via Bitch, PhD (that'd be Dr. Bitch to you W).
The defense for preventing people from engaging in a constitutionally protected activity: they're not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection, they're engaged in a conspiracy to deprive pregnant people of equal protection. Oh just think of the possibilities of this precedent:
have babies so our members can molest them Rescue also tries to prevent non-pregnant women from obtaining routine GYN care and contraception via these clinics during their protests, the misogynistic and racist organization has expanded to protesting in front of various houses of worship of religions they don't like too.
That's one slippery slope the future justice created there - just think of what can be done with legalized targeted sub-group discrimination: I'm not conspiring against all Christians, just [insert favorite denomination or umbrella group denomation] and I can not be penalized for preventing you from engaging in your constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Or is that the plan: to use Roberts argument to prevent any non-Christians and members of denominations not sanctioned as Christian by Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/James Dobson from practicing their religion - I'll be singing some Alanis when the fundies use his own argument against his [Catholic] denomination.
Roberts will be confirmed and probably quickly (he is, sadly, the least of the evils on W's short list). We need to focus on the BushCo Trilogy of Treason & DSM in order to do some constitutional damage control (the goal of taking as many seats in the mid-term elections and, if possible, impeaching Bush).
The defense for preventing people from engaging in a constitutionally protected activity: they're not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection, they're engaged in a conspiracy to deprive pregnant people of equal protection. Oh just think of the possibilities of this precedent:
In a second abortion-related case, Roberts co-authored the government’s amicus brief in a private suit brought against Operation Rescue by an abortion clinic it had targeted. The brief argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection. Roberts took this position in spite of Operation Rescue’s admission that its goal was to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to shut down the clinic during its protests. Although the government’s brief acknowledged that only women could become pregnant, it argued that conspiring to prevent people from seeking constitutionally-protected abortions did not constitute gender discrimination. It asserted that, at worst, Operation Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not women."Aside from the fact that Operation
That's one slippery slope the future justice created there - just think of what can be done with legalized targeted sub-group discrimination: I'm not conspiring against all Christians, just [insert favorite denomination or umbrella group denomation] and I can not be penalized for preventing you from engaging in your constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Or is that the plan: to use Roberts argument to prevent any non-Christians and members of denominations not sanctioned as Christian by Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/James Dobson from practicing their religion - I'll be singing some Alanis when the fundies use his own argument against his [Catholic] denomination.
Roberts will be confirmed and probably quickly (he is, sadly, the least of the evils on W's short list). We need to focus on the BushCo Trilogy of Treason & DSM in order to do some constitutional damage control (the goal of taking as many seats in the mid-term elections and, if possible, impeaching Bush).
Tags: Supreme Court; Politics; Religion; civil rights; abortion; reproductive rights; health care; pro-life/"Pro life"; Pro-Choice; religious freedom/freedom of expression Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment