Tag Archives: Abortion

SCOTUS For The Average Joe, Social Issues

Average Joe SCOTUS: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Leave a comment

This is almost assuredly the blockbuster case of this decade. It’s the one everyone is talking about, at least. So let’s dig in.

Y’all remember Roe v. Wade, right? Well, once Donald Trump had secured a 6:3 conservative majority in SCOTUS, largely on the promise of Roe v. Wade getting overturned if he was able to do so, Dobbs ended up being the case to do it.

Many Republican-majority states knew, if they started passing laws that blatantly violated Roe’s precedent, and the newly Republican-appointed super-majority were willing to consider overturning Roe, these laws which would have been easily struck down previously, would now meandered their way to SCOTUS. And so this one did, and SCOTUS happily granted certiori (agreed to hear it.)

This particular law was a 2018 Mississippi law called the “Gestational Age Act.” It basically told women that if they were going to terminate their pregnancy, they need to do it in the first fifteen weeks.

However, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which SCOTUS upheld Roe, but modified it, they replaced the trimester scheme in Roe, and instead replaced it with one test—whether or not the fetus was viable.

So the petitioners, Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO), were like, “Woah, you country bumpkin mother fuckers, Casey said we have until viability to make such a call. And fifteen weeks is a country fucking mile from viability. So we’ll see your asses in court.”

As usual, a lower court ruled, and told Mississippi that they were clearly out of line, that no evidence was provided to show 15 weeks met the “viability” requirement, and therefore violated the Casey precedent.

Counsel for Dobbs, started off by arguing:

Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country.

They have no basis in the Constitution.

They have no home in our history or traditions.

Nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life

~Scott G. Stewart

In citing the previous court in Casey, Justice Breyer pretty much let his position be known by forcefully pointing out the reasoning of a judicial philosophy called stare decisis (standing by what’s been decided previously). Speaking to Counsel Stewart, he asked:

It is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure, not political pressure. “Only the most convincing justification can show that a later decision overruling,” if that’s what we did, “was anything but a surrender to political pressures or new members.”

What do you say to that?

~Justice Breyer

He was sending a message to the six conservative justices, that overturning Roe should not be done to appease the presidents that appointed them, the party that brought them to power, or even the will of the people. That the decision should be based on logic—overturning a previous ruling should only be done, because the previous court, working with less information than the current court has, got their decision wrong.

Justice Thomas, questioning counsel for JWHO, asked a question, that I have to be honest, even puts me in a box I didn’t think I could be put in. My argument, as well as the argument from JWHO, is that this is a bodily autonomy issue, an extension of the 4th amendment’s right to be secure in your own person, or the 14th amendment, which guarantees life, liberty, and property rights.

He asked:

I am trying to look at the issue of bodily autonomy and whether or not she has a right also to bodily autonomy in the case of ingesting an illegal substance and causing harm to a pre-viability fetus.

~Justice Clarence Thomas

This is fucking tough to justify, and I honestly don’t know if I can. If a woman has a right to bodily autonomy that would allow her to abort a fetus, does she have the right to ingest a substance, such as drugs or alcohol, that would cause that fetus to be stillborn, or have severe birth defects?

I suppose if I were arguing for the pro-choice side, I might have had to suggest that an abortion terminates the fetus before it becomes a person with rights under the law, so it never becomes a person with rights under the law. But using drugs or alcohol, assuming the fetus comes to term, violates that person’s rights to life in perpetuity, because if it does become a person, it will be forever victimized by the mother’s actions until the person dies.

Counsel for WHO, either being less creative than me, or smarter than me, dodged the issue almost entirely, rejecting it as not germane to her argument, and focused instead on adherence to the philosophy of stare decisis , and the viability precedent. I don’t think failing to have an answer for this issue helped her.

Justice Barrett, pointing out that Roe and Casey both seemed to focus on the burdens of motherhood, as to why it was necessary for a woman to be able to exercise the right to an abortion, pushed counsel that because of this, it shouldn’t be problematic for the women to bring the child to term, then relinquish it for adoption.

Counsel Rikelman responded to this question with:

Pregnancy itself is unique. It imposes unique physical demands and risks on women and, in fact, has impact on all of their lives, on their ability to care for other children, other family members, on their ability to work.

And, in particular, in Mississippi, those risks are alarmingly high.

It’s 75 times more dangerous to give birth in Mississippi than it — than it is to have a pre-viability abortion, and those risks are disproportionately threatening the lives of women of color.

~Julie Rikelman

When counsel for The United States (The Biden Admin), an amici in this case (Amici’s are groups that are not part of the suit, but people with a vested interest in the suit, who join with the people filing suit) stepped up to the mic, Justice Thomas, seeming to be as troubled with Alito that Roe guaranteed a right that isn’t in the Constitution, point blank asked,

“What specifically is the right we’re talking about here?”

Counsel Prelogar responded:

Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the Court in those other contexts with respect to those other amendments has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the constitutional guarantees, and it’s done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights. So I don’t think that there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the Court articulated in Roe and Casey and the way that it implemented that right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing that that is the moment when the balance of interests tips and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from getting an abortion based on its interest in protecting the fetal life at that point. It’s the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with the pregnancy.

~Elizabeth Prolegar

Counsel Prolegar was asked by Justice Kagan to talk about “reliance,” which Cornell defines as “A legal concept defining the dependence by one person on another person’s or entity’s statements or actions, particularly where the person acts upon such dependence.” Prolegar’s arguments spoke often of reliance as part of their argument, so Justice Kagan was presumably giving her an opportunity to elaborate on it.

Her response cut right to the bone:

Well, there are multiple reliance interests here, as I think Casey correctly recognized.

Casey pointed to the individual reliance of women and their partners who had been able to organize their lives and make important life decisions against the backdrop of having control over this incredibly consequential decision whether to have a child.

And people make decisions in reliance on having that kind of reproductive control, decisions about where to live, what relationships to enter into, what investments to make in their jobs and careers. And so I think, on a very individual level, there has been profound reliance.

And it’s certainly the case that not every woman in America has needed to exercise this right or has wanted to, but one in four American women have had an abortion, and for those women, the right secured by Roe and Casey has been critical in ensuring that they can control their bodies and control their lives. And then I think there’s a second dimension to it that Casey also properly recognized, and that’s the societal dimension. That’s the — the understanding of our society, even though this has been a controversial decision, that this is a liberty interest of women.

It’s the case that not everyone agrees with Roe versus Wade, but just about every person in America knows what this Court held, they know how the Court has defined this concept of liberty for women and what control they will have in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy. And for the Court to reverse course now, I think, would run counter to that societal reliance and the very concept we have of what equality is guaranteed to women in this country.

Much to the surprise of those of us who believe in the court being pragmatic, and adherent to stare decisis, the conservative majority did what Trump said they’d do, and overturned Roe v. Wade and Panned Parenthood v. Casey.

In his opinion, Alito went straight to hard-ass mode level expert, and argued that because abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, SCOTUS had no business calling it a right out of thin air.

While I concede the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention abortion, it sure as fuck mentions the right to be secure in your person (4th amendment), and the right to life, liberty, and property in the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS makes decisions all day, where the text isn’t clear, tying the text, to what they believe the text’s intent is, or it’s logical conclusion. They make a shit ton of decisions, on the basis of constitutional merit, on things that aren’t specifically mentioned in the constitution, but that the constitution almost assuredly would have meant in a given scenario.

Being secure in one’s person, could and should easily include that government doesn’t own your own body, you do. And what you do to it, is your right. As such, the 4th amendment should confer your right to have a medical procedure done on yourself, including but not limited to, a fucking abortion. Although I suppose I can concede that maybe there’s some wiggle room for outlawing elective abortions, where the woman just doesn’t want to be pregnant, versus a prescribed abortion, where the doctor is suggesting it to save the mother’s life. But that’s an argument for another day, I suppose.

Being an Average Joe, and not a Harvard or Yale grad, I of course respect all nine justices, and disagree with Alito and company humbly. But three other people (the minority dissent) who are qualified agree with me, Alito’s reasoning is whack. He and the majority used confirmation bias to come to the conclusion they wanted on this issue, and that’s sad.

Hear oral arguments or read about the cases below.

Oyez – Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson

Leave a comment

Do you remember hearing something about a case a long time ago, I think it was called Roe v. Wade? I hear it’s kinda famous. Well anyway, ever since, people rolling around with a Jesus fish on their car, have been on a crusade to do something about that. Especially the ones rolling around in Texas.

In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS recognized you have two competing rights. A female’s bodily autonomy, versus the life of a fetus. But a fetus has never really been legally ruled as a life with constitutional rights, although it’s never been ruled out either. So back in the day, SCOTUS came up with a trimester system, where the first trimester, a woman’s bodily autonomy was the prevailing right, the second trimester they were somewhat equal, and the third trimester, the fetus had the prevailing right. Seemed fair to any fair minded person, but still the war rages on.

The latest battle on this front took place in Texas, and their fancy new SB8 abortion law. Knowing they couldn’t directly contradict Roe v. Wade’s precedent, Texas went for the most inventive shit ever. They passed a law that said, if you received an abortion, or were the physician who performed one, you could be sued by anyone in the great state of Texas. So they didn’t make it a criminal action, which was their way of not going against the Roe precedent, but they made it so it could cost people so much money, they wouldn’t do it.

They argued that they concede the first six weeks of pregnancy, but opponents argue six weeks can be nearly impossible to have cause to think one is pregnant, and give them the time needed to make the decision and have the procedure. One would basically need to take a pregnancy test shortly after each time they had sex to do all that within the time frame Texas set forth.

In steps Whole Women’s Health (WWH), a Texas abortion provider who submitted a petition to SCOTUS, that just said, “WTF is this bullshit?”

Originally, they asked SCOTUS to block the law, but they declined to do so. So now that it’s in effect, SCOTUS is hearing the case on their normal merits docket. So the question facing them is, can government pass a law that violates precedent, if the precedent pertained to criminal law, and this new law is merely civil litigation?

This particular case hinges around state officials who were sued by abortion providers for violating their constitutional rights as outlined in Roe v. Wade, and Mark Dickson, who most abortion providers consider to be a Jesus freak and all around asshole. They expect him to be the overzealous douchebag suing people left and right over this.

The government officials were like, “We have sovereign immunity, or whatever the fuck you call it. You can’t be suing us like this.”

Also interesting to note, when they asked SCOTUS to put the law on hold, SCOTUS declined to do so, because they were like, “you’re asking us to prevent the government from enforcing the law, but the way this fucktwats wrote it, they don’t enforce it, the people do, by suing providers. So we can’t force them to stop doing something the law doesn’t have them doing in the first place.” This of course supports Texas’ creativity in passing this in the first place.

Counsel for WWH came out swinging, and declared shenanigans. Counsel flat out accused them of blatantly violating Roe v. Wade precedent, then trying to be clever and using the whole civil litigation scheme to get around it.

When questioned by Justice Roberts about this scenario where people are being sued trying to exercise a constitutional right, counsel for Texas argued that there was precedent for this. People are sued for lawful possession of a firearm all the time, and they’re just trying to exercise they’re 2nd amendment right. So what’s the big fucking deal suing people for trying to exercise their constitutional right to bodily autonomy as identified in Roe v. Wade.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Whole Women’s Health. They they can in fact proceed to a pre-enforcement challenge of this ridiculous law. Furthermore, Justice Roberts, along with Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor were like, “What the fuck is even the purpose of our judicial review if punks like these assholes in Texas can just skirt our rulings with creative bullshit like this. We need to nip this shit in the bud right meow.”

Hear oral arguments or read about the case here.

Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: United States v. Texas

Leave a comment

As was mentioned in Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, Texas’ SB8 Heartbeat Abortion Bill is being questioned in this case, also. Who doesn’t love a good abortion debate, right? Clearly SCOTUS, does, because they took on two of them.

This one is merely to decide whether the federal government can sue the state of Texas in federal court to stop them from enforcing a law that they deem is unconstitutional.

While the law was passed while Donald “The Chosen One” Trump was president, giving Texas a friend in the Whitehouse, Joe “Brandon Brown” Biden is president now, and he’s all about what women want, as long as he can smell their hair later. So he was like, “Look how fucking woke I am, all you hot bitches, I’ll sue Texas for you.”

Originally, they asked US District Judge Robert Pitman to put the law on hold, and he was like, “Sure dude, I’ll pump the brakes on that shit for you.” He was like, “Texas, this is the shadiest fucking scheme I’ve ever seen to prevent judicial review. I admit it’s creative, but seriously, fuck you.”

Texas was like, “Fuck that guy,” so they went to the 8th circuit, and complained Pitman hurt their feelings. The 8th circuit was like, “Awww, sorry Texas, you need your woobie? Here, have a sucker. Also, we’ll tell Pitman to get fucked for you.” With that, the law was back on track.

While all this shit was happening, Biden and team went to SCOTUS and were like, “Seriously, this is getting ridiculous, can you please step in?”

SCOTUS was like, “We’re not halting the halt of the halt. Fuck you. But fine, we’ll fast track these fucking cases at least, and resolve this petulant bullshit once and for all.

Counsel for Biden’s team launched a scathing opening salvo, arguing:

Elizabeth B. Prelogar

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Texas designed S.B. 8 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, 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. As this case comes to the Court, there are three principal questions: First, is Texas responsible for this law? Second, can the United States sue to hold Texas to account? And, third, is the injunctive relief available? And the answer is yes down the line. Texas is responsible for the constitutional violation here.

It enacted a law that clearly violates this Court’s precedents.

It designed that law to thwart judicial review by offering bounties to the general public to carry out the state’s enforcement function, and it structured those enforcement proceedings to be so burdensome and to threaten such significant liability that they chill the exercise of the constitutional right altogether. The United States has a manifest sovereign interest in suing to redress this violation.

S.B. 8 is a brazen attack on the coordinate branches of the federal government. It’s an attack on the authority of this Court to say what the law is and to have that judgment respected across the 50 states.

And it’s an attack on Congress’s determination that there should be access to pre-enforcement review in federal court to vindicate federal rights.

The United States may sue to protect the supremacy of federal law against this attack. Finally, the injunction is a proper response to Texas’s unprecedented law.

If Texas can nullify Roe and Casey in this manner, then other states could do the same with other constitutional rights or other decisions of this Court that they disfavor. Federal courts are not powerless to craft relief to stop that intolerable threat to our constitutional hierarchy.

When counsel for Texas came to the table with his creative arguments, the justices were quick to point out, what would happen if a communist state like New York or California decided that guns weren’t an individual right, and passed similar laws to hold gun owners civilly liable for exercising their 2nd amendment right?

Justice Kagan even went on to ask:

Elena Kagan

I mean, if that’s right, you know, and we say that, we would live in a very different world from the world we live in today.

Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their un-preferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law of — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights. I mean, that was something that until this law came along no state dreamed of doing. And, essentially, we would be like, you know, we’re open for business — you’re open for business.

There’s — there’s — there’s — there’s nothing the Supreme Court can do about it.

Guns, same sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don’t like, go ahead.

The response from Texas’ counsel was full-blown legalese. I read it three times, heard it audibly, still don’t have a fucking clue what he’s trying to argue. I don’t think Justice Kagan was impressed either.

After listening to both sides, SCOTUS was like, “We can’t even…” and just dismissed the case entirely, saying, “We never should’ve bothered with shit in the first place, and we can’t be bothered to write an opinion. You’re all assholes. As such, the application to vacate the stay that was applied was denied.

Listen to oral arguments or read about the case here. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-588

Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS: Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center

Leave a comment

In what is expected to be a session where abortion is front and center, SCOTUS picked up this little gem from Kentucky.

In Kentucky, they typically use a procedure called Dilation and Extraction (D&E) to perform an abortion. You can read about the details of how it’s performed here, if you’d like. It basically stops the fetal heartbeat, and the fetus is removed after the fetus is deceased. This is the most common method for a 2nd trimester abortion. And while many states accept the Roe v. Wade decision, it’s worth nothing that 2nd trimester abortions are certainly more controversial than first trimester, as viability comes into play the closer to term the pregnancy becomes.

We here at Logical Libertarian support the system set forth in Roe v. Wade, giving the woman a right to choose in early stage pregnancies. But we also acknowledge that within days of conception, it’s a human life, and it’s being ended. I have written previously why the abortion debate is often fraught with lies and misrepresentation here, so I won’t rehash in this post.

Kentucky saw fit to ban D&E as a 2nd trimester procedure. But then, Kentucky went through gubernatorial changes, as well as a new Secretary for the Cabinet of Health in Kentucky. The new people, unlike their outgoing counterparts do not support the law, and were content to let it die on the vine after a Kentucky district court and the 6th circuit federal appellate court invalidated the statute.

In walks Daniel Cameron, a potential SCOTUS pick for Trump before he ultimately lost out to Justice Barrett. He is the Kentucky AG, and he was like, “If you assholes don’t want to defend the law, I will.”

So SCOTUS isn’t necessarily even opining on the Kentucky law. But they are looking to decide whether Cameron has the right to step in and defend a law that the governor, and the head of the agency who administrates it, have chosen not to defend.

While I obviously don’t know Cameron, this appears to be a staunch pro-life person looking to be a hero as a lone defender of fetal rights.

The 6th circuit shot Cameron down, because they were like, “If we let you jump in, then every asshole with an axe to grind, will sit and wait until a case has been decided to their disliking, then jump in after the fact like some two-bit Superman coming to save the day. It’ll be like dogs and cats—living together—mass hysteria.”

Cameron went to SCOTUS, and was like, “I’m the fucking states attorney general. It’s my job to defend state law, whether the governor chooses to or not. Let me in, bitches!”

He also made it clear, he didn’t wait in the wings for shit. He found out the piece of shit health secretary was refusing to do anything, and two days later, filed his motion.

EMW however, is like, “When we sued, we sued the Health Secretary and the AG. The AG was now governor Beshear at the time. Beshear stepped down from the case, and agreed to abide by the district court’s ruling. So basically EMW is like, “The AG at the time made a decision. So a new AG can’t just roll in dirty, and negate all the shit their predecessor did.”

In an 8:1 decision, with only Sotomayor dissenting, SCOTUS ruled with Cameron. In an opinion written by Justice Alito, there’s no law limiting the jurisdiction of the attorney general in the way the respondents want. If he wants to defend the law, it’s his job, whether the governor or state congress give a fuck or not.

Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the court is bending over backwards to allow this Jesus freak to jump on the bandwagon late in the game. As such, she thinks they opened the door for any new AGs around the country, to come in after a party change, and try to overrule decisions they disagreed with.

Hear oral arguments and read about the case here. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-601.

Libertarianism, SCOTUS For The Average Joe

Average Joe SCOTUS – Roe v. Wade [Classic]

Leave a comment

We all know that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal across the United States, but the this shit is WAY more nuanced and complicated than most know. So let’s really dig into this bitch, because it’s interesting AF.

First, Jane Roe was a fictional name used to represent an anonymous woman. She chose to remain anonymous at the time, but was later identified as Norma McCorvey. She had gotten pregnant with her third child, and wanted an abortion. The first two she had given up for adoption, but this time, she didn’t want to go through all difficult shit associated with bringing a child to term, then putting it up for adoption.

But there was a Texas law that said outside of rape and incest, unless your doctor orders an abortion to save your life, your doctor can’t perform a fucking abortion on you.

As a result, “Jane” lied and said she had been raped. But when there was no police report to corroborate the rape, they suspected she was full of shit, and denied her an abortion, leaving her with no way in Texas to get a legal abortion.

Jane Roe wasn’t the only petitioner in the case, though. There was also an anonymous couple that had gotten pregnant, and a doctor Hallford who was under indictment for performing an abortion (Presumably not the lead singer for Judas Priest, Rob Halford, although that’d be pretty fucking awesome).

They sought justice in a Texas district court citing first amendment violations (presumably arguing it was a law based on religion). But she also argued Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments violations.

The Texas district court gave her a victory on 9th amendment grounds, that just because the right to an abortion isn’t enumerated in the Constitution, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a right to  do it. But also, it effectively argues a person has a right to privacy. They cited the 14th amendment as well, which guarantees rights to “all citizens born.” So if you aren’t born yet, you’ve got no rights, little fella.

But Texas only gave a declaratory relief (they clarified the law), not injunctive relief, which would have effectively intervened on Roe’s behalf so she could get her abortion.

Texas decided that despite this decision, it was going to continue prosecuting doctors for performing illegal abortions.

By the time it made it to SCOTUS, the petitioner focused on the 9th amendment and 14th amendment arguments, since that’s how they won in Texas, when pleading their case to SCOTUS.

Also, the petitioners argued that based on some of the situations that were unique to that time, the law made Roe a victim. She noted that when a woman got pregnant, some jobs forced the woman to quit, some schools compel the woman drop out, and the woman can’t get unemployment or welfare benefits if she’s pregnant.

Counsel for Roe stated,

It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.

And we feel that, because of the impact on the woman, this certainly, and as far as there are any rights which are fundamental is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.

Here’s where this shit starts to get interesting. The Texas law only forbade a doctor from doing the abortion. And it held a significantly lower penalty than murder. Petitioners fairly argued that this showed they weren’t considering it murder. A woman could perform her own abortion, which is dangerous as hell to her (not just the fetus), and there was no law against that shit at all. As a matter of fact, in the law, the pregnant female was considered the victim, and the doctor was the criminal.

Part of the blow dealt to Texas was that from the doctor’s perspective, the law was too vague or subjective, a term under the law referred to as “Constitutionally vague.” Meaning that a doctor could run afoul of the law, and not even know. Laws must clearly define when you are crossing the line into illegality, otherwise you have no way to know how to avoid doing so.

Imagine if the doctor performed the abortion because they said the mother’s life was in danger. But then another doctor comes in after the fact and argues that the mother wasn’t in danger, the doctor performing the abortion was a shit doctor, and thus it’s an illegal abortion. Who the hell wants to sort that shit out? And what doctor will ever perform an abortion, when they know they could be thrown in jail for it later, even if they did so in good faith?

So this shady motherfucker on the side of Wade, tried to argue the case moot, because it had been 21 months, and Roe had long since given birth, then put the baby up for adoption. Basically, this dipshit was establishing a system where a woman could never get injunctive relief, because it would take too long to get it, and actually be able to perform the abortion. This case took 21 months, but obviously, the abortion needs to happen within a few months. So the court called him out on this nonsense, and the exchange was awkward at best:

Justice Byron R. White

How do you suggest, if you’re right, what procedure would you suggest for any pregnant female in the State of Texas ever to get any judicial consideration of this constitutional claim?

Jay Floyd – Wade advocate

Your Honor, let me answer your question with a statement, if I may. I do not believe it can be done. There are situations in which, of course as the Court knows, no remedy is provided.

Now I think she makes her choice prior to the time she becomes pregnant. That is the time of the choice. It’s like, more or less, the first three or four years of our life we don’t remember anything.

But, once a child is born, a woman no longer has a choice, and I think pregnancy may terminate that choice. That’s when

Justice Byron R. White

Maybe she makes her choice when she decides to live in Texas.

As arguments proceeded, the question was asked of the state by SCOTUS, what’s your interest here? To preserve the life of the fetus? So Wade’s attorney was all like, I don’t fucking know, sounds about right.

You’ll think I’m joking there, but he genuinely fucking said when asked what the state’s interest was,

“They recognized the humanness of the embryo, or the fetus, and they said, we have an interest in protecting fetal life.

Whether or not that was the original intent of the statute, I have no idea.”

Clearly, this motherfucker was prepared.

So then the justice was like, well then how the fuck is the woman the victim? Shouldn’t the woman and the doctor be the criminals, and the fetus be the victim?

It became clear that no compelling argument had been made, nor precedent set, to constitute a fetus being a life with equal protection under the law. As a matter of fact, this motherfucker when asked about not making the fetus the victim said,

That is correct, Your Honor. And the matter has been brought to my attention. Why not punish for murder, since you are destroying what you – or what has been said to be a human being?

I do not know, except that I will say this. As medical science progresses, maybe the law will progress along with it. Maybe at one time it could be possible, I suppose, statutes could be passed. Whether or not that would be constitutional or not, I don’t know.

I’ve eaten a bowl of alphabet soup and shit better arguments than that. No wonder that mother fucker lost. Seriously!

He was so bad, that when the case was re-argued at the suggestion of justice Harry Blackmun nearly a year later (due to the fact the court was two justices short from retirements prior to the case, and those seats having not yet been filled), Texas replaced his dumb ass as their advocate.

Anyway, back to Captain Anonymous, Jane Roe. Effectively, if the court accepted that the state’s interest was protecting a life other than the mother’s life, then the court was put into a quagmire, where they’re forced to choose between competing rights for the mother and the fetus.

Eventually SCOTUS decided 7-2 in favor of Roe. Based on the idea that they’re choosing one life over the other, they divide the pregnancy up into three trimesters, which is where the whole “trimester” term came to be.

They gave the mother sole discretion, with her doctor, to terminate in the first trimester, putting the mother’s rights to life and bodily autonomy first.

They gave deference to the mother in the second trimester to terminate if her life was at risk, removing the bodily autonomy right, allowing the state could regulate outside of that parameter. Then they gave deference to the state’s ability to protect the fetus in the third trimester. Basically they argued, the state could legislate it to say, “you’ve come this fucking far, just have the baby and put it up for adoption if you don’t want it.” But if the state didn’t pass such a law, go ahead and have the abortion.

No doubt a complicated case, as it’s not often two humans with rights, find themselves in a scenario where one’s rights interfere with another. As such, the trimester decision was pretty fucking fair, in my estimation.

Justices Rehnquist and White were the two who dissented.

Read about the case, and hear both oral arguments here

Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Science & Skepticism, Social Issues

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice – They Are Not Mutually Exclusive

2 Comments

I found myself in a debate on Twitter with writer Sarah Benincasa. After the GOP debate, she had referred to all Republicans as “Shitheads.”

Your humble correspondent is a libertarian-republican. (Small L and small R). The small letters indicate I’m not beholden to either party, but just the principles of liberty and a constitution, the defining factors of being a libertarian and a republican.

Feeling somewhat insulted by someone I typically felt was fair and tolerant of other people’s opinions, I decided to respond by pointing out that some of the people on that stage had indeed shown that they were not your stereotypical Republican, and that ultimately the type of bigotry one uses to paint all people of a group with one brush, isn’t really fair. Below was my response followed by Sarah’s passionate counter-response.

Sarah Benincasa

This got me thinking about the issue a little deeper. I won’t point out more of the discussions that followed. They were mostly followers of Sarah attacking me or the candidates with contempt, instead of showing any interest in respectful debate. So I explained my position as respectfully as I could, and exited stage left.

But this exchange brings a couple of issues to light.

The first of which is the concept of being a one-issue person. I believe many of the pro-choice people are often pro-legalization of marijuana as well. Senator Rand Paul has worked with Democrat Corey Booker to accomplish exactly that. If that had been the one issue Sarah (if she is pro-legalization) opted to key on instead of abortion as an important issue to her, she might have painted him in a different light.

Senator Rand Paul (R)
Senator Rand Paul (R)

The point being that no candidate will ever agree with you 100%; It’s that simple. As a voter, the best you can do is find common ground with candidates where you’re able, support them when you do, and dissent when you don’t.

You should certainly side with the person who most commonly aligns with your beliefs, but it’s silly to assume someone is all bad and treat them as if they’re evil “shitheads.”

As much as I dislike Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, I don’t paint either one to be evil, or call them names. I just think they’re wrong, more often than not, and challenge their positions or their integrity when they are found to be disingenuous, a trait common in politicians of all parties.

But delving into the abortion issue, I first want to point out the flaws with the basic pro-life/pro-choice argument.

The converse of pro-life is not pro-choice, it’s anti-life. And thus the converse of pro-choice is not pro-life, it’s anti-choice. The two are slightly separate issues. So I’ll first explain my position and why.

As it is typically understood, I am pro-choice. I believe there are many understandable instances where a woman would choose to abort, that I compassionately cannot condone throwing her in jail on a 1st degree murder charge for, where I absolutely would if she killed the child the same child after birth. So I’ve always argued that viability is a fair cut-off in my opinion—emphasis on opinion.

But that being said, I’m also pro-life in an untraditional sense. I would encourage anyone who is pregnant and healthy, to bring the child to term and either raise it, or put it up for adoption if so desired. But that’s an issue between her and the father, not her and the government, also in my opinion.

Yet in my debate, despite being pro-choice myself, I ended up arguing the pro-life point. I suspect mostly because I believe in fairness over ideology.

It’s interesting that the pro-choice crowd typically claim to be the more scientifically enlightened, attacking the pro-life group who are largely religious, and often they argue are anti-science as a result, yet they overlook that fact that once an egg is fertilized, and the resultant zygote begins to replicate, approximately 24 to 30 hours after fertilization, it is inarguably a life because of that natural cell replication, and it’s purely human DNA means it is inarguably human. Like it or not, it is a human life, and all the science you can throw at it, backs that.

Human Zygote development directly after fertilization. (Click Image for more information)
Human Zygote development directly after fertilization.
(Click Image for more information)

Being atheist, I don’t lend much credence to religion, so I won’t point out the religious component to all of this, it doesn’t matter. Whether you believe it’s a human life because God says so, or because science says so, you believe it’s a human life.

So then the question becomes when is it a life that deserves protection under the law?

I cannot say this with enough emphasis; that question can never be a matter of fact. It is pure opinion, and no one person’s opinion is any more valid than another’s, because with opinions, there is no scientific truth you can apply to make one argument better than the other, otherwise it would be fact. I believe in such situations, you can either respectfully agree to disagree, or you can behave intolerantly and attack your dissenter for having a differing opinion.

But the issue I take with many of my fellow pro-choice advocates, is that they call this a woman’s right issue, then argue that pro-life advocates are against women’s rights. This is where the pro-life/anti-life and pro-choice/anti-choice argument I made earlier becomes rather important.

If you are concerned about the woman’s rights, you will either be pro-choice or anti-choice. If you are viewing this argument from the embryo’s point of view, you are either pro-life or anti-life. The two are not interchangeable.

So when pro-choice people attack pro-life people for being against women’s rights, that’s a straw man argument.

The pro-life people believe it is a human life, with rights under the law. They believe that it’s not part of the woman’s body, but instead a separate body inside the woman’s body. As such, not believing it a woman’s rights issue whatsoever, or even framing it that way.

Logical Fallacies (Click to enlarge)
Logical Fallacies
(Click to enlarge)

Pro-choice people however, believe that as long as the embryo resides in the mother, it is part of the mother, and therefore not a separate life, and not worthy of protection under the law, but instead, something a woman should have the right to remove, similar to a breast reduction to remove unwanted tissue to increase her quality of life.

I am not saying such people equate a fetus to a breast, so please no outraged response, understand I’m only saying they paint the procedures in a similar light, from an ethics perspective.

In either instance, again these positions as to whether it’s part of the woman’s body, or its own separate body within a body are matters of opinion, not fact, and can be argued either way. Tolerance dictates you must respect the converse opinion.

I have to point out that from a science perspective, the DNA of the embryo is unique from the mother’s, something that wouldn’t be true of any other organic substance inside the mother, she might opt to remove from her body; aside from a disease or another foreign invader of some sort anyway. So it’s hard to argue with science that the embryo is part of the mother’s body when it doesn’t share her exact DNA, but instead, a mix of her’s and the father’s.

Actual Image of Human DNA through an Electron Microscope. (Click image for more information)
Actual Image of Human DNA through an Electron Microscope.
(Click image for more information)

I have a long history on this site of being all about science, so in theory, I probably should be what is traditionally thought of as pro-life and equate abortion to murder.

But I frankly know that if I had a daughter, and she had an abortion a month after fertilization versus a year after the birth, I cannot conflate the two as equally heinous. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, I remain pro-choice from a legal standpoint, and pro-life from a personal one.

As for Sarah and her followers, they are passionate about women’s rights, and that’s a good thing—I wish them well even if they think I’m a jerk.

I just wish they would embrace a little more empathy for those with differing opinions, and not conflate opinion with fact, because arguing someone is wrong, must revolve around facts, never opinions.

Memebuster

Memebuster – Sharia Law Is Identical To The Republican Platform

11 Comments

CRTZr9bWEAAiVaj[1]

I ‘ve decided to start a new segment at Logical Libertarian called Memebuster. I will attempt to debunk memes largely based on ideology, and rarely containing any factual information. Let’s start with this one from a friend on Twitter. I’ll answer them one at a time:

Government based on religion

While Republicans are definitely quite commonly supporting laws based on their own religious ideology, none have ever promoted the idea of abolishing the 1st amendment and legislating the Bible, or any other religion.

There’s a difference between promoting a law based on religious beliefs, and adopting a government based solely on religion.

Women have fewer rights than men

Under Sharia law, women can’t even show their face, can be murdered if they get raped—being deemed as adulterers, aren’t allowed to drive a car, etc.

No one in the GOP is promoting such a notion.

This is entirely about positions on abortion. We’re all against murder, but in the eyes of many on the right, abortion is seen as the murder of an innocent child. There is no scientific evidence that can deem them wrong.

While I’m personally pro-choice prior to fetal-viability, it’s merely my opinion, and positions on abortion always will be. But it is NEVER about taking away women’s rights for the GOP, they’re trying to protect the rights of the unborn as they see it.

Disagree if you must, as I do, but don’t lie by saying they’re against women’s rights.

Homosexuality is outlawed

No GOP legislator is promoting making homosexuality a crime. They are against it being called marriage, since many are religious and consider marriage a religious institution. But many GOPs support civil unions, and some have even evolved on gay marriage.

This is a wildly hyperbolic overstatement by this meme.

Rejecting Science In Favor of Religious Doctrine

Many lawmakers on the left and right are religious. Many are not scientists. When you don’t understand a particular field of science, you will largely default to your beliefs. This is not unique to Republicans.

Politicians on both sides promote religion and/or science when it serves their interests.

For instance, Democrats promote the idea of giving, often quoting the Bible, when they promote socialist policies that take from people with money, and give to people who don’t have money. Despite the science of economics that shows that socialism has never lifted an economy out of ruin.Alms for the poor box

Republicans are usually accused of being anti-science on global warming, but there isn’t a religious reason for doing that, they just believe that the predictive models aren’t settled science.

I cannot think of any issue where they ignore science because of religious dogma. Most accept that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old, most call a doctor before a priest when they’re sick, and most consider scientific evidence when offered it, as related to proposed legislation.

The 1st Amendment
The 1st Amendment

No separation between church and state

Again, no Republican is promoting a repeal of the 1st amendment, or amending it.  I would also like to point out that “separation of church and state” is not even in the Constitution, which instead points out that no law should be passed prohibiting or mandating religion. That’s a pretty big distinction.

There are no proposed laws from Republicans trying to force someone to be religious, but instead to enforce they’re opinion of morality based on their religion.

In other words, no Republican is forcing you to be religious, but they don’t want you smoking marijuana, for instance, because they think it’s just wrong—largely based on their own religious conditioning.

Religion is taught in schools

This is half-true. Many Republicans want religion allowed to be taught in school, but none are promoting the idea that it must be taught in school under penalty of law, such as Sharia law would dictate.

Abortion is illegal

This is probably the only fair similarity in this meme. Many Republicans are anti-choice on the issue of abortion because again, they believe it’s murder.

You can disagree with them if you like, but their decision isn’t an oppressive one, it’s about saving what they believe to be a human life, a principle we all agree on in theory, we just disagree on when a life becomes a life.