When I listen to the questions of Associate Justice Breyer (click here) the arguements presented by the challenger to Roe v. Wade are profound. Justice Breyer made it very clear the challenge to Roe v. Wade and Casey change the focus of the decision from judicial to political. In other words, privacy which is the focus of the previous decisions was upheld over any interest the political rhelm may hold. Privacy is on the line with Roe v. Wade and Casey. The change in the decision in regard to abortion is a block at the base of "Jenga." The loss of this block to the issue of individual rights will lead to toppling of many other decisons because privacy is disregarded over that of the government's interests and/or political interests.
The government is supposed to serve the people and that is why a democracy is very important. The decisions by voters are reflected in the methods put forward in the government. The special interests such as the anti-abortion lobby are tempered by any favored government decisions through the courts. Indivdual rights have always been protected by the courts. The judicial courts and not the popular courts of social media.
If I can refer to "Gore v. Bush," that decision was to be used only in a one time decision, however, when it comes to the practice of law this decision has been brought before the courts many times. The way the courts decide effects our democracy and our personal lives. It is very important to know the judges from local to Supreme are practicing according to the US Constitution and not political preferences. We see preferences in some of the courts when it comes to political topics, but, that is somewhat haphazard in that opinons can vary within the cultures of the country. While preference is brought forward that is almost preferable because culturally all Americans can be heard through their regional appeals courts. Follow? Regardless of cultural differences, the justices of the Supreme Court have always been able to clear up any oddity in lower court decisions based in constitutional law. This political opposition to Roe v. Wade is now outside that of the constitution and hands it back to politics.
The challenge to Row v. Wade changes everything from constitutional decisions to political wing dinging. Basically, the five crackpot judges are feeling their priviledge and deciding to put their clout behind the opposition of abortion. Privacy is very important in personal decisions. It is unique to democracy and should be protected. Most Americans value their privacy, especially in the choice of a doctor and the privacy between them which became obvious during the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Every American needs to understand Roe v. Wade and Casey are about personal privacy and not simply abortion. The political arguments can be compeling. Yes? Abortion vs. a born child. The late term abortion vs. high risk early birth of a live baby. It is compeling. No doubt. Every American that values human life finds the choices compeling and almost contradictory to valuing human life. But, as many, many women know the decision is often socioeconomic, although abortions are found throughout the income standards of the USA.
Low-income women (click here) are more than five times as likely than affluent women to experience an
unintended pregnancy, which has significant implications for social mobility given that unplanned
childbearing is associated with higher rates of poverty, less family stability, and worse outcomes for
children, according to a new Brookings Center on Children and Families (CCF) paper published today....
I might point out that the Child Tax Credit is going to shift the decisions about pregnancy and children. The Child Tax Credit creates a very happy part of the dynamics of family. The Child Tax Credit will provide this additional degree of happiness so long as it is maintained by the US Congress in budget appropriations. We need to be vigilant to this EQUALIZING tax credit.
Stating that is important because if a tax burden lightens the burden of low and middle income Americans the decisions regarding abortion and contraception will change all by itself. That is the practice of good and benevolent law. The tax burden may shift to higher amounts of tax on the wealthy, but, that does not effect their decisions when it comes to bringing a child or children into the family.
The United States of America is built on equality. All persons have one vote to bring to decisions about law. When the economy of the USA waxes and wanes for whatever reason it does, that doesn't mean abortions have to increase during very difficult times with a child tax credit in place. I will go so far as to say the demands for Foster Care will decrease as well, because, the poor and lower middle class are over represented in the loss of parenthood to the courts for a variety of reasons. Bigotry and racism is a separate dynamic in those decisions, but, when work income is lower because the American is not capable of higher paying jobs, the child tax credit is a great equalizer.
There is a lot on the line with the opposition to Roe v. Wade and Casey. It goes far beyond that of simply abortion. It is also addresses the fetus wrongly. It substitutes viability for fecunidty which is usually a measure of conservationists and not obstetricians. To be clear, a fetus does not have a WILL TO LIVE, that occurs when the fetus reaches viability. The fetus does not know pain until viabiliity and those are legal decisions as well as medical research proofs.
The legal decisions regarding this right of women and their biology, is expansive and cannot be ignored simply to say the USA is troubled by abortions. That is a political decision. Americans need to understand decisions by the Supreme Court are vital and should not be toyed with as the current five crackpot judges seem to be able to set aside in favor of political leanings.
It is plain to see the problems the Chief Justice has with five runaway decisions. They are incompetent by any legal measure.
I might add one more observation, the lawyer speaking to the Supreme Court is a man while the lawyer speaking to the rights of women is a woman.
