ADVERTISEMENT

Five more faith-based lawsuits filed to overturn Florida’s 15-week abortion ban

RayGravesGhost

Bull Gator
Jun 13, 2021
6,610
2,286
113
https://floridapolitics.com/archive...ed-to-overturn-floridas-15-week-abortion-ban/
Five more faith-based lawsuits filed to overturn Florida’s 15-week abortion ban

6ox79y.jpg


‘Freedom of religion must protect the religious rights and beliefs of all citizens — not just those opposed to women’s right to choose.’

Seven faith leaders from South Florida and Tampa are suing elected attorneys across the state — from Attorney General Ashley Moody to State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle of Miami-Dade County — over Florida’s new ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Clergy from diverse religious practices, including Reform Judaism, Buddhism, Episcopalianism, Unitarianism and the United Church of Christ, filed five lawsuits Monday with the 11th Judicial Circuit. All contend the ban (HB 5) violates constitutionally established rights to free speech, religious exercise and the separation of church and state.

The complaints also reference the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, which among other things protects against laws that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

“Since time immemorial, the question of when a potential fetus or fetus becomes a life and how to value maternal life during a pregnancy have been answered according to religious beliefs and creeds,” the lawsuits say. “HB 5 codifies one of the possible religious viewpoints on the question, and in its operation imposes severe burdens on other (beliefs, including those of the plaintiffs).”

The plaintiffs are demanding an immediate stay in the state’s enforcement of the law and for the law to be ruled unconstitutional.

“For decades, the Catholic bishops and the Evangelical right wing have claimed a singular religious high ground on the issue of abortion rights and tried to label anyone opposed to their views as ‘secularists.’ Yet there are millions of Americans whose deeply held religious beliefs, speech, and conduct are being substantially burdened by restrictive abortion bans like HB 5,” said University of Pennsylvania political science professor Marci Hamilton. Hamilton is representing the plaintiffs alongside a handful of lawyers from New Jersey-based firm Spiro Harrison and Chicago-based Jayaram Law.

“Freedom of religion must protect the religious rights and beliefs of all citizens — not just those opposed to women’s right to choose.”

The plaintiffs are Rabbi Robyn Fisher of Beth Or Miami, Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz of Temple Beth Sholom in Miami Beach, Rabbi Jason Rosenberg of Congregation Beth Am in Tampa, Lama Karma Chotso of Open Awareness Buddhist Center in Miami, Rev. Tom Capo of Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, Rev. Lauri Hafner of Coral Gables United Church of Christ, and an unnamed priest of the Episcopal Church of Miami-Dade.

The lawsuit follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn precedents set through Roe v. Wade and defer to states the power to restrict or fully ban abortion.

Florida’s new law, which includes no exception for victims of rape, incest or human trafficking, was among the strictest abortion prohibitions in the nation when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the measure in April. Soon after a draft of the pending Supreme Court decision leaked, GOP lawmakers throughout the state signaled interest in passing a complete ban next year.

“We now have the will and we have the votes in the House to pass legislation that will ban abortion in the great state of Florida for life,” Deltona Rep. Webster Barnaby, who filed a Texas-style “heartbeat” ban last Session that would have outlawed abortions after around six weeks, said in May.

The bill died without a single committee hearing.

Upon hearing of the lawsuits, Moody issued the following statement: “To be abundantly clear, terminating a pregnancy at 15 weeks requires ripping apart, limb-by-limb, a baby, which medical evidence has shown likely feels pain. It is certainly newsworthy that these religious organizations are bringing suit to challenge Florida’s ban of that practice. Nonetheless, we will continue to defend the state statute as that is the responsibility of the Florida Attorney General’s Office.”

The new lawsuit joins others challenging HB 5 now in the legal pipeline by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor.

Late last month, Democratic lawyer and Attorney General candidate Daniel Uhlfelder came on as co-counsel to the Boynton Beach-based Synagogue’s suit, which cites protections for abortion under Jewish law if it is “necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman.”

The new abortion law, which went into effect July 1, allows for abortions after 15 weeks if the mother’s life is at risk or if two doctors concur there is a fetal abnormality.

Defendants in the five new lawsuits include Moody, Rundle and State Attorneys Philip Archer, David Aronberg, Thomas Bakkedahl, Bruce Bartlett, Larry Basford, Ginger Bowden Madden, Ed Brodsky, Jack Campbell, John Durrett, Amira Fox, William Gladson, Brian Haas, Brian Kramer, R.J. Larizza, Melissa Nelson, Harold Pryor, Dennis Ward, Andrew Warren and Monique Worrell.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sandy-hook-parents-lawyer-says-154648528.html
Sandy Hook parents' lawyer says Alex Jones' phone leak contains 'intimate messages with Roger Stone'
Natalie Musumeci,Laura Italiano
Thu, August 4, 2022 at 11:46 AM

6oxdkc.jpg


Alex Jones' cell phone leak includes "intimate messages" with Roger Stone, a lawyer said.

The House committee probing the Capitol riot wants the phone contents, the attorney added.

The contents of Jones phone were inadvertently sent to an attorney for the Sandy Hook parents who sued Jones.

Alex Jones' cell phone leak includes "intimate messages" with former Trump political adviser Roger Stone, according to a lawyer for Sandy Hook parents.

And the House committee probing the Capitol riot wants the details, the attorney confirmed on Thursday.

The contents of the far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder's phone were inadvertently sent to Mark Bankston, a lawyer representing the Sandy Hook parents who have sued Jones for defamation over his false "hoax" claims about the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut massacre.

"Things like Mr. Jones and his intimate messages to Roger Stone are not confidential. They are not trade secrets. None of them," Bankston told a Texas judge after Jones' defense lawyer called for a mistrial in Jones' defamation damages trial.

Jones' lawyer, F. Andino Reynal, also filed for an emergency motion to protect the contents of Jones' phone that wound up in Bankston's possession.

Bankston disclosed during Thursday's hearing that the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection has asked him to turn over the contents of Jones' phone.

"I am under request from various federal agencies and law enforcement to provide that phone, absent a ruling from you saying, 'You cannot do that Mr. Bankston,' I intend to do so," Bankston told Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble.

The judge noted that the House committee can subpoena the contents of Jones' phone.

"They know about them. They know they exist. They know you have them. I think they're going there either way," said Gamble who denied Reynal's motion for a mistrial as she explained she won't "seal" the entire phone.

Reynal said during the court hearing, "These allegations about law enforcement interest is absolutely calculated to create more press around this issue."

The defense attorney added, "This should have never gotten this far," as he explained that he told Bankston in an email last month to "please disregard" after the contents of Jones' phone were mistakenly sent to Bankston.

In a dramatic courtroom moment on Wednesday, Bankston announced that Jones' attorney's "messed up" and sent him a copy of Jones' entire phone contents going back two years.

"Your attorneys messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you sent for the past two years," Bankston told Jones as Jones was on the witness stand. "That is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn't have text messages about Sandy Hook."

Jones is in court after he was found liable by default for defaming Sandy Hook parents by falsely claiming the 2012 elementary school massacre was a "giant hoax."

A jury in the civil case is now deliberating to decide how much Jones must pay in compensatory damages to Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis — one of the 26 killed in the mass shooting.

The parents are seeking $150 million in compensatory damages from Jones.

The trial is the first of three in which juries will determine how much Jones must pay in damages to Sandy Hook families.
 
https://floridapolitics.com/archive...ed-to-overturn-floridas-15-week-abortion-ban/
Five more faith-based lawsuits filed to overturn Florida’s 15-week abortion ban

6ox79y.jpg


‘Freedom of religion must protect the religious rights and beliefs of all citizens — not just those opposed to women’s right to choose.’

Seven faith leaders from South Florida and Tampa are suing elected attorneys across the state — from Attorney General Ashley Moody to State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle of Miami-Dade County — over Florida’s new ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Clergy from diverse religious practices, including Reform Judaism, Buddhism, Episcopalianism, Unitarianism and the United Church of Christ, filed five lawsuits Monday with the 11th Judicial Circuit. All contend the ban (HB 5) violates constitutionally established rights to free speech, religious exercise and the separation of church and state.

The complaints also reference the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, which among other things protects against laws that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

“Since time immemorial, the question of when a potential fetus or fetus becomes a life and how to value maternal life during a pregnancy have been answered according to religious beliefs and creeds,” the lawsuits say. “HB 5 codifies one of the possible religious viewpoints on the question, and in its operation imposes severe burdens on other (beliefs, including those of the plaintiffs).”

The plaintiffs are demanding an immediate stay in the state’s enforcement of the law and for the law to be ruled unconstitutional.

“For decades, the Catholic bishops and the Evangelical right wing have claimed a singular religious high ground on the issue of abortion rights and tried to label anyone opposed to their views as ‘secularists.’ Yet there are millions of Americans whose deeply held religious beliefs, speech, and conduct are being substantially burdened by restrictive abortion bans like HB 5,” said University of Pennsylvania political science professor Marci Hamilton. Hamilton is representing the plaintiffs alongside a handful of lawyers from New Jersey-based firm Spiro Harrison and Chicago-based Jayaram Law.

“Freedom of religion must protect the religious rights and beliefs of all citizens — not just those opposed to women’s right to choose.”

The plaintiffs are Rabbi Robyn Fisher of Beth Or Miami, Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz of Temple Beth Sholom in Miami Beach, Rabbi Jason Rosenberg of Congregation Beth Am in Tampa, Lama Karma Chotso of Open Awareness Buddhist Center in Miami, Rev. Tom Capo of Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, Rev. Lauri Hafner of Coral Gables United Church of Christ, and an unnamed priest of the Episcopal Church of Miami-Dade.

The lawsuit follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn precedents set through Roe v. Wade and defer to states the power to restrict or fully ban abortion.

Florida’s new law, which includes no exception for victims of rape, incest or human trafficking, was among the strictest abortion prohibitions in the nation when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the measure in April. Soon after a draft of the pending Supreme Court decision leaked, GOP lawmakers throughout the state signaled interest in passing a complete ban next year.

“We now have the will and we have the votes in the House to pass legislation that will ban abortion in the great state of Florida for life,” Deltona Rep. Webster Barnaby, who filed a Texas-style “heartbeat” ban last Session that would have outlawed abortions after around six weeks, said in May.

The bill died without a single committee hearing.

Upon hearing of the lawsuits, Moody issued the following statement: “To be abundantly clear, terminating a pregnancy at 15 weeks requires ripping apart, limb-by-limb, a baby, which medical evidence has shown likely feels pain. It is certainly newsworthy that these religious organizations are bringing suit to challenge Florida’s ban of that practice. Nonetheless, we will continue to defend the state statute as that is the responsibility of the Florida Attorney General’s Office.”

The new lawsuit joins others challenging HB 5 now in the legal pipeline by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor.

Late last month, Democratic lawyer and Attorney General candidate Daniel Uhlfelder came on as co-counsel to the Boynton Beach-based Synagogue’s suit, which cites protections for abortion under Jewish law if it is “necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman.”

The new abortion law, which went into effect July 1, allows for abortions after 15 weeks if the mother’s life is at risk or if two doctors concur there is a fetal abnormality.

Defendants in the five new lawsuits include Moody, Rundle and State Attorneys Philip Archer, David Aronberg, Thomas Bakkedahl, Bruce Bartlett, Larry Basford, Ginger Bowden Madden, Ed Brodsky, Jack Campbell, John Durrett, Amira Fox, William Gladson, Brian Haas, Brian Kramer, R.J. Larizza, Melissa Nelson, Harold Pryor, Dennis Ward, Andrew Warren and Monique Worrell.
Sooooo...if my religion, I don't know, says I should be able to kill my 15 year old daughter for getting raped through no fault of her own by some random guy, to save my honor, that should be sufficient to throw out Florida's murder laws? Or, could I invent a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes or drive the speed limit?

The lengths people will go to to murder innocent babies is mind boggling. Why are so many people hell-bent on killing children in the womb? Abortion, even if you are in favor, should be a last resort after everything else fails, including responsible birth control, not as right to end a life because of inconvenience.
 
Sooooo...if my religion, I don't know, says I should be able to kill my 15 year old daughter for getting raped through no fault of her own by some random guy, to save my honor, that should be sufficient to throw out Florida's murder laws? Or, could I invent a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes or drive the speed limit?

The lengths people will go to to murder innocent babies is mind boggling. Why are so many people hell-bent on killing children in the womb? Abortion, even if you are in favor, should be a last resort after everything else fails, including responsible birth control, not as right to end a life because of inconvenience.
Yeah, but this is specifically about the life of the mother, or severe abnormalities. Not because of an “inconvenience.”

Im sure you would just let your wife die. Tough break, huh?
 
Seriously dude?

You're better than that. Sort yourself out.
Nice edit. That is what this law, if you support it, does. So I’m calling him out on his belief.

Nothing out of line at all. Personally, I believe most people would rather terminate the fetus vs. having their spouse die. You?
 
Sooooo...if my religion, I don't know, says I should be able to kill my 15 year old daughter for getting raped through no fault of her own by some random guy, to save my honor, that should be sufficient to throw out Florida's murder laws? Or, could I invent a religion that says I don't have to pay taxes or drive the speed limit?

Is that what's occurring here?
Jewish faith believes life begins at birth not conception

What does that have to do with "honor killings"?

The lengths people will go to to murder innocent babies is mind boggling. Why are so many people hell-bent on killing children in the womb? Abortion, even if you are in favor, should be a last resort after everything else fails, including responsible birth control, not as right to end a life because of inconvenience.

But conservatives want to outlaw contraception also...

And to repeat...the Jewish faith believes life begins at birth not conception

Are you saying Jews are hellbent on murdering innocent babies because they have a different belief about the "viability" of an embryo than you?
 
https://www.wkow.com/news/trump-bac...cle_7819c0d8-139b-11ed-8abc-ab2d58b32e89.html
Trump-backed Vos opponent wants to ban birth control
A.J. Bayatpour Aug 3, 2022 Updated 6 hrs ago

BURLINGTON (WKOW) -- While election laws are Adam Steen's top issue, the challenger to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in Tuesday's GOP primary said he supports outlawing birth control.

Steen, once considered a longshot candidate seeking to oust Wisconsin's longest-tenured speaker, got a boost this week when former President Donald Trump endorsed him Tuesday.

Trump has publicly trashed Vos in recent weeks over the speaker's refusal to take up decertification of the 2020 election -- a move legal scholars, and the legislature's own lawyers, say would be impossible.

However, abortion is another key issue in a state where health care providers are operating under the belief an 1849 abortion ban is back in effect following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade.

Steen, who first told the New York Times he would support banning contraception, was asked if that meant birth control, in addition to Plan B pills.

"Birth control ahead of time," a 27 News reporter asked. "Outlawed?"

"Right, because you're simply trying to avoid a consequence," Steen answered.


The state's 1849 ban, which is currently being challenged in court by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, only allows exceptions for cases where mother's life is at risk.

Steen said he supports conservative Pro-Life Wisconsin's position. The group wants lawmakers to change that language to say both the fetus and mother's lives must be treated equally.


Reproductive doctors have raised concerns about a gray area over what constitutes a life at risk, and where the line is between miscarriage care and an abortion.

One such example would be a case where a fetus still had a detectable heartbeat, but doctors were certain it wouldn't survive outside the womb.

"In my opinion, I would like to see that life have the most ability to succeed," Steen said. "And that's the hardest part, you're exactly right."

Vos said he wasn't convinced the legislature needed to clarify the current law. However, he added he was open to revisiting the ban's language when lawmakers return to session in January.

"If there are things that we want to look at, still sticking with the principle of protecting as much as we can to guarantee that the unborn child is able to survive, I definitely support that," Vos said. "But I also want to be honest and say there could be changes that are necessary."

Vos said he was also open to adding exceptions for rape and incest. Steen said he opposed such exceptions, adding his position was informed by his personal experience as the father of two girls.

When presented with a hypothetical situation -- if one of his underage daughters was raped and impregnated -- Steen said he would still want an abortion to be illegal under those circumstances.

"I would want the state to protect both lives," he said.

In Wisconsin governor's race, former Lieutenant Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, business owner Tim Michels and Rep. Tim Ramthun have all said they oppose allowing exceptions for rape and incest.

Kleefisch and Michels have said they would not sign bills banning contraception. Ramthun said he would need to see the details of any such legislation before deciding what to do.
 
The "yes" vote in Kansas was the republican position on abortion rights...

You call that voting for Satan 🤣
 
Voting "yes" in Florida means the same thing...

Vote "No" for her,,,Vote "Yes" for Satan (DeSantis)

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/p...orida-lawmakers-react-to-kansas-abortion-vote
“I really stress to my constituents and Floridians everywhere that abortion is on the ballot this November,” said Orlando Democratic state Rep. Anna Eskamani. “Because if you vote ‘no’ on DeSantis, you’re voting no on abortion bans. Bottom line. Period.”
 
Is that what's occurring here?
Jewish faith believes life begins at birth not conception

What does that have to do with "honor killings"?



But conservatives want to outlaw contraception also...

And to repeat...the Jewish faith believes life begins at birth not conception

Are you saying Jews are hellbent on murdering innocent babies because they have a different belief about the "viability" of an embryo than you?
Show me link where conservatives are seeking to outlaw contraceptives. I’d like to see that. EDIT: One outlier you quoted a few posts later does note equate to widespread support…..

My understanding is that Orthodox Jews are generally opposed to abortion. Reform Jews do indeed support abortion rights.
 
I already did in post #10

https://www.wkow.com/news/trump-bac...cle_7819c0d8-139b-11ed-8abc-ab2d58b32e89.html
Trump-backed Vos opponent wants to ban birth control
A.J. Bayatpour Aug 3, 2022 Updated 6 hrs ago

BURLINGTON (WKOW) -- While election laws are Adam Steen's top issue, the challenger to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in Tuesday's GOP primary said he supports outlawing birth control.

Steen, once considered a longshot candidate seeking to oust Wisconsin's longest-tenured speaker, got a boost this week when former President Donald Trump endorsed him Tuesday.

Trump has publicly trashed Vos in recent weeks over the speaker's refusal to take up decertification of the 2020 election -- a move legal scholars, and the legislature's own lawyers, say would be impossible.

However, abortion is another key issue in a state where health care providers are operating under the belief an 1849 abortion ban is back in effect following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade.

Steen, who first told the New York Times he would support banning contraception, was asked if that meant birth control, in addition to Plan B pills.

"Birth control ahead of time," a 27 News reporter asked. "Outlawed?"

"Right, because you're simply trying to avoid a consequence," Steen answered.
 
Nice edit. That is what this law, if you support it, does. So I’m calling him out on his belief.

Nothing out of line at all. Personally, I believe most people would rather terminate the fetus vs. having their spouse die. You?
You mean like how tim tebow’s mom was supposed to die if they didn’t abort him throughout her pregnancy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
You mean like how tim tebow’s mom was supposed to die if they didn’t abort him throughout her pregnancy?
Ah, the ole Tim Tebow defense. What about the mother's that died.

Nice dodge though, since you seem to be afraid to answer my question.
 
So Hunter Biden's laptop should not be used as evidence of anything other than the 1-2 inches of visible manhood but this phone somehow proves that the right wanted to take over Washington?
I only wish that contraception had been on Joe's mother mind nine months before his birth. All we know now is that Hunter needs much more than 11% inflation.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
I was adopted by the two greatest parents in the world. and after retirement found my biological roots. Further I discovered that my biological mother carried me to term at the very real potential of stigma and social ostracizing. I was blessed to have her faith carry me to birth; so I thank that and the Good Lord for me becoming much more than a fetus and having seven decades to experience joy, sorrow, and family. This is a perspective very few others have. It is not hard to stop a sperm from not making the diving board, why not slip one on; geez!
 
The conservative GOP and at least one SCOTUS justice don't even want to give you the option of "slipping one on"


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.
 
Voting "yes" in Florida means the same thing...

Vote "No" for her,,,Vote "Yes" for Satan (DeSantis)

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/p...orida-lawmakers-react-to-kansas-abortion-vote
“I really stress to my constituents and Floridians everywhere that abortion is on the ballot this November,” said Orlando Democratic state Rep. Anna Eskamani. “Because if you vote ‘no’ on DeSantis, you’re voting no on abortion bans. Bottom line. Period.”
Vote Yes is correct. a Yes = No to Satan. Understand, little man?
 
Ah, the ole Tim Tebow defense. What about the mother's that died.

Nice dodge though, since you seem to be afraid to answer my question.
Ah, the ole dodge of an answer because it discredits your argument. Aren’t parents supposed to do anything for their kids benefit? You show me a parent not willing to give their life for their kid and I’ll show you a shitty parent
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
Yeah, but this is specifically about the life of the mother, or severe abnormalities. Not because of an “inconvenience.”

Im sure you would just let your wife die. Tough break, huh?
It has never been about the life of the mother. That is a straw man set up by abortion advocates. Depending on the provider of the statistic, life of the mother accounts from anywhere from 4 percent to less than 1 percent of abortions. The vast majority, over 90 percent, are either due to an inconvenient time for a child or lack of financial stability. Neither are good reasons to kill a child.

That is like saying we should ban all automobiles since a fraction of the people driving them die in a car accident each year. You cannot take an outlier statistic and use it to argue for the majority. That is what many people do to try and justify their positions which have no statistical validity.

And I am not sure why you would bring my "wife" into it. How do you know I am married? How do you know I am straight? You are making a ton of assumptions for someone of your political persuasion, lol. I guess it is only biased, bigoted, and intolerant when done by a conservative.
 
Is that what's occurring here?
Jewish faith believes life begins at birth not conception

What does that have to do with "honor killings"?



But conservatives want to outlaw contraception also...

And to repeat...the Jewish faith believes life begins at birth not conception

Are you saying Jews are hellbent on murdering innocent babies because they have a different belief about the "viability" of an embryo than you?
Wow, not sure where you got that. Are you Jewish? Pretty sure the Old Testament claims that life begins in the womb according to at least Psalms.

What I have always said is that religion should not be used as a basis for any law in the United States. However, the article you cited and this post basically was using religion as a basis for arguing that abortion should be allowed. What happened to the liberal mantra of keep your religion out of my life?

The government has the right to declare what constitutes life and, more specifically, what constitutes protected life. Just because someone is alive does not mean their life is necessarily absolutely protected. See capital punishment, self-defense, war...etc. What I was saying is that different religions treat life very differently. Therefore, we would all do well to have the argument based on what life we as a society deem necessary to protect, not what a particular religion says about it. We are not a theocracy.

As such, the government has the absolute ability to conclude that life begins in the womb if it so chooses. What other source would you believe better able to make such a determination?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
The conservative GOP and at least one SCOTUS justice don't even want to give you the option of "slipping one on"


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.
Do you have any idea why he may have stated that? Could it possibly be because the Supreme Court overstepped their authority and made legislative decisions they never had the authority to make given the constitutional separation of powers?

That is why Roe was overturned. Not because the government had no power to determine if abortion was legal. But because the Supreme Court was not the proper vehicle to make such determinations. That is why they put it back to the States. Why do people have such trouble understanding such a simple concept? If you want abortions on demand, take a trip to California or New York. No one banned it.

The Supreme Court, for the first time in recent history, is actually trying to do what they are supposed to do and simply interpret and judge cases based on the laws passed by the legislature which comply with the Constitution instead of acting like a super legislature and inventing laws and rules which did not go through the proper legislative process.

I did not hear any leftists cry about the decisions regarding gay marriage (which are purely State issues) or any other left-leaning decisions which had no legislative authority. Why the outrage when the Supreme Court simply put these issues back in front of the people's representatives who actually are accountable directly to the populous? Isn't that how it should be?
 
Wow, not sure where you got that. Are you Jewish? Pretty sure the Old Testament claims that life begins in the womb according to at least Psalms.

What I have always said is that religion should not be used as a basis for any law in the United States. However, the article you cited and this post basically was using religion as a basis for arguing that abortion should be allowed. What happened to the liberal mantra of keep your religion out of my life?

The government has the right to declare what constitutes life and, more specifically, what constitutes protected life. Just because someone is alive does not mean their life is necessarily absolutely protected. See capital punishment, self-defense, war...etc. What I was saying is that different religions treat life very differently. Therefore, we would all do well to have the argument based on what life we as a society deem necessary to protect, not what a particular religion says about it. We are not a theocracy.

As such, the government has the absolute ability to conclude that life begins in the womb if it so chooses. What other source would you believe better able to make such a determination?
Libbies attack Christians but stay away from Jews and Muslims. I wonder why?
 
Wow, not sure where you got that. Are you Jewish? Pretty sure the Old Testament claims that life begins in the womb according to at least Psalms.

What I have always said is that religion should not be used as a basis for any law in the United States. However, the article you cited and this post basically was using religion as a basis for arguing that abortion should be allowed. What happened to the liberal mantra of keep your religion out of my life?

The government has the right to declare what constitutes life and, more specifically, what constitutes protected life. Just because someone is alive does not mean their life is necessarily absolutely protected. See capital punishment, self-defense, war...etc. What I was saying is that different religions treat life very differently. Therefore, we would all do well to have the argument based on what life we as a society deem necessary to protect, not what a particular religion says about it. We are not a theocracy.

As such, the government has the absolute ability to conclude that life begins in the womb if it so chooses. What other source would you believe better able to make such a determination?
Not to interrupt you whilst you're on a roll, but he's partially correct.

Orthodox Jews do not support abortion.

Reform Jews do in fact believe in and support abortion rights.

They also support gun control and vote Democrat, so there's that.
 
Not to interrupt you whilst you're on a roll, but he's partially correct.

Orthodox Jews do not support abortion.

Reform Jews do in fact believe in and support abortion rights.

They also support gun control and vote Democrat, so there's that.
Reformed Jews are similar to Progressive Christians. They ignore the actual text of the Bible in order to make religion fit their personal beliefs. Basically, they are not really Jewish in the religious sense because by ignoring the clear text of the Bible, they are making their own god.

Put another way I heard, if you don't like what Jesus said about homosexuality, marriage, abstinence, or any other thing, don't call yourself a Christian. Same thing goes for Jews. If you don't believe the Torah on matters of morals, including homosexuality and other progressive ideologies, don't call yourself Jewish.

Modern Jews are really more areligious than religious only identifying with being Jewish culturally and genetically and not really identifying with orthodox Jewish beliefs. I know as I have family members who consider themselves modern Jews.
 
Not to interrupt you whilst you're on a roll, but he's partially correct.

Orthodox Jews do not support abortion.

Reform Jews do in fact believe in and support abortion rights.

They also support gun control and vote Democrat, so there's that.
That is also like saying Pelosi and Biden are "Catholic" when they basically disagree with most of the teachings of the Catholic church. Just because you say you are something does not make you one...unless you are a leftist...then you can be whatever you identify as regardless of actual science, logic, and all reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
That is also like saying Pelosi and Biden are "Catholic" when they basically disagree with most of the teachings of the Catholic church. Just because you say you are something does not make you one...unless you are a leftist...then you can be whatever you identify as regardless of actual science, logic, and all reason.
Great point. We have RINOS like that. In name only. The Kardashians consider themselves to be devout Christians.
 
Wow, not sure where you got that. Are you Jewish? Pretty sure the Old Testament claims that life begins in the womb according to at least Psalms.

Wow I don't know where you got your idea that idea about the Old Testament.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...es-life-does-not-start-conception/1808776001/
Jews, outraged by restrictive abortion laws, are invoking the Hebrew Bible in the debate
Lindsay Schnell
USA TODAY

"You knit me together in my mother’s womb,” he said, quoting Psalm 139. “You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”

But for many leaders in the Jewish faith, such interpretations are problematic and even insulting.

“It makes me apoplectic,” says Danya Ruttenberg, a Chicago-based rabbi who has written about Jews' interpretation of abortion. “Most of the proof texts that they’re bringing in for this are ridiculous. They’re using my sacred text to justify taking away my rights in a way that is just so calculated and craven.”

Across the country, as a wave of anti-abortion legislation reinvigorates the fight over reproductive rights, Jewish religious leaders, activists and women are speaking out in favor of a woman's right to choose, buoyed by their faith.

It’s not just that the U.S. shouldn’t be deriving law from poetic language, Ruttenberg said. It’s that the Jewish tradition has a distinctly different reading of the same texts. While conservative Christians use the Bible to argue that a fetus represents a human life, which makes abortion murder, Jews don’t believe that fetuses have souls and, therefore, terminating a pregnancy is no crime.

While some Orthodox rabbis have denounced abortion, within Jewish communities there’s considerable support for keeping it legal. Studies from the Pew Research Center show that Jews overwhelmingly (83%) support abortion rights. The National Council of Jewish Women, a 126-year-old organization that helped establish some of the first birth control clinics across the country, considers reproductive rights a cornerstone issue and has publicly condemned the strict abortion bans recently handed down in Alabama and Mississippi.


https://theconversation.com/when-does-life-begin-theres-more-than-one-religious-view-167241
When does life begin? There’s more than one religious view
Published: September 7, 2021 8.53am EDT

Traditional Jewish practice is based on careful reading of biblical and rabbinic teachings. The process yields “halakha,” generally translated as “Jewish law” but deriving from the Hebrew root for walking a path.

Even though many Jews do not feel bound by halakha, the value it attaches to ongoing study and reasoned argument fundamentally shapes Jewish thought.

The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.

Although the Hebrew Bible does not mention abortion, it does talk about miscarriage in Exodus 21:22-25. It imagines the case of men fighting, injuring a pregnant woman in the process. If she miscarries but suffers no additional injury, the penalty is a fine.

Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status.



What I have always said is that religion should not be used as a basis for any law in the United States. However, the article you cited and this post basically was using religion as a basis for arguing that abortion should be allowed. What happened to the liberal mantra of keep your religion out of my life?

I thought conservatives were all about "religious freedom" hence the reference to the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, which among other things protects against laws that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” in the first article cited


The government has the right to declare what constitutes life and, more specifically, what constitutes protected life. Just because someone is alive does not mean their life is necessarily absolutely protected. See capital punishment, self-defense, war...etc. What I was saying is that different religions treat life very differently. Therefore, we would all do well to have the argument based on what life we as a society deem necessary to protect, not what a particular religion says about it. We are not a theocracy.

Most public polling is in support of legalized abortion


As such, the government has the absolute ability to conclude that life begins in the womb if it so chooses. What other source would you believe better able to make such a determination?

The American people who for more than 50 years has said viability starts later in pregnancy?

So when is that "settled" or should continuously revisit it in court until you get the outcome you want?
 
Great point. We have RINOS like that. In name only. The Kardashians consider themselves to be devout Christians.
That is what James was thinking, I believe, when he stated: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says...Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:22, 27
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
That is what James was thinking, I believe, when he stated: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says...Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:22, 27
We can never serve two masters and it certainly seems that many place themselves ahead of God.
 
Wow I don't know where you got your idea that idea about the Old Testament.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...es-life-does-not-start-conception/1808776001/
Jews, outraged by restrictive abortion laws, are invoking the Hebrew Bible in the debate
Lindsay Schnell
USA TODAY

"You knit me together in my mother’s womb,” he said, quoting Psalm 139. “You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”

But for many leaders in the Jewish faith, such interpretations are problematic and even insulting.

“It makes me apoplectic,” says Danya Ruttenberg, a Chicago-based rabbi who has written about Jews' interpretation of abortion. “Most of the proof texts that they’re bringing in for this are ridiculous. They’re using my sacred text to justify taking away my rights in a way that is just so calculated and craven.”

Across the country, as a wave of anti-abortion legislation reinvigorates the fight over reproductive rights, Jewish religious leaders, activists and women are speaking out in favor of a woman's right to choose, buoyed by their faith.

It’s not just that the U.S. shouldn’t be deriving law from poetic language, Ruttenberg said. It’s that the Jewish tradition has a distinctly different reading of the same texts. While conservative Christians use the Bible to argue that a fetus represents a human life, which makes abortion murder, Jews don’t believe that fetuses have souls and, therefore, terminating a pregnancy is no crime.

While some Orthodox rabbis have denounced abortion, within Jewish communities there’s considerable support for keeping it legal. Studies from the Pew Research Center show that Jews overwhelmingly (83%) support abortion rights. The National Council of Jewish Women, a 126-year-old organization that helped establish some of the first birth control clinics across the country, considers reproductive rights a cornerstone issue and has publicly condemned the strict abortion bans recently handed down in Alabama and Mississippi.


https://theconversation.com/when-does-life-begin-theres-more-than-one-religious-view-167241
When does life begin? There’s more than one religious view
Published: September 7, 2021 8.53am EDT

Traditional Jewish practice is based on careful reading of biblical and rabbinic teachings. The process yields “halakha,” generally translated as “Jewish law” but deriving from the Hebrew root for walking a path.

Even though many Jews do not feel bound by halakha, the value it attaches to ongoing study and reasoned argument fundamentally shapes Jewish thought.

The majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.

Although the Hebrew Bible does not mention abortion, it does talk about miscarriage in Exodus 21:22-25. It imagines the case of men fighting, injuring a pregnant woman in the process. If she miscarries but suffers no additional injury, the penalty is a fine.

Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status.





I thought conservatives were all about "religious freedom" hence the reference to the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, which among other things protects against laws that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” in the first article cited




Most public polling is in support of legalized abortion




The American people who for more than 50 years has said viability starts later in pregnancy?

So when is that "settled" or should continuously revisit it in court until you get the outcome you want?
Ok, I will try again. Just because a Jewish rabbi or person who says they are Jewish say they are in favor of abortion does not make it align with the Bible and traditional beliefs. That is like saying that just because some "Christian" pastors believe in gay marriage and that there is no hell, despite clear passages in the Bible, opens it up for debate. Those people are making up their own religions by borrowing bits and pieces. You cannot do that. Either you believe all of it or you don't believe any of it. You cannot pick and choose and then still call yourself a believer of that particular faith.

Conservatives do believe in religious freedom. You can practice whatever religion you want. However, you do not have the right to use your religion to take away or infringe on the established rights of others. And before you say that abortion was an established right, no it was not. It was a dreamed up right from negative space in the Constitution which even RBG understood and stated was wrong.

You make a claim about most people being in favor of abortion, but you have to look at the actual polls. I agree most people would be in favor of abortion in three cases: health of the mother (potential death not just inconvenience) rape, or incest. Since all three of these things account for less than 5% on abortions on a good day, they are outliers and not really even worth mentioning in the broader question of abortion.

You don keep revisiting things in court to get a certain outcome. That is what leftists do. You enact legislation through the proper channels. Had abortion advocates done this, then abortion would have been properly decided, regardless of what I believe to be morally right. I think it is immoral for people to engage in plenty of things the government says is legal.

Again, what is so wrong with allowing the people of each state to determine what constitutes life and protected life? Would you make this same argument about slavery? A similar misreading of the Bible gave us the asinine position that the Bible condoned chattel slavery. (Slaves obey your masters) Slavery was an established "right" of white people for hundreds of years. Was that "settled" law which should not be overturned or was it immoral? Be careful how you argue and from what basis...it can be easily turned back on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Curmudgeon
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT