Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Has the 'Pro-Life' Movement Won?

Rate this topic


Boydstun
 Share

Recommended Posts

They've certainly convinced a lot of people that "life" begins at conception. People like Biden can't really challenge it because they believe it too. All they can do is be hypocrites and say they won't impose their beliefs on others, when they're perfectly willing to impose other beliefs on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 4/3/2021 at 2:50 PM, MisterSwig said:

They've certainly convinced a lot of people that "life" begins at conception. People like Biden can't really challenge it because they believe it too. All they can do is be hypocrites and say they won't impose their beliefs on others, when they're perfectly willing to impose other beliefs on others.

Politicians' best posture is to NOT impose abortion regulation.  In itself, this shows a respect for women's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding "pro-choice vs. pro-life" the main criteria here is that government has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a woman's body.  No matter what a President, an individual member of Congress, or state and local representative, or governor believes, it is imperative that government stay out of the race to restrict or prohibit a woman's right to an abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

“In granting this case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court takes us all the way back to the heart of the matter, to whether a state can skip all the rigmarole and just impose a flat-out ban on some—or all—abortions before fetal viability.

“Do I think the court will use this case to permit states to ban abortion entirely? No, not directly and not soon; there’s no need for the new majority, handpicked for that very purpose, to go that far this fast. The question the court has agreed to answer, as framed by the state’s petition, “Whether all previability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,” suggests but doesn’t require an all-or-nothing response.

“[Presently] what a state can’t do at the end of the day is actually prevent a woman with the resources and will to get to one of the diminishing number of private providers . . . from terminating her pregnancy.

“Once the viability firewall is breached, it’s hard to see what limiting principle the new majority might invoke even if so inclined. . . .

“Limiting principles usually matter a great deal at the Supreme Court, and it’s common during oral argument for justices to demand that lawyers articulate one. The justices need to know: ‘If we buy what you’re trying to sell us, exactly what are we buying? What’s the next case in line after yours?’” —Linda Greenhouse—20 May 2021, NYT

I expect readers here know what’s in the long and growing line from state governments where appeals to mystical metaphysics of the electorate have seated officials committed to the end of all previability abortions (a fortiori, all abortions) in America. (90% percent of US abortions are performed before the 13th week of gestation; present technology for support of a fetus outside the womb is good for effecting live deliveries at about 22 weeks and on up to full-term.)

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Today at the US Supreme Court, arguments concerned the Mississippi anti-abortion law and the Texas one titled Senate Bill 8.

In the abortion providers’ lawsuit to challenge the latter, “the majority of justices pushed back on the enforcement mechanism that has allowed the law to skirt judicial review so far . . . .

“‘There's a loophole that's been exploited here or used here,’ Kavanaugh said, noting that the same mechanism could be applied to limit other constitutional rights if allowed to stand. ‘It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights, if this position is accepted here.’

“Texas’ law, which blocks abortions at about six weeks into a pregnancy, has been successful in suspending most constitutionally protected abortions in the state by using a unique tactic: forbidding state officials from enforcing SB 8 and instead relying on private citizens to sue those who violate it. Typically, in suits aiming to overturn laws considered unconstitutional, courts don’t block the laws themselves — they block their enforcement. Since SB 8 is not enforced by any state officials, opponents seeking to block it have struggled to narrow their focus and name the right defendants.” Texas Tribune - 11/1/21

“Justice Barrett took issue with the state’s assertion that providers could adequately challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and defending themselves by arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

“‘The full constitutional defense cannot be asserted in the defensive posture, am I right?’ she asked.

“Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the federal government, said the Texas law was designed ‘to thwart the supremacy of federal law in open defiance of our constitutional structure.’

“‘States are free to ask this court to reconsider its constitutional precedents,’ she said, ‘but they are not free to place themselves above this court, nullify the court’s decisions in their borders, and block the judicial review necessary to vindicate federal rights [eg. Bill of Rights]’” New York Times - Adam Liptak - 11/1/21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...