Abortion Revisited - My Take (Justice Alito's Draft Decision)

(The preliminary decision that was leaked dealt with the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  See the December 8, 2021 post for a further discussion of the oral arguments, and my incorrect prediction.) 

In Dobbs, the issue was the 15 week limit put on the right to get an abortion by the State of Mississippi.  That was the limited issue before the Supreme Court.  Of course, the Supreme Court is not limited to a review of the technical issue before them.  And if Justice Alito's decision becomes final, the Court will have reversed the 1973, 7 to 2 decision, in Roe vs. Wade.  

In listening to the oral arguments, it was clear to me that Justice Roberts saw the push to overturn Roe.  He kept trying to focus everyone's attention on the 15 week rule.  As I wrote in December, had Roberts been in the majority, I believe he would have assigned the writing of the opinion to himself.  I believe he would have held that the 15 week limit was not an "undue burden" per Casey, but would have also maintained the Constitutional right to an abortion under Roe.  The three liberal justices would have gone gone along in order to avoid an overturning of Roe, but likely would have written their own concurring opinions objecting to any restrictions on Roe.

I would have sided with Roberts.  Here is why.  First, Roe is nearly a 50 year old precedent.  I cannot help but wonder if any of the five Justices signing on to the preliminary draft decision, did not see any benefit to a gradual change in the law regarding abortion.  Yes, abortion has been one of the most contentious issues in our country since Roe was decided.  But did none of those Justices see a benefit to judicial economy?  In deciding cases based on the facts before them - in Dobbs it was the 15 week rule.

The other reason that I would have sided with Roberts is my disagreement with some of the state laws that have recently been passed.  I would allow abortion to protect the life of the mother.  I would allow abortion to protect the health of the mother.  I would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.  And there are simply too many instances of situations where, at least within the first 15 weeks proscribed by Dobbs, the government should stay out of it.  

  

Abortion Revisited - My Take (The Leak)

Let me start with this.  I am outraged by the leak of a preliminary draft (written in February) of a Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe vs. Wade.  I cannot imagine that any of the Justices would be the source of the leak.  That would leave the clerks of the Justices, and other Court employees.  The clerks are generally new attorneys.  If one of them is responsible for the leak that person should lose their license to practice law.  

The draft decision was authored by Justice Alito, with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett joining.  Between February and June, when a final decision will issue, Justices may change their vote, and the reasoning of the decision may be altered.  I completely agree with a Wall Street Journal editorial suggesting that all nine Justices issue a joint statement deploring the leak.

I question how long our society can last with these non-stop assaults on our basic institutions.  Just in the last few years.  A cop knelt on the neck of George Floyd, and much of the country decided that all police were no good.  Are there bad police?  Of course.  But there are bad members of every profession.  Who is in favor of ending the medical profession because there are some bad doctors?  We have seen the result of undermining the police, with the defund movement, with the lack of political support, and with district attorneys who refuse to prosecute.  It should surprise no one that crime is up everywhere.

No one on the left needs to write to me about January 6.  I said that I was appalled by what I saw.  I said that I immediately accepted that Joe Biden won, and that Trump should have done the same after the Electoral College vote.  And no one on the right needs to tell me about some new evidence of voter fraud.  At this late date the 2020 election results are not going to be reversed.  

Let's not forget the actions of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Chuck Schumer, threatening (yes, threatening!) sitting Justices of the Supreme Court, telling them they will "pay the price" if they do not decide how Schumer wanted them to decide.  Now, as with the Capitol building, we have a fence around the Supreme Court building.  We even have protesters outside the homes of some of the Justices.

Schumer, proving once again how little he knows, said it comes with the territory, because he has had protesters in front of his house.  He is a politician, and people have a right to seek a redress of grievances from their elected officials.  Although I do not favor politicians even being harassed in front of their homes either.  

But the Courts are different.  We should not want Courts being pressured to decide cases a certain way.  Cases should be decided on the facts and the law.  If anyone disagrees, tell me this.  If you were a criminal defendant, and a mob outside the courthouse was shouting "hang him (or her)" would you want the jury to find you guilty in order to appease the mob?  Or, would you like the jury to decide based on the facts and the law? 

I am not naive.  I understand that the Justices are human, that they have a view of how the world should be.  And while those personal beliefs do, at times, guide their decisions, there are many times when the results are not so predictable.  

I know that when I attended public school, the teachers instilled a sense of patriotism, a love of country, a respect for the flag.  We were taught about our founding documents, about how the Founding Fathers created the greatest system of government in the history of the world.  (Again, no need to tell me about slavery, and women's lack of rights.)  Our original governing documents created the bases for the freedoms and rights later given to blacks and women.  How much people want to keep America will be up to later generations.  

A Clarification

In my November 28, 2021 post, I explained why I was opposed to capital punishment.  That needs to be clarified.  Yesterday, there was a horrific mass shooting in a market in Buffalo, New York.  Today, there was one inside a church in Orange County, California.  In both of these instances, there is no doubt as to the identity of the shooter.  

In the cases discussed in last November's post, there were no eyewitnesses.  No one was caught in the act of killing.  In Buffalo and in Orange County, the perpetrators were caught in the act.  There were multiple eyewitnesses.  There is no concern about proving the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt - because there is no doubt whatsoever.    

The only question left for these shooters, is the type of capital punishment and the place it is to be carried out.  These shooters do not deserve a needle in the arm, away from public view.  I think serious consideration needs to be given to a return of public executions - whether by hanging or firing squad.  Yes, you bet I am plenty angry as I write this.  And I have no doubt that some will be horrified by my suggestion.  But I am horrified by evil.  

We need to restore a sense of respect for others.  We cannot do that when so many continue to focus on our differences, such as the color of our skin.  We need to restore a sense of respect for human life.  We need to inculcate a sense of decency in our youth.  And we need to again bring back a sense of shame for wrongdoing.  How we might be able to do all that is the tricky part.  I think a study of the Ten Commandments would be a good start.        

Speech, Part IV (No, Florida's Parental Rights in Education Is Not Anti-Speech)

Let me be clear.  There is a huge difference between censoring speech that adults may hear, and protecting children, especially the youngest children, from speech that is entirely inappropriate.  The Florida Parental Rights in Education law has been dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by the Left, even though the word "gay" is not in the law.  But nothing stops the Left from advancing their agenda, no matter the number of lies needed.

Florida's law says this:  "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."  Protecting children from being sexualized is not anti-speech.  It is protecting children.  

But here is a proposed New Jersey Gender Identity lesson plan.  "You might feel like you're a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are 'boy' parts."  What?  I assume the reference is to a penis.  Now, only "some people" believe that a penis is a boy part.  This is the insanity of the Left.  You can forget about "following the science."  No, for the Left we now have "birthing people," because everyone knows both men and women are capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  

And, of course, the proposed NJ lesson plan tells girls:  "You might feel like you're a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are 'girl' parts."  Because a vagina is no more a girl's part than a penis is a boy's part.  These are very sick people - and Florida is trying to protect children from them.

Of course, the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, disagrees with Florida's Governor DeSantis.  Here's Newsom:  "Hurting children isn't just un-American, it's monstrous."  I agree.  Sadly, however, Newsom and the rest of the Left do not understand what truly is monstrous.  Here's President Biden:  "Our LGBTQI+ youth deserve to be affirmed and accepted just as they are."  I agree with Biden also - but again, not the way he might think.  I'm not sure what all the latest add-ons are.  

Nevertheless, every right thinking person would agree that all people should be treated with respect.  And that kids, and adults, should not be bullied.  The question is - what is appropriate to teach the youngest children.  I prefer to stick with reading, writing and arithmetic.  And, if it is determined that it is the teacher's role to discuss sexual orientation to the youngest children (why?) then there are multiple other ways that the teachers can make themselves available, besides making the subject matter part of classroom instruction.  

Here is a description of another bill signed into law by Governor DeSantis, per CNN.  "Students and employees can't be told they must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin."  Imagine that.

If I had school age children there is no way I would send them to today's public schools - unless we lived in Florida.  

   

Speech, Part III (I Am Not Making This Up)

First, we had former President Obama's speech at Stanford on "disinformation."  Obama:  "I'm pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist...that said, the First Amendment is a check on the powers of the state."  Obama then explained how the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times and Fox.  

Then, Obama said this:  "...tech companies need to be more transparent about how they operate.  So much of the conversation around disinformation is focused on what people post.  The bigger issue is what content these platforms promote."  And this:  "In a democracy, we can rightly expect companies to subject the design of their products and services to some level of scrutiny."  

I have my own issues with these social media tech companies frequently suspending or banning conservative speech.  But, Obama should not be claiming to be "pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist," when he asserts a need for "scrutiny," and apparently for regulation.  I also have an issue with the content promoted by the platforms of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media.    

Although, I am curious about Obama claiming in 2013, "if you like your health plan, you can keep it."  Politifact called that the "lie of the year."  And that was just one of many lies told by Obama.  Yet, I do not recall Obama facing any consequences for his spreading disinformation. 

But now that Elon Musk has purchased Twitter, the Biden Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, have announced the creation of the "Disinformation Governance Board."  If you think that sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel, you are not alone.  But, as I said, I am not making this up.  Although I wish I was.  The person heading up this Ministry of Truth will be Nina Jankowicz, described as a "Russian disinformation specialist."

After NPR asserted that "women face disproportionate attacks online," Ms. Jankowicz Tweeted:  "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities...which are already shouldering...disproportionate amounts of this abuse."  Ms. Jankowicz also referred to the Hunter Biden laptop as a "Trump campaign product."  Wait...did the head of the Disinformation Governance Board spread disinformation?  Hmmm.  

The Daily Mail reported that the Board would fight disinformation before the November midterms, especially in Hispanic communities.  Not to be suspicious, or anything, but I wonder if the focus on Hispanic communities might be because, thanks to Trump, Hispanics have been increasingly gravitating towards the Republican party and away from the Democrats.  But no fear, the Biden Administration will be spending money to combat that disinformation.  

I cannot help but wonder if the money will be spent on "public service announcements" that, coincidentally, mimic Democrat talking points.

  

  

Speech, Part II (Medical "Disinformation")

At least some lawmakers in California want to dictate what your doctor is allowed to tell you.  With proposed legislation, doctors could be disciplined for spreading "misinformation" about Covid, the effectiveness of vaccines and other treatments.  What would constitute "misinformation?"  Apparently, opinions that veer from the "standard of care," and do not comport with "contemporary scientific consensus."  

Before you suggest that medical science has evolved countless times over the decades and centuries, allow me to assure you that openness to new ideas is not a value that is shared by the Left.  As a reminder, Leftists run the state of California.  And, as noted in the preceding post, only certain speech is favored by Left.  Contrary voices are not welcome.

Here is one doctor's letter in the Wall Street Journal:  "Medical science is ever changing.  Today's contrarian concepts often are tomorrow's standards of care."  

Here is another doctor's letter:  "Every innovation in medicine goes against existing standards of care.  Today's standard becomes substandard as new treatments develop.  Medicine progresses when doctors have the freedom to practice their profession without interference from political agendas."

The Left has infected medical schools as well.  Writes one doctor in an Op-Ed in the 4/19/22 WSJ:  "Medical schools increasingly are preparing physicians for social activism at the expense of medical science.  Such student groups as White Coats for Black Lives demand that administrators reframe curriculum around reparations for slavery, decarceration of prisoners, and other topics with no bearing on training doctors to care for individual patients."   

Maybe one day soon you can walk into your doctor's office in California, be taken to an examination room, and be told "your state legislator will be in to see you shortly."

Speech, Part I (Twitter)

I am not on Twitter.  However, I find it comical that the hypocrites and liars of the Left are acting as twits (pun intended) over the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk.  Musk says he wants to open up Twitter to more speech, not ban speech.  Elizabeth Warren was quite troubled by the deal.  Warren:  "This deal is dangerous for democracy."  Honestly, it is difficult to tolerate such blatant lying by those who do not favor democracy.

Here are some questions for Warren:  were you outraged when Twitter suspended the account of the New York Post, after that media outlet broke the Hunter Biden laptop story?  Were you outraged that most of the mainstream media referred to the story as "Russian disinformation?"  Did you say anything after the New York Times confirmed that the story about the laptop was legitimate, and not Russian disinformation?  How concerned were you when the effort to delegitimize the Post story about the laptop - before the 2020 election - may have actually thrown that election to Biden?    

Here was part of one letter to the editor in the New York Times:  "But what we have not heard from him (Musk), so far, is whether he will adhere to ethical standards embraced by mainstream newspapers and, to a lesser extent, social media (Facebook et al.)."  That one sentence tells us just how brainwashed those who rely upon the mainstream media are.  Ethical standards?  This blog has recounted dozens of times just some of the many lies told by the mainstream media.  By what ethical standards was the mainstream media operating under when it engaged in non-stop fabrications about the "Russian collusion" story?

Here is part of another letter to the New York Times:  "What Mr. Musk, a politically naive libertarian, apparently does not understand is that a platform that allows big lies to propagate may be supporting 'free speech' in the short term, but will end it - along with our democracy - in the long term."  What can we learn from this brainwashed individual?  Like so many on the left, it is taken for granted that any conservative speech, any speech that does not track with the Democratic Party line, is a threat to democracy.  Those on the Left actually believe that.   

That attitude about speech - the less speech, the better - is strictly a left-wing attitude.  Classical liberals, of which there are few currently, always believed in more speech.  They believed in debate.  (Classical liberals actually share many values with conservatives.  Leftists do not share the values of either liberals or conservatives.)  But we have seen time after time after time how often the Left seeks to shut down speech that is "offensive" to their worldview.  We have seen it happen on college campuses, on social media, on TV and in the mainstream media.  And, the Left always categorizes speech to which they object in some negative fashion - a threat to democracy, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., etc.  Delegitimizing the speech in that fashion makes it inherently objectionable.  

It is worth repeating here a quote from the 7/17/16 post (Classical Liberalism) by John Stuart Mill, a 19th century classical liberal:  "If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." 

But one letter to the New York Times had it right:  "I never cease to be stunned by those in the journalism business who feel threatened by the prospect of...freer speech."  And this:  "How is it remotely better with 'experts' determining community standards, how to protect those who get offended, what is appropriate speech, who should be heard, who should be banned, etc."  The very notion of having "experts" dictating what we should hear or read, is completely contrary to our notion of free speech and liberty.