Tag Archives: Roe v. Wade

national news

Here is the consequence

Donald J. Trump told us brazenly before his term as president and during it as well, that “elections have consequences.”

We are now witnessing how those consequences play out.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just confirmed that a draft opinion was leaked to Politico in which the justices in a narrow 5-4 poll among them have determined that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. If the draft opinion becomes law, then we can say “goodbye” to a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

The consequence occurred when Trump was able to nominate and win confirmation by the Senate of three justices.

First came Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated after Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama’s nomination in 2016 of Merrick Garland to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Trump won the election that year and McConnell then paved the way for a Senate confirmation.

Then came Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump nominated to succeed the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Finally, we saw the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump nominated just weeks before the 2020 election to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump told the nation he wanted to end Roe v. Wade. He said he would select justices who would follow his edict. So much for judicial independence, eh?

All of this serves to remind Americans concerned about the power of presidential appointments to the federal bench. This is a consequence of a presidential election that give many millions of Americans cause to worry about our nation’s future.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Who leaked it? Who cares?

Now that the world has gotten a probable first look at what the U.S. Supreme Court will do to a landmark ruling on abortion, I want to declare that I am far more concerned about what the draft opinion states than I am about who might have leaked it to Politico.

The 98-page draft opinion written by conservative Associate Justice Samuel Alito declares that Roe v. Wade is “egregiously wrong” and should be overturned. The draft opinion, which is far from the final ruling, has sent shock waves through the nation. States such as Texas are likely to enact what they call “trigger laws” making abortion illegal if the high court follows through on the draft opinion later this year.

Texas would make abortion a felony and would punish a woman who received an abortion with time in prison, along with the doctor who provided the service. That is disgraceful on its face.

Here is a thought for us to ponder. If the state is going to send women and doctors to prison for terminating a pregnancy caused by a rapist or a lecherous uncle who committed an incestuous act, then we need to seriously stiffen the penalties for the men who commit those acts. The Texas abortion ban wouldn’t take rape or incest into account.

How does life without parole sound?

As for the leak that came from the court, I agree it is unprecedented. For my money, it doesn’t seem all that difficult to determine who did the deed. My hunch is that it came from a clerk who works for one of the three liberal justices on the court. If we’re going to sic the FBI on them, then grill the clerks and their assistants first to get to the bottom of it. There ain’t that many of them on the court staff, so it shouldn’t take too long.

However, as I stated already, the contents of the draft document are alarming in the extreme. I am not looking forward to what the SCOTUS has to say on this matter when they ring the bell for the end of the current court term.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS set to overturn Roe?

Someone at the U.S. Supreme Court building reportedly has spilled the beans on what the justices are going to do when their term ends this summer.

It is, if you believe reports of a leaked draft opinion, that they will overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling handed down in 1973 that legalized abortion in the United States.

Are you surprised at what appears to be setting up? Well … neither am I, not with the court’s 6-3 super conservative majority.

They haven’t yet ruled officially on a Mississippi case that came before justices earlier this year. The message is clear, though, in what has been leaked from the SCOTUS building: Roe was flawed from the beginning, according to a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, one of the conservatives.

This is a bad development for American women. They appear to be set to lose the option of terminating a pregnancy. So, just who will pay the biggest price? Poor women, not the wealthy women are going to suffer if the court ends the practice of obtaining an abortion legally.

Let me be crystal clear once again. Any effort to mandate an end to abortion will fail. Women will continue to obtain them, no matter what, which is what they have been doing since human beings first set foot on the good Earth.

A dark day looms.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

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