You can’t put a price on liberty. Except in Indiana, where it’s $225.
In a fit of irony, I rode Disney’s “Carousel of Progress” the day the Supreme Court decided that women didn’t have the reproductive rights we thought they did for the past few generations. Not to be outdone, Indiana will celebrate the Fourth of July by going into special session in order to alienate the rights of its women. The special session is ostensibly to authorize $225 payments from the money the state decided not to spend on roads, education, child services, and other areas where there are needs. But, I’ll bet that a lot of women in the state would spend $225 to keep their reproductive rights, if even for just six more months when the Indiana General Assembly will return to its regular session. But, Governor Holcomb and the Indiana legislature are in a headlong rush to make Indiana’s government small enough to fit into a uterus. Our legislators will make solemn proclamations about the value of life. But, as they loosen restrictions on gun regulations, tolerate Indiana having one of the worst infant mortality rates in the nation, fail to devote sufficient resources to neonatal care, and otherwise look the other way on quality of life issues across the board, it is evident that “life” isn’t nearly as much of a concern for many lawmakers as is unsanctioned sex.
This turn of events underscores that, despite the happy language of the Declaration of Independence and the musings of John Locke, rights are not unalienable. I assure you that the State House will happily alienate the shit out of reproductive rights within the month. Plenty of people would object that the right still technically exists and belongs to the women who previously enjoyed it. They argue that the right will still exist even though it will no longer be enforced and, in fact, women will be jailed if they insist on using it. I take a more utilitarian view of rights and would argue that a “right” which has no material impact on the real world is no right at all, but is rather an unrealized policy preference. I know more than a few people who took the view that warnings about the protections of Roe v. Wade being taken away was just so much fear mongering from the left. They were shocked when the decision came down. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas sent up the signal that protections for same sex marriage (Obergefell), sexual relations (Lawrence), and contraception (Griswold) are also on the hit list. Perhaps the people who were dismissive about the prospect of Roe going away will recognize the threat to these other rights.
I should note that I’m sensitive to the fact that many Americans have a religious belief that a sperm and an egg are endowed with a soul when they are combined. I don’t want to denigrate what is, for many individuals, a very heartfelt and devout belief. But such beliefs should not be the basis for government, state or federal, to dictate that a woman who may believe otherwise must devote the use of her uterus in a manner consistent with that belief, risking her health and well-being against her will.
The pilgrims journeyed to Massachusetts over 400 years ago not to found a colony dedicated to religious freedom, but to found one dedicated to suppressing every religious belief other than their own. Unfortunately, many modern American Christians take the same attitude to enforcing their mores on the rest of our our society.
That’s astute. The Founders may have believed in religious freedom, but the Pilgrims surely did not.
Well thought out Doug.
A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. I believe that justices stated that the Constution did not adress abortion.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Forcing a woman to have a baby would be considered involuntary servitude. When this admendment was passed it only referred to slavery and the the system of peonage, whereby a person was forced to labor until their debt was satisfied.. How can this not be considered involuntary servitude?
Forcing a woman against their will to have a baby? In my opinion this is a form of not only involuntary servitude but slavery. This is why the Supreme Court has lost it’s way. A woman who has broken no laws is being forced to risk her livlihood, health, mental well being, servere physical changes to her body, isolation if the doctor puts her on extended bed rest , the ability to adequadly take care of her other children, and her own life to carry a baby to term or face imprisonment. If the Constitution was a living document then the woman (the woman does not want it) was forced to labor until their debt was satisfied. The debt being the baby that may be given to the state with no payment to the woman for the labor performed on her part. This has to be considered involuntary servitude.
Can a religion be started up that allows them to set forth in their doctrine the right for a woman to choose? I see no reason why a person could not do this. Or have some sort of religous ceremony at home where the women ingests a drug to see if she is worthy of birthing a child. That God will intervene and change the drug to a harmless substance if she is worthy.. The first amendment protects restricting an individual’s religious practices.
.
After thinking this thru shouldn’t the state pay all expenses from the point of say 12 weeks and 1 day after the baby no longer can be aborted. Or would the state say you had you chance to abort the baby. Maybe I am missing something but a person who has broken no laws should be compensated by the state for expensives occured during pregnany. I suppose you could throw in mental distress to up the compensation. The laws in the extreme states that state a woman cannot have a abortion in the time limit that they may not even know if they ares pregnant to me would be a easy win.
Not sure is Paul is reading these comments or you can chime in.How can the state put a womans health, welfare, etc and even put their life at risk if they have broken no laws? Wouldn’t the woman deserve compensation for the 9 months they were pregnant. Plus compensation if they keep the baby until they reach the age of 18? Plus a large settlement from the state if she dies or the baby dies? If the statesget away with this then we might all kiss our Democracy good bye!
There isn’t a single abortion rights court decision, pro or con, which is based on religion. Not sure why people insist on bringing religion into the conversation. Some people have qualms about abortion because medical science has clearly demonstrated that a fetus is a distinctive human being, not just a blob of cells.
A tadpole isn’t a frog. Aside from the potential presence of a soul, what would make the life of a blastocyst or embryo so valuable as to justify forbidding a woman from having it removed from her uterus, even if it was put there by rape, upon penalty of criminal charges?
This is religiously motivated policy making.
If it is a C-section the woman who has broke no laws will be permanently scarred for life. I would suspect the woman could sue the state for compensation for the state disfiguring her when the baby is born.
Sorry guys sometimes my bi-polar gets the best of me in posts that have no merit.. I guess what it comes down to a fetus has more rights then a female that doesn’t want a baby. A fetus can’t reason, think coherently, talk, live outside the womb on it’s own, and the brain doesn’t even develop until week twentyseven. It’s the equivalent of a fish.. This fish can totally destroy a womans life.before this fish can even develop into a newborn. The sad part is litterally no one who support this law cares.about the mother’s welfare or her rights. All the pro-birthers want is for the baby to be born and the letter of the law followed and walk away.
On a personal note I grew up in Elwood currently the welfare capital of Madison County. I will occasionally stop at garage sales and pick up kids card games and womens feminine products.like deorderent and shampoo. I then drop them off at the Book Shed in Elwood. There was a lady named Jan in her 50’s in the shed looking at books and she grabbed a couple of my card games and she started to tell me about her daughters two kids that she was taking care of.. Her daughter had the second baby she wasn’t thrilled about and put on some major weight. The boy friend left and she went into depression and ended up spending all of the money on herion and started cutting..She was arrested and the kids were put into Jan’s custody. Jan was riding a bike and said money was real tight and she was saving her gas for trips to the do shopping.Oh did I mention the boy friend was not paying child support.
The second time I actually was able to meet the couple who did the fund raising for the barn and erected it on their property. They were thanking me for the games since they had never thought about asking for card games that can be transported easily since the mostly single moms that get evicted tend to leave everything behind . I was telling them about Jan’s story, Matt told me that at least 70 % of the people that came to the shed all had stories that mirrored Jan’s and her daughter. He said he would see all the same people lined up at the food pantry. Karen said drug use was more rampant then alcohol use in Elwood. I asked her what cutting was and my stomach went woosey. How anyone can take a knife and cut into their own skin for pleasure boggles my mind.
A friend of mine who used to work at the Elwood social center (?) and would have to interview the kids of the parents that were in trouble. Many of the kids said they wanted to be on welfare or disability like their parents so they wouldn’t have to work.
These are the babies we are saving. No people of color just all American white people that were dealt a really bad hand in life. The only way to stop this is sex education and try to get it thru their heads that unwanted babies complicate your life and can make your life truly miserable.Not sure if our state legislator would allow it. God help us please free contraceptives in every drug store in Indiana. and not just condoms.
Instead I know in my heart things won’t change and we will be just adding more baby’s that will grow up and fall in the same traps that their mothers and fathers have fallen into. Oh well the pro-birthers will trot out the one and seven kids that beat the odds.They won’t show the kids stuck in poverty. As for the money we have to shell out to support them. The state will countiue to cut funding and point them to the nearest church and non profit food bank. I feel truly sick for the improvished women in our nation and the babies that will have a life with little hope of improving their lot in life. These are the babies we are saving. American people that were dealt a bunch of bad cards in life. The odds were stacked against them even before they were born. For the pro-birthers may God have mercy on your souls and God help the children that will be born in poverty. Since Doug doesn’t believe in God – Blank you pro-birthers and good luck kids you will need lots it!!! VBG
Don’t worry, Phil. I’m sure that despite church attendance cratering across America, our Supreme Court overlords will approve a plan that allows states to shut down all social welfare programs and give the tax money to churches instead… it will all work out in the end.
(End sarcasm.)
Thanks for sharing those stories, Phil. I think there’s a tendency, at least online, to debate abortion policy as if it’s some kind of abstract philosophical consideration. Real life stories help provide important context.
No one is taking away any REPRODUCTIVE rights. What is taking place is that now states are allowed to consider, and protect LIFE Rights for the unborn.
You have the right to engage in sexual activities. The state limits those rights in public view. The state is limiting your rights to disregard the consequences of sexual activities when it infringes on the rights of the unborn.
Abortion is the MURDER of an unborn human being. That you call that unborn human being a fetus doesn’t change that, it just makes YOU feel good. It still makes the unborn human being feel pretty sucking BAD.
It’s not murder. If it was murder, the Supreme Court would not let it remain legal in half the states. And anti-abortion advocates know it’s not murder. They wouldn’t sit idly by, waiting for favorable political conditions, if a public business was murdering kindergartners from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday, for 50 years.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-religious-freedom-protect-abortion-225153978.html – Religous exemption – Hmm I wonder how a court could not support this argument.