Going back to my previous point about abortion --

There were some here at Caucus99percent who doubted my slippery-slope argument -- that the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court pushing abortion rights back on the states is only a preliminary decision in what will eventually be a decision declaring the fetus a person, and that once the fetus is a person America will become Ireland before 2018, without the decent health care options.

Here I would urge readers to consult the words of Jennifer Hendricks, a professor of law at the University of Colorado. In researching this diary, I discovered a law paper of hers, in which it is said:

In mid-May, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case designed to overrule Roe v. Wade.1 It’s safe to assume that six justices are inclined to repudiate Roe, and some of those six would like to go further, declaring a constitutional right to life that would prevent the abortion issue from going “back to the states” at all.

Do not be surprised if the Supreme Court is, at some point over the next couple of years, asked to decide whether or not the fetus is a person. If the Supreme Court decides that the fetus is a person, the argument will be made, and codified into law, that abortion will be illegal everywhere because the fetus deserves what the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments call "equal protection." And we do, as Hendricks points out, "have a Supreme Court that is receptive to the principle of fetal personhood."

This is not to say that it will happen -- we are talking in terms of "likely," in this case very likely, and in terms of "slippery slope," and the slope at this point is very slippery. It's easy to find out how slippery the slope is at this point -- anyone reading this diary can do some research on the present-day realities of criminalizing pregnancy to see the issue fleshed out. From the link I cited:

As of 2018, 38 states had laws in which the “victim” of a crime can include a fetus, generally called “fetal assault,” “fetal homicide,” or “fetal protection” laws (3). Twenty-nine states apply these laws at any stage of gestation during pregnancy. Although the majority of these states prohibit charging pregnant people with crimes for the outcomes of their own pregnancies, fetal assault laws and similar statutes have been adopted across the United States as a way to limit behaviors during pregnancy that legislators deem harmful to the fetus.

How much of this stuff do you imagine will be thrust before the eyes of the current Supreme Court? And at what point does the Supreme Court, which is already going to strike down Roe v. Wade, merely declare: the fetus is a person, the fetus therefore deserves equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and America is now Ireland before 2018?

NB: Joe Biden currently claims to be a defender of Roe v. Wade. But since he spent most of his political career opposing that decision, how far do you think he'll go to defend it?

I was alerted to this issue by a broadcast on Alternative Radio that was aired today on my local alternative radio station -- here's the broadcast itself. It's very good but I don't know how many of you have an hour to devote to it.

Share
up
13 users have voted.

Comments

TheOtherMaven's picture

Yes it really is that basic, people.

up
12 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Cassiodorus's picture

@TheOtherMaven members of the Supreme Court arguing that the fetus is a "quasi-person," and then defending that. I'm sure that some of them want to have it both ways, at least secretly. I don't see such arguments working out. Either the fetus is a person or the fetus is not a person. Expect this issue to be addressed at some point.

But, yeah, Hendricks does defend the arguments of a philosopher (I don't remember her name) who argues that, in the liberal conception of personhood, you can only have one person occupying the body of a pregnant woman, and that would be the woman herself.

up
11 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

@Cassiodorus is a partial person, maybe 3/5's. These rw supremes are all in for the original intent of the constitution after all.

up
2 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

From Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin:

For example, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, one state is obligated to give full faith and credit to the legislation and court rulings and determinations of another state. This is how, for instance, if you are married in Connecticut, your marriage is still valid if you move to Arizona.

But when one state defies another state’s rulings and laws, justifiable as that defiance may be, a federal court could rule that that defiance violates the Constitution.

So what happens when, hypothetically, a federal court tells New Jersey that its refusal to extradite a doctor who performed an abortion on a Texas resident who traveled to New Jersey is unconstitutional, and that New Jersey must extradite the doctor and comply?

What happens if New Jersey refuses?

What happens is that the Supreme Court intervenes and decides that, as Abraham Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand," and then starts to consider the issue of whether or not a fetus is or isn't a person. Could we have half the country with "murder" illegal and the other have with "murder" still legal? Remember that America cracked up when half of it regarded slaves as slaves and the other half regarded them as persons.

NB: McLaughlin regards Republicanism as a fascist movement, but I have to wonder if this isn't merely because our political vocabulary lacks words to describe forms of regressive authoritarianism that aren't "fascist." America loves regression now, because it has neither the will nor the imagination to move forward.

up
10 users have voted.

"The future is inside us/ It's not somewhere else." -- Radiohead

Joe Biden currently claims to be a defender of Roe v. Wade. But since he spent most of his political career opposing that decision, how far do you think he'll go to defend it?

Just like he fought for student debt forgiveness, and his BBB proposal.

up
8 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

will disappear if Roe is rescinded. Women believe that their body should have autonomy in whether they have to carry a pregnancy to term and if they rule that they do not then all body autonomy dies on the vine too. But it will also affect same sex marriage and other ‘controversial' laws that are currently legal. Time will tell if I’m right that this will have other objectives.l

However what will show the hypocrisy of the supremes on whether rights not mentioned during the founding shouldn’t be upheld would be the Loving decision that Thomas won’t want to rescind. This will show that rights are only for the rich and powerful and not the lower classes.

up
9 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

I was a young adult in the 60s when abortion was illegal. The result was backroom abortions, the use of dangerous drugs, and attempts at self abortion using various implements. The hope was that you could start an abortion and then go to a hospital at that point to get it finished. If you were wealthy the family doctor might do it for a fee. Most young women with some money would go out of country, England being one alternative. There were clinics here that would set this up. It seemed hopeless that this problem could be solved through national laws, so the Supreme Court decision was incredibly important. Backing out of this is a considerable problem as getting the right through congress as law is an impossibility and a constitutional amendment securing this right is even more impossible. Roe v Wade was seen as established law and best not to tamper with it as there is no other mechanism.

The issue has a religious underpinning. Clearly a non viable fetus is not a person. But if you believe in a soul, then you also might believe that a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, is a person. But this dogmatic belief is a direct threat to the freedom of religion. As we used to say, if you are against abortions, then don't get one. But once religious doctrine steps into this then there is no freedom of choice at all.

I think that it might be time for peaceful demonstrations. We really have to stop this.

up
9 users have voted.

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

snoopydawg's picture

@The Wizard

But if you believe in a soul, then you also might believe that a fetus, or even a fertilized egg, is a person.

All the people who have and will be born has been predetermined because the Mormon kids are just waiting for a baby to be created so they can slip their souls into them. I can’t remember what the dogma is named but I’ve heard it my whole life from Mormon friends.

But if that’s the soul reason to outlaw abortion it’s pushing people’s religious views on everyone whether they believe in gawd or not and that’s supposed to be unconstitutional. But since congress has revoked so many of our rights what’s one more revocation?

If abortion is canceled then so should viagra and vasectomies. There’s talk that some states are going to make birth control illegal. We all know how abortion would be handled if men could truly get pregnant. Not just this woke crap that says they can. Calvin Klein posted an ad for what pregnant men should wear. Apple has a pregnant man emoji. Gag me!

up
9 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

Pluto's Republic's picture

.

It’s safe to assume that six justices are inclined to repudiate Roe, and some of those six would like to go further, declaring a constitutional right to life that would prevent the abortion issue from going “back to the states” at all.

.

I do not doubt the Courts conceit, that would have it compound its "initial mistake" by declaring, at some future point, that the fetus is a person, and therefore it deserves equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, establishing the right to life for a fetus. This could easily extend to outlawing abortion from the moment of conception.

Every step the Court takes to nail this decision into place, however, will expose the Court's Initial Mistake: The Court is trying to pass off an eccentric, subjective, religious ideology as a valid decision that emerges out of Enlightenment. The decision breaks the rules of logic, justice, and critical thinking because it actually emerges out of a conditional religious superstition. The true intention of the Court is to impose religious laws upon the State, laws that will not be applied universally to all crimes that deny the right to life to citizens.

For example, the Court's decision theoretically threatens the State's absolute right to murder select citizens. Equal protection and the 'right to life' would question the legality of Capital Punishment. However, the United States derives enormous cultural pleasure from Capital Punishment, which is considered God's work. Those who execute prisoners in the US do not go to Hell when they die, because God forgives them in advance for their murders. This is an example of the pathetic internal logic of American justice.

We are dealing with spurious and conflicting religious laws, here. They form the foundation of the monumental injustice that permeates the United States. Like in Ireland, religious laws will be resisted and overturned, but in the US, the problem will crop up repeatedly due to a legally contaminated and functionally obsolete US constitution, which protects religious corruption of the State..

We should remember that abortion is illegal only in small, backward, non industrialized countries that were twisted by Catholic invaders/missionaries. In all of the developed nations of the OECD, abortion is safe and legal.

This illustration belongs here:

carlin-deep-thoughts.jpg
up
8 users have voted.

____________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire

snoopydawg's picture

@Pluto's Republic

We should remember that abortion is illegal only in small, backward, non industrialized countries that were twisted by Catholic invaders/missionaries.

42E3BBAC-59FB-4995-9B94-6CE0E356CCEB.jpeg

Amen.

up
9 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

is the planned 50 year assault the republicans planned and implemented to bring the US to heel. They told us what they would do, and decade after decade proceeded to do it. The only opposition are our collaborator, reach across the aisle democrats. Waiting for the republicans to do something outrageous and then in mostly too late fashion make an ineffectual stand is the only response the democrats have. If somebody hits you, and you don't fight back, why should they stop hitting you?

Mostly I think the democrats exist to give the fig leaf cover to our "2" party system. It's the poor schmucks that actually believe when they get elected that they can make a difference. After getting disillusioned, well, there's that trough full of cash and influence to belly up to.

up
5 users have voted.

Apologists for the court are bending over backwards to make the argument that this decision will not ripple any further. That's a sure sign that they will in fact start rolling the ball towards fetus rights and whole other list from Christian dominionism. The fact that Alito reached way back to Sir Matthew Hale to validate our country's "history" with abortion law should give everyone the same chills up the spine that your are expressing. Hale was a renowned misogynist and Christian dominionist. Thomas Jefferson wrote a rather lengthy argument against Hale and the idea that Common Law was based upon Christianity (therefore we are a Christian founded nation). For Alito, this crap from the past is to be preserved, but certainly not stare decisis!
I was doing some contemplating about writing an op-ed to the Louisville newspaper (I used to get published on a regular basis) about Christian dominionism and its role in abortion and the movement to roll back rights when I came across this 3 part essay in the Mississippi Free press newsletter. I have not read it all yet (I actually want to print it out to read it), but I think you might be interested in it too.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/20042/to-rule-history-with-god-the-...

up
3 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin