I'm pretty sure the justices know all about the birds and the bees. Perhaps Pelosi needs a lesson in the constitution. She'll have to read it to see what's in it. And there is nothing in it to give the federal government any control over abortion. After she learns that, perhaps she'll move on to the 10th amendment.
But probably not. That troublesome document was written by a bunch of rich old white guys and has no place in today's world... Dem's really have very little use for the constitution unless they can feign outrage over some misinterpretation. Then it becomes a "sacred document", at least for a little while.
Pelosi: Supreme Court justices need 'birds and bees' lesson (chron.com)
or as has been said here many times......she knows just so much of what ain't so
Thanks Tim!
From the article:
“That was great for me,” she said. “That’s not necessarily great for other people and it shouldn’t be up to any of us to decide what a woman and her family and her husband … her partner decides for them and their family and their future childbearing possibilities.”
"Among those statements from the conservative justices included Justice Samuel Alito, who said that “the fetus has an interest in having a life.”
metmike: According to Pelosi, members of the unborn baby's family get to discuss whether the unborn baby gets to live or not............ with just one small exception...............the unborn baby, since they aren't old enough yet, doesn't get a say on whether they live or not.
If we let the baby live for a few years, then consult........I wonder what they would say?
Somebody has to represent the life of the unborn baby!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights
Fetal rights are the moral rights or legal rights of the human fetus under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.[1][2] The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal substance use disorders, including alcohol use disorder and opioid use disorder.[3] Most international human rights charters "clearly reject claims that human rights should attach from conception or any time before birth."[4] While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries.[5]
I always found it amusing the one side calls themselves, "Pro life" and the other side calls them "Anti Abortion" and their position as "Pro Choice"
I'm obviously biased in this case but am basing it more on medical science and biology than anything else. Clearly, an unborn baby is a human being using those standards.
That position is irrefutable and independent of religious views which use faith as their foundation.
Here's a group pushing for better birth control that uses the term "Anti abortionists" so you know their position.
But they make some good points.
I always love charts/graphs. The one below is powerful. Black women have something like 5 times the abortions as white women compared to their % of the population.
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2008/08/abortion-and-women-color-bigger-picture
metmike: So focusing on minimizing unintended pregnancies in black women is going to be our most effective way to lower the abortion rate. You probably knew that already.
The pro life group and pro choice group should be able to work together on this solution......but one side sees this as condoning sex or making it easier to do something that's wrong.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this debate is not, or at least should not be, about whether abortion is right or wrong. It's about whether the federal government has any jurisdiction over abortion. And per the constitution, it clearly does not. Roe v Wade is one of the best examples of judicial activism in the history of the court and a text book example of why judical activism is a bad thing.
IMO, the debate about the right and wrong of abortion is as clear, if not more so, on a legal, moral and ethical level, but that decision belongs at the state and local level.
Different states having different laws on this would be problematic, especially for poor women that could not afford to travel out of state to have an abortion......which is many of them.
Related to this and whether it's state or federal is that many women are still going to get abortions...........but they will be using less safe and riskier facilities to get the illegal abortion.
That doesn't mean we should make something legal that's wrong because its safer but the birth control path, to me seems one that would have the best choice for both sides to agree on based on science and biology and the best interest of everybody except those most concerned about condoning immoral activities.
I totally get sticking to ones values on moral issues related to religion but then, trying to impose them on women, some who have no religion at all in their lives is completely unrealistic.
And the consequences are crystal clear and counterproductive.
How many souls do you think can be saved by teaching moral principles of not having sex until your married and want children vs the souls that will be saved by preventing them from killing an unborn baby?
I know that's not the choice for many in the pro life movement...........but it is for millions and abstinence only programs DO NOT WORK well.
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abstinence-only-programs
metmike: In a way, it's anti science. Marriage and morality being taught related to this often about religion and customs and society norms on ethics.
The authentic biology/science is that 2 people are often attracted sexually to each other in a powerful way ........in fact, it's one of the most powerful, natural biological forces in the universe.
So we are trying to teach discipline and self control over biology.
I am totally for this when we have 2 parents raising their children this way because you can instill good values in them that result in a high success rate.
This is the optimal situation but most abortions happen because of the hopelessness of trying to teach other children, that don't have ideal parents as morality teachers........and the group having the most abortions has no affiliation with religion.
Turns out that the most women having abortions are actually in their 20's.
But teaching abstinence is a recipe for failure(outside of families that have at least one good role model parent) , over and over and over. Why repeat it, when you can push birth control on those that will take advantage and save millions of unborn babies lives?
But abortions have been falling consistently and this is wonderful news!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
right Cutworm. Some words appear in our most important documents and some do not. And yet today Kagan explained how she did not understand most any part of our most important documents. Pretty telling when you hear her during a case as critical as this one.