I heard another prediction for the overturning of Roe V. Wade today on Tucker Carlsen. The preacher was wetting himself about the possibility of ending 1st Trimester abortions on demand. With Scalia and Thomas already on board and OConner not strongly favoring choice, I suspect it could happen.
Interesting thing is that abortion rights grew out of the Griswald case. In Griswald, the state tried to assert a ban against birth control devices of any kind. The court ruled there was a right to privacy and certainly that is the only ruling possible. There is a constitutional right to privacy.
Scalia argues there is a difference in kind. However, that isn’t true unless the right to life movement moves away from full 14th amendment protections at conception. As a matter of fact, recent state legislation has used conception as the starting point of life.
On that point, I have questioned The Right to Life organization about their stance regarding birth control pills and IUDs. These methods sometimes result not in prevention but abortion (as the term is used by right to lifers). They are abortifacients. Sometimes an egg is fertilized when these methods are used but it is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall. The Right To Life people tell me they are well aware that these methods result in aborting a fertilized egg and they believe that to be wrong just as much as any other abortion. But they cannot lobby against birth control pills because they would lose their political base. Interestingly enough many people are having abortions and they don’t even know it. Some doctors won’t prescribe the pill. Some pharmacist have refused to fill it.
So this is an interesting quandary. There is not a difference in kind at all as Scalia contends. Legislation such as proposed by right to lifers (see Webster v. Reproductive Health Services) if strictly applied would ban the use of birth control pills – and IUDs. So what will the religious zealots do? Will they move the yardstick from conception to attachment? That’s when many doctors consider someone “pregnantâ€. That would allow the morning after pill. And if we are moving the yardstick, why stop at attachment. Why not stop at the embryo stage. Or maybe pre-fetus. Or maybe when the cerebral cortex is formed. Or maybe at viability. Or maybe. Or maybe. Or maybe…….
Seems once the goal post start moving we are right back where we are now - a line drawn to define when a developing potential human acquires human rights and the state has a compelling interest.
Somehow, I don’t see the country turning back to the 1950s so the continued use of the pill has to be fitted into the right to life model. I don’t see how that can happen. Right now they are not talking about it. Just gloating over their potential victory.
Mrick
Interesting thing is that abortion rights grew out of the Griswald case. In Griswald, the state tried to assert a ban against birth control devices of any kind. The court ruled there was a right to privacy and certainly that is the only ruling possible. There is a constitutional right to privacy.
Scalia argues there is a difference in kind. However, that isn’t true unless the right to life movement moves away from full 14th amendment protections at conception. As a matter of fact, recent state legislation has used conception as the starting point of life.
On that point, I have questioned The Right to Life organization about their stance regarding birth control pills and IUDs. These methods sometimes result not in prevention but abortion (as the term is used by right to lifers). They are abortifacients. Sometimes an egg is fertilized when these methods are used but it is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall. The Right To Life people tell me they are well aware that these methods result in aborting a fertilized egg and they believe that to be wrong just as much as any other abortion. But they cannot lobby against birth control pills because they would lose their political base. Interestingly enough many people are having abortions and they don’t even know it. Some doctors won’t prescribe the pill. Some pharmacist have refused to fill it.
So this is an interesting quandary. There is not a difference in kind at all as Scalia contends. Legislation such as proposed by right to lifers (see Webster v. Reproductive Health Services) if strictly applied would ban the use of birth control pills – and IUDs. So what will the religious zealots do? Will they move the yardstick from conception to attachment? That’s when many doctors consider someone “pregnantâ€. That would allow the morning after pill. And if we are moving the yardstick, why stop at attachment. Why not stop at the embryo stage. Or maybe pre-fetus. Or maybe when the cerebral cortex is formed. Or maybe at viability. Or maybe. Or maybe. Or maybe…….
Seems once the goal post start moving we are right back where we are now - a line drawn to define when a developing potential human acquires human rights and the state has a compelling interest.
Somehow, I don’t see the country turning back to the 1950s so the continued use of the pill has to be fitted into the right to life model. I don’t see how that can happen. Right now they are not talking about it. Just gloating over their potential victory.
Mrick
