The Texas Tribune reported last week that the Texas Department of Health Services has since February been withholding data that could show the impact of Texas’s abortion clinic restrictions on women’s ability to access safe and legal abortions.
Oh well—even absent that data, the United States Supreme Court was able to determine that Texas’s abortion clinic restriction represent an unnecessary burden on women’s right to abortion services:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote on the abortion issue.
“There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure,” Breyer wrote. “We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an “undue burden” on their constitutional right to do so” [Ariane de Vogue and Dan Berman, “Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Access Law,” CNN.com, 2016.06.27].
The Texas law also put women’s health at risk:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer’s opinion and wrote a brief concurring opinion, which focused on what she called women in “desperate circumstances.”
“When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety” [de Vogue and Berman, 2016.06.27].
(Faute de mieux—for want of a better option. Thank you, Honorable RBG, for making a little French spike on the Googles.)
You can read the 5–3 ruling on Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt et al. here.
The race is on to see which state’s AG files and loses the appeal first. Texas,Kansas,Chokelahoma or Marty ball in South Dakota.
Although I agree that Texas’ law was a pretty naked attempt at endrunning Casey and was unconstitutional as a result, I do agree with Thomas’ criticism regarding standing. The right asserted was a woman’s right to abortion, so why is the clinic bringing the action? Their right isn’t the one at issue and third party suits are generally frowned upon except in this narrow area of the law.
Amazing how those who promote legalized murder also want to ban guns while saying love conquers hate. The most devastating mass killings in America occur in abortion mills. What does that say about their so-called “love”?
Sibby-the NRA promotes legalized murder but they sure as hell aren’t trying to ban guns.
Saw this comment immediately after the decision was announced. It is quite perfect:
“Good news for Republicans who are tired of government overreach and out of control regulations.”
——————–
“legalized murder”. Oh Sibby, poor poor Sibby. Plain and simple, this is a common sense decision. When it comes to freedoms and rights and “undue burden”, SCOTUS nailed this decision.
It’s amazing how those who promote “pro-life” have a complete disregard for the health and wellbeing of people immediately after birth.
“When it comes to freedoms and rights and “undue burden”, SCOTUS nailed this decision.”
Only they skipped due process for the kids. I suppose that would be an undue burden.
“wellbeing of people immediately after birth”
It is the greedy Marxists who expects others to do that, not themselves.
O
Its really amazing how numbnutz abortionlovers keep passing off the lie you just stated.
Casey’s jurisprudence was a bigger mess than Roe v Wade thanks to the Justice’s with feet of clay, O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter, rush to the mushy middle and their insistence on upholding stare decisis rather than the Constitution. Determining what is or is not “undue” in an “undue burden” is akin to reading tea leaves which is exactly what the Court did today.
This decision was a slam dunk considering how the liberal wing of the Court always votes in lockstep and that there was no way Kennedy was going to overturn his sloppy jurisprudence in Casey.
Wow—”numb—-“, “Marxists”—let’s ease up on the irrelevant name-calling.
“Legalized murder”—let’s also ease up on the exaggerations. I’ve issued the challenge to women’s rights opponents to back up their “murder” talk with advocacy for life sentences for women who have abortions. No one will go there. Abortion is not murder.
Dicta, the standing issue is worth discussing. If the state passes regulations that force me out of business, don’t I have some standing to challenge those regulations in court?
“No one will go there.”
I said I am not going there before. They can go to court and argue that their child is committing a crime that requires the death penalty in order for justice to be served. What the SCOTUS has done is legalized their murder based on age discrimination.
What this issue shows is the lack of personal accountability on many fronts. That attitude is a direct result of blaming others and victim thinking. And that has also resulted in the fostering of hate. That hate is represented by a divided politicized SCOTUS, where the majority grant special rights in the name of Constitutional rights. So much for the cause of equality.
Cory- perhaps, but that’s not what the case was ruled on. The right at issue was simply the right to abortion upheld in Casey. Maybe if the Plaintiffs had argued a right to commerce on a completely legal activity, I’d get it. But this is one party asserting the right of another, and SCOTUS has generally exercised restraint in these circumstances save abortion. There are no
“insurmountable” obstacles stopping women seeking abortions from asserting their own rights, in such cases, nor are there jurisdictional barriers. Remember too that in Roe v. Wade,
the court carved out a mootness exception enabling formerly pregnant women to sue after
they terminated their pregnancies without showing that they intended to become pregnant and seek an abortion again for the very reason that the woman should be able to bring action on such a personal issue.
I agree with the outcome as it pertains to the often amorphous undue burden lens, but hot damn if SCOTUS doesn’t have some serious consistency issues going on when it comes to justiciability.
Wingnuts and their butt hurt. Having a religious group fill out a single form so they don’t have to pay for birth control is,according to the activist wingnut Scotus majority-an undue burden.
Making poor women jump through hoop after hoop, long hours of travel, maybe having to go out of state and to repeat the process if the abortion pill is used, just to exercise their right to have an abortion isn’t an undue burden, according to the same activist Scotus.
Say the word “Gun” and it’s “My RIGHT under the LAW so just SHUT UP and stay OUT of my BUSINESS!!”
But say the word “Abortion” and it’s “I SAY what you can and can’t have so SHUT UP because I know what’s good for YOU!”
Wow…I love being a woman in a Red State. :(
I won’t get into any discussion anymore about abortion and rights. It’s my body and my right to do what I want with it. It’s your right to voice your “opinions” but not to infringe on my right. So, anti-abortion people, just SHUT UP and mind you’re own business and stay OUT of mine! :)
All Texas has to do is Texit the union, and then they can run out all of the abortion doctors, Democrats and non-citizens. Then they can build their own wall around the whole lone star nation and arm it with vigilantes. We wouldn’t have to change the stars and stripes – just add DC as the new 50th state.
Texit is a win-win. The US will save all of the attorney fees spent fighting Texas’s lawsuits and take in tons of non-wingnut refugees fleeing Christian sharia law. Texas can stop teaching science and substitute creationism instead. Texas can also run out the gays, the jews, the muslims and the non-fundamentalist Christians. A win-win.
Right on Rorschach! We have been taxed and regulated in DC as much as any state. Now it’s time for a little representation. Texas would rather be tax free and unregulated. Texit — Win Win Indeed!
Once again, SD and it’s Republican majority are on the wrong side of a legal challenge. How much more money do we toss out the window before we bring in some common sense? Wrong side on reproductive rights, Gay marriage, pipeline, health care issues, … Keep swingin’ Marty. You are bound to hit one eventually!
“It’s my body and my right to do what I want with it.”
The babies’ bodies have no rights. Typical propaganda by social justice bullies.
“SD and it’s Republican majority are on the wrong side of a legal challenge.”
Sad that states’ rights died with the 14th Amendment. Now we have an oligarchy running things. Another example of America being turned over based on Romans 1.
Steve, is health care (even after birth) a universal right for all, or is it a commodity to be traded by your corrupt, covetous, capitalists – just another way to make a buck?
Let us put your pro-life position to the litmus test.
Denise, I agree: your body is yours. No legislator has a right to intrude on every woman’s decisions about pregnancy. Heck, just as a guy, I have no right to participate in your decision-making process unless you ask for my advice… and even then, I can only advise, not impose my will.
Steve, your lack of moral and legal courage is showing. I will say the hard thing, that fetuses do not have rights that supersede the rights of their pregnant mothers. You keep running from my rock-solid refutation of your sloppy, inflammatory language about “murder”. You dodge with some absurdity about requiring mothers to sue to obtain court permission to abort a pregnancy (just rewording the offensive Republican position that women have to get men’s permission and the State’s permission to get an abortion… and that the state retains the right to deny women abortion and force them to submit their bodies to the service of the state’s interests). Your cowardly dodge proves you don’t really mean “abortion is murder.” You’re just using words to inflame passions, but you won’t commit to punishing abortion as murder. You see abortion as something other than murder. So does everyone else. Even you recognize that aborting a fetus is not legally or morally equivalent to killing a living, breathing human being outside of the womb.
And the Supreme Court recognized that conservative Legislatures can’t keep using creative legal obstacles to effectively ban women from exercising their constitutional right to safe, legal abortions.
It just occurred to me none of the dissenting justickies has a uterus. Bet they all have guns.
Way to go Denise!
The Blindman
Cory writes:
I’m not opposed to the rights of the mothers, but I don’t believe abortion is a right.
I’m generally in favor of punishing the abortionist rather than the mother.
I’m wondering whether you’d say the same about a mother allowing someone to kill her daughter after she’s born.
That’s true, but a mother also doesn’t have rights that supersede the rights of her child.
The fact that someone doesn’t support a life sentence for the mother hardly proves he doesn’t believe abortion is murder.
I’m wondering how you claim to know how everyone else sees abortion.
@cah: “No legislator has a right to intrude on every woman’s decisions about pregnancy.”
But Casey didn’t say anything of the sort. In fact Casey departed from Roe which had held that states had no such compelling interest until after the first trimester replacing it with a compelling interest from the “outset of pregnancy”.
And your statement “the Supreme Court recognized that conservative Legislatures can’t keep using creative legal obstacles to effectively ban women from exercising their constitutional right to safe, legal abortions.” is wrong as well.
Hellerstedt didn’t shoot down any of the restrictions that Casey allowed under the “undue burden” test only reading the tea leaves and claiming that the Texas laws didn’t meet that test. Under Casey, the SCOTUS gave no bright line definition of “undue” and shifted the burden of proving new legislative abortion restrictions as overly burdensome to the pro-abortion faction. Obviously Legislatures may continue to pass legislation since undue burdens is such an equivocal term and the Courts will have to continue with the tea readings to divine whether such burdens are undue.
Roe v Wade was a jurisprudence mess from day one and Casey muddied it further because of Justice O’Connor’s and Kennedy’s adherence to stare decisis instead of the Constitution. Hellerstedt is the result that Scalia warned of in his dissent in Casey calling the undue burden test “inherently manipulable.”
Scalia obviously knows a lot about “inherently manipulable”, since he and four other justices in Bush v. Gore decided they knew more about Florida state voter law than the Supreme Court of Florida. So much for respecting state supreme court decisions on state law.
I would also agree that the states that have tried to regulate abortion out of existence tried to manipulate the undue burden test. But it is a pretty easy call on the Texas abortion law when half the clinics that perform abortions are put out of business and women have to go hundreds of miles to find a clinic and wait times to get an appointment are long. The totally bogus claim by these regulators of women that they are only interested in women’s health in pursuing these restrictive laws is outrageous.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be offered at McDonalds.
Let freedom ring.
In re-reading, “In the Garden of the Beasts” I’m reminded that the National Socialists banned abortion in their zeal to ‘make more Aryans’ – of course, they had an exception for mixed race couplings. Because, of course, they had all the government ‘solutions’. Ya’ can’t make up this stuff.
Let freedom ring.
I don’t think the culture warriors realize the war is over. They are not going to be able to force gay people to unmarry. They are not going to be able to take control of women’s bodies under the guise of big government. They are not going to be able to use government to force Christianity on anybody, let alone their own sharia version of Christianity. They are not going to be able to oppress Muslims – or atheists. The culture warriors won’t be able to deny women and minorities freedom like they used to do in America. They are finished as a political force.
@Darin: Just a reminder, it was a 7-2 decision whereby the SCOTUS determined that the vote recount in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause because of the lack of a statewide standard for re-counting votes and was therefore unconstitutional. A 5-4 vote stopped the recount because it was determined that the recount could not be finished in time for the Florida vote to reach the safe harbor deadline as intended by the Florida Legislature.
If Gore hadn’t attempted to be too clever by half and by recounting 4 counties instead of the entire state, he might have had enough time by avoiding all the court stoppages. However even the media consortium that did a recount of the votes in 2001, there was only one possible method that narrowly favored Gore. Bush won in all other scenarios.
I recommend everyone take a little over 60 minutes of your time and watch this. It is an eye opener for anyone who doesn’t believe the religious right-wing agenda is to legislate away a woman’s right to choose. I applaud SCOTUS today in their decision to find HB2 unconstitutional. Watch it. Please.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/trapped-full-film/
Why are there no women here that advocate taking a woman’s right to choose away from her. Just plain icky that it happens to be right wing guys that know what is best for women.
Kurt, do you support charging the abortionist with murder and sentencing them to life in prison? Do you support punishing the women who undergo abortion the same as we would punish an individual who hires a contract killer?
I support murder charges for the mother who asks someone to kill her born children. A moral threshold is crossed when a child is no longer in the womb. A pregnant mother does have rights that supersede whatever rights we ascribe the fetus in her womb.
Kurt, I claim that no one really believes abortion is murder because no one treats abortion like murder. No one (except Donald Trump in unguarded moments?) backs up the “Abortion is murder!” cry with “Put the mother in prison for life!” Pressed on punishment for abortion (and punishment is inseparable from our definition of crime), everyone backs away from the logical requirement of their sensational claim and advocates lesser punishment or no punishment for the person most responsible for what they just called murder. In regular circumstances, when one adult kills another adult, we apply the penalty for murder (I advocate life in prison; some advocate the death penalty). If there are mitigating circumstances, we charge the killer with some lesser crime. “Abortion is murder!” is a convenient phrase to whip up support for conservative candidates and anti-woman laws, but press abortion opponents on the logical conclusion of their words that women undergoing abortions are murderers, and the rhetoric shifts to “murder, but….” “Murder, but” is not “murder.” Those who say “Abortion is murder!” are using a word they don’t mean.
“I don’t think the culture warriors realize the war is over.”
I agree with that statement. They do not realize that dominion theology is not Biblical and that America has been turned over based on Romans 1:
Romans 1:24-25 New International Version (NIV)
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
“The first area where God is said to have given man over is in the area of the lusts of their hearts to impurity so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
There are many kinds of impurity. But the kind Paul seems to focus upon is a sexual impurity – one that results in the dishonoring of people’s bodies.
Sex in itself is not bad. Indeed, it was designed by God. But it was designed by God to be shared between a husband and a wife. Sexual relations outside the marriage covenant are forbidden by God.
Why are there so many marriages these days which end in divorce? Why has America become known as the land of sexual immorality? It is because we as a nation have rejected God. And God has given men over to their lusts. He has allowed that their lusts become more lustful.
Verse 25 states the reason that God has done this. He has allowed men to descend into sexual impurity because they first descended into religious impurity.”
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/rom01-24.html
It is a truly sad argument to say that it is the woman’s body as it dishonors those bodies.
You know Mr. Sibson, that is the wonderful thing about being an atheist. You are perfectly within your right to believe whatever your bible tells you. I am happy to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights instead. I am continually baffled at those who want to legislate the sex lives of others based on a religious book. It always begs the question, why are they so obsessed with what goes on in the privacy of other people’s bedrooms?
Didn’t your lord and saviour tell you to shove your piety back into the closet where it belongs? Why do you insist in defying your lord and saviour? Are you a bad kristian?
Cory said: Wow—”numb—-“, “Marxists”—let’s ease up on the irrelevant name-calling.
Good idea. We know… when you do it, it is not name calling or cyber bullying.
Let’s not see: Hippie, Ammosexual, Doper, Stoner, or any name calling.
Coytoe, “No one familiar with the jurisprudence of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas could possibly have imagined that they would vote to invalidate the Florida recount process on the basis of their own well-developed and oft-invoked approach to the Equal Protection Clause.” Stone, Geoffrey R. (2001). “Equal Protection? The Supreme Court’s Decision in Bush v. Gore”
” I am happy to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights instead.”
And the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires due process for all. That includes babies. SCOTUS has legalized murder by allowing abortions. The proper Constitutional process would be a court hearing where the baby is given the death penalty and the state carries out the execution. That is my political position. It has nothing to do with activities in bedrooms.
“The fact that someone doesn’t support a life sentence for the mother hardly proves he doesn’t believe abortion is murder.”
Um… yea it pretty much does. Either that or they are confused as to the definition of murder. In any other scenario, the person who arranges for the death of a human being, even if they don’t do the actual killing themselves, is charged with murder. A woman who hires a hitman to kill her husband is charged with murder even if she didn’t pull the trigger. The team of burglars who rob a bank and in the process kill a teller? Yes – they are all charged with murder regardless of which one was directly responsible for the killing.
At the very least, an involved party would be charged as an accessory to murder – but anti-abortion types don’t even seem willing to go that far. They like the shock value of the “abortion is murder” phrase because it looks fantastic on bumper stickers and billboards, but when pressed on the issue very, very few seem willing to actually associate abortion with murder in any legal sense.
Scientifically speaking, it is a silly argument. Murder is defined as the killing of a human life, and science doesn’t define a fetus as an independent human life. It is not a “child”, a “baby”, and “infant” or a “pre-born human”. It is a fetus… and a fetus relies upon the mother to thrive and develop into a human. This is why we don’t charge a woman with homicide when her body rejects the fetus via a miscarriage even if it was a result of her actions.
I’ll concede there is an argument to be made as to when the fetus is considered viable and by all means we should have those discussions, because I would hope most agree that late stage abortions (where the fetus could be viable outside the womb) shouldn’t be acceptable aside from cases where the health of the mother is at risk, the pregnancy was a result of a rape, serious birth defects are identified etc. but in the early stages where the fetus is nothing more than a small mass of tissue then I’d have a hard time taking anyone seriously who tries to claim abortion is murder.
“because I would hope most agree that late stage abortions (where the fetus could be viable outside the womb) shouldn’t be acceptable”
Since we are attacking rhetoric, and rightfully so, would most agree? If this is simply a “MY BODY, WOMEN’S HEALTH RAWWWWWWWR” issue, then the stage of fetal development is irrelevant. If it isn’t that simple, and I don’t think it is either, then we get into the uncomfortable discussion of when that clump of cells is a person and what that means when weighed against the bodily integrity of the woman carrying it. It’s not like either side is being totally honest here.
shouldn’t be acceptable aside from cases where the health of the mother is at risk, the pregnancy was a result of a rape, serious birth defects are identified etc
A rape victim should be able to have an abortion immediately and probably could if not for interventionists who know better.Better still,they should be giving the morning after pill and then the pregnancy will disappear-except,again, for interventionists.
“shouldn’t be acceptable aside from cases where the health of the mother is at risk, the pregnancy was a result of a rape, serious birth defects are identified etc”
Careful, fellas. From a post literally a few mouse scrolls up in this very comment section:
“I won’t get into any discussion anymore about abortion and rights. It’s my body and my right to do what I want with it.”
If you aren’t careful, you will become foot soldiers in the patriarchy. Or something.
“It has nothing to do with activities in bedrooms.” Says the man who quotes his religious book and talks about lust and sex.
“Says the man who quotes his religious book and talks about lust and sex.”
God is in the bedrooms. Don’t blame me if you feel guilty.
“God is in the bedrooms.”
ahahahahahahahahaha. Never stop posting, Steuben.
“Scientifically speaking, it is a silly argument. Murder is defined as the killing of a human life, and science doesn’t define a fetus as an independent human life. It is not a “child”, a “baby”, and “infant” or a “pre-born human”. It is a fetus… and a fetus relies upon the mother to thrive and develop into a human. This is why we don’t charge a woman with homicide when her body rejects the fetus via a miscarriage even if it was a result of her actions.”
That is all false propaganda. Society says a pregnant women is having a “baby”. They don’t say she has a fetus. Typical use of changing the names in order to dehumanize the issue and achieve a political objective.
A miscarriage is a medical problem, not an abortion…which is an intentional act to kill the baby. That is legalized murder. Blame God if that makes you feel guilty. Then decide if you are going to listen to Him or not.
Notice it’s almost always men on here that are so worried about fetuses in a woman’s body? Yet once that fetus can breath by itself and the low wage SD mommy gets on food stamps and welfare they ostracize her and her baby.
Then there is never any mention of the men that impregnate them in the first place. If people like Sibby, Stump and Troy want to truly help, they should focus on the absent dads.
Cory, I think you’re painting with too broad a brush.
It’s pretty clear from Roe v Wade the state has a compelling interest in the rights of the unborn. The rights of a distinctly separate human being, though unborn and very much dependent upon a progenitor, must be considered in the calculus.
Birth is not the bright line of when the fetus has rights.
And by my count, 38 / 51 states (including DC) explicitly punish the injury / death of a fetus.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
So it seems 75% of states explicitly agree that the death of a fetus is punishable in the court of law (whether that be murder or manslaughter varies).
The conundrum is if the fetus is unwanted, ending its life is not murder so long as it’s done under the supervision of a medical provider. Philosophically that’s more difficult to swallow than the simplistic bright line you paint.
It’s also difficult to comprehend 700,000 abortions are reported to the CDC every year. That’s approximately 70 fetuses terminated for every gun homicide victim.
Let’s not pretend abortion is a moral act.
But let’s also remember immoral acts need not be illegal. Society can survive allowing people to do immoral things.
The Guttmacher Institute’s research shows almost 50% of women who have had an abortion have had more than one. We NEED to prevent unintended, unwanted pregnancies.
From Guttmacher:
“At the current rate, about one-third of all U.S. women will have had an abortion by age 45. Certain groups are overrepresented among women having abortions: those who are young, poor or near-poor, black, Hispanic or unmarried, and those who already have had one child. Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used some method of contraception during the month they became pregnant. The tiny sliver of all sexually active women not practicing contraception (11%) accounts for the remaining half of all abortions.”
A pregnant woman should be able to get an abortion in the first trimester. But I agree with President Clinton’s sentiments – it should be safe, legal, and rare.
I would prefer my party to spend time, resources, and energy on encouraging good, data-driven sex ed classes which delay pregnancy, rather than legislating the script an abortion provider must read.
By the time that person has gotten pregnant, we’ve already failed.
We need to teach people that actions have consequences, but there are things we can do to reduce the risks or avoid them entirely.
@Dicta “Since we are attacking rhetoric, and rightfully so, would most agree?”
That’s why I prefaced my comment with “I would hope”. I’d like to think if you had an honest conversation with the average person you’d find they would be more reasonable on this subject than the loud voices we seem to hear from the opposing spectrums.
@mike – I agree, but I also acknowledge there are times a rape victim may not know she is pregnant until months later. I’m sure those cases are rare, but they are worthy of consideration.
@Steve: “That is all false propaganda. Society says a pregnant women is having a “baby”. They don’t say she has a fetus.”
We also hear happy couples loudly proclaim “we are pregnant!”, but we all know men cannot get pregnant. We often choose terms which are more convenient, but when we are discussing a medical procedure, it is more appropriate to use the correct terminology. A fetus is a stage of human development. A baby is not.
“A miscarriage is a medical problem, not an abortion”
Apparently you aren’t familiar with forced miscarriages. Yes Steve… they are a thing. There are many ways to trigger a miscarriage voluntarily which is why I stated we don’t charge a woman with homicide if that miscarriage was “was a result of her actions”. It is hypocritical to associate murder with abortion while ignoring the many other ways a pregnancy could end via the actions of another.
BTW “legalized murder” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.
I don’t have any guilt on the subject however – and I surely don’t need to blame an invisible man in the sky if I did. I’m a big fan of personal responsibility – no need to blame Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Jesus for my actions or thoughts.
Oh Mr. Sibson, you silly man. Your god is not in my bedroom. My cat is. Sometimes he thinks he’s a god. Does that count?
” A fetus is a stage of human development. A baby is not.”
The key word is “human”, and a baby is also a stage of “human” development. Now that we have admitted the baby is human, we can proceed with implementing the solution that will end the pro-life/pro-abortion fighting…apply due process to the baby and execute if the courts decide to apply the death penalty. I would guess both sides would oppose this because they would no longer be able to raise money. Their organizations would no longer have a cause.
Then are these fetuses supposed to be counted in the Census, Sib?
The babies should be counted since they have the right to Obamacare coverage. Are illegals counted?
Jenny, I could not agree with you more when you say:
“Notice it’s almost always men on here that are so worried about fetuses in a woman’s body? Yet once that fetus can breath by itself and the low wage SD mommy gets on food stamps and welfare they ostracize her and her baby.
Then there is never any mention of the men that impregnate them in the first place. If people like Sibby, Stump and Troy want to truly help, they should focus on the absent dads.”
And if the Republicans wanted to help the single mom with a job, they would expand Medicaid. If a woman has a job that takes her above $408 dollars a month in income she loses full medicare coverage in SD or if she earns above $1,367 a month, she loses limited medicare coverage in SD.
https://dss.sd.gov/medicaid/generalinfo/medicalprograms.aspx#preg
Welcome to South Dakota where the wingnuts want government to regulate a woman’s pregnancy and then they want government to abandon the woman after she has the child. How do you reconcile these views? And if you say the Republicans are just looking out for the fetus, why do they care so little for the child after its born as to make healthcare unavailable unless you earn virtually nothing?
“they should focus on the absent dads”
I agree, they don’t want to be responsible. But isn’t that what abortion is all about, getting rid of responsibility? This is not a man vs woman problem. This is a societal problem that again shows how God has turned America over based on Romans 1.
Let’s say that abortion is illegal and that life imprisonment and the death penalty aren’t acceptable punishment, what should the penalty to be for the doctor that provides the abortion and for the woman that has one?
Spontaneous abortions (or miscarriages) are the work of Steve’s god. That god is the most active abortionist in the universe.
Or perhaps evolution is involved in both natural and artificial ways.
Steve: “The key word is “human”, and a baby is also a stage of “human” development.”
Actually no… no it is not. A fetus is a stage of human development. So is an embryo, a zygote, a neonate, and an infant. Baby is just a slang term used to describe a neonate/newborn.
If you wish to grant legal rights to a fetus (or an embryo for that matter) you’re welcome to try, but at what point do you stop? Should a woman be prosecuted every month for her menstrual cycle? Should a man be prosecuted for “killing” a few million sperm cells that are captured in a condom? Or are we only supposed to care once the egg has been fertilized?
Everyone seems to have their own standard. There will never be full consensus, but I think many could find some common ground… and that will never include labeling someone who performs an abortion (or any woman receiving one) as a murderer.
Mr. Sibson, you continue to ignore my question: is health care (even after birth) a universal right for all, or is it a commodity to be traded by your corrupt, covetous, capitalists – just another way to make a buck?
Let us put your pro-life position to the litmus test.
@Douglas Wiken: Seriously? You are equating human induced abortion with evolution? And here I thought eugenics was a discredited theory. I guess not in your corner of the universe.
@Craig: I’ve always thought that the pro-abortionist argument that somehow it’s impossible to draw a distinction between sperm or ovum and a fertilized egg is one of the dumbest ever proffered. Here’s a hint: a fertilized egg is a unique life with 46 chromosomes. Sperm and ovums have only 23.
If Texas doesn’t promptly move forward with Texit maybe the rest of us can facilitate things by starting the process to kick them out of the union. It’s worth thinking about. Then they can fortify the whole state like a giant Alamo and enact their Christian sharia law without any US Constitutional limits. They can require likenesses of the 10 commandments in every public building, execute whoever they want even for minor crimes or transgressions, and put people like Louie Gohmert in charge of every governmental office (of which there will be few). You know a majority of Texans are for stuff like this. Let’s help them make it happen!
Coyote– it is not impossible to draw a distinction between sperm or ovum and a fertilized egg, just like it is not impossible to draw a distinction between a fetus that is viable outside of the womb and a zygote or other stages of fetal development that are not viable outside of the womb.
The comments on this thread remind me of Yogi’s comment: “It’s like deja-vu, all over again.”
First, Sibby’s “due process” argument. I would agree that due process should be required if the government required the abortion, but that is not the case. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a decision by private actors, not government actors. And Constitution experts like Sibby know that the due process clause only limits what the government may do, not acts by private individuals.
Thus, Sibby’s “due process” argument is a lot like the Texas argument that they were only trying to protect women who sought abortions, but they weren’t trying to protect the unborn nor interfere with a woman’s constitutional rights. Disingenuous, dishonest misdirection by Texas and by Sibby.
Sibby’s “legalized murder” argument is odd. Does he call it “legalized murder” when he advocates for the right to summarily kill anyone who he believes is threatening his life or property? Probably not.
And Sibby makes perfect sense when he argues an unborn “baby is also a stage of “human” development.” As Craig points out, so is a woman’s unfertilized egg and every single male sperm. Each of these living and moving entities constitute a stage of “human” development.” This makes me wonder how many individual human sperms, who just wanted to become real people, Sibby has murdered and has hidden in a sock over his lifetime.
@Coyote: I’ve always thought that the pro-slavery argument that the government should take control of women’s bodies the moment an egg is fertilized is one of the dumbest ever proffered. Here’s a hint: a fertilized egg is part of a woman until for whatever reason it’s not.
Kurt, when you argue “I don’t believe abortion is a right” you seriously damage your credibility because the SCOTUS has ruled that it is, in fact, a constitutional right. Perhaps a more honest and accurate argument is that you think the Court was wrong and that you would advocate for taking away that right. Until the Court decides women do not have the right of privacy in reproductive decisions, or the USA adopts a constitutional amendment taking away that right of privacy, there is no legitimate or meaningful argument that the right is not protected by our Constitution.
Coyote, I agree that the fact that the Gore decision was a 7-2 decision in part gives it more credibility and makes it a bit more deserving of respect. Wasn’t the Roe case also 7-2?
Dicta, I tend to think that a fetus’ stage of development is an important factor. Regardless of the stage, a woman should have the right to have it removed from her body. If it is at a viable stage, the removal could be by inducing a premature birth and putting the live baby in the custody of the state. If it is not viable, which is the test identified by Casey and the Texas case, then she should continue to have the right to have the pregnancy terminated by abortion.
Last, Wayne B, as best I can tell the SCOTUS did away with the trimester test and substituted a viability test in Casey and the Texas case. Hence, if science develops a means to make a week old blastocyst viable outside the woman’s body the state may be given authority to requite the premature birth as an alternative to the abortion.
“The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a decision by private actors, not government actors.”
And that is legalizing murder by the SCOTUS.
“And Constitution experts like Sibby know that the due process clause only limits what the government may do, not acts by private individuals. \”
And as a branch of government, the SCOTUS cannot allow such actions unless due process is provided, otherwise it is legalized murder.
“at what point do you stop? ”
The point is up to but not including conception, at which point the DNA is no longer that of the female egg, nor the DNA of the male sperm. It is the DNA, and thereby the body, of another human.
The death penalty, as supported by republicans in the legislature, is legalized murder, is it not?
babies are viable in the womb. I am not viable on the north pole naked and alone. I need the proper environment just as well as a week old baby does. How many parents with a baby born a month says, so ok, if my baby is viable without me caring for them then I will keep it.
Abortion, death penalty are both human methods of deciding who gets killed. After taking about six ethics classes on all the ways we kill people, also including war, passive euthanasia, pulling the plug etc. I realized there is no consistent method to decide how and who and when to kill someone. Some are beginning of life, some end of life, some innocent, some horrible criminals, but no consistent method of deciding. If you believe in a God, let him decide, if you do not believe in God, it will still be hard for you to decide, but I assume everyone has a conscience. The Bible says that God has written his law on everyones heart. Meaning we all have some sense of right and wrong.
Black and white is so much easier to understand than 50 shades of gray. That however does not mean that black and white are the only options even if some cannot grasp a concept that goes beyond yes-No.
And Steve should worry about all those half-murders when a male spills his seed or a woman has her period and fails to search out a male to impregnate her.
Sibby, if conception is the bright line, then does a woman have a duty of care to take care of that zygote? I would assume so under your view. What about zygotes that don’t implant in the uterus? Is it murder or just negligent homicide if the zygote is expelled from the female? I’ve got so many questions, Sibby!
Well said, Roger. We all have consciences. Some of us do not purport to substitute our conscience for that of others. So the question is: what is the role of government? That’s what the disagreement largely comes down to – as most of us do not have to personally make abortion decisions. What is the role of government?
I know you’re a Christian, Roger. What would Jesus do? Would he go to Pilate and demand that a law be passed? Or would he bypass the government altogether and set about winning hearts and minds? I believe Jesus is pro-choice. That doesn’t mean he would be for abortion. It means that he would be for the independent exercise of conscience, rather than the involvement of government.
This is all esoteric though. The bottom line is that the culture wars over gay marriage and abortion are over in the United States of America. The big government culture warriors fight on, but they are relegated to attempts to chip away at the margins. Even those efforts are doomed as this judicial decision makes clear.
Careful, Bear: requiring a woman to deliver a viable fetus prematurely instead of allowing her to abort that fetus still forces her to submit her body to the service of that other being and the state, as well has requiring her to undergo a procedure, delivery, that poses a greater risk to her life and health than abortion: 8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births versus 0.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 induced abortions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
Someone, please flag Coyote for calling us “pro-abortionists.” I do not advocate having abortions. I advocate keeping the Legislature out of a woman’s decision about whether to have an abortion.
Barry, I’ll compromise: “numbnutz” is unacceptable (the health of the nerve endings in commenters’ scrotal regions is irrelevant to anything being discussed here). “Marxist” and “ammosexual” are acceptable if used accurately to describe political positions and attitudes.
that poses a greater risk to her life and health than abortion: 8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births versus 0.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 induced abortions.
Hence the need for ambulatory surgical centers and admitting privileges. Circular wingnut logic.
Coyote favors the haves over the have nots. Where have we seen this before?
Here’s a hint: a fertilized egg is a unique life with 46 chromosomes. Sperm and ovums have only 23.
Whatever you, your blog owner, and dozen followers can live with…
Don: “I’ve always thought that the pro-abortionist argument that somehow it’s impossible to draw a distinction between sperm or ovum and a fertilized egg is one of the dumbest ever proffered.”
First of all, you lose credibility when you label anyone as a ‘pro-abortionist’. I’ve never met a single person (pro-life or pro-choice) who desires MORE abortions. In fact, if you discussed the issue with most pro-choice people you would find they are often more interested in preventing the pregnancy before an abortion is needed. This is why they routinely push to include birth control in our insurance plans and push for common-sense sexual education programs in our schools so that unwanted pregnancies can be reduced before an abortion is ever needed.
A true ‘pro-abortionist’ would probably be handing our punch cards for abortions and telling women they win a prize when they have reached their sixth abortion. Yes – that does sound incredibly silly, but so does labeling anyone as being a ‘pro-abortionist’.
Aside from that, your basic premise is entirely flawed. It is not just one side which seems to have difficulty drawing a distinction between a sperm, ovum/egg, or a fertilized egg. Catholics still don’t condone birth control because they feel it interrupts what nature intended. Many Christian companies and employers refuse to pay for birth control and opt-out of such insurance coverage because they feel anything which prevents pregnancy is the moral equivalent to an abortion. If those pro-life groups were really able to draw such a distinction, there wouldn’t be nearly as much focus on controlling what happens to sperm or the egg… but there is.
Thus the dumbest argument you ever heard seems to have a lot of support in the pro-life community.
“The death penalty, as supported by republicans in the legislature, is legalized murder, is it not?”
The difference between the death penalty and abortion is due process. The death penalty is a “penalty”, and not murder. Murder is killing another human by a citizen.
“8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births versus 0.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 induced abortions.”
There is a misuse of statistics. I would think the death rate on abortions is close to 100,000 per 100,000.
And did you here the news on Keloland about a couple who killed a woman and her “unborn baby”? In this case the killing of the baby is not legalized murder, it would be murder punishable up to and including the death penalty after due process has been served, right?
Steve, you seem really, really dense, so I’m going to explain the statistics issue for you. The Texas legislature’s stated purpose for passing the abortion law in question here was to protect the health of women. In order to attack this point, a statistic is presented that shows maternal deaths are higher for live births than they are abortions. This undermines the Texas legislature’s position, you see, as it tends to show that abortions are not unsafe compared to going through with live births. Your transition to the death of the fetus is the misuse of stats because it is not addressing the point at issue. I know you’re dumb and fervent, but at least make an effort.
Steve, you seem to be making up your own definition for the term ‘murder’. The actual definition is “the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law” or “the crime of unlawfully killing a person”.
Since abortion is legal, abortion is not murder. Legally speaking, a fetus is also not a person nor is it considered a distinct human being. Thus there is no possible way for anything to ever be “legalized murder” since murder itself is never legal.
Then again, maybe this entire time you’ve been talking about a group of crows. In which case, then yes I’d agree…murder is legal.
As far as the death of a viable fetus goes, state laws differ. Some states have fetal homicide laws that specifically allow for charges due to the injury and others don’t. Yet even in the state that do have the laws there are obvious exceptions when a woman chooses to have an abortion. At times the concept of a fetal homicide law does seem to conflict with legal abortion, yet it essentially boils down to the intent of the mother.
That topic, as well as your take on the “death” rate becomes rather difficult for Christians considering the Bible indicates life doesn’t occur until after a body has taken a breath.
Genesis 2:7 – “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
You can’t have death without life Steve, and the debate as to what constitutes ‘life’ isn’t about to be solved on this blog.
@Dicta – it pains me to admit it, but I actually see where Steve is coming from. First, Steve honestly believes the oxymoron “abortion is murder”, thus when he seems 100,000 abortions, he seems 100,000.6 deaths (the 100,000 ‘pre-born babies’, plus the 0.6 women who died during the procedure).
As flawed as this logic may be, it doesn’t actually undermine the Texas legislature’s position, because this shows a much greater risk and greater loss of life which, by extension, warrant that any physician involved in the practice have sufficient privileges and access to surgical centers etc.
Yes it is convoluted, but based upon a personal belief that some hold I can acknowledge the argument.
That being said, the Texas legislature’s position isn’t really undermined by the statistics either way unless they allow physicians to perform deliveries without hospital admitting privileges. If they do, then yes they are clearly hypocritical. However if they require such privileges for perform the ‘more unsafe’ live birth, then at least they are being somewhat consistent. Something tells me that they probably allow for widwife births etc. so this entire point is moot. I’m not supporting their attempt to restrict abortion rights mind you – just trying to show how that particular point of logic isn’t that far off.
See, that depends. The initial justification that the bill proposed was prevention of fetal pain, in which case the logic holds. But the “patient health” they later attempted to admit, and one that numerous pro-life advocates have argued since, is that this is purely a defense of the rights of the woman. If you believe their justification, then the death of the fetus is not at all relevant (we know that’s suspending reality, but they asked us to do so when they argued their position). That’s why I’ve thought their “health of women” argument was a loser the moment they brought it out: besides the fact that it’s simply not the main reason for doing it and literally EVERYONE knows it, it’s also not borne (!) out by statistics.
What the SCOTUS is missing is the rights of the baby. By ignoring that, they have legalized murder. It is hypocritical to say it is not a person when the mother decides to hire someone to kill it, but it is a person when someone else kills it without the consent of the mother. Not only is it hypocritical, but it violates the principles of justice as the baby is denied due process. The SCOTUS is granting special rights that violates equal protection. There are making law, not interpreting it.
Making law- dogwhistle for decision one disagrees with
Interpreting law- I THINK THIS WAS THE CORRECT DECISION
Kabuki theater, folks.
@cah: “Someone, please flag Coyote for calling us “pro-abortionists.””
Cory, enlighten me as to why “gun rights advocates” are called “pro-gun” and “gay rights advocates” are referred to as being “pro-gay” but “abortion rights advocates” shouldn’t be called “pro-abortion”. After all, according to many on this site, an abortion is equivalent to a woman’s period, that we aren’t killing a human being, that the fertilized egg is just a speck of human tissue, et al. Why hide behind your euphemisms if this such a moral bright line and an insignificant event?
Abortions don’t kill people, just like guns don’t kill people.
Don: “enlighten me as to why “gun rights advocates” are called “pro-gun” and “gay rights advocates” are referred to as being “pro-gay” but “abortion rights advocates” shouldn’t be called “pro-abortion”.”
Gun rights advocates are pro gun, because they want more guns.
Gay rights advocates are pro-gay (or perhaps more accurately pro-gay rights) because they want more guns.
Nobody is pro-abortion, because nobody wants more abortions.
You routinely find the same people who are pro-choice are also pro-birth control, pro sex-ed, pro women’s healthcare. They don’t want more abortions – they want the ability to prevent them from ever being needed in the first place. But if such a procedure is needed, they want that procedure to be safe and more importantly LEGAL. That isn’t a pro-abortion argument, it is a pro-legal abortion argument.
When people continue to use such labels it becomes clear they are just trying to provoke a response and aren’t really interested in the true debate.
Ha…. cut/paste error in my last comment.
Meant to say Gay rights advocates are pro-gay rights because they want more gay rights. Then again – they might want more guns too. You just never know.
Sibby’s “due process” argument is exactly backwards. It is settled that due process only limits the government from taking action that infringes on a private individual’s rights. While the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy does not implicate government coercion in any way, if the government wants to exercise the power to force the woman to submit to the needs of the fetus, the woman would be the individual entitled to due process.
That means that the burden would be placed on the government to identify every woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy, and provide her with notice that the government intends to force her to carry an unwanted entity in her body, a statement of reasons why it intends to force this upon her, an impartial decisionmaker to hear the evidence and determine whether the government has met its burden of proving that it should be allowed to impose governmental power against her, and even give her a right to appeal.
In reality, this is all just fantasy as the SCOTUS has again reminded us that the government does not have the power to force any woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy prior to viability outside the woman, and only has limited power to regulate the termination after viability. Sibby’s regurgitated “due process” argument for the unborn is reminiscent of the an unhappy child who plugs both ears and yells “la la la la la” in a futile effort to refuse to hear what his parents (i.e. the law) are trying to tell him.
Sibby, et al, want the US Constitution expanded to mean weapons of all kinds can be held by any variety of crazed citizen, and simultaneously wants to extend due process and other rights to a fetus never mentioned in the US Constitution or amendments and in the process severely limit a woman’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They have a really interesting perspective and set of priorities.
Cory, my thoughts on what sort of procedures could be regulated or required for the removal of an unwanted but viable entity from inside a woman’s body remain focused on the rights of the pregnant woman.
Imagine a future where medical science advanced to the point that it could cause a safe chemical expulsion of a blastocyt or zycote in a form that could be placed in a petri dish, and perhaps implanted in a willing surrogate, where it then would develop into an actual person. In such circumstances, or some similar circumstances, it seems reasonable to allow the state the power to require the woman’s health provider to retain the expelled material and follow whatever steps science has developed to accomplish this process.
Whatever the stage of pregnancy, however, I stand by the position that no woman should be forced to undergo a procedure that is less safe than a simple straight forward abortion.
Craig, I think the majority in the Texas case did consider whether Texas allowed midwives, and presumably physicians, to perform deliveries without hospital admitting privileges. The Court reported that Texas did not require hospital admitting procedures in such cases, nor for several other medical procedures substantially more dangerous that abortions. The arguments set forth by Texas legislators were found, in effect, to be both duplicitous and hypocritical.
Makes sense – and thus their argument that this was about the safety of the woman was clearly without any merit whatsoever. No surprise it was tossed out.
” It is settled that due process only limits the government from taking action that infringes on a private individual’s rights.”
And that government is infringing on the rights of the babies by legalizing abortion on a vigilante basis. The action taken was Roe v Wade.
“government does not have the power to force any woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy prior to viability outside the woman”
Viability is not considered when murder charges are brought up when someone kills a pregnant woman. SCOTUS is not consistent and are creating special rights, which violates equal protection. Due process has to be served so that the rights of the woman and the rights of the baby are weighed by the scales of justice. The current climate is one in which the woman and only the woman who decides if the baby has a right to life. That is a form of vigilantism, which is a special right that the father and the baby does not have. Justice is not being served.
Sibby, your comment that “government is infringing on the rights of the babies by legalizing abortion,” shows another significant misunderstanding of governmental power.
Our government does not and cannot “legalize” any conduct. Rather everything we say or do is lawful until the government enacts laws restricting or criminalizing our actions. The government has never “legalized abortion,” rather it has criminalized it in the past and regulates it today. Prior to 1821 no US state prohibited abortions. Connecticut was the first to to criminalize abortion, but only after “quickening.” Apparently our country’s founders did not see fit to outlaw abortions.
Before government involvement it has always been perfectly legal for any woman to take the necessary steps to end an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, before government involvement it has always been legal for some one to assist the woman in terminating the pregnancy.
The government has the power, subject to constitution restrictions, to criminalize, penalize, prohibit, or restrict our behavior. Until they do so, all of our conduct is legal or lawful.
Hopes that helps!
Just for fun,wingnuts spiced up the Zika funding bill (after 4 months of doing nothing) with amendments to cut Obamacare, cut funding for Planned Parenthood, and allow Confederate flags to fly in National cemeteries and then accuses Dems of obstructionism when they blocked the bill.
Obamacare and PP both help people get condoms and other birth control to help prevent the spread of Zika. Not sure what the traitor flag prevents.
“Our government does not and cannot “legalize” any conduct.Rather everything we say or do is lawful until the government enacts laws restricting or criminalizing our actions.”
Abortion, sodomy, and same-sex marriages were illegal in many states prior to the SCOTUS ruling that they can not be illegal. So the federal government “legalized” them by forcing states to comply (anybody ever talk about the 10th Amendment anymore). And when they legalized abortion, they did not recognize the baby as having rights. That was an error.
Now please answer how a baby is not a person worthy of rights when a woman hires someone to kill, but is a person with rights to life when someone kills a pregnant woman.
“Now please answer how a baby is not a person worthy of rights when a woman hires someone to kill, but is a person with rights to life when someone kills a pregnant woman.”
1. A fetus is not a baby, not a child. 2. The only reason prosecutors and lawmakers allow murder charges for both the fetus and the mother has to do with political expedience of the right trying by this way to pretend that a fetus has rights separate to that of the mother even if still in her uterus. It is rightwing political hookem which is only slightly palatable because in such cases it was not the mother who wanted to terminate the fetus.
Douglas, sounds like you and the SCOTUS use the same illogical irrational moral relativism to support your political activism. Such worldview will never provide solutions, just more fighting.
Doug is 100% correct. Right wing base pandering, using single issues to get voters to vote against their overall best interests.
These aren’t kristian people. I wonder if they are even human.
“I wonder if they are even human.”
I certainly feel the hatred. So I suppose the next step is to legalize aborting Christians. Do you think the SCOTUS will go along with that too?
Sibby, think it through. No acts can be considered unlawful until some government or authority adopts or enacts a law to make the act unlawful. It is really not all that complicated.
Your question to Doug seems nonsensical. As for granting the fetus “rights” as a person, you have never adequately explained why a fetus, if deemed to have all the rights of a born person, should be given the additional right to use another person’s body against her will. No other living person has the right to use another person’s body against his or her will, even if that means the living person will die. So why should a fetus be given the right to use another person’s body when no other living person has the same right?
Sibson, you aren’t a/the victim here.
Cory asks:
Under most circumstances, no.
Do you support a mandatory life sentence for a scared 18-year-old who leaves her premature newborn in a dumpster?
Some pro-life libertarians argue that abortion is wrong but that addressing it through government coercion is also wrong. You seem to be arguing that abortion is morally acceptable.
Craig writes:
That verse only refers to Adam. The first chapter of Matthew says Mary was “with child” during her pregnancy.
Douglas Wiken writes:
Fetus is a Latin word for offspring.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
The Declaration of Independence says we’re endowed with rights by our Creator, and governments merely secure (or fail to secure) those rights.
In their Roe v. Wade dissent, Justice White and Justice Rehnquist found “nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right … with scarcely any reason or authority for its action …” That argument strikes me as both legitimate and meaningful.
The Declaration of Independence recognizes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as the justification for our nation’s very existence, and there are crimes against morality even where no human government exists.
@bearcreekbat: “why a fetus … should be given the additional right to use another person’s body against her will.”
The legal principle of implied assent is that which the law presumes to exist because the conduct of the parties demonstrates their intentions.
By engaging in consensual sexual relations, the female assents to the fact that a conception may result from her actions with the male. A dependent life has a right to it’s existence until term within the female who had consented to sex knowing that a pregnancy may result from her sexual actions. Her conduct implies assent even if precautions were taking because she knew or should have known that even with the use of contraceptives that there was a possibility of failure resulting in the conception of a child.
Coyote, you are a hoot! A woman that consents to have sexual relations has consented to have sexual relations. She has not consented to bore a child. Just because their is a chance that pregnancy results is not implied consent.
Let’s take the case of me driving my car on the public highway. I know that there is a chance that an accident may occur while I am driving on the highway. But by driving on the highway and knowing that an accident might occur, I have not consented to being t-boned at an intersection by another motorist that fails to yield. Knowing that there is a chance that the other motorist might fail to yield is not implied assent to the accident. Nor is the failure of contraception implied assent to the pregnancy.
“you have never adequately explained why a fetus, if deemed to have all the rights of a born person, should be given the additional right to use another person’s body against her will”
1). I argued that an unborn baby killed during a murder of its mother is currently considered a victim of a crime. For the sake of equal protection, all unborn babies should have the same status according to the law.
2) I have also argued that a woman can take her claim to court, and after due process, if the court agrees, it can order the death penalty against the baby.
This would not be a ban on abortion. So the pro-abortion folks ,who claim they want to minimize the number of abortions, should support this. The conservative right should also support this solution as most do support the death penalty. So why not have South Dakota pave the way during the next legislative session. This should be an easy bipartisan effort. Cory, if elected, would you sponsor the bill?
So Darin, based on your argument, the right to sex carries more weight than the right to life.
Based on the Supreme Court Mr. Sibson – you lose. You lose. Make all the fruitless arguments you want though.
Sibby, a zygote doesn’t have a right to a life, but a woman does have a right to a life.
Darin, you still have not addressed point 1. The baby of a murdered pregnant woman is also a victim of murder. So your right to life assessment is not valid.
120 coments and counting with thousands of words and all for naught.
Abortion is still legal and no matter how states want to legislate a woman’s rights, they will continue to lose.
Simply put, a man’s opinion on abortion whether it be legal or moral, just doesn’t count.
“Simply put, a man’s opinion on abortion whether it be legal or moral, just doesn’t count.”
David Souter would like a word with your bulls—.
Bring Souter on!
“Simply put, a man’s opinion on abortion whether it be legal or moral, just doesn’t count.”
There you have it…America has been destroyed. We are now living in a totalitarian state. God has turned America over based on Romans 1.
There is no god, Sibster. You are hearing voices and you need psychiatric help quick.
CORNELIUS VERSUS SOUTER. A BATTLE FOR THE AGES. PEACE WILL DWINDLE IN TYNDALL.
It is all OPINION Dicta.
If Sibson believes in his Pat Robertson-like comment, he should move to another country where abortion isn’t allowed.
God is calling, Sibby, he needs money quick.
“he should move to another country where abortion isn’t allowed”
Roger you are really dense. My position is not about banning abortion. Sad that your hatred won’t allow your brain to reason correctly. And then comes Jenny who tops Roger in being flippant, and almost reaches the extreme level of blasphemy as Mike.
“It is all OPINION Dicta.”
I’m predicting a close bout. Maybe a SPLIT DECISION.
Sibby, I know I’m going to regret this, but let’s go down your rabbit hole for a second, just for fun: You say your “position is not about banning abortion.” So, under your Sibnopsis (get it Sibnopsis) of the law, a zygote has the rights of a person and a pregnant woman would have to make a complaint to who? the state’s attorney? And she would seek the death penalty for the zygote based upon what law? trespass? unlawful entry and detainer? And this case would wind its way through the court system with its incessant delays? The zygote would be in preschool before the case went to trial and I’m thinking mootness would apply. Furthermore, under what authority would a woman seek the death penalty for the zygote, since the death penalty is a criminal matter, not a civil action? I assume the zygote is entitled to defense counsel paid for by the taxpayers?
It seems like the effect of treating a zygote as a person would lead to effectively banning legal abortions. But feel free to explain it to me.
I assume you want to be taken seriously, but when you propose things that Grudz would agree are insaner than most, you are going to get mocked I’m afraid.
Sibson continues to dismiss what the penalty should be for a woman and her doctor if abortion was illegal. Are the to go before some God tribunal or maybe a military one.
Sibson is the dense one here, after 40 years of Roe vs Wade he still hasn’t figured out that a woman’s healthcare decision are none of his business.
He can whine, cry, kick his heals, and say any stupid thing that comes out of mouth and that will not change the Constitutional Rights women have.
The courts are getting exhausted with abortion cases and the Supremes are getting irritated with it all, who blames them.
Sibson, if your position is not about “banning abortions”, what is it exactly?
Sibson, if your position is not about “banning abortions”, what is it exactly?
Equal protection.
@ Roger: “The courts are getting exhausted with abortion cases and the Supremes are getting irritated with it all, who blames them.”
Too bad. This is easy to rectify by just returning the abortion issue to the States where it belongs.
…says Coyote when the feds don’t rule his way and he thinks the states will better serve his desire to carve out misogynist theocracies.
Women’s basic rights to bodily autonomy and equal citizenship do not belong at the states, immune from the federal guarantees of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment is for everyone, no matter how backwards your state legislature may be.
Cory had written:
I’d written:
Cory replied:
So even “just as a guy” who’ll never experience the physical and psychological burdens of postpartum motherhood, you seek to impose your will and your morality on women.
Do you support a mandatory life sentence for a scared 18-year-old who leaves her premature newborn in a dumpster?
Darin Larson writes:
Every woman started out as a female zygote, Darin (and you presumably started out as a male one). At what point would you grant a developing female the right to life?
Roger Cornelius writes:
Then why are you weighing in with yours, Roger?
“Don Coyote” wrote:
Cory replies:
… says Cory when he doesn’t actually know what Don thinks or desires.
Kurt, I tend to agree with SCOTUS on this issue. And you?
It needs to be a federal that any male that has fathered a child he can provide for be castrated, men need to accept responsibility as well as women
Channeling Donald Trump Roger? Why not neuter and spay every 4th child born, as long as they are not white?
Donald Trump’s ‘manliness’ wouldn’t want any man castrated or neutered.
I don’t know about spaying or neutering every fourth child, perhaps you can fill me in.
@ Roger: “It needs to be a federal that any male that has fathered a child he can provide for be castrated, men need to accept responsibility as well as women”
What? My Whizbang™ decoder ring broke trying to decode that flapdoodle. Even using the optional sausage-finger option didn’t help.
Abortion is one procedure that needs to be federally adjudicated so the laws are the same everywhere. Do not leave abortion to the whim of fauxknee right wing kristians. In short order we’ll be back to burning witches at the stake. Wingnuts cream their jeans thinking up ways to punish women and babies after they are forced to be born.
Kurt: Coyote’s agenda is clear.
On “just a guy”: it is not about living the experience. It is about the fact that we are making a decision that men will never personally face. We are talking about a physical submission and question of bodily autonomy that are absolutely unique to females, that cannot be imposed on males.
“mandatory life sentence.. scared 18 year old… premature newborn”—faulty analogy. That 18 year old has options post partum that she does not have pre partum. Besides, the burden is not on me to say what sentence I support. I can in complete consistency say that sentences can continge on circumstances, as can what we call the crime you describe. Folks trying to ban abortion are using absolute language: “Abortion is murder.” They have a burden to uphold their absolute by supporting consistent sentencing. If it’s murder, the consistent penalty is life sentence or death. Abortion banners don’t call for that consistent penalty. They thus must not really believe that abortion is murder.
Darin Larson writes:
I’d addressed the Roe v. Wade judgment in my previous comment above (2016-06-29 at 19:42): https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/06/27/supreme-court-throws-out-texas-abortion-clinic-restrictions/#comment-50495
At what point would you grant a developing female the right to life, Darin?
Cory writes:
Yes, but you don’t know the thoughts and desires behind it.
The physical and psychological burdens of postpartum motherhood are also absolutely unique to females, but that doesn’t stop you from seeking to impose your will and your morality on a woman who asks someone to kill her born children.
I’d asked:
Cory replies:
It’s a question, not an analogy.
Why would it be a burden? Because you know you’d be contradicting yourself?
Are you suggesting that deliberately killing a newborn isn’t murder?
Supporting consistent sentencing is a good thing, but it doesn’t uphold the assertion that abortion is murder.
As you just said above, a consistent penalty can be contingent on circumstances.
This isn’t even close to valid logic.
Do you support a mandatory life sentence for a scared 18-year-old who leaves her premature newborn in a dumpster?
Kurt Evans says-“At what point would you grant a developing female the right to life, Darin?”
Viability outside the womb is the SCOTUS test balancing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the mother. I am in agreement with this.
And I take it that you would grant a zygote the right to use the woman’s womb?
Kurt, we know nothing, but I will not let agnosticism paralyze me and prevent practical readings of the evidence presented.
Your question about the 18-year-old mom contains an analogy. I use “burden” as in burden of proof, not some awful weight on my shoulders. My response—no mandatory sentence, but a sentence conditioned on specifics of the case—does not affect the contradiction in the “abortion is murder but no sentence for the murderer” position of the abortion banners. I’m not the one using absolute language to win votes and ban abortion. I thus cannot be hoisted on that petard.
Darin Larson writes:
What Supreme Court decision would you say acknowledged the rights of the fetus?
I believe we’re endowed with rights by our Creator, but yes, I definitely believe a newly conceived child has the right to use her mother’s womb.
Cory writes:
Are you saying that we know nothing about Don’s thoughts and desires or that we know nothing about anything?
What would you say the analogy compares?
I’d asked:
Cory replies:
Advocates of the right to life generally favor a sentence conditioned on specifics of the case for the abortionist, but even if we didn’t, there’s no inherent contradiction in opposing a criminal penalty for a murderer.
In his previous comment, Cory writes:
Are you suggesting that deliberately killing a newborn isn’t murder?
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/state/Hispanic-women-bore-brunt-of-Texas-abortion-law-figures-show-388036072.html?google_editors_picks=true
Bet the rich whitey wingnut women weren’t inconvenienced in the least little bit.