Re abortion-rights abolition quest: Only "dominant-class" males have permanent rights :( :( :(
Begin with my belated review of "The Handmaid's Tale."
In the United States, the dominant class is still white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.
In other countries, the dominant class may be Hispanic, Black, Asian, or other, by religion Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or other, provided that they're males.
In all countries, it doesn't matter how long ago you gained your rights--the "ruling" male class can always take them away, or so constrict them by passing subsequent laws that, for all practical purposes, they no longer exist.
So many restrictions are now being proposed or passed regarding abortions in the United States that it may soon be nearly impossible to get one here.
New restrictions, imposed since the Supreme Court ruled against the Voting Rights Act, have had a serious impact on the ability of minority voters, particularly Blacks and Native Americans, to vote.
And no sooner had the L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ Community been granted full marriage equality by the Supreme Court than the President forbade transgender persons to serve in the military.
There's also an "immigration war" being waged against Muslims and Hispanics, even those who are in the U.S. legally.
Surely I'm not the only one who sees where this is going. :( :( :(
Related: My Tuesday, November 28, 2017 post Discrimination is discrimination.
Update: My Friday, March 25, 2022 post Oklahoma's new abortion ban.
posted by Shira Salamone at 8:17 PM
5 Comments:
What horseshit. While I don't support the Alabama law, it was signed into law by a female governor. She could have vetoed it. She didn't. This isn't man vs woman.
And while I don't support overturning protection for abortion, Roe v Wade is an abomination of a decision. It made up a constitutional right out of whole cloth and didn't ground it in any text of the constitution, only in some vague notion of "substantive due process". Even your hero Justice Ginsburg has said that the opinion is incoherent. If you don't want "rights" taken away, stop relying on a court to defend them. Anything they can make up, they can take away.
"This isn't man vs woman."
There will always be those who side with the ones in power in order to get or keep power for themselves.
" If you don't want "rights" taken away, stop relying on a court to defend them. Anything they can make up, they can take away."
If you can make better suggestion, please do. Who are we going to trust, the US Senate?
Abortion isn't a right. Some of the things you think of as "rights" were created out of whole cloth by the activist Warren Court. or if it is a right, it should have been grounded in the explicit text of the Constitution, not "substantive due process" which is a misnomer and basically means "whatever the prevailing sentiment of the time is."
This is a political issue that should be dealt with by the explicitly political branches.
And way to take away Gov. Ivey's agency. Perhaps she believes this is correct. Not all women are pro-abortion. Many are pro-life.
As a libertarian, I'd like the government to stay out of it, but Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided. If you ever read it, you'd understand what a flawed decision it is. Not from a policy perspective but as constitutional law.
"This is a political issue that should be dealt with by the explicitly political branches."
That isn't working out so well, at the moment. I suppose that time will tell whether national and/or state legislative branches will be able to deal with this issue in a way that doesn't have the potential to harm half of the population.
"And way to take away Gov. Ivey's agency. Perhaps she believes this is correct. Not all women are pro-abortion. Many are pro-life."
Touche. It's true that many women oppose abortion. That's unfortunate, from my point of view.
"As a libertarian, I'd like the government to stay out of it . . ."
Maybe the government should try staying out of our bedrooms first. Wouldn't that be "libertarian?"
Maybe the government should try staying out of our bedrooms first. Wouldn't that be "libertarian?"
Yes. I agree with that. I said that above. Where we disagree is that it's the courts that should create such rights. I wish the Democrat Party would keep out of business and the Republican party would stay out of my bedroom. But I don't look to the court to create such rights.
And this doesn't have the potential to harm half of the population. half of all women are not of child-bearing age (either too old or too young). Some are infertile and wish they could have a baby. And many oppose abortion. So, what I suspect you mean is "half of the theoretical people most of whom have never left NY and don't understand why reasonable people might disagree with me."
Post a Comment
<< Home