HAVING IT BOTH WAYS?


I never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy, delusion, and misguided demands some people make, especially those following the toxicity of liberal thought and politics.   For example, there is the Alyssa Milano’s call for a ‘sex strike’ over the abortion laws recently passed in Georgia, Alabama, and other areas.  A Sex Strike because they can’t have abortion on demand!  Isn’t that counterproductive for her cause? 

The last time I checked with biological experts and talked to a GYN I reconfirmed that it still takes a male and female to get pregnant.  Oh, there might be artificial insemination, but it still takes what sex produces to get pregnant, It requires and egg and a sperm!  So, if they stop having sex, won’t they also stop getting pregnant?  That would eliminate the need for an abortion.  Sounds a bit illogical to me, but then I try to use my head for something other than a hat-rack. 

The activists are protesting, and women are carrying signs demanding, “Government Run Healthcare” and then in the same crowd are demanding that the “Government Stay out of their bodies.”  If you want the government to run healthcare aren’t you inviting the government to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body and that life in your womb?  Sounds like trying to have it both ways and, to me, that is illogical and irrational.  But then, I am just a Bible-thumping, God-fearing, Constitutional supporting, Christian Conservative Veteran Patriot, so what could I possibly know?

What does the Constitution say about abortion, if anything?  I believe that the Supreme Court made an errant ruling on ‘Roe v. Wade’.  I believe that the criticism of the ruling deserves the criticism it receives in public opinion and academic review.  No, not everyone in the public sees it that way and a very large swath of those in academia are liberal leftists and support whatever the Left advances.  But, those who honestly evaluate the ruling and the Constitution see some issues that need to be addressed.

I believe that the SCOTUS went too far in the change it ordered and offered a woefully incomplete justification for its decision.  You may vehemently disagree, that is your right.  All I ask is that you hear the conclusion of my argument and observation and then take whatever stand you choose.  This is still a Free Country, at least in a limited fashion.

Even Danny Cevallos, a criminal defense attorney, and an MSNBC legal analyst acknowledged the weakness of the foundation of the Law.  He said:

“[W]e have known since the ‘70s that Roe v. Wade stands on a weak foundational basis.  Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, Roe v. Wade is really about, do we have an individual, fundamental – do women have a privacy right in the Constitution that overrides state legislatures’ abilities to make laws affecting abortion?  The bottom line is, that even if you are pro-choice, [sic] the right to privacy does not exist, either in the history or the text of the Constitution, which is why Roe v. Wade has always been ripe to be overturned.”

Joe Scarborough of MSNBC called Cevallos’ comments interesting rather than calling him a heretic.  Scarborough acknowledged that his constitutional law professor, Mika Brzezinski, an incredibly progressive academic said, “though I agree with the conclusion of Roe, it’s a terribly written case, and its logic is baffling at times.” 

Where did we get the idea that abortion is a constitutional right?  Is it or is it not?  That is the question.  Additionally, who gets to decide what laws each state adopts regarding abortion or virtually anything else?  Is it the federal government or the state government?  Is the federal government the overlord of everything and are the states to be considered subjugated to the wishes of the federal or centralized government? 

Antonin Scalia, before his untimely demise, wrote the dissenting opinion in the 1992 case of ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey’.  In his dissent, he explained articulately and accurately how and why Roe was created and it should get our attention and cause us to think. 

Scalia addressed the present absence of compromise since Roe.  He argued that abortion on demand had destroyed all compromise in the present and future and pressed the entire issue to be decided uniformly, at the national level.  He said that to portray Roe as the statesmanlike “settlement” of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential ‘Peace of Westphalia’ that is worth preserving is nothing short of Orwellian.  He addressed the fact that justices for the court had since been chosen with a focus on their view of the Law.  That is dangerous and damaging to the purpose of the court.

Abraham Lincoln understood the principle and the dangers of the SCOTUS deciding matters for all Americans.  He said: “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

One of the dangers of SCOTUS rulings is the principle of stare decisis, embodied in the word ‘irrevocably’.  The Constitution is our guide to navigate the troubled waters of politics and laws.  That document identifies that the best pathway is to allow the individual states to decide matters rather than allowing the SCOTUS to ‘irrevocably fix’ policies and laws.

I am a strong advocate for States Rights and believe that the citizens and legislatures of the individual states should be allowed to decide in this and most other matters.  There are a few, precious few, things that the federal government has the authority to decide for the nation and all other things should be left to the states. 

I am Pro-Life so my opposition to abortion is no secret.  However, if any state opts to enact a law allowing the practice that is their decision.  I may view it morally and biblically a bad decision, but it is their decision.  I do not believe that the nine jurists of the Supreme Court should be empowered to arbitrarily decide for all of us and every state.

I support the overturning of ‘Roe v. Wade’ and returning the matter to the individual states.  I pray that the SCOTUS will finally see the error of their ways or decisions.  I weep for the 60 million babies that have been killed unborn!  Agree or disagree, that is your right!

God bless you and God bless America!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s