Apr. 8, 2008 at 14:11
by BrendaBee
Abortion rights (Roe vs Wade) has been the one most controversial Supreme Court judgments ever made. It is an issue on which opponents can find no middle point on which they can compromise. The fetus is dead or it is left to live; there is no in between! I have often considered what would happen if Roe vs Wade was overturned. This now is not a wholly impossible event given the current make up of the Court. If the next President is a anti-abortionist it becomes even more possible because the more liberal judges are getting old and being replaced.
Well I don't have to do my own research if I truly wanted to get into this question because FactCheck.org has done that for me in this article .
As it turns out abortion would still be rather handily available regardless of the best the anti-abortionists can do. Here is the assessment of just what might happen:
"The Center for Reproductive Rights also predicts that some states that don't have bans now will institute them if the Supreme Court gives them the authority. In all, the center estimates that 21 states are likely to outlaw abortion immediately. This assessment is based not only on current law, but on the political makeup of the state legislatures.
According to the center, those states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
On the other hand, abortion is likely to remain legal in many states, according to these groups. Seven states already have specific laws protecting the right to abortion, with or without Roe, according to Guttmacher. The Center for Reproductive Rights identifies 20 states in which legal abortion would likely be preserved: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. The remaining nine states, according to the Center, are at "middle risk" of an abortion ban."
So really all that would happen if Roe vs Wade were to be overturned is to put poor women back in the back alley abortion hack shops that Roe vs Wade was initially enacted to eliminate. And it would also open up a huge black market for any "abortion pill" that anyone can concoct. All of which means one of two things: damaged or dead pregnant women. Or far worse, if not dead then certainly severely damaged babies.
Aborting unwanted babies is as old as pregnancy and will never be eliminated, it will only go back underground which will cause far more problems, but being underground they will be out of sight of most who are yelling to go back before 1973. Then all the people who have been so vocal in this fight will go their merry way and only the social workers, police and hospital emergency rooms will be aware of and dealing with the consequences.
I will repeat what I have always said and believed: I hate abortion. The only thing I hate more is bringing an unwanted and therefore unloved baby into this world. People there are worse things than death! Far better an innocent soul be returned to the Creator than to be twisted and damaged by a wicked world and not being at least partially protected by loving parents. BB
5 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Feb. 23, 2008 at 01:36
by BrendaBee
It is true that for a people to be free government must keep as low a profile as possible. Big government is the realm of the dictators. On the other hand, there are some things where only the government, whether it is local, state or federal, is "big" enough to protect people from those who have more money, and therefore more influence, from doing as they wish with impunity. This is why this current Supreme Court got it wrong once more and ruled against the people and for big business. There have been several instances of this kind for this court and it does very much concern me. In some cases the states have come behind the courts and instituted new laws to circumvent the courts ruling, but not all cases and not all states. This is the one and only reason I would vote for a Democrat in this years election: several judges are in their 70's and will no doubt be retiring and the next president will be nominating the replacements. We need to pull back from this untra-conservative court to one with a bit more "sanity?". There are times when putting too fine a point on the law does not serve the people well. The following article illustrates my point. BB
Editorial:No Recourse for the Injured Published: February 22, 2008
"Consumers are already at the mercy of the all-too-fallible Food and Drug Administration. So it is especially disturbing that the Supreme Court ruled this week that patients injured by defective medical devices cannot sue for damages in state courts if the device was approved for marketing by the F.D.A. and made to the agency's specifications."
"That means that any consumer harmed by a faulty device, whether it be an implanted defibrillator, a heart pump or an artificial knee, will have no chance of fair compensation and the manufacturers will have a dangerous sense of impunity. This decision is particularly unsettling at a time when the Bush administration has been working overtime to weaken federal regulations, and regulatory agencies, and to pre-empt the power of states to impose tougher standards."
6 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Nov. 21, 2007 at 01:14
by BrendaBee
The Supreme Court has decided to tackle the second amendment. See article Hand Guns here. It will without a doubt be one of the most controversial cases to come before the court in recent history. In fact absolutely every case I can think of from abortion rights to school integration pales beside this one. I think these were fairly tame subject considering how rednecks like their guns of any kind.
This case is based on the District of Columbia's 31 year old ban on the ownership of handguns which considering the number of people killed in the streets of DC hardly makes a whole lot of sense since obviously the law is ignored.
The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” and it has been 70 some years since the Court last looked at the amendment then turned aside an did nothing of any value.
The article states, "The justices chose their own wording for what they want to decide in the new case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290. The question they posed is whether the provisions of the statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”
I am puzzled. First, the District of Columbia is not a state so the security guard who is the plaintiff in this case must have to be working in a federal building outside of the District of Columbia in either the state of Maryland or Virginia which the article doesn't specify. In fact the entire statement makes no sense to me and neither can I determine just what it is the Justices want to determine. As stated, I simply can not for the life of me figure out just what the Justices have in mind with this particular case and a whole lot of people worlds more intelligent than me are having problems with it too. So we will all just have to sit tight and see how this one comes down.
Frankly I understand in this world in this day and age the desire by some for owning a hand gun with all the crimes taking place. I can see where having a gun would make some people feel more secure. Tho I personally do not and never have and never will own a hand gun since I know that I could never use it to kill someone and like what happens to most people the criminal would take it off of me and use it to kill me. I wouldn't at all be opposed however to seeing all handguns banned.
I don't hunt now, but grew up with shotguns and rifles in my home and I was taught early how to use them correctly and safely and went hunting often with my father. In fact, one of my childhood memories of family traditions involves hunting Thanksgiving morning with Daddy while Mom, who was also a hunter, stayed home and prepared our Thanksgiving dinner. We lived in northern West Virginia and wished for at least a "tracking" snow for Thanksgiving. A tracking snow for you who don't know is just what it says, a light snow where you can see the tracks of the rabbits in the snow. My last hunting expedition with Dad was Thanksgiving 1962. I was married in August 1963 and was cooking dinner for my own husband after that. Neither of my husbands have been hunters.
AS for guns I see nothing wrong with owning hunting rifles and shot guns. And some of these hunting rifles are very high power killing weapons for the large game. However, I do see one whole lot wrong with people owning powerful killing machines such are available at any gun show or shop and even on line. These weapons are not used for hunting and neither are they used for self defence. If this kind of hardware is needed by the ordinary citizen for self defense then the jig is already up. Gun collectors, smun collectors that is so much BS! When will we as a people finally decide that owning guns by the public is the reason for our high crime rate. As evidence to this fact, gun ownership is banned in almost every country in the world with the exception of the United States and we have the highest crime rate and homicide rate of any country in the world (this is per capita people so don't as some of you will start saying, "Yes but we are one of the largest countries in the world too": BS!). There is a correlation there regardless of what the NEA tries to tell us. Perhaps the only governmental body that can somehow bring about sanity in the gun ownership issue is the Supreme Court with Justices who at least ostensibly can not be bought as is the case with our Congressional representatives. BB
2 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
Nov. 6, 2005 at 17:24
by BrendaBee
Supreme Court of the United States of America
October term 2004
Case: Kelo et al v. City of New London, Connecticut et al
Argued: February 22, 2005 Decided: June 23, 2005
Ruling for City of New London, Connecticut by a 5 to 4 vote.
The officials of the City of New London, Connecticut were swayed by a large corporation into the belief that the only property in their town or it’s immediate vicinity on which they could build a multi-purpose, multi-billion dollar for the benefit of the people of New London was a stretch of property at the juncture of the Thames River where it enters the Long Island Sound. Some of the most desirable, scenic property in the area that would be perfect for high end shops, hotels and restaurant as well as expensive condos for the wealthy and office space for those who could afford it and certainly deserved the very best.
The owners of the property, Susette Kelo and several of her neighbors were using this property for nothing more profitable than their tacky little homes, some of which had been there since the early 1800‘s. It was criminal to allow these few ordinary people to enjoy this magnificent view when so much more could be made from it. Much more that could benefit all the people of New London a small backwater town of middle class and retired people, most of whom had lived there for generations and had made their living from the water ways.
Five of the esteemed judges of the Supreme Court of the United States of America whose Constitution and Bill of Rights promise it’s citizens that their property can not be seize except in cases of need for the BENIFIT of ALL the people saw fit to vote by a narrow margin of five votes to four votes to allow the wealthy corporation to have its playground and the homeowners to lose their homes. Of course they were not being reimbursed enough to purchase one of the condos planned for the area so they would lose their scenic view for which they had originally purchased the property and built their homes on it in the first place. Somehow when this ruling was made by the supreme Court it got by with very little comment. I personally was outraged and I did read a few commentaries where tie authors were as concerned for the injustice being done and the dire consequences this ruling had for any home owner anywhere. This case if left to stand and it would since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, then any property owner in city, state and region of our county could have their homes taken from them when money talks louder than our Constitution.
Well, there is hope because last week in a small article tucked in the inside pages of the N&R reported that the US House of Representatives “overwhelmingly” passed a bill designed to counter this outrageous use of eminent domain. The bill as passes by the House would withhold federal funds from state and local governments who have the chutzpah to force people to give up their property for commercial development in the name of receiving more tax revenue from the property. The bill now goes to the Senate where a similar bill has been introduced. Contact The Senators from the State of North Carolina and tell them that you expect them to undo the harm done by the Supreme Court to our rights.
5 Comments |
Post Comment |
Email This
