Thinking about Rules

ONE:    Really, they just don’t understand how our democracy works.

Intensified since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats assert their mantra that “Republicans may say they want small government, but the evidence shows they want the government to control every aspect of our lives, including our personal health decisions.” 

No, they just don’t get it.  Roe was an example of a government body usurping the rights of the people to make such decisions.  It is the Democrats who seem to worship such usurpation.

What these Democrats don’t seem to understand is that when we now see state legislative bodies made up of legislators elected by the people drafting and passing statutes regarding abortion (or anything else for that matter), it is not the government imposing control on the people.  It is the people, through their own elected representatives, exercising their voices and controlling their own lives.  

It seems that too many have forgotten that when government acts, when it passes a statute that regulates some aspect of our lives by permitting, mandating, or forbidding some action, it is the voice of the people speaking through their elected representatives.  It seems that the Democrats simply don’t understand that our government is a representative democracy in which the people are indeed their own governors by way of their elected representatives. 

The Democrats are confusing a people’s government such as ours with an authoritative form of government in which the governing body indeed imposes its own will upon the people.  And, when the Democrats demand that courts or the Executive branch create rules, mandates, requirements, and prohibitions what they are really demanding is an authoritarian regime that truly ignores the will of the people.

TWO:    Civilized society requires rules from a respected authority.

We see today’s ruling class elite creating rules without regard to the voice of the people.  We see a lot of behavior in the realm of “rules for thee but not for me” as those in power (along with those whom they favor) assert their right to seemingly do as they please.

This got me thinking about rules, authority, and, why do we all seem to find rules that we feel are acceptable to ignore.  Personally, I am strict in my belief that one must follow the rule of law – no exceptions, no emotional or “narrative” excuses.  The law must apply equally to everyone.

I feel much the same about academic rules, both from the perspective of a student and a teacher – no exceptions.  The requirements for an A should be the same for all as should the requirements to achieve various educational milestones.  No excuse.  No late papers.  Simply do the work and let the work be judged by objective criteria.

But when it comes to rules that are such things as directions for building something, whether it be a piece of furniture, or a sewing pattern, or a recipe, I feel no such need to follow those rules precisely.  Indeed, I take pleasure in deviating somewhat to make it easier or to personalize the project.

I have a friend that is a Biblical scholar who can quote probably every rule in the Bible and believes all should be followed precisely.  A Rabbi friend can similarly recite the 613 mitzvot referred to in the Torah (248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)).  These address both religious and worldly behaviors.

Less religious people, even though familiar with the Bible, probably are less inclined to be as strict with themselves about following such Biblical mandates than are the deeply and fully committed.

Which rules one follows in large part likely depends on whom one sees as a legitimate authority figure to whom one grants respect and deference and a certain amount of control.  And the reverence one grants to God or to a recipe in one’s personal private life probably makes little difference to other people. 

But the laws that govern the society as a whole must be followed or there will simply be chaos, which is what we are seeing today. 

For the members of society to follow a set of rules, the individuals making up that society must respect the rule maker.  In American democracy, the rule-maker is ultimately the people.  It is they, through their representatives, who develop the statutes and regulations that guide us and keep our civilization civil. 

There is a large body within our population that no longer respects the people as the rule maker.  There are those in power who think they know better.  There are those both in power and in the population as a whole who do not understand the basic civics of our country and as part of that lack of understanding do not understand who it is that is making the rules.  They blame government for rules they don’t like, not understanding that in the end government is not some abstract body but, in America, it is the people.  But not understanding that, they hold no respect for that abstract rule making body.

Psychology will tell you that we all have a self-critical conscience, often referred to as the super-ego, that reflects social standards learned from parents and teachers.  It is that self-regulating conscience, instilled in us as children, that helps us to follow rules rather than break them.  But if that conscience, that respect for the rules as well as their creator, is not instilled in us as children, then one will not feel the need to follow the rules that govern our societal behavior.

We are not teaching respect for our rules because too many do not understand what they are or by whom they are created.  Without an accurate understanding of our American democracy, respect for that democracy and the rules it creates is not possible. 

Today, much of the lack of respect stems from ignorance, but there are also those in power whose disrespect of, along with disinformation about, our government and its rules is fully intentional.  Either way, we cannot expect respect for our country, our society, and indeed our civilization until this is corrected.  To paraphrase Aretha Franklin:  R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to we, or you might walk in and find America gone. 

Think about what the rule of law means to you.

Do we really have a culture of death?

Here’s what I don’t understand – why are so many folks upset that, following the overturning of Roe, there is no Constitutional right to kill babies?   I mean, OK, maybe some women have been brainwashed to believe they have this right, but I have to believe (hope?) that most women are more intelligent than that. 

I mean, most adults can still read, and reading reveals that nearly all credible science and medical professionals agree that life begins at conception and that the embryo and then fetus are human life forms and are alive.  Embryo, then fetus are the earliest stages, but there continue to be developing stages post birth.  Infancy is also an early stage of human development and yet, while a few people do believe post-birth abortion is acceptable I have to believe (hope?) that the vast majority are not OK with killing infants.

Recently I pointed out the scientific/medical position to a pro-abortionist.  The response:  "Did you think I wasn’t aware an embryo is a developing human? You’re stating the obvious and proving my point. It’s ‘developing’ - it’s a group of cells multiplying that develops into a human. A human that the majority of pro-lifers won’t care about the moment they’re born.”  Gosh, so much to unpack in this statement!

What is a Developing Human?

If a developing human is just a clump of cells, and if killing that clump of cells is OK, then we are all in danger.  We all reproduce cells daily.  A child’s brain continues developing long past birth.  Body tissues grow by increasing the number of cells that make them up. Cells in many tissues in the body divide and grow very quickly until we become adults. When we are adults, many cells mature and become specialized for their particular job in the body. (cancerresearchuk.org).  According to Scientific American, “About 330 billion cells are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80 to 100 days, 30 trillion will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.”

The argument that you can kill a clump of developing cells is clearly disingenuous.  Moreover, even if one were to limit that killing to prebirth, it is hard to understand how anyone can accept unrestricted killing of a human entity (even a living clump of cells is an entity) when it has a unique DNA combination that is a legacy equally contributed from both parents, when it has a beating heart at 21 days after conception and a brain that at 6 weeks is at least partially developed and includes:  a forebrain/cerebrum, which controls certain brain functions , like thinking and problem-solving; a midbrain involved in processing visual and auditory information; and a hindbrain/cerebellum, which manages balance and coordination, as well as the medulla, which is the control center for the body's automatic activities, like blood pressure and heart rate.

Yes, the embryo and fetus are developing.  But so is the 6-month-old child, or the teenager, or the young adult, or even the octogenarian.  If one accepts killing a developing human, where exactly would one draw the line?

Pro-Lifers do care

As to the arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born, this too is disingenuous as is the argument that they don’t care about the mothers or that they force people to have children.  I don’t see pro-lifers going around killing babies after they are born.

It is pro-life health centers that offer pregnant women not only health care for them and their child before birth, but who offer solutions for the woman if she is unable, for whatever reason, to keep and raise her child.  They are not afraid to discuss adoption.  They are not afraid to discuss types of childcare.  They are not afraid to discuss job training and parenting assistance.  They are not afraid to discuss taxpayer benefits that may be available to the mother and child. 

Pro-life begins with compassion for the unborn child, but it does not ignore compassion for the pregnant mother, the father, other family members and the compassion for all concerned does not end at the moment of birth.

Failing attempts to justify the killing

I continue to believe (hope?) that most women, indeed most adult humans, are capable of understanding the above.  So, then, how is it that so many believe it is OK to kill over 700,000 developing children a year?

Do women really think that abortion is just a form of birth control?  (Hint, it is not:  birth control prevents a pregnancy and thus a new human from being created; abortion kills a new human after pregnancy occurs, after the new life is created).  Yet, most abortions are to kill children that were conceived during consensual sex.  Things like rape, incest, severe medical necessity are the exceptions.  How can anyone who understands what abortion really is believe that it is just another form of birth control?

Do women really believe lack of an unlimited abortion right is some sort of attack on them?  If they do, then they do not have a very high opinion of themselves, because to believe that they do not have a say in whether or not to engage in consensual sex is the result of a very demeaning view of women. 

Women are powerful, and part of their power is the ability to decline sex, to use birth control, and to understand that whenever they engage in sex that the result could be a pregnancy.  If we are not teaching our children (at an appropriate age) where babies come from, then we do have a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. 

Similarly, if we are not teaching our children (again at an appropriate age) about birth control as well as that no birth control guarantees 100% that pregnancy will not follow intercourse, then we need to address that.  Women and men need to understand that if they have sex they are potentially going to become fathers and mothers.   They need to understand their responsibility in choosing to engage in sex.

Women are also strong enough to accept the consequences of their acts, including participating in the creation of a new life and the responsibility that the mother now has to that life.  (And yes, the responsibility is not hers alone, but neither does she have the absolute and unrestricted right to pronounce a death sentence on that new and innocent life.)

Overturning Roe

I grew up before Roe v. Wade.  I remember abortion arguments in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, abortions were performed, some legally, many illegally.  Some resulted in medical problems or even death for the mother as well as the aborted child.  But most occurred in the early stages and most were “successful” in that they killed the child and left the mother with no physical injuries.  The mental and psychological effects of aborting a pregnancy are another story and continue to be a result of abortions both legal and illegal.

I remember when Roe was decided.  It was not a good legal decision as any number of legal scholars have asserted since 1973.  Most people at the time would have preferred that they retain their ability to speak through their elected representatives and determine for themselves what rules and rights would exist regarding abortion.

In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson established the idea of “separate but equal”.  That too was a poor decision by the Court and again, it took significant time for the Court to correct itself.  Plessy was overturned in 1954, 58 years after it was decided.  The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move, and the beauty of our democracy is that we eventually get it right.

Everyone needs to put emotion aside and rejoice in what the Supreme Court had the courage to do in Dobbs: read the Constitution and enforce it by returning power to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. We the people now have the power to determine exactly what the extent of any right to abortion should be. And, because the right is with the states, because we have a diverse population, the state rules will differ to some extent. This is democracy and we should all rejoice in it. The Dobbs opinion should not really be such a big deal, because all the Supreme Court did was do its job.

Now is the time for people on both sides to reach out and suggest reasonable rules.  They need to stop the hateful and violent protests and begin the peaceful lobbying and letter writing to their elected representatives so that everyone, through those representatives, will have a voice in what their state’s laws regarding abortion and life will be.

But first, I think we need to get over the general premise that seems to be that it is OK to kill a preborn (and sometimes being born or post birth) child.  Exceptional circumstances may, in extraordinary situations, justify such killing, but it is never simply dismissible as OK.  I do not understand that culture of death.  And I hope that anyone who has input into the education of children, whether their own or those of others, will not perpetuate the belief that killing an inconvenient child is OK.  We must learn to be less selfish than that.

Don’t Be Fooled

More precisely, don’t let the politicians and their minions fool you.  They want you to be upset over the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  They want to use this for their own political gain, to garner votes for themselves.  They want to make this a really big deal, but really it is not. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal.  Be clear on that.  (My previous post on 6/24 addresses the opinion itself and includes a link to the full opinion.)

All the ruling does is give the people back their voice that is rightfully theirs.  The people themselves, through their elected representatives in each state may now determine their abortion rules or lack thereof.  The power is rightfully theirs and the rules of the states will be diverse reflecting the diversity of our country. 

All that the Supreme Court did was read the Constitution and return the power to the people where it belongs.  The people of each state, exercising their voices through their elected reps, can and will choose a variety of limitations ranging from total bans to no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will likely not stray too far from what has existed under Roe.   This is the way democracy works.  Rather than being angry, everyone should rejoice in their power and if they do not like their state's rules, they can use their voices through their state representatives to change them.

I would hope that in addressing possible state regulations that the legislators and people of each state do not simply react with emotion, fear, and hate, but sit down and spend time researching the many ramifications of abortion laws and listening to the many views that exist.  I would hope that there will be a tolerance of views that are different from one’s own.  Following are some initial thoughts for such discussions.

First, what is abortion? 

I think we have to begin there.  Abortion kills a preborn human.  That preborn child can be called an embryo or fetus depending on its stage of development.  In humans, the embryo is medically defined as “the developing individual from the time of implantation to about the end of the second month after conception.” From the third month to the point of delivery, the individual is called a fetus.  

So, beginning with conception we have a human organism, a human life.  Though not fully formed, it is unique and it is alive.  We have to acknowledge that regardless of stage of pregnancy, abortion ends the life of this unique human organism.  Abortion is quite simply the taking of a human life.

Is ending the life of a pre-born human acceptable, and if so, when?

Acknowledging that abortion is a killing, the people must decide if this is ever acceptable.  Generally we protect life.  Rules are sometimes, but not always, absolute.  Every state has statutes addressing various forms of homicide.  Some will be various degrees of murder, others will be various degrees of manslaughter, and others will be justifiable homicides.   

The people, through their representatives must decide whether they want an absolute ban or an absolute 9+ month permission for abortion.  If neither absolute, then it must be decided what will and what will not be allowed.

Restrictions and permissions might focus on the point during pregnancy at which the abortion is performed and/or the reason for the abortion.  It should be clear that such allowances are exceptions to the general rule that all life is to be protected. 

For me, the idea of setting a specific and perhaps arbitrary time during the pregnancy before which killing is OK and after which it is not does not comport with this country’s basic belief in the value of life.  Many will have religious beliefs that oppose taking a human life.  Some will believe there is a point before which the child is not well-enough formed to be of value.  These are emotional issues, but they must be considered so as to hear all sides and beliefs as well as the science related to such things as when a fetus can feel pain and when it is viable.

If not time, what circumstances should allow an abortion?

Abortion is seen by many as simply another form of birth control.  It is not. 

Most abortions terminate the lives of children conceived during consensual sex.  Should children so conceived be allowed to be aborted simply because they are not wanted by the mother?  This brings us to the tired phrase of “a woman’s right to choose.”  Should she be entitled to engage in consensual sex and then, if she becomes pregnant, be allowed to abort (i.e., kill) her child?  Or does her “right to choose” occur at an earlier stage?

To say that in such consensual cases the woman was not capable of making the choice to have or not to have sex is demeaning to women.  What happens is that the woman is either unaware of or willing to ignore the possible consequences of that act.  If unaware, we need to do a better job of educating our daughters (and sons); if unwilling to take responsibility for her act and its consequences then we also need to do a better job of teaching our children that acts have consequences and that they cannot do whatever they want with impunity; they cannot disregard the effects of their actions on others (including a child that they might conceive).  Abortion is not just another form of birth control, and we need to teach our children that you can’t just dispose of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

But what about rape and incest or circumstances where the child will have significant medical issues or the mother’s life is truly in danger?  These are exceptions that prove the more general rule.  These are the circumstances that might make a specific abortion acceptable in the same way that certain circumstances make a homicide justifiable.  But abortion should not be generally accepted simply in order to allow it in these small percentage of the unwanted pregnancies that now end in the death of the child.  Any exceptions should truly be exceptional.

Who has the right to order the killing?

Another tired phrase is “my body, my choice” which is often combined with “abortion is reproductive health.”  

Beyond the idea noted above that the woman’s choice comes earlier in the process, the reality is that there are two bodies involved here: the woman’s body which is the carrier for the second new human’s body.  Both must be considered.   In this country we do not give any one group of people the right to murder another.

As to reproductive health, again, that involves the health of the woman before pregnancy along with such things as birth control.  Once she begins the reproductive process the health of both her and her child must be considered.  Indeed, the CDC includes both maternal and infant health in its discussions of reproductive health.

Once there is a pregnancy there are two lives to consider.  But there are also others:  the father, perhaps siblings of the preborn child, and other possible family issues.  The pregnant woman may be carrying the child, but that person is also the child of the father, carrying his as well as the mother’s DNA and family legacy.  Should the father have a voice?  And if so, when?  Personally, I think the child consensually conceived is of both father and mother and neither should alone be allowed to terminate that child’s life.

And what about society in general and our obligation and responsibility to protect all life?  Every one of us bears some responsibility in the creation of any right to abort.

Criteria

If abortion is not completely banned or allowed up to and including birth with no exceptions, then there must be criteria for allowing exceptions to whatever rules exist prohibiting abortion.  It is not just the mother, or mother and father, but also the child that must be considered.   Beyond the interests of the parents, the best interests of the child must be considered; those interests do not usually include death.  The exceptions of things like rape; incest; etc. might fall into an exceptional category making certain abortions justifiable even though they take the life of the unborn and innocent child.  But convenience of the parents, or interference in their careers, lifestyle, finances, etc., should not create the extraordinary circumstances that any exception should require.

Facts, Emotion, and Reason

Right now, everyone seems to be coming to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is no more.  Emotions are running high.  Sadly, those emotions are being manipulated by politicians and the media as they feed the public fiery rhetoric filled with false facts. 

Feelings are emotional interpretations of events.  The events themselves are generally neutral.  That is the case with this decision – it basically just reasserts the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government with power left to the states and the people.  There are those who want you to believe that is evil, but actually it is empowering.  The key question that everyone must ask is “Are your feelings your own or are they being manipulated?” 

Then, we need to put those emotions aside, listen to those with other views, examine in detail all relevant facts, and move forward with reasonable and rational abortion rules that consider and protect everyone concerned, including the unborn children.

Think and Understand before you React

 In deciding Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. today, the Supreme Court did nothing more than read the Constitution and enforce it.  That is, the Court did its job.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Constitution provides specific rights to the people and protects those rights from the government.  It establishes specific federal powers and ensures that those “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10^th Amendment to U.S. Constitution)

The Constitution is neutral on the question of abortion – neither pro-life nor pro-choice.  It does not address abortion and as such leaves to  the people the question of whether and to what extent a right to abortion exists.

As Justice Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of additional rights, but those not found in the Constitution cannot be created by the government nor by the Court, but rather must be created by the people through their representatives.

The Justice wrote:

In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree.  To begin, I agree that constitutional rights apply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional.  But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments. See generally Amdt. 9; Amdt. 10; Art. I, §8; Art. V; J. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 7−21, 203−216 (2018); A. Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 285−291, 315−347 (2005).

So, before you run out to celebrate or protest that “abortion is now banned” (which is not the result of Dobbs) you might be wise to actually read the Constitution and also read the incredibly thoughtful opinions that together make up the 6-3 decision in Dobbs.  Those opinions explain thoroughly and clearly the sound reasoning behind the Court’s decision.  

         

                     

A link to the full U.S. Constitution and its Amendments can be found here:  US CONST 

A link to the Dobbs decision can be found here:  DOBBS 

The point is, that the rules about abortion are up to the states.  In each state the people, through their representatives, can enact rules and regulations.  Such rules and regulations are for the people and not the Court to create.  In our democracy this is how the voice of the people works and it is how we retain and maintain our government of/for/by the people. 

The voices of those who care about abortion issues should be directed to their state legislatures.  As noted in the Dobbs opinion, the various states have always had differing opinions and rules about abortion, and that is likely to continue following this overturning of Roe.

This democratic process works, even if more slowly than some would like.  It protects us and it is the best form of government that you will find.  So, before trying to destroy it, its Constitution, and its institutions, before trying to radically change to some other governing process, take the time to understand what you already have, because you may not know what you had until its gone. 

18 U.S.C. §1507

 18 U.S.C 1507.  Just another law that the Biden administration doesn’t enforce.  Why would they when they don’t believe in the rule of law?

As this statute, which Biden ignores, makes clear, there is a difference between free speech to express opposition and trying to intimidate a judge to change his or her decision out of fear for his/her or his/her family’s safety. President Biden and his White House fail to condemn the crossing of that important line by the pro-abortion demonstrators at SCOTUS and at the Justices’ homes even though they are in violation of this law and pursuant to it should be facing fines and imprisonment.

18 U.S.C. §1507 states in full:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

Anyone who thinks these (many of them paid) protestors are not trying to influence the Justices is either incredibly stupid or incredibly naïve.  Similarly is anyone who thinks that Biden is not 100% behind them, hoping they do indeed not only influence the Justices (even while violating federal law), but also spur Congress and every state to enact laws allowing the murder of unborn children with no restrictions whatsoever.   

The protestors are hysterically asserting a wealth of lies and misinformation with the help and approval of Leftist politicians and the media.  It seems that facts, truth, and most importantly the rule of law are of no concern to the Left, to the Democrats, and to our President who, as the head of the executive branch and of our country should be demanding adherence to the law.

He does not, they do not, and hence this country is quickly sliding into a dystopian world of anarchy and mob rule.  Without the rule of law and a respect for it and our democratic institutions, this country is doomed.  Anyone who thinks that is a good thing, anyone who simply stands by ignoring what is going on, is beyond naïve.  They are in essence co-conspirators with the hateful, malicious, and indeed demonic Left. 

Protest outside home of Justice Kavanaugh

SCOTUS Leak - Part 2

 There are two distinct issues involved in the SCOTUS leak.  The first is the act of the leak itself.  I addressed that yesterday.   The act of leaking this document, regardless of what was leaked, is a direct attack on the Court itself, a core institution and bastion of our democracy.  The gravity of this act in and of itself should not be diminished.

The second issue relates to the actual leaked document and its substance.  That I will address today.

What was leaked

First, let’s be clear on what the leaked document is.  It is a draft opinion, written by Justice Alito, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.  The draft is not the final opinion but one intended for the Justices to review as they each decide how they will vote to decide this case.  The opinion indicates that the court may be on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade.

What does it mean

The actual meaning of this draft opinion, if it were to become the final decision of the Court, is far different from much of the rhetoric being bandied about by the Left and the pro-abortion lobby. 

You may read the draft opinion for yourself here:  LINK TO OPINION 

Essentially this draft opinion explains the shaky base upon which Roe v. Wade has always stood.  Justice Ginsburg, a strong abortion advocate, warned about this when she said that Roe should not have gone beyond striking down the particular statute involved in that case.  She stated, “Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force." 

It was this abuse of judicial authority, the unconstitutional removal of states’ rights, that has made Roe both controversial and unconstitutional from the start.  The draft opinion clearly explains the Constitutional basis and the logic behind the necessity of overturning Roe v. Wade.

The draft opinion does not outlaw abortion.  Rather, it returns the decisions about whether and to what extent to restrict or not restrict abortion to the states where these decisions and regulations properly and constitutionally lie.

The draft opinion specifically states that it does not apply to other rights that have been held to exist:  this opinion, if it becomes law, will not end the right to gay marriage, it will not end interracial marriage (yes, that is being asserted by the Left), nor will it affect any other aspects of the culture wars.

What this draft opinion will do, if adopted by the Court as the final opinion, will return abortion regulation to the states.  Some states will likely have very restrictive laws.  Others will have no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will be somewhere in between.  What that means is the less restrictive states will actually allow abortion well beyond that which Roe allowed.

Why now

So the pro-abortion activists are clearly upset that Roe may be overturned.  But why was this draft leaked now?

The draft was written in February.  Why not then? 

If this is to be the final opinion, or whatever the final decision of the Court is, it will be released by the end of the Court’s term in June.  Those unhappy with the decision could just as easily protest then. 

If the intent is to rile up the base before the midterms, that could just as easily be done once the opinion is released – June is still well before the midterms.

Clearly the opinion will serve as a distraction from Biden’s many other crises.  But his crises existed in February and there is no reason to believe they will disappear by June. Indeed,  Biden has needed distractions almost from day one of his presidency, so why now?

As I see it there are really only two clear possible answers, and actually they easily coalesce into one:  an attack on the Court and its rule of law.

First, this may be an attempt to influence the Justices’ final votes in this case.  The thought behind this would be that if the protesting voices are loud enough, perhaps they will sway the Justices away from their duty to decide based upon the law and instead decide upon popular opinion.  Essentially this is an effort to replace the rule of law with rule of the mob.

And this leads right into the second possible reason:  to inflict a hopefully fatal wound upon the Court and with it the rule of law, a basic necessity of our democratic and free society. 

The Court is the protector of our Constitution, our system of Justice, and the rule of law.  While various groups and individuals may be unhappy with aspects of these institutions, while we must all admit that none is perfect and that mistakes are made, they are the core of this country.  Anyone who would attack them either has no understanding of them or of the institution of the Court, or so hates this country that they would destroy its very core. 

So perhaps the individual or individuals or group that attacked the court simply would rather see an America of mob rule than one of law and justice.  Or perhaps they simply had no idea of what they were doing – perhaps their understanding of our democracy is so lacking that they allowed some need for a moment of personal gratification to overcome their rationality or sense of ethics.  I don’t know.  What I do know is that this act has created a breach of trust so deep that the Court may never recover.

Now what

There is a lot of rhetoric, much of it false and misleading, that is circulating as a result of the leak and that is being used by various entities for various purposes.

The pro abortionist lobby will do its best to stir up protests.  They hope these protests will not only change the minds of the Justices, but also encourage states to enact liberal abortion laws that allow abortion up to and even beyond birth.

The Democrats will use the rhetoric to campaign in a year in which their polls show they are losing badly.   They will use it to push for an end to the filibuster as a way to enact broad abortion statutes that deny the states their rights to enact their own laws. 

The Democrats will also use this as a reason to stack the court with enough justices so that the court becomes a political arm and rubber stamp for their policies rather than a protector of the Constitution and of the people whom that Constitution is designed to protect. (Note:  Stacking is not the same as appointing Judicial replacements who hold a particular judicial philosophy.  Stacking is increasing the number justices and then appointing a sufficient percentage of that new number with individuals/activist judges with a particular political point of view so that the Left’s policies will always be affirmed.)

The Republicans may use the Democrats’ reactions to point out what hypocrites the Democrats are.  The Democrats like to tell us how they are fighting to preserve our democracy and its institutions, yet they are calling the leaker a hero and do not seem to understand why anyone would be upset about the leak.  Rather, as they repeatedly tell us, not only does the end justify the means, but one should never let a crisis go to waste.  Hence, their ethics see the leak as perfectly OK and a way for them to fundraise based upon the leaked document.

 We the people should:

1.      Make sure we understand the role of the Court within our government and its 3-branch system;

2.      Understand the Roe v. Wade opinion, the flawed logic on which it is based and what it does and does not allow;

3.      Understand what overturning Roe v. Wade would and would not mean;

4.      Understand that, while uncommon, the Supreme Court properly overturns bad law (for example, the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, the case allowing segregation and establishing the concept of “separate but equal” when it decided Brown v. Board of Education);

5.      Hear the current rhetoric with a critical ear and a critical mind, understanding what is fact and what is false.

Overturning Roe v. Wade, if that is the ultimate decision of the Court, is not the end of the world.  It is not even the end of abortion.  If you have a stand on abortion, be it pro or con, you can work within your state as it crafts its abortion laws. 

What would be the end of our rights and freedoms would be to turn the main protector of those freedoms into just another political body.  Outrage should be directed towards those who are trying to do so.

About the Abortion Debate

Even though the abortion argument is misplaced in the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice (and thus reflects ignorance of the Constitution and the role of a judge), since we will nonetheless be having the abortion discussion, here are my thoughts.

First, I think that it is necessary to make the discussion honest.  Here is the medical definition of abortion: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus.

One will note that this definition does not include the words “reproductive rights”  or "women's rights" or “choice.”  Abortion itself is simply ending a pregnancy – killing a living entity growing in a woman’s uterus, regardless of how you may define that life that is terminated.

Reproductive rights would be rights that address reproduction.  That reproduction, while it may occur over a period of time, begins when the egg is fertilized and the reproduction begins.  So those rights would seemingly be involved with the act of creation, not of termination.

This leads me to the word “choice” and the phrase "woman's right to choose."   Excluding acts of forced creation such as rape or similar criminal occurrences, a woman has the opportunity to choose whether to engage in a sexual act long before she faces the decision about abortion and a child growing in her womb.  To assume that women are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of intercourse or the possible failures of birth control, is to assume that their intelligence is fairly low.  Are we to assume that women are incapable of knowing what they are doing, that they are likely to be so overcome with passion or sexual drive that they do not understand the consequences of their act?  Really?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body, but that right does not only exist after she has become pregnant.  When a woman freely enters into intercourse, she has made a choice that includes the possible consequence of becoming pregnant.  If she does not want to be pregnant, does not want to carry another life inside her, then she needs to make a different choice when faced with a situation that could result in pregnancy.

Once a woman has made the choice that results in the union of a sperm and egg to begin the reproductive process, she now holds a separate life within her.  Yes, it is her body within which that being will grow, but she has made a choice to place that being there.  And, now, in my opinion, it is not only her life that matters.

There is a selfishness in the idea that the child within the woman’s womb is meaningless; that it is only the woman who matters.  This, to me, is a part of our more generally selfish culture:  if it is inconvenient, just get rid of it.  It is also a childish response to one’s own activity and an inability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.  And, the encouragement of this response, the failure to hold women accountable for their actions and to instead give them an out,  like the failure to recognize their ability to make a choice about having intercourse, is simply degrading to women.  Real respect for women would not treat them like children.  It would acknowledge their ability to be responsible for their own actions.

Beyond the disingenuousness of abortion being an expression of women’s rights, those who engage in the abortion discussion often fail to even consider the broader effect that abortion has on our attitude towards born children, the family, and on humanity and life itself.

If we can abort lives that are simply inconvenient or not to our liking (e.g. the movement to abort Downs babies), then we are turning children into a commodity.  It becomes about the life of the adults, and not of the children – we will select a child when it is convenient for us, in the way that one selects a dog or even a piece of furniture.  It becomes about enhancing our own lives and not nurturing the lives of the children.  Thinking in the long term, this cannot be healthy for future generations of children or for the future of humanity.

Speaking of humanity, when life becomes a commodity it tends to lose its special value.  If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why not one being born?  If it is OK to have live birth abortions, then why not well into an infant’s life if that life is just too troublesome?  If we lose our respect for human life, then it becomes much easier to kill in the same way that soldiers are often indoctrinated with the idea that their enemy is somehow less than human.  Easy abortion, abortion on demand, has a way of cheapening life, making it valueless and hence one can more easily take or destroy any human life without remorse.  Is this really the direction we would like to see for the human race?

I believe that the above  points suggest a strong argument against abortion generally.  There will, of course be difficult individual cases such as rape, incest, or simply those rare situations in which an abortion would seem to be the best choice for all concerned, including the child to be aborted.  How to handle these types of situations invokes the beliefs and religious values of those concerned.  But, because these difficult situations will always exist does not mean that abortion should be an accepted alternative in every pregnancy.

Abortion follows the act of reproduction. It is not reproduction.  It is a termination of a reproduction that has already occurred.  It kills a living being, regardless of what one chooses to call that being.  To assume that women have no voice or choice until they find themselves pregnant is incredibly demeaning of women.  To readily accept abortion for reasons of personal convenience turns children into little more than commodities and makes life itself if not valueless, at least less meaningful.  The long term consequences on our civilization seem far worse to me than allowing an unwanted pregnancy to come to term.