Serial fact-raper Todd Akin (R-R'lyeh) has decided, what the hell, since he's clarifying things, he might as well just clarify a little more. After telling Mike Huckabee that he's definitely still running for the Senate, and after appearing to momentarily acknowledge biological facts,
So, the state-level effort to pass personhood amendments is of course an attempt to overturn <em>Roe</em>. At first thought, you&#039;d think it&#039;s doomed to failure - <em>Roe</em> explicitly dismisses fetal personhood, and for good reason, and so the first state amendment will be meaningless in the face of the Supremacy clause.
I&#039;m pretty sure the forced birthers know this though. The idea, most likely, is to get personhood passed in a large enough majority of states to make SCOTUS reconsider the concept, c.f. <em>Loving</em> in which standing precedent was overturned because of widespread movement in the states towards, in that case, the right outcome. I hasten to point out, I do not intend in any way to compare the merits of the cases.
Sounds like Andrew Wakefield. He&#039;s a piece of work. I guess I tend to think that if a person has gotten an education he or she would use it, but I am constantly proven wrong.
They have that pseudo-scientific theory too, it&#039;s just as garbage because the actual science that actually looks at how likely a woman is to become pregnant after a rape has found that it&#039;s just as likely as if the sex was consensual.
The relevant parts of the decision (citations omitted throughout):
<blockquote> In a line of decisions, ... the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. <strong>These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed &quot;fundamental&quot; or &quot;implicit in the concept of ordered liberty&quot; are included in this guarantee of personal privacy</strong>. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage; procreation; contraception; family relationships; and childrearing and education.</blockquote>
I read that as saying that the right to privacy protects the exercise of other rights the Court has recognized, not that the Court protects rights to preserve privacy.
<blockquote>This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment&#039;s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment&#039;s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman&#039;s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.</blockquote>
The start of this is a little confusing, but I feel this section as a whole backs up my earlier statement that the right to privacy is protecting the exercise of a right otherwise discovered, not creating a new right. The Court had earlier engaged in an exercise of originalism and determined that at the time of the founding fathers, women had access to legal abortion - neither state statutes nor English common law at that time prohibited it, the state legislation to proscribe the procedure was mostly the product of the mid-19th century. Furthermore, they examined the various claims for what motivated that legislation: first they dismissed as unserious the notion that it was to discourage promiscuous behavior; then they found the only legitimate motivation at the time was to protect women against the health risks (e.g. sepsis) the procedure posed in the 19th century, before further finding that as medical science had made early-term abortion safer than childbirth, that interest was no longer sufficient to justify interference in a right found in the liberty protected by due process; finally they dismissed as illegitimate any claim of fetal right-to-life, although recognizing some state interest in protecting potential life which becomes more compelling as fetal viability increases.
Can&#039;t find where Dr. Willke was &quot;educated&quot;, but the following bits of biographical info do feature prominently:
- Founder and President, International Right to Life Foundation; - President, Life Issues Institute; - Formerly President (for 10 years), National Right to Life Foundation
He&#039;s also over the years claimed it&#039;s because rape is mostly buttsecks, and that rapists are mostly impotent.
Gee, you think his shifting rationales in the face of repeatedly being battered down by the facts might be a hint that he&#039;s not trying to promote a scientific viewpoint but rather advance a forced-birth agenda by any means necessary?
So, the state-level effort to pass personhood amendments is of course an attempt to overturn <em>Roe</em>. At first thought, you&#039;d think it&#039;s doomed to failure - <em>Roe</em> explicitly dismisses fetal personhood, and for good reason, and so the first state amendment will be meaningless in the face of the Supremacy clause.
I&#039;m pretty sure the forced birthers know this though. The idea, most likely, is to get personhood passed in a large enough majority of states to make SCOTUS reconsider the concept, c.f. <em>Loving</em> in which standing precedent was overturned because of widespread movement in the states towards, in that case, the right outcome. I hasten to point out, I do not intend in any way to compare the merits of the cases.
i was thinking more &#039;show me&#039;.
but maybe that&#039;s just me.
(and yeah, claire&#039;s having a blast)
yes. we should be all over this.
Favorite line.... &quot;Those poor diluted people.&quot;
Sounds like Andrew Wakefield. He&#039;s a piece of work. I guess I tend to think that if a person has gotten an education he or she would use it, but I am constantly proven wrong.
They have that pseudo-scientific theory too, it&#039;s just as garbage because the actual science that actually looks at how likely a woman is to become pregnant after a rape has found that it&#039;s just as likely as if the sex was consensual.
Dude, you gotta be <em>real</em> careful hanging out at that place, that shit&#039;s infectious ya know?
And yet they still blamed the wimmen for birthin girls instead of boys.
I remember Dylan singing a song like that. Fetus-Skin Pill-Box Hat
is that the one that when pressed says &quot;that was easy&quot;?
The relevant parts of the decision (citations omitted throughout):
<blockquote> In a line of decisions, ... the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. <strong>These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed &quot;fundamental&quot; or &quot;implicit in the concept of ordered liberty&quot; are included in this guarantee of personal privacy</strong>. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage; procreation; contraception; family relationships; and childrearing and education.</blockquote>
I read that as saying that the right to privacy protects the exercise of other rights the Court has recognized, not that the Court protects rights to preserve privacy.
<blockquote>This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment&#039;s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment&#039;s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman&#039;s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.</blockquote>
The start of this is a little confusing, but I feel this section as a whole backs up my earlier statement that the right to privacy is protecting the exercise of a right otherwise discovered, not creating a new right. The Court had earlier engaged in an exercise of originalism and determined that at the time of the founding fathers, women had access to legal abortion - neither state statutes nor English common law at that time prohibited it, the state legislation to proscribe the procedure was mostly the product of the mid-19th century. Furthermore, they examined the various claims for what motivated that legislation: first they dismissed as unserious the notion that it was to discourage promiscuous behavior; then they found the only legitimate motivation at the time was to protect women against the health risks (e.g. sepsis) the procedure posed in the 19th century, before further finding that as medical science had made early-term abortion safer than childbirth, that interest was no longer sufficient to justify interference in a right found in the liberty protected by due process; finally they dismissed as illegitimate any claim of fetal right-to-life, although recognizing some state interest in protecting potential life which becomes more compelling as fetal viability increases.
He&#039;s a Teatard and he can&#039;t spell. <a href="http://twitter.com/daveweig..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://twitter.com/daveweigel/statuses/2380215844...">http://twitter.com/daveweig...
Can&#039;t find where Dr. Willke was &quot;educated&quot;, but the following bits of biographical info do feature prominently:
- Founder and President, International Right to Life Foundation; - President, Life Issues Institute; - Formerly President (for 10 years), National Right to Life Foundation
The guy is a lifelong forced birther.
<blockquote>Obama almost took Missouri in 08</blockquote>
Yes, Missouri - only a little more backwards than Indiana.
:P
He&#039;s also over the years claimed it&#039;s because rape is mostly buttsecks, and that rapists are mostly impotent.
Gee, you think his shifting rationales in the face of repeatedly being battered down by the facts might be a hint that he&#039;s not trying to promote a scientific viewpoint but rather advance a forced-birth agenda by any means necessary?
They need to do way instain mother!