It's significant that the THREE female Supreme Court Justices would recognize the importance of women's sovereignty over their own bodies. Thank the goddess for the two male judges who allowed themselves to rule justly, rather than in accordance with the Religious Right. Its patriarchal stances still hold that women are the possessions (or chattel) of men; and that women DESERVE no right to determine their own reproductive destinies.
When theology is the ruling ideology, it will cherry pick whatever laws it can find in attempts to back its own theses--however removed from Democratic Principles they are.
“We conclude that neither of those provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in the majority opinion joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan."
Scalia's death was one of the HIGH points of 2016.
On this singular matter I agree with you. Good post.
The Constitutional right to an abortion is based on the Constitutional right to privacy. Nevertheless, the United States Constitution does not mention the words abortion or privacy, so it does not protect either.
I am in favor of legal abortion for two reasons. First, I am concerned with the problems of human overpopulation. Second, the same kind of females who most likely to have abortions are most likely to give birth to boy babies who grow up to be violent street criminals. They are poor. They are unmarried. They have low IQ's.
Because I have been a victim of several violent street criminals, that is a concern of mine.
Nevertheless, when the Constitution does not specifically say something we should assume that it is silent on the subject, and leave the issue up to the voters.
Exactly wherein the constitution does killing a baby in the womb have justification. Women should have control over their own bodies. Unfortunately for some, the foetus they are carrying is a separate human being. Pray to end abortion.
Bravo, wlawlor. Abortion is murder - as is Capital Punishment. All the talk of Constitutional Rights rather misses the simple truth that all HUman Life is sacred - irrespective of age, class, gender, etc. Life can only begin at conception. I have no doubt that in a mater of minutes, such sincerely held views as mine will be under vicious attack and I will be labelled as a right-wing conservative etc. Labeling is easy (and intellectually lazy): it denies having to deal with people as unique Human Beings with unique mind, conscience, and life experience. I believe in the sanctity of life with every fibre of my being - intellectually and philosophically - and an innate sense of right and wrong. From this simplistic idealism flows a passion for peace and justice, profoundest opposition to war, violence, bullying and injustice. But still I will be accused in these pages of every crime under the sun for stating a self-evident truth. Some things may be 'legal' but that doesn't make them right. Laws change all the time. "Rights" only extend as far as not infringing that most basic right, the right to life.
Since the standard here is hospital level care, and, since whatever one thinks of the issue, it is legal, it seems to me that hospitals should house these clinics just like they do pain clinics and other types of specialty facilities.
Individuals may hold sanctity for life, but nations certainly do not, and the US certainly doesn't hold life sacred or we wouldn't be bombing the Middle East to hell while feeding the climate crisis. Our jails would not be full of young black men convicted on pot charges, veterans wouldn't be sleeping in the street, and there would be no surplus of children looking for good homes.
No matter how one feels about abortion, life, and the rule of the law, the act of abortion is almost as old as society itself and cannot be stopped. A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant cannot be forced to remain pregnant, unless society is prepared to jail her and then take full responsibility for the woman and her child(ren). Our best course of action is to eliminate as many unwanted pregnancies as possible through proper sex education and access to effective contraception.
Abortions before the nineteenth century were mostly pharmaceutical (herbal), overseen by midwives, and legal in most countries. Doctors and doctoring was performed by men, who in time took over midwifery and developed the surgical technique. (Interesting that we're now back to pharmaceuticals in most instances). From this article (http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html:
At the same time, male doctors were tightening their control over the medical profession. Doctors considered midwives, who attended births and performed abortions as part of their regular practice, a threat to their own economic and social power. The medical establishment actively took up the antiabortion cause in the second half of the 19th century as part of its effort to eliminate midwives.
Until the late 1800s, abortion was legal in the US, and it was men who made it legal for their own financial benefit, not because of the sanctity of life. The issue has become convoluted by spiritual ideology, which is certainly the right of the individual, but not of nations. So what it comes down to is this: if you truly hold that life is sacred, don't get an abortion, but abortion must remain legal so they can be performed in clean safe environments in order to protect the life/health of women who will get one no matter what.
Finally, forcing a woman to bear a child and raise it, when she doesn't want to, does not always lead to good parenting and a stronger society. How sanctified is a life growing up as an unwanted mouth to feed in a family already overrun by poverty?
Sanctity of life isn't just about being born, it's also about having a life of value, where one can have their needs met and find happiness, which is why the sanctity of the woman's life bears as much weight in a discussion of abortion.
From my original post:
To address your first comment, I edited my original post to include the word "always" in the first sentence of the sixth paragraph.
As a 67 year old man now, having been there and done that, I'd like to advise young people to please choose wisely your mate and not waste your time with Ms. or Mr. Wrong nor bow to peer pressure or older coworker pressure about how important it is for you to need to get F---ed. If your mate is right for you and meant for you even if you meet him/her after age thirty, the children you might concieve, regardless of how many will all be welcome into your lives. Please take a lesson from someone who has come to understand the spiritual dimension to our lives is real. Best Wishes, Garry
From my reply to you:
This is my opinion, not a thesis. It's hard enough to be a good parent when parenthood is wanted and entered with intention. I'm sure some women who are unable to access abortion become good parents, but there are many who do not. I'm not saying they don't grow to love their child, just that it's damn hard to be good at something you have no desire to do.