Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

Your post shows EXACTLY why we have the separation of church and state in America. America is not about subjecting all Americans to your personal fervently-believed religion of choice.

 

Think that's what the point was. To show all those things aren't there either, but that doesn't stop some from using their religion to dictate morality to others.

There's a lot of things NOT in there. It's from the 18th Century. If that's the guideline now for overturning stuff, have fun.

 

By the way, seeing on a lot of tweets, etc, men posting comments like "if it bleeds it's old enough to breed." Since so many seem to lack the basic knowledge, may I remind folks that girls get their first periods usually by 6th grade (around 11) and some as young as 5.

It's disgusting. But an example of what some view females as - breeders.

 

@gatorplank interprets the Declaration of Independence and Constitution all wrong. Yes, we are endowed by our creator with certain, inalienable rights, but Plank takes this as the Christian God being a big gift giver. The founders, however, were all deists, and believed God as the clock maker, winding up the world, and then He just sat back and watched events unfold. God played no active part in what went on around us, and it was up to man to secure his rights, even if it meant having to go to war and fight for them.

Not only is Jesus, the Bible, or the Christian God not mentioned in the Constitution, the Constitution explicitly states there will be freedom of religion in the country. As Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, this Amendment was to ensure a wall of separation between church and state. Therefore, it is equally unconstitutional to force everyone to submit to laws based on the Bible only, as it is to force everyone to live under Sharia Law, based on the Koran. And as someone who isn't religious, I would find it equally distasteful to be forced to live under Sharia Law as I would find it being forced to live under Biblical Law.

Another interesting tidbit is the fact that there were no laws outlawing abortion in the US until the 1820s. In fact, it was legal until the quickening during the time the Constitution was signed and ratified. Benjamin Franklin even put a recipe for abortion in a math book he wrote in Colonial Times. So if Alito and company really want to be strict Constitutionalist, and base law on history, then the proper decision should be abortion is legal until the quickening, which usually happens around week 15 of pregnancy.

But it's not about being a strict Constitutionalist, or basing things on history. It's about power and control over women. Just read @icequeen's posts if you think otherwise. She's done a fantastic job.

 

Theres a pretty clear theme throughout the constitution and amendments that demonstrate privacy as a right, especially the 4th, 5th and 14th. The ninth (which is generally ignored) stAtes that the fact that certain rights are enumerated doesn’t exclude other rights not specifically enumerated.

It seems to be a reasonable interpretation. It has stood for 50 years. It is a stretch in my mind to characterize such an interpretation and established precedent as “egregiously wrong”.

 

This statement shows what the evangelical political movement is all about: A fascist wing of "Christianity" has as its goal to establish a dictatorship in which fundamentalist Christianity's precepts and philosophies are the law of the land, and if you stray, punishment by the government, including prison time, will be your fate.

 

If you're going to go full on "originalist ", why not consider non whites as 3/5 of a person or restrict voting to only white male property owners? Or the senate being picked by state legislatures and not the voters?

 

It is one of the most unAmerican points of view imaginable. & this is a guy that would crawl across glass to vote for Trump b/c Biden was going to make us Maxist - which has not happened - but, he's cool with becoming Iran.

 

No kidding, which makes Alito's rationale vapid.

 

Yep!! Put your money where your mouth is.

 

On the other hand there is no constitutional amendment providing that monetary campaign contributions are a form of free speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment but that hasn't stopped Alito and four of his fellow justices, all or most of whom are supposedly originalists from inferring such a right even though it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

Just a guess, but semi-automatic or fully-automatic rifle is probably not in their either. Just sayin'.

 

There are some who claim liberty only means freedom from physical restraint. I think that's too narrow of a reading. If we don't have the right to control our own bodies, what liberty do we truly have? If we don't have a right to our own private, intimate affairs without government interference, can we really say we have freedom?

Now, rights aren't absolute. There has to be a balancing of the right or liberty interest with the government's interest and the sweep of the law. That right to privacy doesn't give a person a right to molest children in their home. Plainly, the government's interest in preventing harm to children outweighs the right.

And that's what makes abortion such a tricky question. Some people think there's another person's life at stake. Others think that there isn't. Your stance on that often comes down to your religious beliefs. In my mind, that's why viability makes perfect sense. You're no longer debating over a potential life at that point.

 

I think increased abortions or, given the direction we are headed, increased unwanted, unloved, crack/meth/heroin addicted babies with fetal alcohol syndrome is a small price to pay to keep girls from enjoying sex without consequences. #jesusapproves