Time and again, we have heard Bush talk about appointing “strict constructionists” as judges and that “activist judges” should not be making laws or expanding the role of the federal government.
There is example after example where this isn’t true – whether it be all of the pork that the rubber stamp republican congress had passed, whether it was the giveaways to the drug companies through the Medicare bill, whether it was the other handouts to Big Oil, or through throwing millions of federal dollars at “abstinence only” programs which not only have proven to be failures but have gone to religious extremists and fundamentalists whose agenda has no place receiving federal funding.
And the issue of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding certain abortion bans is obviously a highly emotional and personal issue for many millions of Americans. While I don’t want to really talk about the emotional or personal aspect of it here, I will say that I find it absolutely disgusting that the Supreme Court has found it acceptable to so easily put American citizens’ lives at risk and to deny a medically necessary procedure that could save such life. Especially in an instance where it is obvious that the American citizen would not otherwise want to terminate her pregnancy except in the most extreme of circumstances – to save her own life.
That being said, the entire point that republicans, conservatives and religious extremists have made with respect to why they feel that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided is that the federal government has no right to rule in this matter or to impose a federal will on something that is not specifically and expressly provided for in the United States Constitution.
Yet (as I said yesterday during Don’t Hijack My Thread!), here we are, with the same conservatives, republicans and religious extremists celebrating this decision to uphold a FEDERAL law that imposes restrictions on an American citizen’s basic rights. This is hypocrisy. This is the truth about their agenda laid bare for the entire world and country to see. This was NEVER about federalism. This was about imposing restrictions on women and asserting the federal government’s ability to impose its will on American citizens – without the consent of the American citizens. EVEN if the life of such citizen is at risk.
If the Supreme Court ruling yesterday was to uphold a state ban on such a medical procedure, then, while still abhorrent, it would at least be consistent with the argument of Federalism.
However, in arguing “federalism” as a reason to restrict the right to make private medical decisions, the exact opposite argument is being used and presented to use a federal law to restrict the right to make private medical decisions – even if the life of such American citizen is at risk.
Of course, there are so many other issues surrounding this decision, as well as the logic or reasoning behind it. There are so many issues associated with a “big brother government” dictating what people can or cannot do or what medical decisions they can or cannot make.
But right now, the completely hypocritical edifice of “logic” and reason, as well as the argument used to enforce a federal law to restrict the rights of American citizens – when there is no place in the Constitution that would provide for the restriction of such rights by the Federal government – is laid bare.
Make no mistake – there was no agenda of “federalism”. There was a very different agenda here. And while Congress certainly can enact a law that would restore the right for a woman (or her doctor) to take any necessary steps to save her live, that is really not the point. The point is that if the government has no right to impose its will on American citizens outside of what is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, then this law that was upheld by the Supreme Court yesterday also goes against the US Constitution.
This needs to be put out there as we discuss the horrific decision by the Supreme Court. This needs to be part of the discussion going forward. This undermine the entire credibility and basis for the argument that this is a state issue.
also in orange
It’s code clammy. It means nothing. “States rights” prior to the Civil war meant the right to have slaves, yet when some Northern states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, guess who insisted on Federal law being shoved down their throat?
That’s right — all those “States’ rights” proponents.
It’s never about the principle, it’s always about the result, and as far as many Conservatives are concerned the ends always justify the means.
of course. Just like the “Dred Scot” code used.
but to those of us in the country that still don’t know that, this is another way of getting our point across…..
States’ rights are held up high when it comes to the right to, say, ban all abortions, or restrict them to the point of being all but unattainable in one state, when other states will not.
But when individual states decide to make gay marriage legal, or require food manufacturers to list specific ingredients or other information on packaging, or attempt to require large employers to offer certain benefits to their employees, or require higher standards of fuel efficiency in cars sold there, or stricter standards of workplace safety… etc… then it’s all about “consistency of standards” and “moral values” and “undue burdens”…
Just depends on whose rights are really at stake, the rights of individual people pursuing life, liberty, clean air, safe food, personal happiness… or the rights of corporations to make as much profit at as low a cost as possible.