Abortion and the Religious Right

[Mrick]

I heard another prediction for the overturning of Roe V. Wade today on Tucker Carlsen. The preacher was wetting himself about the possibility of ending 1st Trimester abortions on demand. With Scalia and Thomas already on board and OConner not strongly favoring choice, I suspect it could happen.

Interesting thing is that abortion rights grew out of the Griswald case. In Griswald, the state tried to assert a ban against birth control devices of any kind. The court ruled there was a right to privacy and certainly that is the only ruling possible. There is a constitutional right to privacy.

Scalia argues there is a difference in kind. However, that isn’t true unless the right to life movement moves away from full 14th amendment protections at conception. As a matter of fact, recent state legislation has used conception as the starting point of life.

On that point, I have questioned The Right to Life organization about their stance regarding birth control pills and IUDs. These methods sometimes result not in prevention but abortion (as the term is used by right to lifers). They are abortifacients. Sometimes an egg is fertilized when these methods are used but it is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall. The Right To Life people tell me they are well aware that these methods result in aborting a fertilized egg and they believe that to be wrong just as much as any other abortion. But they cannot lobby against birth control pills because they would lose their political base. Interestingly enough many people are having abortions and they don’t even know it. Some doctors won’t prescribe the pill. Some pharmacist have refused to fill it.

So this is an interesting quandary. There is not a difference in kind at all as Scalia contends. Legislation such as proposed by right to lifers (see Webster v. Reproductive Health Services) if strictly applied would ban the use of birth control pills – and IUDs. So what will the religious zealots do? Will they move the yardstick from conception to attachment? That’s when many doctors consider someone “pregnant”. That would allow the morning after pill. And if we are moving the yardstick, why stop at attachment. Why not stop at the embryo stage. Or maybe pre-fetus. Or maybe when the cerebral cortex is formed. Or maybe at viability. Or maybe. Or maybe. Or maybe…….

Seems once the goal post start moving we are right back where we are now - a line drawn to define when a developing potential human acquires human rights and the state has a compelling interest.

Somehow, I don’t see the country turning back to the 1950s so the continued use of the pill has to be fitted into the right to life model. I don’t see how that can happen. Right now they are not talking about it. Just gloating over their potential victory.

Mrick

[Ladyhawk]

I, too, am quite curious to see how this next attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade turns out. If it actually is overturned, it will be a sad day for women everywhere.

What has been the most confusing for me with this entire issue is what the religious right actually hopes to gain? I try to look at these issues from a logical perspective rather than an emotional one. True, I'd like to see the need for abortion eliminated. But, until such time as people act responsibly and a 100% safe and effective method of birth control can be developed that can be used long-term and is fully dependent on a woman's election to use it (translate: condom doesn't fit this bill) and is easily accessible, I just don't see how the need will ever be eliminated.

And, in the unlikely event that all birth control were banned, what protection would any couple have if they'd elected a life without children? However, the pharmaceutical companies are in bed with enough politicians, that I think it's highly unlikely that birth control pills would be illegal.

I'm very interested to see how this one ends up...

[username]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[b]I, too, am quite curious to see how this next attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade turns out. If it actually is overturned, it will be a sad day for women everywhere.

I doubt it. If the right wing religious nutjobs actually do manage to overturn RvW it will be the end of them.

The backlash would simply destroy them. I am defintely a pro lifer, but I am also pro choice. I wish abortions never happened, but at the same time I do not want government mandating that people bring to term unwanted children. The adoption system already is full of kids nobody wants, the ghetos are already overrun with kids nobody will take responsibilty for.

The one question that political pro lifers never seem willing to deal with is: Who is going to take care of all those kids who would have been aborted? Who is going to deal with all those mothers forced to raise kids they can't afford?

Today the easy availability of contraceptives, sex education and abortion are things people take for granted. Take any of these things away and we will have another civil war is my opinion.

The trend is clear, we have abortion and will soon have euthanasia for those suffering from terminal illnesses if they elect it.

There may be bumps on the road, but it is where the train is headed and nothing is going to stop that.

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by username
I doubt it. If the right wing religious nutjobs actually do manage to overturn RvW it will be the end of them...

There may be bumps on the road, but it is where the train is headed and nothing is going to stop that.

Or would it embolden them further?

Hear Scalia (from his Webster dissent):

"It thus appears that the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe vs. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb, and never entirely brought down, no matter how wrong it may be ... We should decide now, and not insist that we be run into a corner before we grudgingly yield up our judgment."

Hear Blackman who authored Roe (from his Webster dissent):

"I fear for the future. While for today, at least, the law of abortion stands undisturbed, the signs are very evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows."

Hear OConner (from Webster):

"When the constitutional invalidity of a state's abortion statute actually turns on the constitutional validity of Roe vs. Wade, there will be time enough to re-examine Roe. And to do so carefully."

Mrick

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I, too, am quite curious to see how this next attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade turns out. If it actually is overturned, it will be a sad day for women everywhere.

I would suggest that the religious nut right should be careful what they wish for - they just might get it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by username
I doubt it. If the right wing religious nutjobs actually do manage to overturn RvW it will be the end of them.

I wouldn't say it would be the end of them, but I suspect there would be a HUGE backlash. People are now "protected" by the courts - meaning, that no matter what some right wing loon says he will do if elected, there is a sense that it doesn't matter, because it won't pass judicial muster. But, if the SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade, watch out. I suspect that folks in the RNC national headquarters are secretly hoping it doesn't happen.

Quote:

Originally posted by username
I am defintely a pro lifer, but I am also pro choice.

Then you are Pro-Choice.

Quote:

Originally posted by username
The one question that political pro lifers never seem willing to deal with is: Who is going to take care of all those kids who would have been aborted?

Quickest way to silence an anti-choice nutjob - ask them how many babies they have adopted. The answer will almost always be zero, and you won't believe how many excuses they can come up with to justify it!

Quote:

Originally posted by username
Who is going to deal with all those mothers forced to raise kids they can't afford?

Haven't you heard? god will provide!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by username
The trend is clear, we have abortion and will soon have euthanasia for those suffering from terminal illnesses if they elect it.

There may be bumps on the road, but it is where the train is headed and nothing is going to stop that.

Agreed

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
I, too, am quite curious to see how this next attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade turns out. If it actually is overturned, it will be a sad day for women everywhere.

No, just the ones in red states. The idea the RvW has any significant effect on abortion rights in California is absurd. It's weird how people seem to think that if it's overturned, all states will be required to ban abortion.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Then you are Pro-Choice.

And pro-life.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
No, just the ones in red states. The idea the RvW has any significant effect on abortion rights in California is absurd. It's weird how people seem to think that if it's overturned, all states will be required to ban abortion.

And pro-life.

"Pro-Life" or, more accurately, "Anti-Choice" means that you are opposed to letting women make a choice. Ladyhawk is Pro-Choice since, while it sounds like she personally wouldn't have an abortion, supports the rights of other women to make that choice.

[1inChrist]

Abortion should be illegal. There is no excuse for taking a life, PERIOD!

[kimiko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mrick
On that point, I have questioned The Right to Life organization about their stance regarding birth control pills and IUDs. These methods sometimes result not in prevention but abortion (as the term is used by right to lifers). They are abortifacients. Sometimes an egg is fertilized when these methods are used but it is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall. The Right To Life people tell me they are well aware that these methods result in aborting a fertilized egg and they believe that to be wrong just as much as any other abortion. But they cannot lobby against birth control pills because they would lose their political base. Interestingly enough many people are having abortions and they don’t even know it. Some doctors won’t prescribe the pill. Some pharmacist have refused to fill it.

So this is an interesting quandary. There is not a difference in kind at all as Scalia contends. Legislation such as proposed by right to lifers (see Webster v. Reproductive Health Services) if strictly applied would ban the use of birth control pills – and IUDs. So what will the religious zealots do? Will they move the yardstick from conception to attachment? That’s when many doctors consider someone “pregnant”. That would allow the morning after pill. And if we are moving the yardstick, why stop at attachment. Why not stop at the embryo stage. Or maybe pre-fetus. Or maybe when the cerebral cortex is formed. Or maybe at viability. Or maybe. Or maybe. Or maybe…….

I've never seen a study that proves birth control pills taken as directed actually allow release of an egg, although it is theoretically possible. There is good reason to think it suppresses release, and most of the time, due to changes in ovarian cancer risks. So even if Roe was overturned, there would still be woman-controlled birth control available. Plus, hormone pills are used for reasons other than birth control, and they could never justify restricting legitimate, non-birth control related uses.

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Abortion should be illegal. There is no excuse for taking a life, PERIOD!

So what are God's reasons for natural abortions and full-term still-births?

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Abortion should be illegal. There is no excuse for taking a life, PERIOD!

And how many children, whose lives are so precious, have you adopted?

Given that the answer is zero, what are your excuses for not reaching out and giving to the smallest? When God asks you why you make loud public pronouncements yet do nothing that inconvienienced you, what exactly will you say?

Do you forget Matthew? Let me remind you:

Quote:

1
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of
them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in
heaven.
2
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet
before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto
you, They have their reward.
3
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy
right hand doeth:
4
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in
secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I
say unto you, They have their reward.
6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when
thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;
and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

You are a naughty little boy. Matthew would call you a hypocrite.

[Ausmerican]

1inchChrist, you are one of the best advertisments why abortion should not only remain legal but sometimes be mandatory.

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by kimiko
I've never seen a study that proves birth control pills taken as directed actually allow release of an egg, although it is theoretically possible. There is good reason to think it suppresses release, and most of the time, due to changes in ovarian cancer risks. So even if Roe was overturned, there would still be woman-controlled birth control available. Plus, hormone pills are used for reasons other than birth control, and they could never justify restricting legitimate, non-birth control related uses.

You may be right that the pill would survive. I first stumbled onto this when I read a BBC report about the aborifacient effects of the pill. So then I went googling to see what is out there. There is a bit to wade through.

You are also right, there isn't a study that is on point. There is rather a presentation of known facts and then a drawing of conclusions.

I saw many doctors simply argue the definition. There can’t be an abortion prior to a pregnancy. There is no pregnancy prior to attachment. Preventing attachment isn’t abortion. And that is correct, but it isn’t the definition in laws such as those enacted in Webster.

I found a paper signed by 26 OBGYNs. Although admittedly prolife (which gave me pause), many had impressive credentials. People like William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG, Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
George Washington University Medical Center and Hans E Geisler, M.D., FACOG, FACS, Director of Division of Gynecologic Oncology
St. Vincent Hospital and Health Centers, Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University Medical Center. They note:

"The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not."

Well I think so, but the fact remains it would be a very difficult study to do. And I don’t think the drug makers would want to do them.

But we do know some things. We know Pill pregnancies occur. The rate seems to be 3 to 5 women per 100 pill takers. We know that the pill according to the drug manufactures operate with 3 preventative phases. We know that the pill is listed as an abortifacient. And we know that the hormonal dosage has decreased very much due to concern for women; the implication being the abortifacient effect is more prominent in the newer pills.

In the same paper I saw a discussion of this. One doctors documented ovulation breakthrough at 14% in 50 microgram pill takers. By extrapolating this rate through the population of those using birth control pills he believes the abortions are well over a million per year. Other doctors disagreed saying that it was perhaps only a few hundred thousand. I also saw breakthrough rates of 30% and 40% quoted. It sometimes depends on which pill one is talking about.

Consider also that pill takers are often sloppy. You probably knew someone who skipped a day and got caught. But taking increased doses of pills will cause the egg to abort. It is like a morning after pill of sorts.

On the whole, I don’t have much doubt that the pill works in 3 ways and all 3 ways occur. I have no idea of the rate for fertilized egg expulsion. Maybe there is enough cover to keep birth control pills being banned as abortions for lack of a definitive study. But the use of birth control pills remain inconsistent with the life at conception arguement.

I did find this comment from a paper at the Guttmacher Intstitute interesting. In an article entitled: "Bush Administration Isolates U.S. at International Meeting to Promote Cairo Agenda", the article noted:

"The debate over when a contraceptive is actually an "abortifacient" is not new. In 1998, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and then-Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK) sought to define "abortifacients" out of the contraceptive coverage requirement under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the House rejected their amendment when it became clear that the amendment could exclude the most common forms of birth control"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060103.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/01/5/gr010501.html
http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3652462.stm



Mrick

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
No, just the ones in red states. The idea the RvW has any significant effect on abortion rights in California is absurd. It's weird how people seem to think that if it's overturned, all states will be required to ban abortion.

Not all states, just the Federal government. States aren't required to ban marijuana, either --- but they're not allowed to permit it.

if RvW is overturned, I suspect that a Federal ban on abortion will be sponsored in Congress literally within hours.

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
"Pro-Life" or, more accurately, "Anti-Choice" means that you are opposed to letting women make a choice.

That's one meaning. But isn't it useful to distinguish between those that want to ake abortion illegal, and those that are merely opposed to it?

Mrick

Quote:

"The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not."

I don't see why everything would have to be collected; all you need is one embryo. And why would one look in the vagina?

new drkitten

Quote:

if RvW is overturned, I suspect that a Federal ban on abortion will be sponsored in Congress literally within hours.

And a challenge will be started minutes later. I think that a major reason that the federal ban on marijuana has been allowed to stand is just inertia; everyone has simply gotten used to it, and it's easier to just not rock the boat. A ban on abortion, however, would be an entirely new encroachment on states rights that would be opposed nearly universally by Democrats, and probably by a large number of Republicans. There's a huge leap from the USSC allowing a ban on abortion, and allowing a federal one.

[Bubbles]

A few thoughts:

1) I think most people miss that there are really 3 abortion issues: constitutional, political, and moral. The constitutional issue being was Roe v Wade a good interpretation of the constitution, the political being the question of to what degree abortion should be prohibited and/or regulated. The moral question being whether, in a particular set of circumstances, and abortion is 'right' (realizing that there is much debate over what that means).

People talk as if one of the three determines the other. It really doesn't. Personally, I believe Roe v Wade to have been a bad descision (I am something of a strict constructionist). I believe that abortion should be legal. I am of the opinion that, in most circumstances, abortion is not a morally corect act. The three are not contradictory. When possible, I will others to have and act on moral views other than my own. I do not see where believing something should be legal means that the Constitution gaurantees its legality.

2) I don't think the Republican party leadership wants Roe v Wade overturned. The Religious Right, of course, does. The issue has, on the whole, worked well for the GOP for one reason: they aren't playing with real money. GOP candidates get pro-life votes for saying the things they say, but don't lose many moderate votes because no one thinks the words mean much. As long as no one expects Roe v Wade to be overturned, being pro-life doesn't hurt the GOP with pro-choice moderates. As soon as the abortion issue is seen as really being on the table, I expect the GOP to lose a significant number of votes (my guess would be 5% or so for pro-choice Reps and another 5% for pro-life Reps).

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles
A Personally, I believe Roe v Wade to have been a bad descision (I am something of a strict constructionist). I believe that abortion should be legal. I am of the opinion that, in most circumstances, abortion is not a morally corect act. The three are not contradictory. When possible, I will others to have and act on moral views other than my own. I do not see where believing something should be legal means that the Constitution gaurantees its legality.

I would avoid the term strict constructionist. It simply means anti-liberty.

The basis of Row was not "believing something should be legal means that the Constitution gaurantees its legality". The basis of Row was Griswald.

Let me jump backwards before going to Griswald. Our constitution doesn't allow things to be constitutional so much as it limits powers. Those powers not granted to the federal government reside with the states and... (the importent part) with the people.

It is the people's liberty that is the driving force behind our experiment. That is the basis of the Bill of Rights. Of that list I now point you to my favorite... Amendment 9,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So there you have it. Each man is a King unless there is a state compelling interest to the contrary. And now Back to Griswald.

The State of Conneticut felt it was wrong for people to have brith control devices of any kind. They passed a law that banned them. Further the law banned those such as Planned Parenthood from counseling people and proscribing devices to prevent conception.

Then snagged Planned Parenthood for conseling married people.

The State of Conneticut argures there is not constitutional right to contraception.

But Douglas (geez I miss Douglas) writes:

"Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"

And from that analysis the right of privacy is born. When you hear the term activist judge - think liberty.

Roe logically follows from Griswald. The State of Texas allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother. A single pregnant woman filed a class action lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of that law.

The court again asseted individuals have a right to privacy and that would only be subserviant to a State Interest when that interest was compelling.

Texas argued that life begins at concpetion and so did their interest in protecting that life.

The court disagreed. "Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed... by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event..,"

Texas can regulate pregnancy when it has a compelling interest. As to the mothers health, that was the second trimester and for the preservaton of the fetus, that was the third trimester.

Roe is a remarkable decision. If you have not read it, you should along with Griswald.

There are other challenges to liberty. Strict construcitonest want to put people in jail for "sodomy". You won't see "sodomy" in the constitution. How would you feel about a law that said oral sex was illegal between any party at anytime?

Remember, the consturtion of the constitution in its strictest terms is to protect the individual, even when the majority disagrees. It is about liberty. Much more than democracy.

imho,
Mrick

[Silicon]

Bubbles,

GREAT post.

[neutrino_cannon]

Quote:

Originally posted by 1inChrist
Abortion should be illegal. There is no excuse for taking a life, PERIOD!

That's not what the Bible says 1inChrist:


-God demands animal sacrifices throughout the Old Testiment, see Leviticus for detailed instructions.

-According to Leviticus 20:10, aldulterers are to be executed.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

-Witches are to be put to death, according to both Exodus and Leviticus.

-Deuteronomy 21:22 specifically mandates the death penalty for certain crimes.

-Deuteronomy 17:3-6 states that "hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;...

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death..."

The inbetween being other reasons to knock off folks.

-Acts 3:23 states that "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." If "destroy" means something other than "kill", please enlighten me as to the correct interpretation.

-There are many others, but I'm pretty sure you didn't read this far.

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mrick
I would avoid the term strict constructionist. It simply means anti-liberty.

...

There are other challenges to liberty. Strict construcitonest want to put people in jail for "sodomy". You won't see "sodomy" in the constitution.

That's ridiculous. There are strict constructionists who are opposed to sodomy, but assuming that any judge that upholds a ban on sodomy does so out of opposition to sodomy is to completely misunderstand the role of judges. Judges are not supposed to decide cases on the basis of what they want, they are supposed to decide them on the basis of the law. There are many strict constructionists virulantly opposed to abortion and sodomy bans, but nevertheless do not feel that overruling such laws can be constitutionally supported.

The opposition to activist judges is based on the observation that often their decisions are based on what they want the constitution to say, not what it actually says. Of course, often people only criticize the activist judges that disagree with them.

Quote:

And from that analysis the right of privacy is born. When you hear the term activist judge - think liberty.

While activist judges have lately been associated with the expansion of liberty, there is nothing inherent in the term which specifies that. For instance, the constitution says nothing about the federal government being able to prohibit euthanasia, yet there are activist judges supporting such a law.

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
That's ridiculous. There are strict constructionists who are opposed to sodomy, but assuming that any judge that upholds a ban on sodomy does so out of opposition to sodomy is to completely misunderstand the role of judges. Judges are not supposed to decide cases on the basis of what they want, they are supposed to decide them on the basis of the law. There are many strict constructionists virulantly opposed to abortion and sodomy bans, but nevertheless do not feel that overruling such laws can be constitutionally supported.

Please explain why sodomy laws are constitutionally permissable.

Please explain why the state has a compelling right to ban contraception for consenting adults and where do you feel the court erred in Griswald.

If the court did not err in Griswald, where did they err in applying Griswald to Roe.

Quote:

[i]
The opposition to activist judges is based on the observation that often their decisions are based on what they want the constitution to say, not what it actually says. Of course, often people only criticize the activist judges that disagree with them.
[/b]

What is your interpretation of the 9th amendment.

Mrick

[username]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
[b]That's ridiculous. There are strict constructionists who are opposed to sodomy, but assuming that any judge that upholds a ban on sodomy does so out of opposition to sodomy is to completely misunderstand the role of judges. Judges are not supposed to decide cases on the basis of what they want, they are supposed to decide them on the basis of the law. There are many strict constructionists virulantly opposed to abortion and sodomy bans, but nevertheless do not feel that overruling such laws can be constitutionally supported.

Unfortunately terms are subject to shifts in their definition in terms of the common vernacular. Strict constructionist or strict constitutionalist are terms that should imply something favorable. There was a time many years ago when I heard someone say "I am a strict constuctionist" and being a fan of constitutional limitations upon any governing body myself I thought "Shouldn't every judge be a strict constructionist?".

I mean what is the other option? A judge who interprets words to mean whatever he wants them to mean?

Problem is that religious nuts like Scalia have used the term to describe themselves and Bush says he favors strict constructionists like Scalia and Thomas for SC justices.

All of that is simply religious jibberish meaning judges who support religious rightwing politics.

In other words the term has been brought into disrepute by religious nutjobs and if you use it to describe yourself today you will be misunderstood by many as being a religious nutjob.

It is very unfortunate, but it is what it is.

[Bubbles]

Mrick: please explain why there is a constitutional right to privacy. Two things are disallowed:

1) Because I want there to be

2) Because the Supreme Court says there is.

If the question is whether the court over-reaches, it is, of course, pointless to argue on the authority of the court.

IBy the way, why so silent about the 10th? Certainly, it has suffered as the courts have played the constitution like an accordian!

[username]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles
[b]Mrick: please explain why there is a constitutional right to privacy.

I am not Mrick, but there is a very simple answer to this question. It is such a simple answer that it is unlikely to be satisfying.

It is the 9th amendment.

The constitutional logic presented in a previous thread outlines the court's standing view on the matter and it seems a decent enough explanation to me, but really all that is necessary to show that people have some right is to show that the enumerated powers in the constitution don't grant control over that right to government.

[Art Vandelay]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mrick
Please explain why sodomy laws are constitutionally permissable.

I see that you have not learned from your previous strawman; I am starting to think that you are not interested in understanding those that disagree with you, and what exactly their position is. You err in both ascribing to me a position I did not express, and in implying that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim in question.

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles
Mrick: please explain why there is a constitutional right to privacy. Two things are disallowed:

1) Because I want there to be

2) Because the Supreme Court says there is.

If the question is whether the court over-reaches, it is, of course, pointless to argue on the authority of the court.

IBy the way, why so silent about the 10th? Certainly, it has suffered as the courts have played the constitution like an accordian!

Last paragraph first. Tell me your concerns about the 10th. My favorite part is the last sentence of the amendment. The 10th reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I like that "or to the people" part. It is always about liberty with me. I am more concerned with the individual than the majority.

But also the 9th is an expansionary clause. It invites additional protections not specifically listed.

The 10th actually has to be read with other expansionary clauses and what are called "implied powers". It has been a huge source of contention up till at least the 30s and goes back to Hamilton's debates with Jefferson during Washington's presidency. I just had a discussion with a person that thought social security unconstitutional. It isn't.

I will point out that it is the Hamilton view that ultimately carries the day. As Sec Treasurer he persuades Washington to sign into law a National Bank despite Secretary of State Jefferson's objections. Then Madison (who supported Jefferson's view) signed into law the 2nd National Bank when he was president, and Chief Justice Marshal backed him up. And then years later Jefferson one ups everyone with the Louisiana purchase. Where is purchasing land from Napoleon in the constitution? I think after the 30s a lot of the issues (such as social security) are pretty much settled law.

Now your question, "why is there a right to privacy".

Because the Constitution creates areas of privacy in the various amendments that are listed. And the 9th amendment provides that there are other rights not listed but retained. Read together there is a right to privacy. Clearly the function of the 9th is to allow the preservation of rights not previously explicitly listed.

I really suggest you read Griswald. The excerpt I quoted above is right on point, but the case itself is worth the read.

imho,
mrick

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
I see that you have not learned from your previous strawman; I am starting to think that you are not interested in understanding those that disagree with you, and what exactly their position is. You err in both ascribing to me a position I did not express, and in implying that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim in question.

I didn't mean to ascribe any position to you personally. Please refer to your own post for context. I quote as follows:

"There are strict constructionists who are opposed to sodomy, but assuming that any judge that upholds a ban on sodomy does so out of opposition to sodomy is to completely misunderstand the role of judges."

As you think there are sound reason for a strick constructionist opposition to sodomy laws, I was curious as to what those might be. Why is that a strawman?

Mrick

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
That's not what the Bible says 1inChrist:


-God demands animal sacrifices throughout the Old Testiment, see Leviticus for detailed instructions.

-There are many others, but I'm pretty sure you didn't read this far.

Judges 11. Virgin (human) sacrifice.


Abraham received a sign.

Jephthah did not.

Bummer for his daughter, huh?

[Jas]

Are there any industrialized, non-theocracy, nations where abortions are illegal? I can't think of any.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jas
Are there any industrialized, non-theocracy, nations where abortions are illegal? I can't think of any.

As of 1999, there were 4 nations where abortions are not permitted to save the mother's life:

Malta, Holy See, El Salvador, and Chile.

I think Malta (maybe even Chile, depending on how you define 'industrialized') could meet your criteria, but perhaps not.


As the reason for the abortion gets more permissive, the number of countries that no longer allow them grows.

This webpage may be informative. 17 of 48 countries the UN refers to as 'more developed' do not allow abortion on request.

I rather think that if the states in the US were allowed to decide how they wanted they law to be in each state, the issue of abortion would largely dissappear here, as it has in Europe.

Information missing from the link above that would be useful to have is the allowable trimesters for abortion in each country. As I understand it, Europe is generally more restrictive on late-term abortions than the US, though it of course varies by country.

MattJ

[Bubbles]

Mrick:

you are obviously an intelligent person, so why on earth would you say that strict constructionists want to put people in jail for sodomy? Strict constructionists recognize that the constitution is silent on the matter. A strict constructionist may be a social conservative and believe also that sodomy ought to be illegal, but that is a belief quite apart from his being a strict constructionist. A strict constructionist may, like me, be opposed to laws against sodomy. A strict constructionist does not, by definition, wish to restrict anyones freedom, save that of the courts to legislate.

The ninth and tenth amendments should be understoon in relation to each other and to the idea that rights are inherent, not given by government. The ninth states that the rights listed in 1-8 is not exhaustive: in other words that the constitution's silence is not negative. The tenth says that the federal government has been given a set of poers, and those are exclusive. The federal gov may do those things it is explicitly given in the constitution and no more. Of course, as the commerce clause has been expanded beyond any reasonable interpretation, the 10th has receded into utter insignificance. To say that the 9th is an implicit list of constitutionally protected rights is to allow courts to impose their will with absolutely no basis at all!

By the way, I would have even more respect for you if you would go a litle further and say, "It is all about liberty with me. I am more concerned with that than with the constitution." It is an honesty that is rarely displayed.

The real question, I think, is the proper means of interpreting the written word. Do words mean what they meant to the person who said them or what they mean to the person who reads them. Strict constructionism is a belief that the words of the constitution mean what they meant to those who wrote and ratified them. If we want to know what the 1st Amendment means, we must endeavor to discover what it meant to them. Judicial activism is a more adult version of 3rd grade essays: "What the Establishment Clause Means to Me!". The problem with that mode of interpretation is that the reading material usually ends up telling the reader what he wanted to hear. He wants there to be a constitutional right to something or other, so he suceeds in finding it.

[Mrick]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles


you are obviously an intelligent person, so why on earth would you say that strict constructionists want to put people in jail for sodomy? Strict constructionists recognize that the constitution is silent on the matter. A strict constructionist may be a social conservative and believe also that sodomy ought to be illegal, but that is a belief quite apart from his being a strict constructionist. A strict constructionist may, like me, be opposed to laws against sodomy. A strict constructionist does not, by definition, wish to restrict anyones freedom, save that of the courts to legislate.

Because we have had sodomy laws and we have put people in jail for that. "Strict Constructionist" is the term used to justify that illegal and immoral activity. The constitution is not exhaustive in it's listings and could not be. That is the purpose of the ninth amendment.

Really, sodomy laws should be struck down under the first amendment as well. People argue sodomy laws based on their religious beliefs. It is just religious bigotry. Don't take my word for it. Read the Texas Republican Platform.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles

The ninth and tenth amendments should be understoon in relation to each other and to the idea that rights are inherent, not given by government. The ninth states that the rights listed in 1-8 is not exhaustive: in other words that the constitution's silence is not negative. The tenth says that the federal government has been given a set of poers, and those are exclusive. The federal gov may do those things it is explicitly given in the constitution and no more.

Your description for the ninth and tenth make my point and obviously I agree. As to the "explicitly" listed we disagree. But then that is fine. Hamilton and Jefferson could not agree. But I think this is settled law now. Hamilton, Jefferson, & Madison all pursued those things not explicitly listed. That is because there are implied powers. They recognize not every contingent can be written down and no one wants to try to amend the constitution for every unanticipated occurrence. So the constitution is a broad construct and not a specific set of rules like statues and regulations.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles


Of course, as the commerce clause has been expanded beyond any reasonable interpretation, the 10th has receded into utter insignificance.

I think we are probably in agreement here but I would be pressed to give you an example. I think the medical marijuana law may be one but I would need to look at it hard. But off the cuff, I don't see how one growing for personal use should fall within the commerce clause. I think that is the basis for federal intrusion, but I may be wrong on this.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles


To say that the 9th is an implicit list of constitutionally protected rights is to allow courts to impose their will with absolutely no basis at all!

No there is a basis. One is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Another is the limiting nature of the governing document. Another is the attitude of the founders.

An activist judge doesn't disallow any government intrusion. He just insists the government have a compelling interest in the matter. How more consistent with the concept of liberty could one be?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles

By the way, I would have even more respect for you if you would go a litle further and say, "It is all about liberty with me. I am more concerned with that than with the constitution." It is an honesty that is rarely displayed.

I do believe that, as did the founders. For example Congress has the right to declare war. The President is the Commander in chief. Do they have the right to conscript? Or do they have the right to maintain a volunteer who changes his mind?

Constitutionally, they probably do. As a matter of liberty they do not. No one can command me to war but me. And if I find myself deceived into war, I feel very comfortable with dissertation. But it isn't constitutional.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles

The real question, I think, is the proper means of interpreting the written word. Do words mean what they meant to the person who said them or what they mean to the person who reads them. Strict constructionism is a belief that the words of the constitution mean what they meant to those who wrote and ratified them. If we want to know what the 1st Amendment means, we must endeavor to discover what it meant to them.

I have already addressed circumstances that they could not have considered but which we can apply the meaning to anyway.

But that aside what you suggest is not always possible. The founders didn't always agree and they changed their minds - at least when it comes to Federalism. For individual liberty there should be very little debate.

But for fun listen to Jefferson and Hamilton argue over the National Bank Proposal - both of whom are in Washington’s cabinet:

Jefferson says:

“The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.”

Hamilton says:

“the Secretary of State [Jefferson] maintains, that no means are to be considered as necessary but those without which the grant of power would be nugatory [non-existent or unusable]. . . .
It is essential to the being of the national government, that so erroneous a conception of the meaning of the word necessary should be exploded.
It is certain, that neither the grammatical nor popular sense of the term requires that construction. According to both, necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to. It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted by, the doing of this or that thing.
. . . To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation, an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it.
Such a construction would beget endless uncertainty and embarrassment. . . .”

Some of trying to figure out what they meant is to understand their world view. Jefferson forsaw an agrarian society. Hamilton forsaw an industrial society. They interpret the constitution differently based on their world view.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubbles


Judicial activism is a more adult version of 3rd grade essays: "What the Establishment Clause Means to Me!". The problem with that mode of interpretation is that the reading material usually ends up telling the reader what he wanted to hear. He wants there to be a constitutional right to something or other, so he suceeds in finding it.

That is how it is sold and that is how it was sold to me growing up. But reading our history, I don't think that is correct. Listen to what Chief Justice Marshal says:

“We must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

But beyond that, I would like you to consider something.

No party is going to really resurrect a strict constructionist view of the constitution. Republicans are not going to argue that Social Security is unconstitutional and we are not asking for our $15 million dollars back from France for the Louisiana purchase. The ACLU is not going to be involved in litigation over National Banks.

The real fight is over the bill of rights and the 9th amendment elastic clause. It is the right of the individual were there is an attack greatly fueled by the religious right or by neo cons that want to maintain imprisonment without judicial review.

imho,
mrick