Souter Retirement a Blow to Reproductive Justice
By Rev. Veazey, President and CEO Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice
As a faithful
advocate for women and families, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
urges President Obama to replace the liberal Souter with another consistent
supporter of reproductive rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court - the highest
court in our land - is the protector of fundamental rights that ensure the
safety, security, and freedoms of all Americans. While the Supreme Court
supports the underlying principles of Roe v. Wade, it does so by the razor-thin
margin of 5-4. (Justice Souter is counted as a supporter of Roe.) Given that
narrow balance, President Obama's nominee should recognize that there are a wide
range of religious beliefs and moral views about abortion and other
reproductive decisions and no one viewpoint should be enshrined in law above all others. The
Supreme Court must protect the fundamental right of women to make reproductive
health
decisions in keeping with their religious beliefs and conscience.
The
decisions made by the Supreme Court directly influence the lives of every
American, but vulnerable populations often have the most at stake. In recent
years, women have lost protections for their reproductive health and safety at
the hands of the Supreme Court, and more threats loom on the horizon.
- Just two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Gonzales v. Carhart to
uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, which, for the first time, banned a specific
medical procedure without an exception for a woman's health. - Anti-choice forces have been working tirelessly in several states to pass
"fetal rights" measures in hopes that such legislation will be challenged in
court and the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to reexamine - and
overturn - Roe.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I love when the pro-abortionists claim that the opposition is anti-choice.
We offer many choices, from the simple "keep your legs closed" or "use protection" to the choice of adoption .
The only choice they are really concerned with is the killing of an innocent life, mostly for the selfish convience of the mother.
My definition of pro-life is that the person is ALWAYS for life. Not just conveniently when it suits them. Are you a vegan/ vegetarian who opposes abortion , the death penalty , euthanasia in all forms, wars, etc? If not, then you are not really pro-life.
Anti-choice: This means that you are opposed to a woman being afforded the choice of having an abortion. You are limiting her choices, so you are anti-choice. Unless you fit the definition above, then you are only anti-choice. Not pro-life.
Yeah, let's think about your "choices"-
1) Keep your legs closed. Hmm...hope the rape victims get this message.
2) Use protection- besides abstaining from sex, no birth control method is 100% effective. I am sure that some women who get an abortion have had failed birth control. And also, most of the world won't abstain, so as much as I think that it would solve the whole abortion problem, it is not realistic.
3) Adoption- While I agree with you that this is a valid option, many women don't want to use it, and they should have the choice not to.
You act as though women who get abortions just think: "Hmm... What should I do today? Why don't I go get pregnant and then have an abortion? That sounds like fun!" I am sure it is not that simple. I would imagine that it is a heart wrenching experience that would change the woman permanently.
You also conveniently leave out the role of the man in your little abortion rant. What about the father who takes off after finding out that the woman is pregnant? Is he at fault for refusing to providing the woman who he knocked up with the opportunity to raise her child with a stable income or a safe home? Shouldn't he be forced to put a ring on her finger so that she isn't viewed as the town slut, and stigmatized as a single mother when she has the baby as you would like? Or is that asking too much from men?
Your post is the exact tactic I've seen liberal after liberal use. (I was shocked when our President openly mocked those opposed to his ideas - say what you want about our last President but he respected everyone's right to voice their opinion) Instead of debating the issues with facts or well thought out opinion you twist what the others say. Try to make them feel dumb or stupid and attack them.
Now on the issue of Abortion I guess it's simple. If you don't believe people are anything special, if you don't believe in God and that he created people to be something more than an animal. And instead think a random act caused non-living matter and gasses to collide and explode and form molten rocks and that one eventually cooled and spawned life and eventually man was created (just an evolved rock with no special purpose) then why not rip out the growing life form.
But why should some tell others how to live? That was your real issue - right? I think it's a very very sad thing when an abortion occurs. I would like to see it illegal because I do not believe being forced to carry a child to term destroys the mother - it may cause a lot of pain, heart ache, embarrasment and sometimes physical problems including death - oh yeah, so does abortions. But an abortion does destroy the child - every time.
Even if abortion is legal it should not undermine parental rights. If my daughter can't get breast implants or a tummy tuck without my permission why should they be able to get an abortion.
Another problem is with using Tax Payer money for the procedure. It shouldn't be my responsibility to pay for an entirely elective procedure for anyone.
So we need a Supreme Court Justice that is impartial and committed to obeying the constitution as it is written - and let congress make laws within the constitution. The Justice should refrane from making judgements that go along with popular opinion or Europe or what they think the country needs. If congress makes a law they hate but is in the constitution they must leave the law alone.
And instead think a random act caused non-living matter and gasses to collide and explode and form molten rocks and that one eventually cooled and spawned life and eventually man was created (just an evolved rock with no special purpose)
I guess that's supposed to be a jab at abiogenesis and evolution but neither theory says life came from a rock.
Only a person can have rights. Potential humans do not have rights. My grandchildren do not have rights because I have not reproduced yet.
Switch it around to gun control . Here's your choice: Register, wait, recieve, be limited OR don't have a gun.
Potential people do not have rights, this is true. That being said, a being that can think, react to the outside world, and is alive could be defined as a person, and arbitrarily setting a point in it's development such as birth where it gains access to rights seems a bit odd. The debate is hardly over.
Switch it around to gun control . Here's your choice: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, OR piss on the Constitution and face the wrath of We the People. If you choose to piss on the Constitution and come for my weapons, I will shoot you, I will burn you, I will blow you up. I will happily lay down my life for Liberty and bring as many tyrants as I can with me. Taking away our Constitutional rights in the name of safety will not be tolerated, be it disarmament or wiretapping.
And not have a specific right to life.
"vI will blow you up. I will happily lay down my life for Liberty and bring as many tyrants as I can with me."
So...you're a suicide bomber?
But, not all of those things are human.
No. I am not a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers by definition attack innocent people to achieve their goals. This clashes hilariously with someone who dies defending their rights from those who would come to take them away. The use of explosives does not necessarily mean terrorist.
of a suicide bomber is someone who detonates an explosive with the intent to kill himself.
A terrorist is defined as a person who uses terrorism , the tactic of violence with the intent to cause terror for the purpose of exerting pressure on state bodies or other organizations.
And I'm glad you brought up rights, because to move back to the original topic, a fetus, if unwanted, certainly does violate the rights of the mother. You've already alluded to your willingness to kill to protect your rights--shouldn't women have that same option?
History has shown that when individuals determine that the breaches against the Constitution made by the government have become so great that it is not only their right but their duty to attempt to supplant it, as per the Declaration of Independence, they invariably are killed. My willingness to die at the hands of government thugs while defending liberty does not express a desire to blow myself up. If they come to take away my rights, starting with the Second Amendment, I will fight. My willingness to use explosives does not mean I am a suicide bomber, it means I am willing to fight my hardest for Liberty even though I know the outcome will be failure and death.
The difference between killing armed thugs coming to take away what is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and killing an innocent child that has been planted in your womb, 99% of the time due to your own irresponsibility is a large one. I would never go out and attack people because of a perceived injustice, but I would defend myself if they came knocking on my door. The fetus/child whatever the hell you want to call it did not attack you. It simply exists. It has not justified its extermination. It did not hold a gun to your head and scream "bear me!" It is the product of your own inability to avoid sex without the proper protection.
"If they come to take away my rights, starting with the Second Amendment, I will fight." I believe you find yourself to be sincere. But a dollar to a donut, if the feds show up at your door with a warrant for your gun, you are going to hand it to them. You will not go out in a blazing glory.
"without the proper protection." Kudos to you for at least recognizing the sanity of protection. The vast majority of pro-choice persons would wholeheartedly agree that prevention and protection education is an absolute must and not a luxury. It has been an uphill climb however to leave behind the dated, tired, and ineffective message of abstinence only.
Are you calling me a liar or a coward? I don't appreciate the weight of my words being questioned without cause. I mean every word.
I don't question your words without cause. Do you honestly believe that you would die on your doorstep over the possession of your firearms ? If federal marshalls, or the national guard comes to collect your weapon, you will begrudgingly hand it to them. Of course, we have no way to test this, but it is my firmest of opinions that given the choice of death or handing over a weapon you will do the latter. I appreciate your heroic attitude, and all of us should be wary of tyranny. But when faced with death, I am most certain you will concede. To be certain, a sacrifice of this nature would not further your cause and only lesson the strengths of whatever resistance by one.
Many Germans did not know about the Holocaust. That is because the SS would arrive at the homes of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, and homosexuals, put guns in their faces, and tell them to get in the truck. They complied, out of fear of being shot. They were then driven out away from where they would be heard, and were put into concentration camps and gassed, or simply lined up and shot. If they had stood up to the SS rather than getting into the trucks, they still would have been killed, but everyone would have known what their government was doing, and might have done something to stop it. That is why I will fight, before it is too late.
I applaud you on both your convictions and your logic behind them. Let's hope the day never comes on which you would be tested.
I don't put much stock in hope. We need to act now (nonviolently, of course) before the need for force arises. The American people need to let Congress know that Sotomayor is absolutely unnacceptable, and that they need to take a HUGE step out of people's lives. It's time to start privatizing everything, getting government out of the market, and reclaiming our personal liberties. End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and any other idiotic wars on concepts that the government has declared over the years, get them out of the marriage business, completely privatize medicine , energy , national parks , roads, security, and justice, end the infringements on our rights to keep and bear arms, sell of all government land, end the income and sales taxes , and eventually, once we have successfully removed every "function" of government one by one and prove that not only will nothing bad happen, but things will get done better, we can just get rid of them altogether and prevent them from creeping this far into our lives, our children 's lives, and our grandchildren's lives ever again. Let Freedom Ring.
When considering self defense against indiviuals, you have the best chance of surviving if you choose to fight at certain points. For example, if they want to tie you up, restrain you, put you in a car, or take you somewhere. Chances are, they will kill you later when you are unable to fight back and far away from civilization. If you fight back at those points, it will force them to do two things: 1. Back off, obviously the preferred outcome, or 2. They will kill you there. You still die, but at least there is a good chance that they will panic and leave evidence, make mistakes, be seen or heard, and something will be done about your death. I take the same approach with government. When they come to take my arms, I will fight while I still can. If they tell me to get in the back of the truck, I will fight them there, and force them to kill me where others will see and be moved to rebellion. If you try to handcuff me, I am going to do everything in my power to kill you first. Why should my reaction be any different with the government? This is not irrational anger or big talk. It is an effective strategy to inconvenience, frustrate, and deter a tyrranical government as much as one man can.
I'd be loathe to label killing government officials over a political disagreement a duty, but there you go.
According to you, government officials who wish to take your firearms away deserve to die. Out of curiosity, what would occur if the constitution was legally amended to ban the usage of firearms? Their actions would suddenly be legal . Would they still be fair targets for death, if they came knocking at your door? Couldn't that be said to be the product of one's own inability to fully affect the political viewpoints of others to avoid that?
Let's define an attack as anything that causes bodily harm. I think you might define it as anything that deprives a person of their own property. Do we have a right to own our own bodies? Our own organs? I'd argue that not owning ourselves--being obligated to give others the use of our own organs, constitutes slavery. I don't have the right to show up at your house and demand the use of your liver, if I for some reason required dialysis.
As for it being the product of our own inability to avoid sex without protection, I hope you realize that that's not always the case. And asking a woman to confirm HOW she became pregnant is an enormous invasion of privacy.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever ANY Form of Government becomes DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to ALTER or to ABOLISH it, and to INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of ABUSES AND USUPATIONS, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world..." (emphasis added)
It is your right and duty, whether you would have it or not, to not only kill government officials but to overthrow the government should it overstep its bounds. The US government is getting dangerously close to that line. If the people become so apathetic and deluded as to allow the government to remove from us the means of their undoing through Constitutional Amendment, it will spell the death knell for this country. What happens when they decide to drop freedom of religion from the Constitution, because it too is no longer fashionable? What's to stop them from removing any of your other Rights? What's to stop them from laughing in your face when you feebly attempt to vote them out of office. If the populace is disarmed, there is NOTHING to make the government fear the people.
Let's define an attack for what it is. An attack is the initiation of force against one or more persons by another. Whether the intent of that force is to coerce from you your property, dignity, liberty, or life does not matter. If you came to my house to demand the use of my liver, there is nothing that would make me do it, unless you brought force. That would be an attack. Where did the fetus apply force?
Notice I said in 99% of cases. This was obviously to take rape into account. In the case of rape, the fetus was still not the attacker. It was the rapist. The rapist initiated force, and force can and should be applied in return. What did the fetus do? You cannot punish the child for the sins of the father.
Do democracies evolve? Do laws evolve?
Every new law , every amendment to the constitution , constitutes a new limitaiton on some method of activity. However, laws are what govern and regulate society --a neccesary creation, to avoid as Hobbes said "The war of all against all".
Do you believe that the poltical ideals of this country somehow halted in 1776? That there's no room for change? That any attempt to create that change constitutes a crime to which lethal force can and should be applied? Should people in other countries overthrow their governments to try and create a more 1776-like government?
Giving birth is a forceful activity. If I had shown up while you were sleeping, started using your liver and consigned you to a bed while I used your organs to help myself, without your consent, that would surely be an act of force. So is the fetus's usage of the womb, of the birth canal, of everything, from the woman. The fetus might not have awareness of that force. But that doesn't change the fact that it, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy , an individual is threatening the health and usurping bodily command of an unwilling individual. That's force.
Abortion isn't punishment for anything. It's an act of reproductive choice. It's someone taking their own rights into their hands--not giving their rights over to anyone else, government or otherwise.
Democracies absolutely evolve. The principles that define Liberty, however, do not. I would argue that the government's failure to evolve is just as Unconstitutional as their " evolution " towards big government. For example, declaring that since television and radio were not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore can be regulated, is a clear violation of both the First and Ninth Amendments. Deeming driving to be privilege and not a right, simply because it was not mentioned in the Constitution, is also a violation of the Ninth Amendment. That being said, the principles of small, limited government, low taxes , the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Bill of Rights, the right to vote, these are defining principles that are constant, and should not "evolve," as you put it. You're statement that every new Amendment to the Constitution is a limitation on some kind of activity is dishonest. The only Amendment ever that limited the People, rather than the government, was the 18th Amendment. It is also the only one to have ever been repealed, righting a wrong that should never have been committed.
The fetus's usage of the womb is absolutely not an act of force. If you had a pair of conjoined twins, and one relied on the other's heart to survive, would that be an act of force? Merely existing, no matter how inconvenient biology has made you existence on someone else, is not and cannot be defined as an act of force. Killing and cutting away the dependant twin, however, is certainly an act of force.
Killing another person, especially in such a painful and gruesome manner as abortion , is always punishment. Capital punishment is merely the act of removing a person who is unable to function in society from said society. It is still punishment. Killing another person on the battlefield is punishing him for being on (in your opinion) the wrong side.
Abortion is someone taking their own rights into their hands at the cost of an innocent person's unalienable right to life.
Is the Declaration of Independence a universal, legally binding, eternal and philosophically unimpeachable document?
But the principles expressed therein are a fundamental part of what defines this country. I realize you're Canadian, and that it is a largely American document, but it is universal, insofar as it states "man," meaning people. This is contrast to the Constitution, which is exclusively American. It is not legally binding, for it has nothing to legally bind, and the instances in which the actions expressed become necessary exceed the point at which a government would consider them legal . I suppose it is not philosophically unimpeachable, as King George would certainly have opposed it, but if you want to even pretend to have any respect for the Founders, you cannot so easily disregard the Declaration.
I just live and study in Victoria, now.
It's sort of odd, though, the devotion that some people have to the founders. I mean, you even capitalized it. It's vaguely Star Trek-y.
People can respect the founding fathers, and disagree with their description and philosophies on the existence and formation of natural rights. I can think of a lot of people who believe we have as human being natural rights, but weren't given them by G-d.
That seem oddly Harry Potterish of you. You should start saying "He who must not be named" instead, just for sheer comedic value. Saying the word won't hurt you, I promise. Not yet, anyway. At the rate we're going, it might just get you thrown in jail in a few years.
The fact that you don't have to agree with the Founding Fathers is one of the great things about this country. You don't have to. The government, on the other hand, must stay within the bounds layed out by the Constitution. That's something they haven't been doing lately.
That's how we do things.
You brought up the change in the Declaration from "men" to "People". What would make you think that that was their intent?
I did not realize it was for religious reasons. Even so, "he who must not be named" would undoubtedly be a hilarious way to say it, if a tad on the irreverent side.
I wouldn't. At the time, they meant men. Of course, they were under the assumption that women, as well as those who were not white, were not equals to white men. Since that is simply not true, the assumption has changed. They are not perfect. I never said they were. They passed a Constitution that allowed slavery, something shamefully in contrast with the principles they were building this country on. Even so, it is the principles that remain important, not the men. They are after all, mere men, and not "he who must not be named."
Is because in Judaism, we've got this belief in the relationship between words and things, especially entities. "Dragging their name through the mud" is a colloquialism that could have stemmed from that idea. Name's are important, and the name of G-d is something that Jews tend to take very seriously--we try not to say it, write it down, or do anything like that, because even the accidental misuse or destruction of that would be a bit of a blasphemy. For example, if we wrote down the name of G-d, and then crumpled it up and threw it away, it would be somewhat insulting. So we just try not to write it down.
Men are, by nature, fallible. I agree. They were wrong. They were wrong, in the Declaration of Independence, to not list women. They were indeed wrong to pass slavery. So pointing something out in a document and saying "No, this is incorrect, this is not reflective of reality" isn't by nature a disrespectful act. It's hard to tell if the principles they wanted to build the country on were in line with what they wrote down--If it was, the question could be asked "Why didn't they write THAT down as well"?
I agree that the founding fathers believed that women and nonwhites were inferior to white men, and thusly not deserving of the same rights. That's not an uncommon viewpoint for most of history. However, times have changed, new information has become available. When you make such a pronouncement about rights--what they are, who they go to, and where they come from--and end up being wrong on two of the three parts of that pronouncement, the last part shouldn't be so firmly defended as Truth.
Just because the words came from fallible men who made mistakes does not disqualify their arguments. That is argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy.
without the use of your liver would give me the right to use it? And would give you the obligation, no matter the inconvenience, pain, risk of death, to allow me that usage?
Rights have limits, especially the ones in the bill of rights. I'm not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater. Driving is a right, now?
If you were attached to my body and depnendant on my liver, yes. A conjoined twin does not have the right to kill his twin for convenience.
Especially the ones in the Bill of Rights? I'm sorry, but when it says the words "shall not be infringed" that sounds a lot like there shouldn't be limits to me. Now, obviously, slander and speech that harms other people is not protected, since it interferes with other people's rights. That being said, the only reason to limit a right is if it conflicts with someone else's superior right. For example, a child's right to live supercedes a mother's right to her body. But how does keeping and bearing arms interfere with someone else's rights?
"For example, a child's right to live supercedes a mother's right to her body." Very poor and false "example".
Let's start by defining things properly. A CHILD, specifically an already-born human being, has no attachment or compelling influence over the mother's body. An embryo/zygote/fetus has no inherent right to usurp the sovereignty of the woman over her own body.
supercedes another person's right to live. A person's right to their property as well supercedes another person's right to live.
Keeping and bearing arms doesn't in and of itself interfere with someone elses rights, just like driving drunk doesn't interfere with anyone's rights. Should drunk driving be legalized?
Do you honestly believe that an armed citizen presents a threat to public safety ? One so great it can be compared to manipulating one of the deadliest weapons man has yet to create while under the influence of a drug? The fact is, statistics show that areas in which law abiding citizens are not kept from keeping arms, the crime rate is significantly lower. The vast majority of people understand and respect the power of a gun. It has the power to allow a 100 pound single mother to defend herself from three 250 pound would-be rapists, without even firing a shot. It puts a black man on the same plane as a lynching mob, a lone homosexual on the same plane as a group of violent homophobes. It places a group of citizens on the same level as a would-be tyrranical government. The sight of a firearm in the hands of knowledgeable citizen stops most criminals dead in their tracks. For the rare cases when it doesn't, a couple of rounds generally does the trick. Those people who don't understand this power, and who use their guns in an irresponsible and dangerous way, should be dealt with harshly. I recommend the death penalty . Removing our rights in the name of safety is absolutely unnacceptable. It is why Former President Bush was condemned so roundly for the illegal wiretapping scandal. Violating our right to defend ourselves from predators man and beast, mugger and tyrant, in the name of safety is just as wrong, if not more so, than violating our privacy with the same excuse.
Sure. A gun, in the hands of some people, can present a threat to public safety . So the fact that the right to bear arms isn't a UNIVERSAL right. Nor, I think as you point out, is the right to life. Both of those things have limitations.
Don't call people ignorant. It violates civility 101.
I say what I mean and mean what I say. I make full use of my First Amendment Rights every single day. And there wasn't a better word to use. That's all there is to it.
"A gun, in the hands of SOME people, CAN present a threat to public safety ." (emphasis added) I think we actually agree on something. Do you know what the best counter to that potential threat is? Another gun in the hands of a responsible citizen. The people who would use a gun in a way that would make themselves a threat to public safety are going to find a way. Whether it's buying guns from an illegal source, making their own (which isn't that hard), or driving their car into a crowd, they will find a way. Disarming everyone else empowers that threat, rather than diminishing it. Furthermore, even if, in some alternate universe, this was not the case, removing my Constitutional right to defend myself from those people and my government for the sake of public safety is Unconstitutional. It is also dangerous and unwise. Every case of genocide, tyranny, and oppression in history has been preceded by disarmament. From the peasants of fuedal societies, to the Jews in Nazi Germany, to the Boers who are being disarmed as we speak in South Africa in preparation for the coming genocide there, all have been forbidden from defending themselves. It is a vital part of any free society .
If you don't care to follow the rules, then that's your issue.
I have been silenced. I guess we know your true colors, now.
They decided that what you were doing was against the rules.
If you don't want to follow the rules, that's what happens.
And you know it. But whatever, rationalize it how you will. Doesn't hurt me, not one bit. Good luck sleeping tonight.