“In ways the founding fathers did not foresee—or did they?—we seem to be facing something quite unexpected. A new era of the states is upon us,” Alana wrote.
They foresaw it, alright. (See Federalist #45.)
In fact, if we're thinking of it, you can bet James Madison foresaw it.
Regardless of your personal opinion on the issues, and what legislation you would support, do you truly believe that there is a constitutional right to contraception or gay marriage? The supreme court ruling on these issues would not outlaw them, and given current polling there would be support for national legislation protecting both of these issues. Wouldn't this be the constitutionally correct and politically prudent approach rather than fabricating constitutional rights out of air and opening the door for others to do the same with rights that you might not support?
I've yet to find a Western European country that didn't have some reasonable national abortion law. In Denmark it's 12 weeks then you apply, and there are reasonable exceptions after that which are reviewed including circumstances, age, even financial considerations. In England it's 15 weeks. After that two doctors weigh in. In France it's 14 weeks. They seem to realize both that there are reasons to allow abortion and that there are good reasons to put some restrictions on on demand abortion. Polling data shows a majority of us are good with first tri. Less good with on demand abortion after that. Because most of us are capable of balancing consideration of women's health and rights with other considerations. Leadership on the left needs to stop pushing every argument to its extreme edges for political gain and instead consider the bigger picture. My entire LinkedIn stream is filled with virtue signaling hand wringing posts about the SCOTUS decision. My feeling is if you haven't actually read it, stop decrying it. And if you really care about abortion rights, as I do, stop supporting extreme ideologies about on demand abortion to 40 weeks and find some common ground and some common sense.
Thank you for being you :-D. My brother and I had little in 'material advantages' and made up for it in so many other ways. I look back and had a wonderful childhood consisting of a warrior mother and others in the neighborhood who gave me a kick when needed or a cookie. And we have payed it back a thousand times being a house kids gravitated to.
Has anyone else noticed the slight hand when it comes to describing the fetus? No one says "fetus" anymore, because that term is defined in Medical Dictionary as fetus [fe´tus] (L.)
"the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth."
Clearly, a fetus is not a "baby," the latter , the preferred term of the anti-abortion crowd. More importantly, a fetus is not a person, as personhood is conferred to a fetus only upon birth. Under our system, the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are conferred upon people, not fetuses.
Thus, a new term has been invented, and as we know, language has a great impact upon thought. Now a fetus is a "life," and taking away a "life," we've all been taught, is tantamount to murder. Medical Dictionary defines "life" as "1. A constellation of vital phenomena-organization, irritability, movement, growth, reproduction, adaptation." Neither a fetus nor a "life" in the womb can reproduce.
I support abortion with on demand limits. Not because I think abortion is fabulous but because I see some strong problems with ending legal access altogether. But there is dishonesty on both sides in languaging. The term I'm now seeing in the press is "removing a pregnancy." The fact that everyone is having to do linguistic gymnastics is a real sign that there is not really a clear argument either side that can be won through definition. We just have to use our sense of what feels right. Traffic laws relating to speed limit are often made by using the average of what most people actually drive on that stretch of road. Most people in the US are comfortable with legal access but with some limits on demand to first tri or roundabouts. Everything doesn't have to be pushed to the extremes. And language is meant to help us understand our world and to communicate ideas. It's a tool that comes after rational decision making, not a weapon to obfuscate, limit clarity and confuse.
I applaud the Supreme Court for compelling US citizens to do their job - to have views on issues and look for candidates that reflect those views to represent them in the law. This requires personal compromise: Few candidates will check every box. I must know which boxes count more than others and participate in the process of electing people that check the highest priority boxes.. Abortion, as an issue, is arguably one of the thorniest dilemmas anyone can face, with dire consequences on either side, legal, theoretical and practical. The citizens of the 50 sovereign states can no longer hide under the shade of the Supreme Court's Roe ruling. We must grow up, step into the light of the public square and do our duty in the coming days. I hope we prove worthy of it. Many lives are at stake.
Too few have heard of mifepristone, recently approved by the FDA during the plandemic for remote telemedicine. Terminates safely and effectively, more than 20 yrs of data, up to the 11th week. Problem solved for those w/out local access and inability to travel. The days of surgical abortions are numbered. Yes, there are many edge cases, but taking a pill - birth control, morning after, 10 week abortion - will solve +95% of this divisive issue, rendering it increasingly irrelevant.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it is always sad, frustrating and disappointing when I see how influential people like Alana Newhouse become woke to the idea that the consolidation of power is generally a bad thing. Really? Did you not read Animal Farm in Jr High, or maybe the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers growing up? Did you not read the reasons for the 10th Amendment and how the Bill of Rights came to be? All of this shows why 'Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely." The consolidation of Power is rarely, if ever a good thing. Having a "strong Federal Government" as you believed for so long is a foundational aspect of what Americans believe and fear. No one will care about abortion if power is consolidated like in any highly socialistic or communistic state. Thanks for being open about learning again.
It should never have been defined as a federal civil liberty in the first place. That’s fixed. Now you and your fellow voters need to exercise your rights in Our Democracy of These United States and sort it out. I think 15 weeks is reasonable and will advocate for that.
I enjoyed church service yesterday where the pastor addressed the decision. He said that abortion is a complex issue and that while he was of course an advocate for more life, he also said that people can talk all they like about the issue until it comes to their house, their daughter, their sister, their niece.
We’re living in such polarized times, we need to get back to the gray area
My thoughts on your practical question: “What happens when a woman in San Antonio drives to Albuquerque to terminate a pregnancy and the authorities in Texas demand that New Mexico extradite her?” Consider the current wide variation in state laws on marijuana use. If someone who lives in western KY drives across the border to IL, uses marijuana recreationally there, and then returns home, KY law is not coming after them. The action in question occurs where the action is legal; there is no grounds for extradition when a law wasn’t broken. Am I making this parallel correctly?
“In ways the founding fathers did not foresee—or did they?—we seem to be facing something quite unexpected. A new era of the states is upon us,” Alana wrote.
They foresaw it, alright. (See Federalist #45.)
In fact, if we're thinking of it, you can bet James Madison foresaw it.
Regardless of your personal opinion on the issues, and what legislation you would support, do you truly believe that there is a constitutional right to contraception or gay marriage? The supreme court ruling on these issues would not outlaw them, and given current polling there would be support for national legislation protecting both of these issues. Wouldn't this be the constitutionally correct and politically prudent approach rather than fabricating constitutional rights out of air and opening the door for others to do the same with rights that you might not support?
No one seems to be applauding SCOTUS for actually suggesting their own powers should be limited.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/fetal-personhood-constitution.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20220701&instance_id=65516&nl=opinion-today®i_id=76176664&segment_id=97332&te=1&user_id=47865378630bab71c680fa71fcebe56a
I've yet to find a Western European country that didn't have some reasonable national abortion law. In Denmark it's 12 weeks then you apply, and there are reasonable exceptions after that which are reviewed including circumstances, age, even financial considerations. In England it's 15 weeks. After that two doctors weigh in. In France it's 14 weeks. They seem to realize both that there are reasons to allow abortion and that there are good reasons to put some restrictions on on demand abortion. Polling data shows a majority of us are good with first tri. Less good with on demand abortion after that. Because most of us are capable of balancing consideration of women's health and rights with other considerations. Leadership on the left needs to stop pushing every argument to its extreme edges for political gain and instead consider the bigger picture. My entire LinkedIn stream is filled with virtue signaling hand wringing posts about the SCOTUS decision. My feeling is if you haven't actually read it, stop decrying it. And if you really care about abortion rights, as I do, stop supporting extreme ideologies about on demand abortion to 40 weeks and find some common ground and some common sense.
Thank you for being you :-D. My brother and I had little in 'material advantages' and made up for it in so many other ways. I look back and had a wonderful childhood consisting of a warrior mother and others in the neighborhood who gave me a kick when needed or a cookie. And we have payed it back a thousand times being a house kids gravitated to.
Has anyone else noticed the slight hand when it comes to describing the fetus? No one says "fetus" anymore, because that term is defined in Medical Dictionary as fetus [fe´tus] (L.)
"the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth."
Clearly, a fetus is not a "baby," the latter , the preferred term of the anti-abortion crowd. More importantly, a fetus is not a person, as personhood is conferred to a fetus only upon birth. Under our system, the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are conferred upon people, not fetuses.
Thus, a new term has been invented, and as we know, language has a great impact upon thought. Now a fetus is a "life," and taking away a "life," we've all been taught, is tantamount to murder. Medical Dictionary defines "life" as "1. A constellation of vital phenomena-organization, irritability, movement, growth, reproduction, adaptation." Neither a fetus nor a "life" in the womb can reproduce.
I support abortion with on demand limits. Not because I think abortion is fabulous but because I see some strong problems with ending legal access altogether. But there is dishonesty on both sides in languaging. The term I'm now seeing in the press is "removing a pregnancy." The fact that everyone is having to do linguistic gymnastics is a real sign that there is not really a clear argument either side that can be won through definition. We just have to use our sense of what feels right. Traffic laws relating to speed limit are often made by using the average of what most people actually drive on that stretch of road. Most people in the US are comfortable with legal access but with some limits on demand to first tri or roundabouts. Everything doesn't have to be pushed to the extremes. And language is meant to help us understand our world and to communicate ideas. It's a tool that comes after rational decision making, not a weapon to obfuscate, limit clarity and confuse.
I applaud the Supreme Court for compelling US citizens to do their job - to have views on issues and look for candidates that reflect those views to represent them in the law. This requires personal compromise: Few candidates will check every box. I must know which boxes count more than others and participate in the process of electing people that check the highest priority boxes.. Abortion, as an issue, is arguably one of the thorniest dilemmas anyone can face, with dire consequences on either side, legal, theoretical and practical. The citizens of the 50 sovereign states can no longer hide under the shade of the Supreme Court's Roe ruling. We must grow up, step into the light of the public square and do our duty in the coming days. I hope we prove worthy of it. Many lives are at stake.
And this is exactly why I'm a subscriber. Thank you Bari!
Too few have heard of mifepristone, recently approved by the FDA during the plandemic for remote telemedicine. Terminates safely and effectively, more than 20 yrs of data, up to the 11th week. Problem solved for those w/out local access and inability to travel. The days of surgical abortions are numbered. Yes, there are many edge cases, but taking a pill - birth control, morning after, 10 week abortion - will solve +95% of this divisive issue, rendering it increasingly irrelevant.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it is always sad, frustrating and disappointing when I see how influential people like Alana Newhouse become woke to the idea that the consolidation of power is generally a bad thing. Really? Did you not read Animal Farm in Jr High, or maybe the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers growing up? Did you not read the reasons for the 10th Amendment and how the Bill of Rights came to be? All of this shows why 'Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely." The consolidation of Power is rarely, if ever a good thing. Having a "strong Federal Government" as you believed for so long is a foundational aspect of what Americans believe and fear. No one will care about abortion if power is consolidated like in any highly socialistic or communistic state. Thanks for being open about learning again.
I encourage people to watch Pastor Mike Winger's video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_tYObxgIj0&list=PLi-tJmIiOS7OTm-9w0j2hTX1IMO2-vNT3&index=8. If you don’t have time to watch the whole video, jump to the 25:00 minute mark and watch the next 12 minutes. This is the best advocacy for the pro-life position that I have seen.
It should never have been defined as a federal civil liberty in the first place. That’s fixed. Now you and your fellow voters need to exercise your rights in Our Democracy of These United States and sort it out. I think 15 weeks is reasonable and will advocate for that.
I enjoyed church service yesterday where the pastor addressed the decision. He said that abortion is a complex issue and that while he was of course an advocate for more life, he also said that people can talk all they like about the issue until it comes to their house, their daughter, their sister, their niece.
We’re living in such polarized times, we need to get back to the gray area
My thoughts on your practical question: “What happens when a woman in San Antonio drives to Albuquerque to terminate a pregnancy and the authorities in Texas demand that New Mexico extradite her?” Consider the current wide variation in state laws on marijuana use. If someone who lives in western KY drives across the border to IL, uses marijuana recreationally there, and then returns home, KY law is not coming after them. The action in question occurs where the action is legal; there is no grounds for extradition when a law wasn’t broken. Am I making this parallel correctly?
There was NEVER a constitutional right to abortion. There was a Supreme Court precedent that was overturned. Why is that being so misconstrued?