Since the Supreme Court appears receptive to rejecting precedent in letting corporations overwhelm our elective system, possibly they should re-examine the constitutionality of the ban on federal funding of abortions in its current form or as proposed in the new health care legislation. One need not disrespect the pro-life movement by recognizing that it has a strong religious basis. But perceived sin does not the law make. Abortion is legal in this country. It should not be exempted from coverage or funding because of religious beliefs.
Many persons perceive homosexuality as a sin and AIDS a result of that sinful activity. Could Congress, in good conscience and legally, deny coverage for AIDS treatment, because gays and lesbians and their lifestyle offend a segment of the nation? The underpinning of Roe v. Wade was that a woman had the right to be free of state interference with her choice to have an abortion. The denial of public funds coerces women into giving birth in instances in which they would have elected not to do so.
The effect of the Hyde Amendment and similar language proposed in the pending health care bill imposes a political moral judgment on a decision that has been entrusted by law to the woman involved in consultation with her doctor, and her family if she so chooses. Furthermore, in addition to singling out women with these dire consequences, in reality the prohibition singles out the poor, those that cannot undergo the procedure without financial assistance.
It is the government that is limiting a woman's freedom to choose abortion over childbirth. By doing so the government violates the due process rights guaranteed under the ruling in Roe v. Wade. To suggest that the poor women who is unable to pay for an abortion is not impeded by the government policy is to ignore reality. The government has chosen to provide funding to continue the pregnancy to term, but not to abort. Concededly the government could have withheld all federal funding, but having granted it in full, it is the singular exclusion of abortion coverage which may render it unconstitutional. The denial of benefits cannot be used to affect the exercise of a choice which has been accorded constitutional protection.
The legislation is so clearly discriminatory. Women who are not pregnant are reimbursed for all medically necessary treatments. Pregnant women will receive the same benefits and treatments with the exception only of abortions. Although I recognize that the Supreme Court has decided otherwise, I believe that there is a strong argument that the ban violates the equal protection of the law, the class being indigent pregnant women. Over time, exceptions to the prohibition have been adopted and are now being considered. But the need to come within those exceptions, the time it takes to prove them and the confusion as to what qualifies or does not, in and of itself, impinges upon the rights of women. Even with exceptions, the ban ultimately infringes upon the woman's constitutional right to decide whether or not she will terminate her pregnancy. Without in anyway denigrating those who passionately believe in protecting the fetus and its right to life, the place for these decisions to be made is in the heart and mind of the woman, not in the halls of Congress if we are to honor the Constitution and the holding in Roe v. Wade.
Why CBS Should Not Air The Tim Tebow Anti-Abortion Ad
Roeder jury foreman: Abortion not jurors' concern in verdict
Please Judge, explain to me why the Ninth Amendment is not used to protect the rights of woman.
Hmmmmmm
It would be best if we all minded our own business.
It is easy to be mad and make such specious insinuations. It is more challenging to actually part of the solution. Constructively. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
.
Then only down side to this is that the current right wing SC could use this (like the used citizens united) to overturn more precedents (Roe) - but that will expose them for the activists that they are - not to mention that will prove perjury (since under oath they said that Roe was settled law) therefore giving the senate grounds for impeachment
Although if the SC rules that the citizens have the right to say we dotn want to pay for that - imagine the people that would refuse to pay for mercenaries, nuclear weapons, religious instituions ..etc it would cerntaily change the way govt does bussines
As to the Supreme Court - if they were to overturn Roe, it would do more to galvanize the left and undermine the political drive of the right, the more of the new deal.great society that the conservatives/regressives roll back the more people realize that the regressive agenda is bad for the country.
If we would provide all males with the option to have a free vasectomy done at 18 yrs old and at the same time a system to keep their semen in storage, only to be used in case a reversal of the vasectomy doesn't work when they are willing and looking forward to become a dad.
It's also my understanding that viable semen may be collected directly from the testicule but I can't recall where I read that one.
When we leave the choice in the hands of the man then, voila, a lot of unwanted pregnancies could be prevented.
The other benefits to this proposal: Woman would not be subject to taking hormones for years.
If a man for any reason becomes infertile later in life, he could still become a father.
It will help control overpopulation which has become the titan of all problems.
I'm just saying, it's a huge difference to have a father make the choice when they are ready. The big edge in a child's life is to have a great dad around, and being a dad by choice it's the right way to go.
In any case a single woman could always request a donation if she believes she could handle it on her own.
Oh, though I do disagree with your comment about a dad being a great edge. A loving family can just as easily consist of two females (or two males).
When I was young, in the very early days of the pill, teenagers were taught to use both
condom and diaphragm. That is still a very good and effective combination, which protects
against disease and provides two layers of protection against pregnancy while giving equal
responsibility for using that protection to both partners.
Counting on 'reversable vasectomies' and 'frozen sperm' pretty much turns young men into
effing machines with no respect for their genetic potential. Men who do respect their genetic
potential are rather more careful with where it might end up.
Your analysis is surprising. Nowhere do you grapple with that troublesome notion that the Constitution is essentially a "negative rights" document, providing limitations on that which government shall not do, rather than obligations as to what the government must do. Your response clearly would be that the government shall not deny a citizen equal protection of the law, yet you don't bother to offer an idea of what standard would apply to the protected class of "indigent pregnant women." Additionally, if indigence and pregnancy can combine to render a class worthy of protected status, what other combinations of characteristics might likewise apply for such protection? Combining left-handedness and lactose intolerance? Or polygamy and veganism?
It's too bad you are retired-I would love to hear you preside over an oral argument on this question.
In any event, I appreciate your response.
Sadly, generations of vilification and punishment of "fallen" women do not look like changing anytime soon by the far right-wing - while those who are pro-choice are usually much more understanding about the level of assistance needed in these situations.
I have lived overseas for many years. My daughter has been brought up to consider such decisions as hers and hers alone. She lives in a country where that choice is respected and the government would treat this as a medical condition as any other. My heart bleeds for those girls who will not be as fortunate.
And yes, the wealthy women of this country will CONTINUE to seek out doctors whom they will pay a handsome "fee" for an abortion. Inequality? Without a doubt.