Hypocrisy

I just came across an article that talked about Marjorie Dannenfelser, the President of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America — a nonprofit group that works to end abortion in the United States by electing antiabortion politicians.

The article noted that she, perhaps more than any other woman, is responsible for the fall of Roe vs. Wade because of her key role in “getting President Trump to commit to appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices who oppose abortion.”

Trump-abortion
(Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)

As I looked at the picture accompanying the article (with Trump standing next to Ms. Dannenfelser), I couldn’t help but wonder why Trump would have made this commitment. There is little doubt that during his playboy days, he had “women-friends” who would have sought abortion. And there is even less doubt (in fact there is proof) that many in Congress have slipped a few bucks under the table for their outside-of-marriage lady-friends to “take care of things.”

But I suppose it’s like everything that goes on in the political world … hypocrisy is the name of the game.

(Besides, there are still states that support abortion, so for the political crowd, nothing has really changed.)

And so it begins …

Below is what Steve wrote on his blog (“Uncommon Sense”) related to the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion. I’m sharing it because I admire his rather cool, calm, and collected approach to the action. Although I also have much to say about this INSANE decision, I’m going to let him speak for me until I cool down.

insult-gb56765589_640

The GOP advanced their Freedom Agenda today, when their hand-picked Supreme Court Justices overturned Roe v. Wade which established abortion as a valid option for pregnant women everywhere in the country.

By voiding Roe, the GOP’s minions have established their small government, freedom loving vision upon the country. The government is expected to stay out of the private lives of citizens . . . , uh, well, except when a woman gets pregnant and the state steps in and exercises control over that woman’s uterus.

No other organ is thus “protected” by the state. The state (federal or local) cannot require you to accept an organ transplant, nor require you to donate any of your organs to another (even blood). The state cannot require you to protect your heart and lungs by not smoking. But uteruses, well, they’re special, you see.

And while the SCOTUS justices may have been correct that the constitution right to privacy may not be the shield Roe needed, there is this small matter of . . . the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” So women are secure in their persons, except when the anti-abortion states step in and exercise control over their uteruses. And determining that a woman is pregnant, how is that not an illegal search? How does that make any sense at all? And what about “equal protection” of the law? The Fourteenth Amendment states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” but that apparently doesn’t apply to the United States collectively. So, in the United States, a women will get an abortion in one state and be arrested and tried for murder, but another woman, just on the other side of the state line, will get an abortion, paid for by her insurance company. This will happen because the U.S. itself doesn’t provide equal protection under the law.

Clearly the current crop of SCOTUS ne’er-do-wells were just looking for legal-schmegal language cover for what they wanted to do for their religiously inspired agendas.

The Republicans orchestrated this. The only solution is to vote them out, vote them all out.

LET ME REPEAT: The Republicans orchestrated this. The only solution is to vote them out, vote them all out.

*************************************
Image by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

Religious Liberty and Abortion

scale-g0f8b0adb7_640

This statement, published in a Guardian article, is one that few people consider as they argue and fight over abortion rights:

Religious liberty for people of all faiths is protected under the US constitution, state constitutions and federal statutes.

Considering this assertion, it would seem that while some religious groups believe abortion should be banned by law, there are others who see things quite differently. And they base their stance on the religious liberty protection granted to them in the above declaration.

The article lists some examples …

In Judaism, abortion is usually seen as permissible and even required in cases where the patient’s life is at risk. In Islam, scholars contend that abortion is allowed for the first 120 days, after which it’s seen as a civil – not a criminal – issue, and it’s permitted at any time when the health of the mother is in danger. Other believers, including within Christianity, focus on the sacredness of the individual or the family to make such decisions, rather than prosecutors or lawmaker

And …

Catholics for Choice believe they have a religious duty to protect reproductive health despite the Catholic church’s stance against abortion.

The article further notes that nearly half of Protestants and 56% of Catholics believe abortion should be legal in some or all cases, and more than half of Muslims, 82% of Buddhists and 83% of Jews believe the same.

One rabbi said this: “If you ban abortion, when my religious tradition tells me that I am a) permitted and b) possibly required to access abortion care, you are limiting my free exercise of religion.” (Emphasis mine)

Another person said — and I fully agree — To me, the law of the land and [religious] law are two separate and distinct things.

While I am personally against any laws forbidding abortion, I was surprised to learn of the resistance to the anti-abortion movement from within certain segments of the religious community — with several referencing their rights to religious liberty.

Even so, the Certain Individuals who have the Authority and Power to rule on this issue continue to disregard even the religious segment of society as they move towards an anti-abortion ruling designed to affect ALL women.

********************************
Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

The Little Blue Pill

Nearly everyday I get a slew of SPAM posts on my blog with links to VIAGRA, littlebluepillwhich (as if you didn’t already know) is the little blue pill used to treat erectile dysfunction (and sometimes impotence) in MEN.

Not only are these posts irritating and unwelcome, they are constant reminders of the potential role they play in the current abortion debate.

(As a refresher … based on the recent (pending) ruling by the Conservative Arm of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is the WOMAN who must pay the price when a man’s virility results in a pregnancy.)

You see, when one considers the never-ending promotion of the Little Blue Pill, it appears that it is far more important for the male to be able to Perform than it is for him to Take Responsibility should his self-induced maleness result in the union of certain cells within a woman’s body.

And to take it a step further, if/when such a union does occur, the aforementioned judges are totally immune to the burden this virile male has put upon the female who may be unprepared, too young, or simply unable to capably or financially raise a child.

Instead, their End Goal is to force ALL women to accept their pregnancy — no matter how it was caused or how it could affect and/or alter their entire life’s plan — while they totally absolve the male and his role.

And they choose to do this based entirely on a religiously-derived construct.