The incompetency of the Supreme Court majority is obvious and based completely in political ideology. Yesterday, the Supreme Court carried forth incompetent legislation written by ideologues that masterminded an illegal war and no longer sit in their seats of leadership of the House and Senate. Two of which had either committed fraud and ethical violations or caused undue fiscal demands of constituencies.
To begin, infanticide is illegal in the USA. It always has been and I don't see that changing. The conflict between the definition of infanticide and abortion is not an issue. Infanticide is the death of a child born into life outside the uterus.
The issue of women's health falls into many categories of which included in that is abortion. When women don't want to be expecting a child they will terminate that pregnancy and it is a known fact. Those women have every right to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In a court primarily of men and where Samuel Alito was the replacement of a female jurist, this court has neither the insight or right to be determining the outcome of women's health.
I have always found it helpful to understand issues before making judgement of my own by listening to others and understanding their perspective. I have been fortunate to work in professions whereby I meet many people; men, women and children nearly everyday of my life in ways that their lives, occupations and personal ventures are revealed in America.
There are two stark examples of women that come to mind which this law would directly impact negatively in that they would seek abortions regardless the laws within the USA.
One is a young twenty year old, whom was engaged in a relationship with a man for several years practicing birth control. When the relationship hit a lull, she left it to live alone.
After a time, the young man called and stated he was being deployed to Iraq and wanted to be married before he left. He asked to see her, asked her to marry. They were married in time for his deployement.
She is not pregnant and nor does she want to be with that understanding before the marriage. Her rational was that while living with her then husband there was some question in her mind as to whether the relationship could stand the test of time. She didn't want to have children in a relationship that would result in divorce. When she was asked did she think she would ever have children, she stated simply, "No." She didn't feel the relationship is capable of being that stable and I am not interested in having children.
Whether or not she ever changes her mind is for the future to reveal, but, when she was asked if she would ever terminate a pregnancy within the marriage, her statement was, 'absolutely.' That 'absoluteness' would result whether or not she fell under current consenting laws.
To many Pro-Lifers a woman like this should have their 'tubes tied' or consider a 'hysterectomy.' That is an outrageosly extreme statement garnering the concept of totalitarianism for the sake of sparing a woman's life to insure all other conceptions would go forward. It is an undue burden on any woman whom might later decide otherwise and should have that freedom to do so.
The other instance hits far closer to home. It is my sister whom's issues have appeared here many times.
She grew up with love and promise believing she would have the same experience as a woman when she married and started a family. Along the path of life she was thrown a curve. A tumor. A brain tumor. Her life was saved, much to the gratitude of a loving husband, by some of the best physician/surgeons in the USA if not the world; through many treatments of radiation. As a result the way she felt about her body changed, in that she didn't feel her reproductive organs would produce a child that was healthy.
Here was a woman so violated by a tumor that it transended her experience as a woman and the concept of motherhood. Prior to the diagnosis, she had left a prestigious career, with a great deal of promise, to move to the Midwest whereby she and her spouse would purchase 17 acres of land to build their 'Dream Home' and start a family. All that changed when she was exposed to thirty days of life saving radiation. She continued to use birth control and never looked for a tubal ligation or hysterectomy. Neither procedures were discussed with her spouse or even entered the rhelm of that marriage. To her husband, neither she or he could ever consider such a thing and the 'idea' of another surgery no matter it's manifestation was like 'water torture.'
Eventually, she would consent out of love of her spouse, to consider an adoption. They listed with four agencies and within five months were notified they would be receiving a baby within the next nine months. Her spouse was elated and didn't care what the future burdens would be for them considering any challenges to her health, all was possible and that was all he cared about. To my sister, it was a time to reflect and define motherhood and she didn't like the picture that unfolded before her. She didn't like the idea of ever having a child raised by a nanny or caregiver while she was helpless at some future date to carry out that roll. Realizing her husband's elation, she decided to leave the marriage and live alone.
Her tumor was never resolved as it is cystic and malignant but only thwarted by radiation. No matter her ability to function at the time that was never guaranteed to her in the future. When I once asked her had she ever by chance gotten pregnant because of failed birth control would she have an abortion, her response was, 'absolutely.'
Neither the USA Congress, Senate or House, or Justice Kennedy have the right to determine the happiness of either of these women.
What occurred yesterday was wrongly preceived by religious organizations as outlawing infanticide. That is not the case. What did occur yesterday was the allowance of doctors to perform any type of procedure that is necessary to save a woman's life and the 'idea' that women can autonomously live a life whereby they have control over their reproductive capacity. It is an outrage and every woman now is presented with danger to herself and her family as did not exist before this ruling of a bill marred with ideology without the common sense of a twit.
