November 30, 2021

"I remember that day well" — the day Roe was decided — "because it was also the day when former president Lyndon B. Johnson died."

"I was one of the editors of the Michigan Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Michigan, and we had a passionate argument that went late into the evening over which should be our lead story. Should it be legalized abortion across the nation? Or the man who sent tens of thousands of young Americans to die in the Vietnam War? Most of the female editors saw the historic importance of Roe and understood the impact it would have on women’s lives. Most of the male editors — myself included, I confess — could not see past Vietnam and pushed hard for LBJ. We won, sort of: The paper ended up stripping Johnson’s death across the top of the front page and putting the Roe decision right beneath it, still above the fold, with a boldface two-line headline. For history’s sake, I thought that was the right call. I was spectacularly wrong. Johnson was indeed a towering figure, but he’d been long out of office and had to die at some point anyway. Roe was like a bolt from the blue, and with it the nation took a giant stride toward treating women as full and equal citizens under the law. The decision’s impact continues to this day — but perhaps not for many days longer."


I was a student there at the time, so I know I read that edition of the Michigan Daily. I didn't follow the Supreme Court, and I remember being completely surprised that the Court would do something so dramatic, to change so much about our experience of life. 

Isn't it interesting that the editors split by sex — everyone dominated by the  importance of sovereignty over one's own body?

As for the assertion in today's headline — who knows? Will overruling Roe "tear the country apart"? More than it's already torn apart? We may find out. I think it will help the Democratic Party, but you don't hear Democrats expressing hope for this gift of overruling.

72 comments:

mccullough said...

Boomer nostalgia

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Roe was like a bolt from the blue, and with it the nation took a giant stride toward treating women as full and equal citizens under the law.

Bullshit

It made females "superior": citizens above the law.

Two people have sex. She gets pregnant:
1: She doesn't want the baby: she gets to kill the baby
2: He doesn't want the baby: tough shit, he's on the hook for 18 years of child support

That's not "equal"

Equal is "you both decided to have sex, now you both face the costs".

If you don't want to face the costs? Don't have sex

rhhardin said...

Overturning Roe helps democrats by getting republicans voting for democrats. Whoever is pushing that republicans are against Roe has got it badly wrong. They're against Roe as a structural matter - it ought to be state law - but not against abortion.

Dave Begley said...

Kavanaugh and Barrett don't want their families to be terrorized if Roe is overturned.

The Left's political violence model has worked.

Big Mike said...

As for the assertion in today's headline — who knows? Will overruling Roe "tear the country apart"? More than it's already torn apart?

Not clear it can get anymore torn apart. My own sense is that the court will preserve the basic right to abortion, but permit reasonable restrictions. The future fights will be over what it means to be “reasonable.” Late term abortions, past the point where the child could be born and survive outside the mother with minimal medical assistance, are a goner. Only extremists will miss them.

We may find out. I think it will help the Democratic Party,

Which you’re rooting for, of course, as a good Madison resident.

cubanbob said...

I doubt the court will overturn Roe, more likely narrow it instead. But if it did, then it would become a state issue and every state will allow abortion in some manner. Most likely it will be a European style timeline for abortion with some states as outliers in both directions. It is time for this Supreme Court decision to go and thus stop the political slide of the court and the perception that the court is political.

Martha said...

Get real. The Supreme Court is not going to throw out Roe v. Wade.
Read:
“Who's Afraid of Gradualism in Dobbs?”

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2021/11/whos-afraid-of-gradualism-in-dobbs.html#more

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Writes Eugene Robinson in "If the Supreme Court throws out ‘Roe v. Wade,’ it will tear the country apart" (WaPo).

Roe's been tearing the country apart for almost 50 years. Getting rid of it will let the country stop being torn apart

I do note: none of the people "defending" Roe are actually trying to claim it was a constitutionally legitimate decision, because everyone knows that's bullshit.

"My body, my choice"? You don't hear that now, in the age of Democrats demanding "Covid vaccine" mandates.

It's all about power, and the Left using the judiciary to force their desires on the rest of us.

F*ck them

(Laws banning abortion are about saving a child from being murdered. You have the right to control your own body. That baby you want to murder isn't part of your body, he or she is someone else's body, temporarily depended upon yours.

Your control of your body extends to your right to decide whether or not you'll have sex. Violating that right is rape, and it's quite properly a crime.

Killing an inconvenient human who resulted from your choices? That is also quite properly a crime.)

rehajm said...

More than it's already torn apart?

My thought. Democrats are destroying everything that allows us to debate luxuries like abortion, but somehow it's overturning Row v Wade that tears us apart?

We may find out. I think it will help the Democratic Party, but you don't hear Democrats expressing hope for this gift of overruling.

We've seen this Ann logic before. To extend this logic- helping the Democratic party harms humanity, so it hurts Democrats.

rhhardin said...

I don't remember either Johnson dying or Roe being decided. It must have been after I threw out the TV as too stupid to watch.

J Melcher said...

Power to the states. There's no more reason citizens of California and Utah should suffer, or enjoy, the same rules about abortion than those about "intoxicating spirits", marijuana, gay marriage, voter registration, apportionment of electors to the Electoral College, lotteries (or "horse-race gambling ... where they sit down RIGHT ON THE HORSE!"), phonics, the use of two-cycle gasoline engines, or any other issue that the constitution reserves to state governments.

Roe was an (admittedly unscientific, arbitrary, and political) attempt at a state/national compromise, Casey was over-reach, and state legislation, like Texas's most recently, is a demand that IF one national rule is to be imposed on the entire US, it be done in the constitutional by explicit text; not by penumbras and emanations or N-Rays that only the discoverer can detect.

Kevin said...

We met at nine
We met at eight
I was on time
No, you were late
Ah yes, I remember it well.

JK Brown said...

It is interesting that for over the 40+ years of Roe v Wade, the pro-abortionists didn't quietly have their legislators pass abortion laws at the state level. Nothing dramatic, just putting a shell on the books in the event Roe was overturned. It wouldn't have been that controversial if they avoided expansion and just went for the codification of Roe. Then if Roe was overturned, abortion would still be legal and it would require concerted effort to change that.

But in my view, for the pro-abortion side, it's been all about the fight and not the right.

Joe Smith said...

It was a terrible decision...even sane proponents of abortion will admit that.

Pass a law in congress or in your states and do it the right way.

Btw, it's already torn the country apart.

Sebastian said...

"surprised that the Court would do something so dramatic"

I.e., utterly lawless.

"Isn't it interesting that the editors split by sex — everyone dominated by the importance of sovereignty over one's own body?"

Except that some bodies also claimed sovereignty over another body they consciously helped to create. Slight difference there.

"I think it will help the Democratic Party"

I agree. Pro-lifers are miscalculating, though Roe must still be overturned, given the actual Constitution as actually written.

Wince said...

"Should it be legalized abortion across the nation? Or the man who sent tens of thousands of young Americans to die in the Vietnam War?"

Robinson succinctly recounts the genesis of what was to become a generation of editorial slant on the news.

Lawrence Person said...

There's an easy decoder for media coverage of such decisions:

Radical leftwing change = "The arc of history bends towards justice."

Conservative reversal of radical leftwing change = "You're tearing the country apart!"

Translation: "Democrats are the only ones allowed to win, and any time they lose, we're just going to call you racist/sexist/white supremacist louder until we can win again."

West TX Intermediate Crude said...

Killing tens of thousands of young men vs. killing millions of even younger men and women.
Tough call.

BarrySanders20 said...

If you are pro-Roe, is "tearing apart" the best choice of words to describe what might happen if the court abandons its continued fealty to abortion?

tim maguire said...

LBJ waged war across the ocean. The Supreme Court brought war to our shores. Of course, that's the more important event.

rcocean said...

THis is typical Dem distraction. The SCOTUS will NOT - repeat NOT - overturn Roe. They haven't done it for almost 50 years, and they won't do it now.

And even if they do, it will simply return Abortion to the states. IRC, almost every Blue state has Pro-choice written into their State Constitutions. Some Red states will ban it, probably in the south and that will be that. From what i can tell, the Furor over Abortion has died down. Partly its because the Catholic Church and many of the Evangelicals have gone soft on the issue. Does anyone think the Current Pope cares about Abortion?

THe Democrat need to get their suburban white women soccer moms all worked up. 2022 midterms are coming up. Oooh.. those crazy religous Republicans are going to take away your right to an abortion. Better stop them and vote Democrat.

Real American said...

Robinson means that Democrats will throw a nuclear temper-tantrum. And I doubt it will help Democrats as much as they like to think. The country is probably slightly more pro-life than pro-abortion, and we're already divided up on those lines anyway.

Anyway, is there evidence that Roe has united the country? It's distorted our politics to a significant degree and turned the judicial confirmation process into a circus because both sides are indirectly fighting over abortion, which is just more proof it was a political opinion and not a legal one. Let abortion return to the states who can make their own policies and deal with the political fallout at the local level instead of consuming our national politics.

MartyH said...

Memories are often inaccurate, even more so when they align with a larger point. One could verify the layout of the paper. If it is different than described, so might the rest of his recall.

n.n said...

So, will a woman's right to "bodily sovereignty" be restricted to the first, second, third, or fourth trimester? A strawman apology in all but the most liberal sects.

There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and still six weeks for the wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood (i.e. selective-child or one-child, delegated). While we have little influence to affect Her Choice, we can strive to mitigate her Choice. Baby steps. Apparently, people... persons hope to avoid another civil war, especially when demos-cracy can be aborted in darkness for light, social, and fair weather causes.

The Pro-Choice religion, not limited to the wicked solution, but inclusive of diverse (number and color) mischief, denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset. #HateLovesAbortion

Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx.

rcocean said...

One interesting thing about LBJ is he just went home to his Texas Ranch, got depressed, started smoking and putting on weight and died at 65 of a heart attack. Without Power, he didn't care anymore.

Such an odd dishonest weird man. Amazing Texas re-elected him over and over. And we elected him in '64. Of course, Goldwater was even more weird.

Howard said...

The tearing apart of American is good for Chinese and Russian businesses. Thanks for being willing enablers of CCP and KGB social media behavioral control manipulations.

Dave Begley said...

NH Dem US Senator threatens a "revolution" if Roe is overturned. Might as well issue a direct threat on the kids of Kavanaugh and Barrett. Just say it, "We're coming to your house and your kids' schools. We'll hound you every day. We have BLM and Antifa to back up our threats. You've already seen what we can do."

Gabriel said...

If only there really were only one body to consider. The problem has always been that there are two.

I've seen comparisons to forced organ donation, but I think a better case is to be made with conjoined twins. Should one twin have the legal right to do something with his own body that kills the other twin?

Oh, I'm sure a hole can be picked in that one too. But it's not that case in abortion that only one's own body integrity is at issue.

effinayright said...

No matter what---it still comes down to having a "right" to kill your unborn baby, irrespective of the wishes of its father.

Some "right".

R C Belaire said...

This subject is so very tiring. I was raised in the RC church and educated in their schools. At one point, abortion was wrong according to the Church. Now, with Francis at the helm, who the hell knows. If there is indeed a God in heaven who disapproves of this "right" I'm pretty sure He will sort things out in due time. Some people may be in for quite a surprise...

Achilles said...

It will cause the leftists to go into a frenzy of flagellation and say stupid shit.

Everyone else will correctly and rationally surmise this was always a power delegated to the states.

Bender said...

At most, the vast majority of people who call themselves "pro-choice" are completely meh at the prospect of Roe being overruled. Even the radical pro-aborts have publicly recognized it has being a done deal. And yet the world continues to turn.

Mark O said...

Roe v. Wade was our moot court topic in 1971. One could win on either side.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"If the Supreme Court throws out ‘Roe v. Wade,’ it will tear the country apart"

And that would be terrible 'cuz of all the current "togetherness" we're experiencing.

Dr Weevil said...

Someone professing to be a journalist wrote of LBJ that "he'd been long out of office" when he died? Four years and two days is not what I'd call a long time. In the last 100 years, I'm pretty sure the only ex-president to die sooner was Calvin Coolidge, and he lived almost four years after leaving office, not much less than LBJ. (My "ex-president" is carefully chosen to omit those who died in office: Harding, FDR, and JFK never made it to the status of ex-president.)

Gahrie said...

I remember being completely surprised that the Court would do something so dramatic, to change so much about our experience of life.

For millions of people, it has eliminated their experience of life.

Conrad said...

It's the fetus' body, too.

Iman said...

Democrats are the Party of Death. It’s their choice, let ‘em roll with it.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Ugh. Eugene Robinson.

His take is:

“Roe was like a bolt from the blue, and with it the nation took a giant stride toward treating women as full and equal citizens under the law.”

I guess that’s one way to look at it. Another might be to see it as one of those cases where the Supreme Court “made shit up that has no basis in the constitution”…

retail lawyer said...

If its overturned, some states will restrict it and some will offer free abortion vacations. So its win / win. Democracy Now!

PM said...

Roe isn't going anywhere. But the screaming won't stop. And when Roe doesn't go anywhere, the screamers will scream it was the screaming that saved it.

This Person said...

Extreme lib thinks Rov v. Wade is important. Stop the presses!

Tom Grey said...

Throwing out the terrible decision of Roe - the non-democratically decided pseudo-amendment, is one of the best ways to help heal the country.
The EU can live with nations that have different abortion laws, the USA can have states with different abortion laws, drug laws, prostitution laws, death penalty laws, education policies.

Not so much Free Speech, Religion, or gun right laws - there are specific amendments on these.

Abortion should have been decided based, clearly, on the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


If CA & NY allow abortion, but TX bans it, the vast majority of Americans will hardly notice except when they want to notice.

The editor is terribly wrong, tho accurately describes the pro-abortion delusion:
"the nation took a giant stride toward treating women as full and equal citizens under the law."
Allowing pregnant women to kill their unwanted but totally dependent fetal humans is giving those mothers more than equal rights to the fetal baby, with different DNA.
More honest would be
"the nation took a giant stride toward promoting women's behavior to make them as fully and equally promiscuous citizens as the law allowed irresponsible male womanizers to be.

Love is lust + commitment. We need more love, less promiscuity. The roughly 75% of Black kids growing up without their Dads, rather than the 35% in '72, is heavily influenced by the culture of free sex, without loving commitment.

While perhaps 80% or more men are happy to have zipless fuck no-string sex with any attractive women, for only one night or perhaps even just one hour, not so many women are as willing. Desire for ZFs and promiscuity is not equal.

The culture needs to change to push pregnant women who don't want to raise their babies, to deliver the baby and give it up for adoption.

In the 60s, and especially in the decades before, there was enough US poverty and such a lack of any gov't help that unmarried mothers and their bastard babies suffered so much that most normal folk agreed that status was unjust. Today there's no real economic excuse to kill instead of give up for adoption.

Why is killing a baby seal, for wonderful fur that is a pleasure to wear (almost orgasmically comfy), so wrong that it's illegal, yet killing a fetal human, to allow a woman to have more sexual pleasure, totally fine?

lgv said...

Let's play this out. SOTUS decides that there is no constitutional right to privacy that mandates legalization.

States can now legislate their own views on abortion. Wouldn't the blue majority states, e.g. NY, MA, CA maintain the legality or even legislate the legality within their own constitution? The press plays it like abortion would go away and be done in the "back alley", yet there is no reason why it can't be legal in any or all states that want it.

I've always held the position that both sides hate, the right to an abortion should not be a constitutional right, but I have no wish to ban it on a state level.

Kansas City said...

I love Ann, but she seems weak and unfocused on abortion. Like she supports abortion, but realizes it is killing babies. She wanders half heartedly into the politics, but avoids the moral and even the constitutional issue. Unusual, because he normally is sharp or intentionally vague on issues. On abortion, she is not intentionally vague - she supports it - but she is vague and weak on commentary and related issues. Oh well. No one is perfect.

Amadeus 48 said...

Neither party wants it overturned. It is a financial motivator for both sides.

I'll be really surprised if the Supremes flip it at any time before about 46 states have somewhat accommodative abortion laws on their books.

Chris Lopes said...

"The Pro-Choice religion, not limited to the wicked solution, but inclusive of diverse (number and color) mischief, denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset."

The inclusiveness of color is sort of the point. Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of Planned Parenthood, wasn't really aiming to liberate women. She was willing to sell it that way to unwashed masses, but her real aim was to limit the number of those unwashed masses. The eugenics movement has always been part of the Progressive enterprise. They just hide it better these days.

Bender said...

Those of you saying that a majority of the Court will not overturn Roe, please explain the reasoning that the majority will use to AFFIRM Roe.

The way the case is presented, Roe will not stand simply by default. The Court must either say that (a) Roe was correctly decided (which not even the challengers to the Mississippi law are arguing (and which the Court failed to do in Casey)) or that it has been accepted by the people (which history proves to be false) or (b) that Roe was wrongly decided and thus is not supported by the Constitution.

There is no middle ground. Either endorse Roe or reject Roe. When ACB authors the majority opinion, she will make it abundantly clear that Roe has no justification in the Constitution or in fundamental law. And about her family, she will want to be able to look them in the eye afterward.

Michael said...

. will overruling Roe "tear the country apart"?

It's becoming increasingly clear we will either have a Velvet Divorce (A la Czechoslovakia) or civil war.

Bender said...

Now, with Francis at the helm, who the hell knows.

Pope Francis: "Abortion: it's more than a problem, it's homicide, whoever has an abortion, kills. No mincing words. Take any book on embryology for medical students. The third week after conception, all the organs are already there, even the DNA... it is a human life, this human life must be respected, this principle is so clear! To those who cannot understand, I would ask this question: Is it right to kill a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to kill a human life? Scientifically, it is a human life. Is it right to take it out to solve a problem? That is why the Church is so harsh on this issue, because if it accepts this, it is as if it accepts daily murder."

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-09/pope-abortion-is-murder-the-church-must-be-compassionate.html

Ralph L said...

After the liberals lost control of Congress in '66, SCOTUS took the reins in centralizing power. Decentralization is our best hope of staying one country when interest and Boomer SS and Medicare overwhelm the Federal budget and other people's money runs out. Maybe the Court will lead the way.

The Crack Emcee said...

"If the Supreme Court throws out ‘Roe v. Wade,’ it will tear the country apart" and if anyone but a Democrat wins then democracy dies.

Yeah RIGHT.

Narayanan said...

can the SUPER SUPREME NINERS keep Roe by citing 9A for unenumerated rights for women?
- instead of umbrellas AND baseball caps AND sunscreen?

n.n said...

pope-abortion-is-murder-the-church-must-be-compassionate

Yes, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion for the fourth choice, you, me, and every other boy and girl in self-moderation and personal responsibility (religion).

And still six weeks to elect a wicked solution. Baby steps, presumably to avoid another civil war, especially with the knowledge that demos-cracy is aborted in darkness.

Drago said...

Howard: "The tearing apart of American is good for Chinese and Russian businesses. Thanks for being willing enablers of CCP and KGB social media behavioral control manipulations."

The projection is now off the charts. Howard establishes a new standard.

BTW, how is Hunter's "investment" position with Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) Equity Investment Fund Management Company doing these days?

For those who don't know, this ChiCom firm, helped and shepherded by the Biden's, acquired the Congo based cobalt and copper mine from an American company to ChiCom control for around $2.7 Billion. Of Course,

Because of course it was.

Looks like the Biden's "stake", which the ChiCom's gave the Biden's directly thru Hunter's Board and ownership position, is currently valued north of $2B.

And yes, that was the Board/Company Hunter and Biden's Earpiece assured us would be vacated during the last election campaign.....and never was.

This info was recently uncovered and reported upon which is why Howard is so desperately trying to shield his strong ChiCom allies from scrutiny by doing his typical projection thing.

Howard is always on the lookout for reports of capitulation/payoffs to dems from the russkis and the Iranian islamic supremacist mullahs so that he can launch other lie-filled attacks to protect these allies.

Recall how long and vehement was Howard's criticism of Trump for daring to kill off the Iranian General Soleimani. Howard reacted so strongly to that you'd think someone had criticized the prophet muhammed or something.

n.n said...

If you are pro-Roe, is "tearing apart" the best choice of words

A cry from the darkness to illuminate the truth with a consensus of facts in evidence. That said, the tell-tale hearts beat ever louder.

n.n said...

They're against Roe as a structural matter - it ought to be state law - but not against abortion.

The diversity (quantity and color) of mischief that is part and parcel of the Twilight Amendment cannot be underestimated.

Elective abortion, her Choice, not Her Choice. Slavery, too. Diversity [dogma], in progress. A virus, a disease, a cargo cult of mandates, prescriptions, and proscriptions, planned parent/hood (granny and baby), in several Democrat districts. Baby steps.

Roe, Roe, Roe your baby... "burden" down the river Styx.

LA_Bob said...

rcocean said, "The SCOTUS will NOT - repeat NOT - overturn Roe."

It will be most interesting to see how Chief Justice John "Solomon" Roberts splits the baby on this on.

William said...

I remember it well. The Purdy Thirty as it's now called. All across the campus women gathered in little clusters, than larger conglomerations until finally there was a massive crowd. They all spontaneously started singing "I AM Woman Hear Me Roar". It was very bliss to be alive at that moment. The pain of centuries had been lifted....It's hard to believe now but prior to that moment many women were unhappy and discomfited by the world in which they had to live.All that's changed. You seldom meet an unhappy woman nowadays. And that's all because of the Purdy Thirty. Perhaps it should be a national holiday.

Achilles said...

Howard said...

The tearing apart of American is good for Chinese and Russian businesses. Thanks for being willing enablers of CCP and KGB social media behavioral control manipulations.

If you were making fun of the democrats position this would be a funny bit of satire.

As it is we can't tell the difference between the average democrat like Howard and Fang Fang the Chinese spy.

Except she was a lot smarter than you all.

Lucien said...

I’m pro-abortion,but I don’t seem to see anyone in the comments making the case that either Roe or Casey is good law.

n.n said...

You seldom meet an unhappy woman nowadays. And that's all because of the Purdy Thirty. Perhaps it should be a national holiday.

One, two, three. Four trimesters, ha, ha, ha, ha. No dignity, no agency, forevermore. The tell-tale hearts beat evermore.

R C Belaire said...

@Bender: If the Church's position on abortion is so clear, why aren't prominent Democrat politicians who claim to be RC but vociferously support abortion publicly called-out by the Church?

Gahrie said...

I’m pro-abortion,but I don’t seem to see anyone in the comments making the case that either Roe or Casey is good law.

That's because neither of them is, and Roe is simply absurd.

Roe should be indefensible, especially to a law professor, even more so a constitutional law professor. It creates a "right" to privacy that specifically includes the right to an abortion, even though neither of the words "privacy" or "abortion" appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. We are told to believe that these rights come from emanations (an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.) coming from the penumbra (the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.) This penumbra comes from the Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents that were written and passed by people who considered abortion to be murder.

So Roe literally depends upon an abstraction of a shadow from something that can't be seen through, created by men who would have been horrified to know that that was what they were doing.

Casey is pretty awful too. At this point it would be ridiculous to defend the whole abstraction thing, (at least it should be) so now they shift to a brand new justification, that either didn't exist when Roe was decided, or was somehow imperceptible even by those able to perceive the infamous emanations. Now we are told, the right to kill your unborn child comes from the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause, as an extension to the right of privacy. The fact that this clause protects life before it does liberty is ignored. The derivation of this right to privacy is undefined.

Bender said...

why aren't prominent Democrat politicians who claim to be RC but vociferously support abortion publicly called-out by the Church?

Why does the Church need to? Can't you put two and two together?

And do you really want the Church to call out people, by name, for every wrong and sin that they are guilty of? Every person. They would spend their time doing nothing but issuing condemnations and anathemas.

The fact is that the Church does, in fact, publicly recognize that we all fall short of God.

This Person said...

Gahrie said...

"Roe should be indefensible, especially to a law professor, even more so a constitutional law professor. It creates a "right" to privacy that specifically includes the right to an abortion, even though neither of the words "privacy" or "abortion" appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. We are told to believe that these rights come from emanations (an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.) coming from the penumbra (the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.) This penumbra comes from the Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents that were written and passed by people who considered abortion to be murder."

If any readers who didn't go to law school and haven't otherwise read Roe think Gahrie is making shit up about "emanations" and "penumbras," think again. That's exactly the bullshit the court used to create out of thin air a constitutional right to murder an unborn child. Even if you're pro-abortion, hopefully you're smart enough to see what kind of chaos can follow from this kind of (un)reasoning.

But some people believe that the ends justify the means. Those are the people to hold to account when the time comes.

The Godfather said...

Roe/Casey will not be overruled until a majority of the Supreme Court is prepared to say, Oops! We really f*cked up on that. Which is to say, Never in my lifetime.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

William said...
The pain of centuries had been lifted....It's hard to believe now but prior to that moment many women were unhappy and discomfited by the world in which they had to live.All that's changed. You seldom meet an unhappy woman nowadays. And that's all because of the Purdy Thirty. Perhaps it should be a national holiday.

I see what you did there

n.n said...

"emanations" and "penumbras,"

The twilight fringe, and namesake of the Twilight Amendment.

That's exactly the bullshit the court used to create out of thin air a constitutional right to murder an unborn child.

The argument is that a viable life can be aborted in privacy. Essentially, if it can escape detection or culpability. They're right. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness, which implies mitigating social progress is both sufficient and necessary to constrain excess deaths. As there is no mystery in sex and conception, and a woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, the Pro-Choice religion, not limited to reproductive rites, but responsible for diverse (number and color blocs) acts of mischief, denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset.

R C Belaire said...

@Bender: "And do you really want the Church to call out people, by name, for every wrong and sin that they are guilty of? Every person."

The people I reference are not just people on the street. They are our so-called leaders, our elites, who wield power over the rest of us, and have, to a certain extent, our future in their hands. They need to be held to a higher standard, no? They are hypocrites, and so are Church leaders who let this behavior pass. An example, of course, is Joe Biden one day proclaiming he's a practicing RC and the next day arguing against the Texas law trying to put some bounds on abortion on demand.

Tina Trent said...

There are few untimed stories. I have little doubt the Supremes’ PR were working with LBJ’s PR to drop the stories on the same day.

It’s all coordinated to keep the little people busy.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Bender said...
> why aren't prominent Democrat politicians who claim to be RC but vociferously support abortion publicly called-out by the Church?

Why does the Church need to? Can't you put two and two together?


Yes, I can. but if the Catholic Church is going to decide that they don't need to do anything, because we can all figure things out on our own, then there's no longer a purpose for the Catholic Church.

And do you really want the Church to call out people, by name, for every wrong and sin that they are guilty of? Every person.
1: Not "every person", "every elected politician". You don't want the examination? Don't run for office and tout your "Catholic" status
2: The Church most certainly does prohibit people from receiving Communion for their sins. If you don't know that, you're too ignorant to be commenting on this, and should STFU.
Assuming your'e not ignorant, what you appear to be saying is that while the little people should be held responsible for their sins, but being rich / powerful should protect you from that.

Which is a pretty scummy position to hold