Tag Archives: abortion

Roe vs. Wade Overturned

Roe vs. Wade
Roe vs. Wade

Today, Roe vs. Wade was overturned.

I am not certain where I picked up on this, but for years I have argued for exactly what happened today

The Constitution was also expanded in the 1960s with Griswold v. Connecticut. The activist SCOTUS stated the right of privacy was implied in the Constitution, even though it was never stated. Because of that, in the 1970s, Roe v. Wade was decided. The issue in Roe was that the decision for an abortion was protected as a private matter between a patient and her doctor.

Most folks would argue that what goes on between a doctor and a patient is indeed a private matter. My issue with the decision is that this is not a matter for the feds to govern. Because privacy is not a right for which the feds should have purview, it should not have decided Roe. Perhaps that puts me on the fringe with some folks, but it certainly does not put me in a position of demanding that the federal government regulate what happens in the bedroom or at the doctor’s office. This is a matter for the states, much like gay marriage and other social issues.

New Jersey is liberal. If it (not the federal government) decides that it wants to permit abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, etc., have at it. While I may not favor such decisions, I recognize that it is the right of the state to determine those things. If the people want it, then it can be had.

Abortion has not been outlawed. Rather, the people won! The people now get to decide the issue for themselves. That is how it is supposed to work.

Why do many folks leave New York and New Jersey to retire in Florida, Arizona, and South Carolina? The tax laws are advantageous to do so. Want marijuana? You’re not getting it in all states, so you travel to those who offer it. States compete on many levels, taxes and pot being among them.

Abortion will be another. Some states will assuredly prohibit abortion. Others will assuredly permit abortion.

Sure, some will argue that a woman who desires an abortion who lives in a restrictive state is treated differently than a woman in a permissive state. Yes. Likewise, a taxpayer in New Jersey is taxed far more than one in Florida. It’s the way it is.

This is by design. The United States Constitution works this way. It’s a beautiful document.

I will be taxed to fund abortions in New Jersey, most likely. That is against my desire. I deal with it. And when it becomes too much for me, I will be heading to another state . . . perhaps Florida. 😉

When Push Comes to Shove

Shaking in the bedroom, covers on your head,
Are you still in fear of the hand beneath the bed?
Grabbing at the handle, scratching at the door,
Maybe it’s mystery killer you saw on channel four.
When push comes to shove, you’re afraid of love.

Robert Hunter, When Push Comes to Shove

One of the issues I have with abortion is the fact that ultimately, the man is rendered moot in the discussion. A man and a woman have sex. A baby is conceived. When the woman is granted all “rights” over the decision of whether to deliver the child, it means the man has none. I find that problematic.

The same thing happened in my marriage. Regardless of my wants/desires, I was aborted because the woman in the relationship decided it was so. I had no say. I had no rights. The woman made the decision and I had to follow.

My children removed from me. My puppies removed from me. My sense of home removed from me. Shoot, I can’t even smoke brisket anymore because she made a decision. And I had no say whatsoever.

Dot . . . Dot . . . Dot . . .

How do you know if an abortion law is too strict? If Pat Robertson criticizes it . . . I’m changing. Went to the liquor store (not the brewery). Purchased Yuengling. In cans . . . Left Facebook again today. I suppose each time I have left, it was intended for good. I’ll just leave it at that . . . So, I didn’t hang up Facebook after all. Need it too much for Quest Scouts presently and I am now finding a use for it for KeyForge . . . So, FB recommended me friend a guy I went to SAS with. That dude’s profile picture is a shot from high school/college. Really? You’re 54/55 and you are doing a beach shot? Pfft . . . Now that a buddy of mine is nearing retirement, I am finding more politics in his feed. He’s going to be dropped if it continues . . . Gerry Brooks is coming off as a mean person in his videos these days. There’s a line between poking fun at situations and insulting. The folks he insults are the parents of his students. This is faculty room talk, not to be aired publicly. I’m out . . .

Funding Planned Parenthood

Once again federal funding for Planned Parenthood is in the country’s focus.

Federal funding means that you and I are paying for to this organization. Why would we do that? The argument is that Planned Parenthood provides vital services for women’s health.

The counter is that there are thousands of facilities that provide vital services for women’s health, the 700 Planned Parenthood centers are a small portion. Planned Parenthood provides abortions. By funding the organization, you and I are funding abortions. The counter argument to that is that the money Planned Parenthood receives from the federal government is not for abortions but for other services. Then there’s a squabble: if the money is mixed, the people’s money allows abortions to occur, etc.

Of course, funding for private schools runs into the same arguments. Money can go for mathematics books at a Catholic school, not for a theology book. But it’s the same principle.

And the two sides argue back and forth and no progress is made.

There is a simple solution to this issue, however.

Those who state that without Planned Parenthood women will be without facilities for women’s health need to be educated. Since ObamaCare has passed, women’s health services are guaranteed. Any woman can go to any local facility for her health services. The insurance policy pays for the services. Women cannot be denied.

If Planned Parenthood were to go out of business all on its own, this is what women would do, correct?

Planned Parenthood isn’t going out of business. It is a VERY profitable company. It doesn’t profit much on women’s health services though. Rather, its profits come from abortions. That’s what Planned Parenthood does for its money. No money needs to flow to this organization to prop it up; it needs no propping.

Planned Parenthood will do one of two things. It will either cut those less than profitable services and become an abortion clinic (as it is now) or it will take some of its profits and invest in other women’s health services to make it profitable for its company.

Under no circumstances should taxpayers fund a private business like this.

Women do not lose. Women’s healthcare is guaranteed under ObamaCare.

This is very much like school lunches. Poor families receive food stamps to feed itself. Why would taxpayers pay a second time to feed the child at school? We’ve already paid for food for the children.

As for women’s health services, taxpayers are picking up the tab under ObamaCare. Why would we pay a second time by directly funding Planned Parenthood?

So, before I clicked “publish” I got to thinking . . .
If the American taxpayer is willing to pay for a mammogram (bad example since Planned Parenthood doesn’t involve itself with them) or a PAP Smear, why should we balk at reimbursing Planned Parenthood for that service?

Because it isn’t direct funding that Planned Parenthood receives; it receives reimbursement for services rendered.

Generally, I am okay with that.

But if Planned Parenthood is going to claim it’s a nonprofit, where does it get off paying Ms. Richards more than $500 million annually? Where does it get off funneling money to Democrats?

And where does it get off selling baby parts?

And that is what this is really is about. If the organization performs 325,000 abortions a year because it feels a fetus is not a human (if it did, those would be murder), how can it profit from selling living baby parts?

Planned Parenthood rejects that it does. So, this seems like it is a straightforward issue. Either it does or doesn’t. Investigate the issue. Resolve it and then move on. If Planned Parenthood did sell live baby parts, prosecute those responsible and hold the company responsible. Also, the IRS should be investigating the nonprofit status it claims it has.

Smoking=Banned; Abortion=Okay

I don’t understand what is going on in America.

In Oregon, it is now illegal to smoke in a car with a child. Somewhere around here I wrote about a proposed ban of smoking in cars in New Jersey a few years ago. Fortunately, it never made it to a vote. It’s asinine.

But for argument’s sake, let’s accept that this is a good thing. Presumably, it’s a good thing because it protects children. From the article linked to above,

If the health of the next generation is in mind, passing such a law is an intelligent act.

It seems like that is the foundation of support for this law: smoking is dangerous to the health of children.

But these same do-gooders find no harm to children when abortion is done. I do not find the logic in that. Abortion is defended on the rights of women. It’s “healthcare”, it is argued.

So, what about women’s rights to smoke in their own car? Doesn’t that trump the children? It does when the child is in the womb?

Identity politics are pathetic.