The draft opinion rejecting a women's right to choose and banning abortion lays bare the ugly truth of Supreme Court justices who pretended they would not overturn Roe v. Wade
It's all simply appalling - if entirely predictable in a country such as ours where religious hegemony trumps education.
Truth, honor, decency and shame have vanished from our lexicon. How did we come to this? The fact that five of these "Justices" lied under oath will simply be met with a shrug.
I am all for the wait and see approach. So many law scholars are now ripping that preliminary decision to bits. Then the outrage among 70% of Americans. Add dire warnings from the medical community of the consequences. The only good part of all this is the continued hypocrisy of the GOP. They are freaking out for the wrong reason and it shows.
Spectacular You summed all my concerns, thoughts so well. In private sector, you might get job but when your untruths came out you would be out. Oh that public sector worked same way.
Totally serious question, given the recent rulings in a court of law. Steven, will you be reporting on the Sussman trial? Speaking of liars, and all. I really hope so.
I have wondered, since hearing Kellyanne Conway dribble away on "alternative facts," if what she was saying was, simply--- lying is what we do.
The "Inferiors" who occupy seats on the Supreme Court are a specific breed of liar. They are driven by religious fanaticism; they believe they are chosen; they believe their lies are 'born again' bonafides. They have lied to gain their footholds in government; they have lied to sustain their career trajectories; they have lied for power and privilege. They are closer to reconstituting America into a theocracy.
Hannah Arendt is very clear in her essay, Lying in Politics, "Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings."
Personal integrity is foundational: "Integrity, wrote author C.S. Lewis, “is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.”
Madonna-ish Cony-Barrett, beery Kavanaugh, vengeful Thomas, calculating Roberts, angry Alito, and a rather cartoonish Gorsuch, who claimed at his confirmation that he was "independence from outside influence, the importance of precedents and his unwillingness to wade into political crossfire."
I cannot, in good conscience, say that I trust my governments [state or federal]. I can say that when I am most afraid of what's coming at us, I remember and look to the relief of a space such as America, America offers.
Sadly, it reveals that the Senate hearings through which the Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate are to glean what the judges who are nominated to be justices really think on important matters seem to be a sham. We all know what the Senate Judiciary is going to ask; and, even worse, the would-be justices massage their responses to be able to adapt them to future situations and claim they were not lying. Why do we even have these hearings? It is clear that the majority political party will get confirmation of the judges it nominates to the Supreme Court. Sadly, what has happened to the Supreme Court as being a non-partisan co-equal branch of government. The Supreme Court is so partisan, with few exc options. However, this week, even Chief Justice John Roberts focused his attention on the leak, seemingly wanting to divert attention from what his Associate Justices are doing in denying precedent, and in saying abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution. By that reasoning, women's right to vote was not in the Constitution. LGBTQ+ rights were not in the Constitution. The rights of African Americans to be free people and have the right to vote was not in the Constitution. So, do the justices, who pride themselves on being strict interpreters of the Constitution, do not understand the evolution of society over time. Would they go back and deny so many Americans rights that are not specifically set forth in the Constitution that was drafted in 1789. And, finally, this whole right to life issue, is this based on a Christian principle that life begins at conception. Wasn't one of the precepts of this experiment we call a democratic republic, breaking away from England, that we have a separation of church and state. However, the Christian dogma seems to take precedence. The Jewish value that pikuach nefesh, saving life, which in abortion cases can be saving the life of the mother, seems to be disregarded. So, where does that leave us with regard to religious freedom.
When Amy Coney Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame, the university’s Faculty for Life, of which she was a member, unanimously denounced the university’s decision to honor then-Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, with an award recognizing “outstanding service to church and society.” The faculty group’s specific objection was to his support for the right to abortion. “Saying that Mr. Biden rejects church teaching could make it sound like he is merely disobeying the rules of his religious group,” the
Faculty for Life’s resolution stated. “But the church’s teaching about the sanctity of life is true.”
Referring to all the briefs filed by religiously affilited groups on SC hearing on Roe vs Wade:
"That shouldn’t be surprising. What reason other than religious doctrine is there, really, for turning back the clock on a decision that nearly a half-century ago freed women from the choice between the terror of the back alley and the tyranny of enforced motherhood? About one-third of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, want the court to overturn Roe. And yet, as we saw last week, the right to abortion is already functionally dead in Texas, and its fate may soon be left to the whims of Republican politicians everywhere else. It’s incumbent on the rest of us to call out those who invoke God as their legislative drafting partner."
I cannot believe the number of people who seem genuinely surprised at this. I know it may be hard sometimes to discern fact from fantasy, but if we survive as a democracy, a democratically governed Republic, it is absolutely necessary that we practice democracy. We cannot do that through ignorance.
Never doubt that a free press stands in the breech.
Maybe this would result in fewer abortions? 63 million aborted fetuses seem a high price to pay for a mom's freedom to live her life. I just dropped my Friday post, and summed it up thusly,
Listening to the protests and reading the signs completely miss the point of abortion. It’s not cancer. One doesn’t catch a fetus. Pregnancy doesn’t just happen to a birthing person. To become pregnant, (outside of rape and incest) one must engage in an activity that has been proven to cause pregnancy. Jus sayin.
I can remember when Rome refused to allow any form of birth control. There is a reason that most nations having a national religion, especially Catholic Christianity, are the poorest, lest educated, and most poverty ridden. Abortion was originally a Catholic issue. It is not a question of morality, as they would have us believe, but a question of how much control the church can hold over the sheep. It is the same as their fear of science and critical thought. Truth and fact are their Kryptonite.
understood. So is your point, that abortion can be utilized as birth control? Bill Maher's take is unique in that I haven't heard it publicly. Paraphrasing, life is for the living. Until one is outside the womb, one is not alive. so it's not the killing of a human being. My kids' pediatricians believed that it was life in the womb. so two schools of thought. Are you saying that one of those views is evil and the other is not?
"Listening to the protests and reading the signs completely miss the point of abortion. It’s not cancer. One doesn’t catch a fetus. Pregnancy doesn’t just happen to a birthing person. To become pregnant, (outside of rape and incest) one must engage in an activity that has been proven to cause pregnancy. Jus sayin."
You are saying just what you suggest I have said: that women are using abortion as birth control. That is the entirety of your argument. But I understand, you are only able to parrot what you hear from GOP candidates and the majority of pulpits. The Republican party is carrying out the agenda of the church. Period.
Deny the right of women to choose for themselves whether a pregnancy is brought to term.
Deny the right to birth control. (It's already being proposed by GOP Governors.)
Deny the right to health care.
Deny the right to childcare.
Deny the right to family leave.
Deny the right to a living wage.
Deny the right to a safe environment.
Deny the right to all the necessary things to sustain life, and then identify yourself as the supporters of the right to life? Only the Troglodyte sycophants of your own party/church do not realize the total hypocrisy of your argument.
You mentioned in the above quote that, "... one must engage in an activity ..." that results in pregnancy. Where are the providers of the sperm in your self-righteous rage? Maybe you are one of those who think that women have some secret power to reject pregnancy in the event of rape or incest. Or maybe you think that if rape is inevitable, the victim should just lie back and enjoy the experience?
Your arguments are as disconnected from reality as they are from truth.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, speech, Conference on Cosmic Design, Washington, DC, 19991
I won't bother you with my hypocritical BS, bc you obviously didn't read or understand a word I wrote. Did you see the part where I wrote that I may advocate for abortion, depending on the circumstances. But as a sperm provider that had no say whether the pregnancy said sperm assisted in causing, I think I have a point of view. It seems your side just wants to yell and kill babies. I would rather have a conversation and make that the option of last resort. That's what I'm saying.
Well, Catholics are only 22% of this country, and my understanding is that a majority of them do not practice the tenets of the religion. In any case, our laws are not, or should not, be based on religious beliefs.
Yes, of course, more effective birth control, and increased support for organizations that promote birth control, such as Planned Parenthood. I dare say that no woman actually *wants* an abortion.
That Senator Susan Collins did not perceive Cavanaugh's lying throughout that hearing reveals more about her than it does about him.
It's all simply appalling - if entirely predictable in a country such as ours where religious hegemony trumps education.
Truth, honor, decency and shame have vanished from our lexicon. How did we come to this? The fact that five of these "Justices" lied under oath will simply be met with a shrug.
A shrug. And a wink and a nod if we cannot get Democrat lawmakers off their ...laurels.
I am all for the wait and see approach. So many law scholars are now ripping that preliminary decision to bits. Then the outrage among 70% of Americans. Add dire warnings from the medical community of the consequences. The only good part of all this is the continued hypocrisy of the GOP. They are freaking out for the wrong reason and it shows.
Spectacular You summed all my concerns, thoughts so well. In private sector, you might get job but when your untruths came out you would be out. Oh that public sector worked same way.
Thank you. Agree on the public sector. If only.
Among the reasons I am not leaving Connecticut. https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/05-2022/Watch-Governor-Lamont-Signs-Reproductive-Rights-Legislation
Susan Collins is an ignoramus.
Susan Collins is a Republican. She has zero integrity. MTG is more honest than Collins. And remember that they all are Christians.
Totally serious question, given the recent rulings in a court of law. Steven, will you be reporting on the Sussman trial? Speaking of liars, and all. I really hope so.
Thanks.
I have wondered, since hearing Kellyanne Conway dribble away on "alternative facts," if what she was saying was, simply--- lying is what we do.
The "Inferiors" who occupy seats on the Supreme Court are a specific breed of liar. They are driven by religious fanaticism; they believe they are chosen; they believe their lies are 'born again' bonafides. They have lied to gain their footholds in government; they have lied to sustain their career trajectories; they have lied for power and privilege. They are closer to reconstituting America into a theocracy.
Hannah Arendt is very clear in her essay, Lying in Politics, "Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings."
Personal integrity is foundational: "Integrity, wrote author C.S. Lewis, “is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.”
Madonna-ish Cony-Barrett, beery Kavanaugh, vengeful Thomas, calculating Roberts, angry Alito, and a rather cartoonish Gorsuch, who claimed at his confirmation that he was "independence from outside influence, the importance of precedents and his unwillingness to wade into political crossfire."
I cannot, in good conscience, say that I trust my governments [state or federal]. I can say that when I am most afraid of what's coming at us, I remember and look to the relief of a space such as America, America offers.
Sadly, it reveals that the Senate hearings through which the Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate are to glean what the judges who are nominated to be justices really think on important matters seem to be a sham. We all know what the Senate Judiciary is going to ask; and, even worse, the would-be justices massage their responses to be able to adapt them to future situations and claim they were not lying. Why do we even have these hearings? It is clear that the majority political party will get confirmation of the judges it nominates to the Supreme Court. Sadly, what has happened to the Supreme Court as being a non-partisan co-equal branch of government. The Supreme Court is so partisan, with few exc options. However, this week, even Chief Justice John Roberts focused his attention on the leak, seemingly wanting to divert attention from what his Associate Justices are doing in denying precedent, and in saying abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution. By that reasoning, women's right to vote was not in the Constitution. LGBTQ+ rights were not in the Constitution. The rights of African Americans to be free people and have the right to vote was not in the Constitution. So, do the justices, who pride themselves on being strict interpreters of the Constitution, do not understand the evolution of society over time. Would they go back and deny so many Americans rights that are not specifically set forth in the Constitution that was drafted in 1789. And, finally, this whole right to life issue, is this based on a Christian principle that life begins at conception. Wasn't one of the precepts of this experiment we call a democratic republic, breaking away from England, that we have a separation of church and state. However, the Christian dogma seems to take precedence. The Jewish value that pikuach nefesh, saving life, which in abortion cases can be saving the life of the mother, seems to be disregarded. So, where does that leave us with regard to religious freedom.
Linda Greenhouse
New York Times
09/09/21
When Amy Coney Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame, the university’s Faculty for Life, of which she was a member, unanimously denounced the university’s decision to honor then-Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, with an award recognizing “outstanding service to church and society.” The faculty group’s specific objection was to his support for the right to abortion. “Saying that Mr. Biden rejects church teaching could make it sound like he is merely disobeying the rules of his religious group,” the
Faculty for Life’s resolution stated. “But the church’s teaching about the sanctity of life is true.”
Referring to all the briefs filed by religiously affilited groups on SC hearing on Roe vs Wade:
"That shouldn’t be surprising. What reason other than religious doctrine is there, really, for turning back the clock on a decision that nearly a half-century ago freed women from the choice between the terror of the back alley and the tyranny of enforced motherhood? About one-third of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, want the court to overturn Roe. And yet, as we saw last week, the right to abortion is already functionally dead in Texas, and its fate may soon be left to the whims of Republican politicians everywhere else. It’s incumbent on the rest of us to call out those who invoke God as their legislative drafting partner."
I cannot believe the number of people who seem genuinely surprised at this. I know it may be hard sometimes to discern fact from fantasy, but if we survive as a democracy, a democratically governed Republic, it is absolutely necessary that we practice democracy. We cannot do that through ignorance.
Never doubt that a free press stands in the breech.
Maybe this would result in fewer abortions? 63 million aborted fetuses seem a high price to pay for a mom's freedom to live her life. I just dropped my Friday post, and summed it up thusly,
Listening to the protests and reading the signs completely miss the point of abortion. It’s not cancer. One doesn’t catch a fetus. Pregnancy doesn’t just happen to a birthing person. To become pregnant, (outside of rape and incest) one must engage in an activity that has been proven to cause pregnancy. Jus sayin.
Please take a look if you want to read more.
Thanks
Ric
Maybe men should be prevented from ejaculating since sperm also represent potential life
The Catholics do prohibit masturbation because of that reason. Maybe just more, free and effective birth control? for men and women?
I can remember when Rome refused to allow any form of birth control. There is a reason that most nations having a national religion, especially Catholic Christianity, are the poorest, lest educated, and most poverty ridden. Abortion was originally a Catholic issue. It is not a question of morality, as they would have us believe, but a question of how much control the church can hold over the sheep. It is the same as their fear of science and critical thought. Truth and fact are their Kryptonite.
understood. So is your point, that abortion can be utilized as birth control? Bill Maher's take is unique in that I haven't heard it publicly. Paraphrasing, life is for the living. Until one is outside the womb, one is not alive. so it's not the killing of a human being. My kids' pediatricians believed that it was life in the womb. so two schools of thought. Are you saying that one of those views is evil and the other is not?
Seig Heil!
Heil Hitler!
Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty!
"Listening to the protests and reading the signs completely miss the point of abortion. It’s not cancer. One doesn’t catch a fetus. Pregnancy doesn’t just happen to a birthing person. To become pregnant, (outside of rape and incest) one must engage in an activity that has been proven to cause pregnancy. Jus sayin."
You are saying just what you suggest I have said: that women are using abortion as birth control. That is the entirety of your argument. But I understand, you are only able to parrot what you hear from GOP candidates and the majority of pulpits. The Republican party is carrying out the agenda of the church. Period.
Deny the right of women to choose for themselves whether a pregnancy is brought to term.
Deny the right to birth control. (It's already being proposed by GOP Governors.)
Deny the right to health care.
Deny the right to childcare.
Deny the right to family leave.
Deny the right to a living wage.
Deny the right to a safe environment.
Deny the right to all the necessary things to sustain life, and then identify yourself as the supporters of the right to life? Only the Troglodyte sycophants of your own party/church do not realize the total hypocrisy of your argument.
You mentioned in the above quote that, "... one must engage in an activity ..." that results in pregnancy. Where are the providers of the sperm in your self-righteous rage? Maybe you are one of those who think that women have some secret power to reject pregnancy in the event of rape or incest. Or maybe you think that if rape is inevitable, the victim should just lie back and enjoy the experience?
Your arguments are as disconnected from reality as they are from truth.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, speech, Conference on Cosmic Design, Washington, DC, 19991
Perhaps you didn't understand the Haiku?
PS: Don't bother me with your hypocritical BS
I won't bother you with my hypocritical BS, bc you obviously didn't read or understand a word I wrote. Did you see the part where I wrote that I may advocate for abortion, depending on the circumstances. But as a sperm provider that had no say whether the pregnancy said sperm assisted in causing, I think I have a point of view. It seems your side just wants to yell and kill babies. I would rather have a conversation and make that the option of last resort. That's what I'm saying.
Well, Catholics are only 22% of this country, and my understanding is that a majority of them do not practice the tenets of the religion. In any case, our laws are not, or should not, be based on religious beliefs.
Yes, of course, more effective birth control, and increased support for organizations that promote birth control, such as Planned Parenthood. I dare say that no woman actually *wants* an abortion.
I would agree with that.
Over-ripe sushi,
The Master
Is full of regret.
- Yosa Buson