. 3d 265, reversed and remanded.
United States Supreme Court
(b)The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey.
Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.
It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 455.
It “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827.
And it restrains judicial hubris by respecting the judgment of those who grappled with important questions in the past.
But stare decisis is not an inexorable command, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233, and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interprets the Constitution,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235.
Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 491 (overruling the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, and its progeny).
The Court’s cases have identified factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___.
Five factors discussed below weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.
(1) The nature of the Court’s error.
Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.
Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side.
Those on the losing side — those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life — could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views.
The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.
(2) The quality of the reasoning.
Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.
Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong.
Then, after surveying history, the opinion spent many paragraphs conducting the sort of fact-finding that might be undertaken by a legislative committee, and did not explain why the sources on which it relied shed light on the meaning of the Constitution.
As to precedent, citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy.” Id., at 152.
But Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600.
None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.”
When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with,” among other things, “the relative weights of the respective interests involved” and “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 165.
These are precisely the sort of considerations that legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that accommodate competing interests.
The scheme Roe produced looked like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body.
An even more glaring deficiency was Roe’s failure to justify the critical distinction it drew between pre- and post-viability abortions. See id., at 163.
The arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roe’s central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion.
The most obvious problem with any such argument is that viability has changed over time and is heavily dependent on factors — such as medical advances and the availability of quality medical care — that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus.
When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning.
The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846.
The controlling opinion criticized and rejected Roe’s trimester scheme, 505 U. S., at 872, and substituted a new and obscure “undue burden” test.
Casey, in short, either refused to reaffirm or rejected important aspects of Roe’s analysis, failed to remedy glaring deficiencies in Roe’s reasoning, endorsed what it termed Roe’s central holding while suggesting that a majority might not have thought it was correct, provided no new support for the abortion right other than Roe’s status as precedent, and imposed a new test with no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent. Pp. 45–56.
(3) Workability.
Deciding whether a precedent should be overruled depends in part on whether the rule it imposes is workable — that is, whether it can be understood and applied in a consistent and predictable manner.
Casey’s “undue burden” test has scored poorly on the workability scale.
The Casey plurality tried to put meaning into the “undue burden” test by setting out three subsidiary rules, but these rules created their own problems.
And the difficulty of applying Casey’s new rules surfaced in that very case. Compare 505 U. S., at 881–887, with id., at 920–922 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
The experience of the Courts of Appeals provides further evidence that Casey’s “line between” permissible and unconstitutional restrictions “has proved to be impossible to draw with precision.” Janus, 585 U. S., at ___.
Casey has generated a long list of Circuit conflicts.
Continued adherence to Casey’s unworkable “undue burden” test would undermine, not advance, the “evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 827.
(4) Effect on other areas of law.
Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part).
(5) Reliance interests.
Overruling Roe and Casey will not upend concrete reliance interests like those that develop in “cases involving property and contract rights.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 828.
In Casey, the controlling opinion conceded that traditional reliance interests were not implicated because getting an abortion is generally “unplanned activity,” and “reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.” 505 U. S., at 856.
Instead, the opinion perceived a more intangible form of reliance, namely, that “people [had] organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society . . . in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” and that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Ibid.
The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women as well as the status of the fetus.
The Casey plurality’s speculative attempt to weigh the relative importance of the interests of the fetus and the mother represent a departure from the “original constitutional proposition” that “courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 729–730.
The Solicitor General suggests that overruling Roe and Casey would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause.
The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.
Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.
(c) Casey identified another concern, namely, the danger that the public will perceive a decision overruling a controversial “watershed” decision, such as Roe, as influenced by political considerations or public opinion. 505 U. S., at 866–867.
But the Court cannot allow its decisions to be affected by such extraneous concerns.
A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command.
If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy would still be the law.
The Court’s job is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.
(d) Under the Court’s precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard to apply when state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge.
Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729–730.
That applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance.
A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319.
It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Id., at 320.
Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act is supported by the Mississippi Legislature’s specific findings, which include the State’s asserted interest in “protecting the life of the unborn.” §2(b)(i).
These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents’ constitutional challenge must fail.
(e) Abortion presents a profound moral question.
The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.
Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.
The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
945 F. 3d 265, reversed and remanded.
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 9, 2022 AT 11:16 AM
Paul Plante says:
I. DOBBS TOOK NOTHING FROM WOMEN IN AMERICA AND GAVE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BACK TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!
As an independent American citizen who is not a Democrat, nor a Republican, and Viet Nam combat veteran now in his seventies, I am so sick and tired of hearing nothing but an endless stream of lies, half-truths, and misinformation coming at us from the Democrats, Joe Biden, Karmela Harris, AOC, and their pet poodles and enablers and lickspittles in the main-stream and media legacy concerning this subject of abortion, which is an issue that I have been familiar with since the late-1950s or early-1960s, when there was a lot of discussion about bringing abortion out from the back alleys where famous “coat hanger” abortions were destroying the lives of American women, or killing them.
Like guns, abortion exists, and has existed probably since there have been people on the face of the earth, precisely because the earth itself provides medical plants that induce abortion, something native women in this nation were well aware of before the white man came to these shores back in the 1500s or earlier.
In fact, going back in time to the ancient Greeks, circa 570 – c. 495 BC, Aristotle argued that abortion was acceptable for the good of the state, which cuts across the bow of the arguments of the Democrats and Karmela Harris on Meet the Press on 11 September 2022 that “Everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in America who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do.”
Which is pure bull**** because the government is NOT telling women what to do – to the contrary, the PEOPLE, who are “THE GOVERNMENT” in this country, are telling women and Karmela Harris and AOC what they are not free to do, which is to kill an unborn child.
That, people, is what Dobbs gave back to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, which is that right, state by state by state, to defend and protect the unborn from being murdered, for profit, or convenience, to wit:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
end quote
That, people, is AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS in action, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to be defending and protecting – OUR RIGHT to be a self-governing people, and in Dobbs, they did exactly that!
So why are the Democrats so upset then?
Going back to ancient Greece and Aristotle, he argued that when a state becomes overpopulated, “let abortion be procured before life and sense have begun.”
And there, people, is THE ISSUE before us – WHEN have life and sense begun in the womb?
Roe said after the first trimester.
Dobbs says after the first trimester.
So, think about it, then, people, if Dobbs allows abortions in the first thirteen weeks of pregnancy, which is what Roe allowed, what has the Supreme Court taken away from the women of America with their Dobbs decision?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-701564
Paul Plante says:
I. DOBBS TOOK NOTHING FROM WOMEN IN AMERICA AND GAVE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BACK TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!
As an independent American citizen who is not a Democrat, nor a Republican, and Viet Nam combat veteran now in his seventies, I am so sick and tired of hearing nothing but an endless stream of lies, half-truths, and misinformation coming at us from the Democrats, Joe Biden, Karmela Harris, AOC, and their pet poodles and enablers and lickspittles in the main-stream and media legacy concerning this subject of abortion, which is an issue that I have been familiar with since the late-1950s or early-1960s, when there was a lot of discussion about bringing abortion out from the back alleys where famous “coat hanger” abortions were destroying the lives of American women, or killing them.
Like guns, abortion exists, and has existed probably since there have been people on the face of the earth, precisely because the earth itself provides medical plants that induce abortion, something native women in this nation were well aware of before the white man came to these shores back in the 1500s or earlier.
In fact, going back in time to the ancient Greeks, circa 570 – c. 495 BC, Aristotle argued that abortion was acceptable for the good of the state, which cuts across the bow of the arguments of the Democrats and Karmela Harris on Meet the Press on 11 September 2022 that “Everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in America who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do.”
Which is pure bull**** because the government is NOT telling women what to do – to the contrary, the PEOPLE, who are “THE GOVERNMENT” in this country, are telling women and Karmela Harris and AOC what they are not free to do, which is to kill an unborn child.
That, people, is what Dobbs gave back to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, which is that right, state by state by state, to defend and protect the unborn from being murdered, for profit, or convenience, to wit:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
end quote
That, people, is AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS in action, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to be defending and protecting – OUR RIGHT to be a self-governing people, and in Dobbs, they did exactly that!
So why are the Democrats so upset then?
Going back to ancient Greece and Aristotle, he argued that when a state becomes overpopulated, “let abortion be procured before life and sense have begun.”
And there, people, is THE ISSUE before us – WHEN have life and sense begun in the womb?
Roe said after the first trimester.
Dobbs says after the first trimester.
So, think about it, then, people, if Dobbs allows abortions in the first thirteen weeks of pregnancy, which is what Roe allowed, what has the Supreme Court taken away from the women of America with their Dobbs decision?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-701564