The Mississippi Republican establishment was high-fiving after the Supreme Court ruled for the state in Dobbs. They had a reason to be proud as they managed to do what many said could not be done. However, some of the celebration may have been a little premature (Key word being "may") since no one apparently checked the history books. While the U.S. Supreme Court allows states to ban abortions, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1998 a woman had a right to abortion under the Mississippi Constitution. Whoa. Stop the presses!
Make no mistake, Dobbs was a judicial earthquake seldom seen in our lifetimes as it returned the power to ban abortion to the states. Mississippi banned abortion after fifteen weeks but for certain exceptions a few years ago but also passed a "trigger" law in 2008. Thus a ban but for rape and medical emergencies is set to take effect within a few days.
However, Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice held a woman had a right to privacy, and thus abortion, in the 1890 Mississippi Constitution. Constitutions trump statutes. While the Court agreed Mississippi had the power to ban abortions, no one thought to see if the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled on the matter. Shades of the Initiative 65 fiasco.
Jackson's Women Health Organization sued to keep its Fondren abortion clinic open in Hinds County Chancery Court yesterday. The defendants are Dr. Thomas Dobbs (?), District Attorney Jody Owens, Hinds County Prosecuting Attorney Gerald Mumford, Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure Director Ken Cleveland, the city of Jackson, and the Board of Medical Licensure.
All Chancellors recused themselves from the case.
After collecting dust for so many years, the 1998 lawsuit found its way into the new lawsuit as Jackson's Women's Health Organization reminded everyone of this blast from the somewhat distant past.
Pro-Choice Mississippi dealt with several abortion issues such as a parental consent law, regulation of doctors performing abortion procedures, and mandatory waiting periods. Pro-Choice Mississippi and other plaintiffs sued in Hinds County Chancery Court to block the new abortion laws. Chancellor Patricia Wise ruled the Mississippi Constitution had a "specific right to abortion" but also held the statutes were constitutional. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court ruled on four separate issues. For purposes of Dobbs, this post will cover the first issue, whether a right to abortion is in the Mississippi Constitution. (The discussion starts on page 4 in the opinion.).
The Court opened by citing Roe's position on of all things, common law:
"It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before 'quickening'-- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16ᵗʰ to the 18ᵗʰ week of pregnancy-- was not an indictable offense." Roe, 410 U.S. at 132. Thus, prior to 'quickening,' the fetus was considered part of the mother, and destroying a fetus did not fit within the definition of homicide. . Legislation began to replace common law in the area of abortion after the War Between the States. Id. at 139. "Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening."
The Court noted strict abortion laws began replacing the common law rules in the 20th century. The Revised Code of 1880 "only rendered abortion illegal after the child was "quick." The Court defined a quick child as "pregnant with a child whose fetal movements are recognizable (KF: How does that apply to ultrasound today?)." The Court cited an 1809 opinion that held "abortion was legal until quickening, some four to five months into pregnancy." and concluded:
The State's illegality argument, that the framers intended to preclude protection of abortion, is without merit.
The State argued there was not a right to an abortion even if it was legal in 1890. The Court disagreed, holding there was a right to privacy and "bodily integrity and autonomy" in an earlier case.* However, the Court relied upon Roe:
The Federal Constitution's failure to explicitly state a right to an abortion has not prevented the United States Supreme Court from perceiving certain "penumbras" from which a protection of privacy is derived. "This right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." RoeThe Court wrapped up the discussion as it furrowed its collective brow and decreed:
¶30. While we do not interpret our Constitution as recognizing an explicit right to an abortion, we believe that autonomous bodily integrity is protected under the right to privacy as stated in In re Brown. Protected within the right of autonomous bodily integrity is an implicit right to have an abortion ...
Justices Sullivan, Prather, Pittman, Banks, and McRae concurred in on this issue. Justices Smith, Roberts, and Mills concurred in a separate opinion. Justice Waller did not participate.
Kingfish note: Is this a case of winning the battle and losing the war or losing the battle and winning the war?
What will happen? Will a Special Chancellor rule the 1998 case still applies and allow the clinic to operate? Will he strike down the trigger law? Will the Missisisppi Supreme Court follow the 1998 case or reverse it? Stay tuned.
* Brown dealt with forcing an ailing Jehovah's Witness who just happened to be an important witness in a murder case to accept a blood transfusion. The Court held she had a right to privacy and body autonomy as it rejected the forced transfusion.
70 comments:
The MS baby killers and their lawyers will be rolling in the cash until this is sorted out. Shame!
Imagine thinking that a MS Supreme Court ruling would save abortion in the state from a US Supreme Court ruling being overturned...
I've got $50 that says that ruling doesn't stand through the next session.
Well, wouldn't that require an amendment, not a statute?
It would require
1 a constitutional amendment
Or
2 MSSC overruling the prior precedent
number 2 is most likely, although not a sure thing. Either way, unless the MSSC expedites the process which I doubt will happen given the unpopularity of either ruling and the fact that they are elected, women should be able to enjoy the right to make decisions about their own body in Mississippi for at least the next year.
you have a right to privacy. you don't have the right to pay someone to kill your unborn baby.
In view of 10% of pregnancies ending with spontaneous miscarriage, who is the guilty person then??
9:12 that zygote/embryo/fetus (it’s a baby once it is out of the woman’s body) is part of my body like an appendix or a tumor. My body keeps all three alive. If I can decide to take the appendix or the tumor out, then I should also be able to decide to take the zygote/embryo/fetus out.
By 9:28's logic we should be looking for a murder suspect every time someone dies of a heart attack.
Mississippi: More churches per square mile than any other state.
Mississippi: No 1 in the nation for teen pregnancy.
Thanks, KF, for reminding us that back when our country was moral, a late term abortion was considered murder.
Imagine watching the way the members of the Mississippi Supreme Court contorted themselves to throw out Initiative 65 and thinking they won't do whatever it takes to reach their predetermined policy outcome here as well.
9:12am How many babies have you adopted or fostered? Clearly you are not a parent and know what it entails to be one. I assume you don’t have a house full of babies and the funds to care for them and the time. Having an unplanned pregnancy is not as easy as giving away extra puppies or kittens to strangers on FB. It’s a little more complicated than that. Clearly some women NOT MEN may not be able to carry a baby for 40 weeks not to mention what her body goes through during that time. That’s just the beginning, the work required to raise a child and for some women in an abusive home or single parent or bad marriage is not able to mentally or physically handle that. Don’t judge for you shall be judged.
I have a right to marry my hamster-isn't that privacy?
So, why can't the privacy right in the MS Constitution that provides bodily autonomy (ala the Brown decision that is cited) also be used by the those claiming they shouldn't have to be injected with a vaccine that they don't want?
How did the Court get it wrong on 65?
If ONLY there were a safe, easy, and even free way to prevent unwanted pregnancies in virtually every case.............
Well, I suppose we can wish.
"So, why can't the privacy right in the MS Constitution that provides bodily autonomy (ala the Brown decision that is cited) also be used by the those claiming they shouldn't have to be injected with a vaccine that they don't want?"
Not an unreasonable question for a non-doctor or non-lawyer. The legal answer is pretty simple, in general terms:
An abortion, whether right or wrong, does not affect the physical health of "society" (basically, anyone else) whereas vaccines, be it polio, smallpox, or COVID, does protect "society" to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. As with other rights, the right to privacy is not absolute but there is no bright line as to where society's potential interests supersede that of the individual. That is part of the constitutionally-mandated role of "supreme" courts - to define what is an acceptable infringement and what isn't. The Mississippi Supreme Court has decided that the right to privacy covers medical procedures including abortion and the State cannot infringe upon that right.
Laypeople are entitled to whatever opinion(s) they hold as to abortions, vaccines of any kind, etc. The way to get your opinion made into the law is via the ballot box and amendment process. But until the Mississippi Constitution is amended or the Mississippi Supreme Court overrules itself, vaccines can be mandated and abortions are protected Constitutional rights, just like the right to keep and bear arms. And no, at least according to the Mississippi Constitution, the legislative or executive branches cannot just "pass a law" to make abortion illegal any more than either could pass a law that banned the ownership of guns or black/white/orange/purple people from voting.
To the fetus killers lurking here: suppose the unborn baby executed in vitro was Einstein, Michelangelo, George Washington, Stradivarius, Bach, Wagner etc: The loss to humanity would be tragic. How many Michelangelos have been butchered among the 64M dispatched and disposed since RVW 1973?
This is America, let's err on the side of life and opportunity, unless and until that sentient innocent being proves itself unworthy, later.
"Don’t judge for you shall be judged" I didn't judge, those women that have/will murder their babies, have judged themselves.
When they kill that beautiful living human, they have judged themselves unworthy of the glory of motherhood. It was their own judgement that robbed them of it. Not some outsider.
Make no mistake, motherhood is the crowning glory of womanhood.
Every teenager younger than the age of consent at the time of impregnation has a right to an abortion in Mississippi. The law defines them as raped.
The bloodthirsty democrat radfems AOC and Lizzy “Fauxcahontas” Warren are calling for “abortion tents” to be set up on federal lands in Red States to provide the services in National Parks.
They should’ve said FEMA camps since the literally do exist in every state and typically have fully stocked and waiting, medical facilities.
But the tents and the national forests will allow the democrat radfems to set up moloch statues and do rituals like all the elites do! (bohemian grove)
The GOP, either federal or state, will not pass paid leave. They will not expand healthcare to reduce infant and maternal mortality. Mississippi will not spend more on child services at the state level. The list of what the GOP won't do for mothers, infants, and children can go on and on.
Until they demonstrate that pro-life isn't just pro-birth, then all their talk is just sanctimonious bullshit.
11:32 - you sound like a nazi, are handing out the “mutterkreuz” soon? Will women who had an abortion in younger years but had kids later and raised these kids perfectly eligible? Are you feeling powerful judging?
@12:00PM
Not my problem to support single mothers birthing bastards out of wedlock. Why should we subsidize the consequences of slutty behavior?
The MS supreme court ruling references Roe. Now that Roe is gone, that gives the MS supreme court an opening to reconsider.
And yes, the supremes got 65 wrong. It is the legislature, not the supreme court, that was charged with defining and interpreting whether the petition is valid and whether signatures were obtained in a manner dictated by law. The fact that the legislature put 65A on the ballot says that the legislature deemed 65 valid and compliant with the requirements to put an referendum on the ballot. Why the idiot lawyer didn't raise this is beyond me.
I'm pro-life but 12:00 PM is spot on.
Funny how the left always uses the rare “rape and incest” arguments and omit the common “sluts without consequences” reality!
@12:00pm - “Sanctimonious bullshit” pretty much sums up the GOP.
June 29, 2022 at 10:05 AM; i am a father, and we adopted my 14 year old daughter at birth from a family member that was in no position to be having and raising another child. so i know better than most what it takes to adopt a child. even from a family member. this was an out of state adoption, so i had the pleasure of paying for two attorneys, one here and one there. very expensive, very time consuming, but in the long term, more than worth it. you sure do make a lot of assumption about people you don't even know.
as for an unplanned pregnancy, there are too many methods of birth control, some free, for there to be as many unplanned pregnancies as there are.
my previous statement; "you have a right to privacy. you don't have the right to pay someone to kill your unborn baby." is not making a judgement. i'm not judging anybody, i'm just stating that you have a right to privacy, not a right to kill your unborn baby. if you can find it in the state or US constitution, please post it, cause i have no problem admitting i'm wrong.
As a Catholic, I am “contractually bound,” if you will, to oppose abortion, although I see all too clearly the reasons it may be the only sane choice in some cases (i.e., fetus with anencephaly, conception via incest, several circumstances except mere convenience). And, unlike suicide, murder of another human can be pardoned in the sacrament of absolution. Well, all that sounds like utter hooey to Protestants, I realize. Much of my mixed-up thinking was clarified a bit when I read this excellent article by the Anglican priestess Tish Harrison Warren. If you are not a NYT subscriber, and hit a damn paywall trying to read this, go to Facebook and search “New York Times Opinion Section” and you should be able to access it. I hope so. She pretty much nails it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/26/opinion/dobbs-roe-autonomy.html?referringSource=articleShare
June 29, 2022 at 9:38 AM; ahh, the tired old tumor and appendix argument. there's a big damn difference between a tumor or appendix and a growing baby. you couldn't possibly be so dumb as to think they are one and the same. besides, the terms; zygote, embryo, fetus are just words used to describe a particular stage of development for a human. zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, preteen, adolescent, young adult, adult, senior, just different stages of a human life.
if the tumor or appendix is going to kill you, then please have it removed. if the baby is going to kill the mother, then there are already exceptions in the law to allow for an abortion in that case.
based on what you've written you seem to be ok with killing a baby up to the moment of birth. possibly even ok with partial birth abortions. a full term, fully developed baby, that to you, if on the wrong side of the cervix, is not worthy of living. have you seen a full term baby, what about a premature baby at 8 months, at 7 months, 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, even three months gestation? they all look like babies, just different sizes, cause they are all babies. you can tell yourself it's a zygote, embryo, or fetus, that is just like a tumor or appendix, or that it's not really a baby at all until it takes its first breath of air, whatever you need to say to sleep at night, but in the end, you are advocating for killing babies.
12:17 For every slut getting pregnant there must be a “male slut”, or do you think we have thousands of cases of (oh wonder) immaculate conception around us? Yet, our society does not even have a masculine equivalent for slut. These men don’t have to carry the physical and emotional side effects of a pregnancy (did you know that carrying a pregnancy to term is more risky than an abortion?), they also don’t have to carry as big as a monetary fallout as the women do, as they can continue working, and often they deny the mothers financial support. What do you do about that?
It is ironic that the right gets Roe overturned by ramming two Supreme Court Justices who lied during their confirmation hearing. Several senators from both sides are saying that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to them.
It’s funny how you can spot that Fitch intern comments on these various posts. Whether you are prolife or prochoice, it’s hilarious that Fitch got all way to the Supreme Court and back only to have it blow up in her face because she ran off all people who would have told her on the day the law passed that there was a state hurtle.
If Fitch’s client was a human, rather than the state, she would be defending a malpractice law suit
@10:59 a.m.
I'm not sure if you are a doctor, a lawyer, or both since your post dripped of condescension for anyone who wasn't either. Regardless, I reject your premises in your analysis. You argue an abortion doesn't affect society, which you define as basically anyone else...other than the mother? I think we can all agree an abortion affects the unborn child. Vaccines are supposed to protect the person to whom the vaccine is given. That was true with the polio and smallpox vaccines. That was not true for the experimental COVID serum for it did not protect the person to whom it was given or society as a whole.
"...i'm just stating that you have a right to privacy, not a right to kill your unborn baby. if you can find it in the state or US constitution, please post it, cause i have no problem admitting i'm wrong."
That isn't how it works. The state and US constitutions do not grant anyone (pl.) "a right to privacy" or "a right to kill your unborn baby." The government, in the situation at hand, that of Mississippi, is prohibited from infringing upon the presumed naturally existing right to privacy free from unreasonable infringement by the government. This is not a distinction without a difference nor pedantic.
In this case, the MSSC has stated clearly, "The right to privacy in article III, § 32, of the Mississippi Constitution encompasses the right to autonomous bodily integrity. The right to choose to have an abortion, like many other medical procedures, is included in the right to autonomous bodily integrity. While we do not find the Mississippi Constitution to provide an explicit right to an abortion, abortion is protected within the penumbras of the right to privacy." Fordice, ¶ 73. ["penumbras" in current legal/Constitutional context basically mean "coverage" although that isn't the original or undisputed meaning].
The current Court will have some difficult gymnastics ahead of it to now find that things have changed so much since 1998 that either:
1. There is no longer any right to privacy (ain't gonna happen, period), or,
2. Medical procedures are not now and should not have been then covered by the right to privacy (VERY unlikely and it's own huge can of worms, state and Federal), or,
3. That abortions aren't medical procedures (again, VERY unlikely and its own huge can of worms), or,
4. That abortions are medical procedures but there is [some as-yet unspecified] societal interest that supersedes the prohibition against infringing upon the protected "penumbral" right of "autonomous bodily integrity" encompassed within the (probably inarguably) protected right of privacy. "Baby-killing" or anything similar would be mindbogglingly asinine and ill-considered phrase(s) to use in such an opinion. So depending who would draft it, such language may well get used. More than once.
I would guess that some form of #4 would be what the current Court would attempt to use if the majority wanted to overturn the ruling but so doing has any number of readily-apparent problems, not the least of which clogging the state courts with all sorts of litigation that such an overturn would spawn (and across the spectrum on topics removed from abortion).
If anyone cares about the opinion of someone with both legal and medical training and experience, Mississippi should have kept its trotters out of the pigpen of abortion and litigation over it, i.e., left it alone and kept its mouth shut about it, but it didn't and here it and we are. I suspect it and we will regret it. I'd guess that all or most of the current Justices aren't happy about this "shituation" and Fitch is too damned stupid to fully realize the mess she has made.
By the time Missippi actually passes a law that outlaws abortion, congress will pass laws codifying the right to an abortion. Remember the majority favors that right.
12:53 That is your Christian viewpoint. Other people have other viewpoints, e.g. Jewish law allows abortion because it defines the beginning of life as the moment a child takes its first breath. You can live your life according to your Christian views (don’t have an abortion), but do not force your Christian views on other people of different religion.
That is what I would call the ultimate hypocrisy. Someone upset because someone lied while they themselves were defending the continued murder of unborn babies.
What a hypocrite.
1:23: All vaccines have two purposes: 1. Protect the individual that got the vaccine, 2. Reduce human to human transmission. Exception to this are only vaccines against diseases that do not have human ti human transmission (e.g. tetanus). Of course all vaccines fulfill these purposes to different degrees.
Instead of accusing educated people of using scientific language, how about getting educated?
@1:23, their whole promotion of the Covid vaccine was the "do it for someone else" campaign.
I'll take the tag, “Sanctimonious bullshit” any day over baby killer.
If you can't question the science, it's not science, it's propaganda.
" you sound like a nazi", I'll take that as a compliment coming from a baby killer.
To the first poster at 2:30 p.m.,
1017 a.m. and 123 pm here. I wasn't accusing educated people of using scientific language. However, in fact, I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your supposedly enlightened, and what now follow as sanctimonious, positions. In fact, I would say your education took. Thankfully, I've not lost sight of the absurdities after receiving multiple degrees and professional licenses.
To the second poster at 2:30 p.m., Agreed. Total smoke and mirrors. Then it became clear that what they were pushing kept neither the recipient of the serum, nor those around them, safe. Snake oil.
1:59 is right, polls consistently support his comment.
This debate makes me so mad I want to throw a plate of ketchup at the wall!
2:35 You are correct, science must be questioned, otherwise it is not science. Questioning is analyzing, creating hypotheses, setting up experiments, more analyzing… you know, educated work, not just screaming no like a toddler
The hatred and animosity which exists amongst overweight Caucasian people in this state is so thick that the MS Supreme Court will likely enter an order On it’s own over ruling prior case just to “own the libs.”
In short order women will suffer and die.
The pictures of their suffering (while the men skate free) will permeate the visual landscape.
Your sister will experience it as will your daughters.
It will take time for all the blood to soak in….but one day sanity (instead of vengeance) will prevail.
Until then…..
Some Abortiphiles are plainly desperate!
1. Some fetus dispatchers lurk here crutched up by their perceived relativist glimpses of penumbra (gray area), which they assert are adjacent to written law, a farcical notion. If a law is defined by its gray areas, it is not a law, it is poorly written jargon with meaning subjectively dependent on the underlying agenda of the interpreter at hand.
2. Apologists for infanticide, usually leftists, grasp at any shadowy semantic word play to disguise their lust to kill a human life for convenience and often for profitable part sales as well.
An above commentary (9:38) likens in-vitro babies to tumors and swerves this into a right to kill one implies the right to kill the other. These same call abortion a health choice. Be wary of leftist etymology.
The optics presented by these pro-abortion folks are driving many to the pro-life position! Speaking of "the science"....the neuroscience now says that the unborn child can feel pain as early as 12 weeks. See "Rethinking Fetal Pain", Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, 2019. If the unborn baby can feel pain, it is a sentient human. When should it's constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness attach! It cant dye its hair purple, tattoo and pierce it's body and march up and down the street half naked shouting "Hail Satan" like a freaking demon-possessed moron.
"Make no mistake, motherhood is the crowning glory of womanhood," said some guy.
12:25 wrote: "if you can find it in the state or US constitution, please post it, cause i have no problem admitting i'm wrong. Here you go:
"The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not be construed to deny and impair others retained by, and inherent in, the people."
Miss. Const. Ann. Art. 3, § 32
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
USCS Const. Amend. 9
11:25 gives us food for thought. Perhaps the Satanic Occultists he lists should have been aborted after all.
June 29, 2022 at 1:52 PM; thank you for the response. it makes more sense how the MS supreme court came to their
conclusion that abortion is covered under the body autonomy portion of the MS constitution. with that being said, i disagree with their decision.
i know my opinions, feelings, or beliefs don't mean shit to the MS supreme court deciding cases, but this is where/why i disagree. i believe it's a baby, a completely new human being with unique dna, alive in the womb. the egg is alive when the live sperm fertilized it. the cells are alive when they divide. i'm not a biologist, even though i know what a woman is, but i'm not aware of cases where dead cells replicate.
since i believe it is a new and unique human being, i disagree with the argument that it is the woman's body. it's the baby's body. yes, the baby is inside the woman's body, but the abortion is the killing of the baby inside the mother. that's what i believe, that's how i feel, and i'm not changing my mind.
but i'm not all smooth brained, and dragging all my knuckles, though. allowances for abortion can be made. life of the mother and rape. why not incest? cause that implies consensual sex. if it's not consensual then it doesn't matter if it's someone you know, don't know, or related to. non-consensual sex is rape. who the rapist is is irrelevant regarding the law. rape is illegal. if raped, it has to be reported immediately because these pieces of shit need to be caught and dealt with. i prefer ripping their cock and balls off and letting them bleed out in agonizing pain. as much as i hate abortion, i can understand why a woman would choose not to give birth to a child conceived in rape.
i do believe most people would tolerate having abortion legal if it were actually rare. however, the current crop of degenerate leftists want abortion on demand, at any time, for any reason, up to and including partial birth abortions of fully developed babies. to me, that is absolutely unacceptable.
nearly 65 million babies aborted since roe. 65 million. if people practiced safe sex, used any of a multitude of contraception methods, some of which are free, there would not have needed to be 65 million abortions.
You can poll the right people, pose the questions the right way, and get any approval you want.
@4:24pm: Ditto, and say it again, louder!, especially if in KF's special terrarium, 'The Fondren'.
Apparently I'm a married slut, and apparently my husband is in love with a slut. Just because I'm married doesn't mean I want to be pregnant right now. Therefore, if my birth control method fails, I will be off immediately to whatever state offers abortions, and my husband will be right there holding my hand the whole time. It's my body; not the State of Mississippi's.
"Speaking of 'the science'....the neuroscience now says that the unborn child can feel pain as early as 12 weeks. See 'Rethinking Fetal Pain', [sic] Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, 2019."
No, the short article (3 1/2 pages) by a non-MD PhD pain researcher and a PA does not say or even imply any such thing. Such a utter misrepresentation is a good example of what happens when people who do not know the slightest thing about the science(s) see 2nd- or 3rd-hand information from sources that don't know anything about the science(s) involved either.
What the article forthrightly expresses as opinion is that "...current neuroscientific evidence supports the possibility of fetal pain before the 'consensus' cut-off of 24 weeks." That evidence, in part, is:
"[r]ecent work with ferrets has demonstrated that auditory stimuli trigger neural activity in the subplate that is topographically highly similar to the activity observed in the more mature auditory cortex. Moreover, the neural activity in the subplate is tonotopically organised and the connectivity and activity of at least some subplate neurons are preserved into adulthood. That is, the thalamocortical projections that are largely considered necessary for mature sensory function are at least in part preserved from the subplate into the cortical plate."
In the much more layperson-friendly verbiage of the conclusion, the authors have this to say:
"The precise nature of fetal pain experience remains unknown and will, perhaps, remain forever unknowable. None of us can return to a state of conscious 'innocence' to report on existence before our self-reflective lives. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that other philosophers, psychologists, clinicians and neuroscientists might cast some light into that darkness.
The major practical outcome of this review, however, is that both authors agree that it is reasonable to consider some form of fetal analgesia during later abortions."
Nothing in this article would be at odds with or support a law that allowed abortions until an arbitrary 15 or 20 or 24 weeks, Roe v Wade, the SCOTUS' ruling in Dobbs, or the MSSC's ruling in Fordice.
Y’all can ban abortion, and all the men and some women can pat themselves on the shoulder, but a quarter of all women will have one, if you like it or not. They will go underground. Me thinks you could be prouder if you would support paid maternity leave for six months, expanded Medicaid, public childcare, enforce child support from fathers. Also, sex ed and easier and cheaper access to contraception. To me it looks like you want the pride, but want to forgo the work.
Comments urging lobbying or intimidating Mississippi Supreme Court justices will not be approved.
And yes, the supremes got 65 wrong. It is the legislature, not the supreme court, that was charged with defining and interpreting whether the petition is valid and whether signatures were obtained in a manner dictated by law. The fact that the legislature put 65A on the ballot says that the legislature deemed 65 valid and compliant with the requirements to put an referendum on the ballot. Why the idiot lawyer didn't raise this is beyond me.
Maybe you are the idiot. Under your logic, the Supreme Court does not have the power to review any action of the legislature to determine whether the action is constitutional.
The procedure for I&R is spelled out in the constitution in black and white. Period. The loophole may be a quirk but it is still legal. The procedures weren't followed properly because Jim Hood screwed up and manufactured an opinion out of thin air. There is a reason Justin Metheny did not bring it up and he is definitely no idiot.
" often they deny the mothers financial support. What do you do about that? "
Uh, I think they should be identified by the mother, with paternity confirmed by trio DNA testing, then forced to pay child support until the kid graduates from college (if the kid chooses that route). That way the child gets supported and it doesn't come out of my taxes, leaving me (and my hard-working wife) better able to support our own children.
"Make no mistake, motherhood is the crowning glory of womanhood," said some guy"
I have a wife, 3 beautiful daughters, all mothers by the way, that's what they said. Where the hell do you think I got it from? They said that was to be my opinion, also. I said yes, ma'am. I'm a house broke husband.
My wife carried those three daughters, and two sons, all fathers by the way, for nine months give or take a few days.
After she delivered those babies, I carried them the rest of the way to adulthood. Which was many years past nine months. Maybe you should have gotten you a man for a husband.
Abortion kills a unique human life. That is the intent and that it what it does. It’s wrong. It has always been wrong, it will always be wrong, and this will not change regardless of what political faction achieves what political outcome. A society that is willing to discard the vulnerable—the weak, the poor, the powerless, the disenfranchised—will fail under the weight of its own sin. An unborn child is the most vulnerable among the vulnerable—utterly dependent upon his mother’s body for safety, nourishment, and birth to the outside world. A society that does not recognize this is ignorant, perhaps willfully so. A society that recognizes this and then still demands the blood of the child is a cabal of demons clamoring to swallow us all to the pits of hell.
6:55pm amen now go adopt all of these vulnerable babies that need basic necessities that YOU not go provide for. Actually open an orphanage bc you got society figured out.
The legislature validated 65. The legislature set the rules. How can the supremes tell the legislature that the legislature didn’t follow the legislature’s own rules? Total political BS, that’s how.
Remember when Mississippi voters overwhelmingly rejected initiative 26 in 2011? Nah, Supreme Court will invalidate that also. Doesn’t fit the platform.
Is anybody on the state Supreme Court younger than 105?
Thank god for TANIF funds
6:21 How in hell to you propose to make someone pay child support that doesn't have or want a job? You probably suggest jailing them. That's fine, but then your tax dollars go to support their jail time. You idiots are all the same. You think it is a simple problem with a simple solution. The only thing that is simple here is your mind.
Post a Comment