In recent months Monseigneur Bemis has told us time and again that the Dobbs decision overturning the right to abortion relegated the regulation of that procedure to the states, thereby prohibiting Congress from passing such legislation.

In his words, "The . . . language consistently indicat[es] that this is a state matter, and not a federal matter. . . As such, if Congress were to pass either a pro-abortion law, or an anti-abortion law, it would be a usurpation of state rights, and thus would be rejected as unconstitutional."*

I replied that Henry must have received his law degree from Trump University and should consider seeking a refund. A fundamental principle of jurisprudence is that only the critical portion of a court decision is binding; the rest is obiter dicta, meaning judges' opinions with no precedential significance. The critical part of Dobbs states that the constitution does not mention a right to abortion and Roe is therefore overturned. What that means is that the issue is relegated to normal legislative processes and, like almost all other matters, can be acted upon either by the states or by Congress.

In response to my argument, Mgr. Bemis observed with his usual temperance that my "foolishness knows no bounds!"** On a different occasion he offered his services as a tutor, suggesting that I "stop talking and start listening." After due consideration I declined, with thanks, his kind offer. For while I am always grateful for a slap in the face and better information from people who know a topic better than I, in Mgr. Bemis's case the predicate is missing. Instead, therefore, I said that we would soon see whether anybody of substance agreed with his assertion that Congress may not regulate abortion.

It is therefore relevant that both McConnell and Schumer have mentioned the need for federal legislation. More recently, Lindsey Graham has proposed a bill that would forbid abortion after 15 weeks across the nation.*** McConnell and other thinking Republicans reacted apoplecticly, declaring that with such misogynistic measures on the table the GOP would likely lose the midterms in November. Not to be outdone in their respect for women's proper station in life, Republicans in the House are formulating their own version of the Graham legislation.

What is interesting in the RfM context is, besides the debacle of present abortion rules, the fact that in the wake of Dobbs not one authoritative member of Congress, the White House, or the legal community has questioned the constitutionality of a national abortion regime. The conclusion I reach from that fact is that those authorities understand the difference between precedent and dicta and hence realize that Dobbs did not forbid Congressional action. Either that or they too should "shut up and start listening" to our resident sage, who thinks his Trump University necktie is the cat's meow.

More anon.



*https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2427973,2428144#msg-2428144

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2427943,2428344#msg-2428344


**https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2437628,2437734#msg-2437734


***https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/sen-lindsey-graham-introduces-bill-to-ban-most-abortions-nationwide-after-15-weeks.html

I chuckled (in-between feeling terrified) when Lindsey proposed it be federal, waiting for you to take a bow.

I envy your patience. Applause in your general direction.

Thank you, dagny.

The irony is that a fortnight ago Graham said states should decide the issue--not on the basis of a constitutional argument, just as a political matter. Now his political calculus has changed, so he favors national determination.

I'm with DeSantis on this. I think the GOP loses if the election is fought over abortion, so changing the subject to immigration is a good--if cynical and highly unethical--gambit. It's unclear what Graham sees as the advantage in putting abortion front and center again.

There will be another round on the abortion question. If the GOP is sane, Graham's legislation will be planted in the garden behind the sunflowers. But we'll see more legislative endeavors after the midterms no matter who prevails.

I think that November is going to come as a shock to the GOP. Plus, with the SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the situation cannot be fixed anytime soon. Election denial will be reaching new heights.

A month is eternity in politics. It will matter very much what issues are in the public eye throughout October.

The Dems must keep the focus on abortion rights if they want to buck the trend and maintain control of both houses. DeSantis is another proto-dictator, but he is an intelligent one, taking steps that will precipitate immigration concerns and also give him more status in the GOP race for 2024. That's why Trump is attacking him.

In the immediate term, the Dems have to avoid the temptation to focus exclusively on immigration and keep women's physical integrity the key issue.

Despite the abortion decision, Republicans do have the advantage in the House because of the way the districts have been gerrimandered. What will be crucial is how Republican women will vote in these districts.

Since the members of the Senate are elected by their entire state, gerrimandering will not affect those elections, and Democrats have a very good chance of retaining the Senate, if not making gains, in the midterms over the abortion issue.

My gut feeling is that there are a lot of pissed-off women out there (over the abortion issue.) But we will see. I think the fact that Lindsey Graham has proposed a ban on abortions after 15 weeks is very telling. IMO, he is attempting to mitigate the damage with that proposal. I don't think it's nearly enough, but time will tell.

in b 4 ~



more yawn ~

Jesters usually don't do well in real jobs.

It doesn't affect you, Ziller. You can go back to sleep.

Or, you could develop empathy for women.

ziller has expressed his considered opinion that the pill and legal abortion were plots to enable men to get more sex without consequence. What he and his fellow travelers are doing, apart from opposing vaccinations and denigrating Muslims and anyone else who does not look like him, is to protect women from that male depredation.

You should let him manage national affairs and not worry your pretty little head about such things. After all, those dishes are not going to wash themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2022 07:58PM by Lot's Wife.

There are several issues at play here -- beyond the stated "religious" stuff:

1. The declining American "white" birth rate and fears of "replacement"

2. Economic and emotional insecurity of some white men that view white male supremacy as "normal" and feel they have "lost" ground in a zero-sum gain "struggle" against women and non-whites in a world that now rejects discrimination and requires higher skills in a knowledge based economy

3. Expect contraception and the right of refusal to be the next target. The classic method of controlling women in many cultures is to threaten their children. Taking away your reproduction freedom and the right to control your own body turns you into nothing but an incubator on legs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2022 12:47AM by anybody.

The irony is that anti-abortion laws are most likely to trammel minorities, so it is their birthrate that will (involuntarily) go up.

Wasn’t Roe centered around an individual’s “Right to Privacy” which isn’t mentioned in the Constitution?

I haven’t read it.

Then, we have the 10th Amendment to consider.

So McConnell, Schumer and Graham are all wrong? Have you written to them to explain the problem?

Which reminds of a rejoinder that made me smile:
" 'Democracy' is not mentioned in the Constitution"
"Neither is 'constitutional republic' ."

For that matter, the power of the Supreme Court to invalidate a law because it is unconstitutional is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It arose from John Marshall's opinion in Marbury vs. Madison. Although the idea of judicial review was promoted in the Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton, that power was not specifically granted in Article III.

Regarding the 10th Amendment, one should also consider the 9th Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I’ll be darned. Why don’t we hear much about the 9th amendment?

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regarding the 10th Amendment, one should also
> consider the 9th Amendment
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> disparage others retained by the people."

If a Prominent Jurist can't define what a "woman" is, how do we know what "people" are?
Anyway, doesn't matter. A Prominent Politician has now revealed that "There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”

So now we know what goes on at those nefarious pro-life centers! Getting right on board, Planned Parenthood dropped the term "heartbeat" and replaced it with "cardiac activity." I wonder: if there's no "heartbeat," then there's no "heart." Will they get less money when they sell harvested "cardiac" tissue?

On a lighter note (pun intended), this blast from the past--1973, a year that will forever live in judicial infamy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Iw2qYtN8A

Can you give us the legal definition of a person? Good luck. It’s complicated.

I think he already did. A heartbeat. Not much better than Mormons which is a single breath.

This (what is a person) is also a 2nd Amendment problem regarding the right(s) of age less than (18) to possess - carry firearms; the constitution does not differentiate between adults & children.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2022 09:04PM by GNPE.

"Will [Planned Parenthood] get less money when they sell harvested 'cardiac' tissue?"

No, because they don't sell fetal tissue. But please, don't let reality and facts get in the way of your story.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales

https://oversight.house.gov/planned-parenthood-fact-v-fiction

>A Prominent Politician has now revealed that "There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.

https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/heartbeat-bills-called-fetal-heartbeat-six-weeks-pregnancy-rcna24435

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/when-are-heartbeats-audible-during-pregnancy/

It is sad that the bill of rights are amendments. Says a lot.

the election ads sponsored by the Ds are making Abortion their #1 issue here in WA;

the way I see it, Senator Murphy is safe for re-election, but ya never know how the counting will be done/challenged.

I had business at the county elections dept a week or so ago, there were 2 (female) 'election watchers' watching clerks go about their normal duties, everyday stuff, the primary vote tallies were over a while ago.

The 'election department' here in Clallam county is a few clerks in the Auditor's office, nothing fancy, a home-down gaL is trusted by most everyone.

Even in "liberal" California, Democratic campaign ads are making abortion part of their campaign saying that they will do everything they can to prevent a federal ban with no exceptions. With the way things are going, if the extremists got their way, not only would birth control end up being banned, but laws making martial rape a crime like any other form of rape might even be repealed.

"More recently, Lindsey Graham has proposed a bill that would forbid abortion after 15 weeks across the nation."

Lindsey Graham is even more creepy than David Bednar.

Nope, that’s just not possible;

like it or not, LG is elected to represent many folks from his state who he happens to agree with; since he’s reflected their wishes - will the constituents are in the same boat…

Was Bedknobs elected to represent anyone? He’s much more of a loose cannon with Carte blanche courtesy of ChurchCo.

The problem with "States' Rights" is that it really means the interests of the legislators and/or the governors. And those bodies frequently have little in common with the wishes of even their own citizenry. I guarantee that in almost every state, the majority of the electorate wants abortion rights. It is not red state versus blue state. It is the powerful versus the powerless. In every state.

The Butcher in the Hunting of the Snark:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis_Carroll_-_Henry_Holiday_-_Hunting_of_the_Snark_-_Plate_3.jpg

"The last of the crew needs especial remark,
Though he looked an incredible dunce:
He had just one idea—but, that one being "Snark,"
The good Bellman engaged him at once.

He came as a Butcher: but gravely declared,
When the ship had been sailing a week,
He could only kill Beavers. The Bellman looked scared,
And was almost too frightened to speak:

But at length he explained, in a tremulous tone,
There was only one Beaver on board;
And that was a tame one he had of his own,
Whose death would be deeply deplored.

The Beaver, who happened to hear the remark,
Protested, with tears in its eyes,
That not even the rapture of hunting the Snark
Could atone for that dismal surprise!

It strongly advised that the Butcher should be
Conveyed in a separate ship:
But the Bellman declared that would never agree
With the plans he had made for the trip:

Navigation was always a difficult art,
Though with only one ship and one bell:
And he feared he must really decline, for his part,
Undertaking another as well."

It goes on ... (and is a wonder of human design ;-)