Tag Archives: Roe v. Wade

medical news

Abortion won’t end

Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt’s declaration that the state seeks to end abortion is ridiculous on its face.

The state has made obtaining an abortion a violation of the law. Those who seek one and those who provide it face criminal prosecution.

What does that mean for abortion in Oklahoma or any state that bans the termination of a pregnancy? It means, from what I can gather, that women are going to obtain them anyway, no matter what.

You see, desperate measures have no rationale. They are the result of an individual seeking a solution to a problem they cannot solve through normal or legal means.

So very tragically, those desperate measures can result in tragedy to the individual seeking that solution.

Women have been terminating pregnancies since the beginning of human existence on this good Earth. That is a fact that cannot be ignored, no matter how many laws we enact to make such a deed illegal. They make that decision after searching deeply within their souls, after seeking guidance from their faith leaders, their families, their partners, or even to Almighty God himself.

And yet we hear politicians make these pious declarations about how they intend to “eliminate” an activity that has been occurring since the beginning of time. Are they serious? I guess they believe they are.

They also have delusions on what they believe they can accomplish.

Which is ... not a damn thing!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Where do we go post-Roe?

Abortion isn’t an issue that occupies much of my conscious thought, but occasionally I do wonder about the future of a woman’s world if (and likely when) the U.S. Supreme Court finds a way to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark ruling that made abortion legal in this country.

The court will issue a ruling before the end of its current term that appears — by all that I heard and read so far — spell the end of Roe as we have known it since the court issued its ruling in January 1973.

The SCOTUS declared that the U.S. Constitution gave women the right to govern their bodies. That they had the right under the Constitution to terminate a pregnancy. Anti-abortion activists have been fighting like crazy ever since to overturn the ruling.

They now appear to have enough of a majority on the high court to end it. States, such as Texas, have taken it on their own to seriously restrict women’s right to obtain an abortion. Texas has made it illegal for a woman to end a pregnancy at the six-week mark … before many women even know they are pregnant. Now comes Oklahoma, our northern neighbor, to make it a crime for someone to obtain an abortion.

Think of the irony here. Conservatives who used to bristle at what they determined to be “too much government interference” now embrace the notion of government interfering with women’s most painful decision.

I believe it was President Bill Clinton who once said his intent was to make abortion “legal but rare.” I share that goal.

As for the future of abortion, I just need to reiterate a point I long have made. I cannot advise a woman to obtain an abortion. Why? That isn’t my call. Nor is it the call of any legislator, or member of Congress, or president or judge. It belongs to the woman most intimately affected.

That is where the decision should remain.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Roe v. Wade in trouble?

My gut is rumbling, my trick knee is throbbing and I don’t like the feel of any of it as I ponder what might occur down the road with the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending decision on whether to restrict abortion.

Justices have heard from both sides in a Mississippi case involving a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks or pregnancy. It’s not as strict as Texas’s ban after six weeks, but is way more restrictive than the Roe vs. Wade decision that is at the heart of all this talk.

Roe is the case involving a Texas woman who filed suit in 1973 over abortion. The SCOTUS then issued its landmark ruling that legalized abortion, saying it is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s right of privacy provision.

Roe is being challenged directly and the chatter today suggests that the high court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority is poised to limit abortion — if not make it illegal.

Oh, brother. No matter what the court decides, I am going to proclaim that it won’t end abortion. Women will continue to get them by any means necessary, which makes a potential ban on the practice so dangerous.

I consider myself to be pro-life, which I don’t believe supersedes my equally held belief that government should not dictate how a woman can manage her body. Could I counsel a woman to get an abortion? Absolutely, categorically and unquestionably no! However, nor do I believe that anyone in government has any right to tell a woman she must carry a baby to full term.

The Texas law makes no exception for a woman impregnated by a rapist or during an incestuous encounter. If there is anything more cruel and inhumane than that, I have trouble determining what that would be.

Well, the SCOTUS justices now are going to keep their own counsel on this matter. I want them to uphold Roe vs. Wade. I do not expect them to do so. If they allow Roe to be dismantled, then my fellow Americans, we’d all better prepare ourselves for many stories of utter misery, pain and heartache as women end their pregnancies through means that can do them irreparable harm.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Abortion = heartburn

There’s no denying the fact that abortion as a political issue gives me serious angst that borders on heartburn.

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually is set to rule on whether Texas highly restrictive anti-abortion law passes constitutional muster. The smart money says the court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority, is likely to say that the state can ban abortions at any period after the sixth week of pregnancy.

I believe the court would make a grievous mistake if that’s the ruling it delivers.

Does that make me “pro-abortion?” No. Let me rephrase that: Hell no. It doesn’t nothing of the sort. I consider myself to be pro-life. Why? Because I cannot — and never would — counsel a woman to get an abortion were she to ask for my counsel on that matter. Nor can I sanction government to mandate that a woman cannot make that choice herself after counseling with her partner, her faith leader, her deity, her conscience.

That decision is a woman’s alone! Period. End of discussion.

The court well could rule that the 1973 Roe v. Wade landmark decision — another case emanating out of Texas — is no longer “the law of the land,” or is “settled law.” Earlier SCOTUS decisions have upheld Roe v. Wade. This one well could upset that legal precedent.

It would be a mistake.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Elections do have consequences

Well, folks. We are going to find out in due course — possibly soon — just how consequential presidential elections always have been.

The issue at hand is abortion and whether the Texas strict anti-abortion law will withstand judicial review. I happen to believe the law is unconstitutional, that it runs counter to what we long have thought was “settled law.” That the Roe v. Wade decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 had been settled, that women had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Oh, but wait. The issue is likely to end up in front of the SCOTUS again. Here is where the election issue comes in.

The 45th POTUS nominated three justices on the court. He was able to cement the conservative majority. The court is now lined up with six conservatives and three liberals. The conservatives, with — with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on board — well might decide that the Texas law is OK after all.

A federal judge in Texas, Robert Pittman — appointed by President Barack Obama — has declared the Texas law to be unconstitutional. It’s headed already to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which well could reverse Judge Pittman’s 100-page ruling. You can count on the Justice Department to take this matter up on the judicial ladder.

Hmm. Do you think Pittman’s ruling will hold up? Neither do I.

We need to ponder this when the time comes to ponder the next presidential election.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Hoping judge’s ruling holds up

It is easy for me to cheer a ruling by a U.S. district judge in Texas that bans the state’s abortion ban.

I will cheer the ruling by Judge Robert Pittman. I fear the ruling won’t hold up.

Pittman said the state law that bans abortion after a woman has been pregnant for six weeks cannot be upheld. I agree with him. Then again, I am not a lawyer, let alone a judicial scholar.

The state law is cruel in that most women don’t even know they are pregnant until after six weeks. That didn’t stop the Legislature from enacting and Gov. Greg Abbott from signing it into law.

Pittman was selected for the federal bench by President Obama, which I suppose gives you a clue as to his political leaning … not that it should matter when it regards court rulings. Right?

The state is going to appeal Judge Pittman’s ruling. It will work its way through the appellate court system. It might even find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority.

At least for the time being, though, the judicial system has come to the aid of women desperate to maintain control of matters that only they should be allowed to decide.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Roe v. Wade far from ‘settled’

If you thought the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States had become “settled law,” you had better think again.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is now under a full frontal assault by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature. Texas now has a law on the books that prohibits a woman from obtaining an abortion as early as six weeks into her pregnancy.

President Biden calls the law “unconstitutional.” The current Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to let the law take effect even though it is being contested by multiple lawsuits.

One of the four dissenting justices, Stephen Breyer, calls the SCOTUS decision “very, very, very wrong.”

The Texas Tribune reports: The Texas law is novel for incentivizing private citizens to police abortions. It empowers anyone living in the state of Texas to sue an abortion provider or anyone else they suspect is “aiding and abetting” abortions after the six-week mark. Those opposing the law say this may be far-ranging and could include the abortion provider or anyone who provided transportation to a woman, or counseled or referred a woman for an abortion.

Stephen Breyer calls Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law ‘wrong’ | The Texas Tribune

There’s a fascinating bit of irony at play here. Conservatives proclaim proudly that they oppose what they call “judicial activism.” They say they dislike court decisions that go beyond the Constitution’s strict adherence to original intent.

From my perch in North Texas, it appears that most of the court’s conservatives — except for Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberal wing — are engaging in a raw form of judicial activism by dismissing the lawsuits and declaring that a law that is being challenged should take effect.

Wouldn’t a “conservative” court just let the litigation play out and stay out of the way?

Settled law? Not when you have a group of judicial activists on the nation’s highest court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

State news

Hoping DOJ can reverse abortion ban

You are welcome to count me as one American who hopes that the U.S. Department of Justice can find a way to circumvent the Texas law that all but eliminates abortion in this state.

Why? Because the law signed recently by Gov. Greg Abbott removes a woman’s right to make a determination on what to do about her own body; it places it in the hands of politicians — most of whom are male — who are seeking to appease constituencies with agendas that have nothing to do with women’s rights and freedom.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has declared DOJ’s intent to examine how to force Texas to back away from a law that makes it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy later than six weeks after conception.

I haven’t ever discussed this matter with young women, but my understanding based on what I have learned over many years of life is that a minuscule number of women even know they are pregnant fewer than six weeks after conceiving a child.

This battle sets up a national state-by-state fight as legislatures elsewhere consider ways to do what the Texas Legislature has done.

The Texas Tribune reports:

Some abortion rights advocates also worry other state legislatures may follow in Texas’ footsteps. Because SB 8 relies on private citizens to enforce the law, it skirts the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which has constitutionally protected abortion rights for almost 50 years, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.

President Joe Biden denounced the Texas law in a statement released on Wednesday, also without specifying a course of action.

“My administration is deeply committed to the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade nearly five decades ago and will protect and defend that right,” Biden said.

Texas’ abortion ban faces potential Justice Department challenge | The Texas Tribune

It had been thought over many years that the Roe vs. Wade decision handed by the Supreme Court in 1973 had become “settled law.” I guess not, given the current SCOTUS’s decision not to hear a challenge to the Texas law.

I hope DOJ succeeds in finding a way to restore what should be a woman’s constitutional right to make the most difficult decision anyone should ever have to make.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

medical news

Texas abortion law: seriously flawed

Some laws are easy to defend.

The newly enacted law banning virtually all abortions in Texas is equally easy to condemn. I will do so with this brief post.

The law that took effect at midnight is among the most restrictive state laws in the United States. It bans abortions as early as six weeks after conception. It makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Hmm. Think about that one. Many women — perhaps even most women — don’t even know they are pregnant until well after that time frame. What in the world do they do if (a) they are raped or (b) they are impregnated in an incestuous encounter or (c) their doctor determines that the baby they are carrying has serious health issues?

This issue at one important level does give me fits. I could not advise a woman to get an abortion. However, I do not believe government should impose laws that restrict or virtually eliminate a woman’s right to make that choice for herself. She should consult with her partner, her doctor, her faith leader and her god. These decisions are not in the realm of pompous politicians — so many of them males — who make pious pronouncements about the “sanctity of life.”

I will add, too, that many of these pols get hideously stingy with public money when the need arises for the government to care for children brought into this world.

I will harken back to an adage that President Clinton once said about abortion. He said it should remain legal, but that it should “become rare.” I fear now what women might do if they become desperate to terminate a pregnancy … and how much harm they will do to themselves.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

State news

Abortion headed for scrap heap?

2 Comments

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I am profoundly offended by the notion of politicians dictating to women how they can deal with emotional trauma that virtually no one else can comprehend.

Yet that is what is likely to happen if — or likely when — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs an anti-abortion bill into law.

The Legislature has enacted a bill that would make abortion illegal six weeks after conception, which is before many women even know they are pregnant.

Texas Senate advances bill to outlaw abortions if Roe. v. Wade overturned | The Texas Tribune

What’s more, these politicians — dominated in Texas by Republicans, of course — are poised to make all abortions illegal if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in this country.

As the Texas Tribune reported:

Called a “trigger” law, House Bill 1280 would take effect 30 days after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe decision or after a court ruling or constitutional amendment gave states the authority to prohibit abortions.

The bill does not make exceptions for women at risk of suicide or self-harm, pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or in the case of severe or potentially lethal fetal abnormalities. Women who face death or a “substantial impairment of major bodily function” if an abortion is not performed are excluded from the Texas ban.

I am shaking my head in disgust and dismay at what these pols think they are doing.

As I have noted already on this blog, my distress at this draconian measure does not make me “pro-abortion.” I never could recommend an abortion for a woman who sought my counsel. I simply would stand back and tell that woman to do what her heart tells her to do.

If only our state’s smug political class — comprising a solid majority of men — would comprehend the notion that they are venturing into territory where they should never tread.