The 1NS modification of the US Constitution is clear – enforced adherence to every religious edict is not allowed, but no sane person expects religious fanatics or Republicans to abide by the Constitution. This week the religious fanatics have the Supreme Court demonstrated in a great way that they are not obeying the Constitution or the judiciary legal precedent.
The Texan Law of the Religious Advocates at the height Let the dish stand forbids all abortions, including rape and incest, after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, what allegedly about six weeks before many women even know they are pregnant.
However, it's strange that it's about six weeks appears It is impossible to detect a "fetal" heartbeat. Because after for medical science there is no fetus after six weeks. There may be an embryo, but a fetus starts after about 8NS week after the formation of a unicellular zygote – not the sixth.
It is remarkable mention the this restrictive religious Law hhow no social value. It is religious in nature to serve the whims of religious control freaks and it is based on a 1968 Roman Catholic religious Edict and Papal-fabricated construct. Incidentally, a construct without a foundation What ever in the so-called "Holy Bible" of the Evangelical.
it is worth noting that the religious law and Roman Catholic God's immutable words say it is there “Not a living being” until the fetus leaves the uterus and breathesit the “breath of life” on your own.
the Texas religious Law is a Abomination because of it grants some religious fanaticthe state sanctioned Vigilante authority sue someone suspected of assisting a woman with an abortion; whether it's a doctor, nurse, family member, or Uber Dr. actsiver who drove the woman to the clinic. And to make it profitable the faithful to the law awards at least $ 10,000 in the bounty to the vigilante groups who are successfully in civil court.
It is also an abomination the the $ 10,000 Bounties are not paid by the state or the religious fanatics who curtail that of a woman personal medical to the right; It is paid by whoever the religious vigilante group Allegations is "Suspicious" of the assistanceng a woman a constitutionally protected one and legal medical procedure.
the crawls in Texas speno little time and effort involved in creating the law extremely difficult challenge; primarily because it it's not clear who can be sued there authorized Private religious Vigilante groups to enforce it and collect $ 10,000 or more in bounties.
Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed from the decision of the religious majority To write:
"the [Texas] The legislature imposed an abortion ban after about six weeks and then essentially delegated the enforcement of this ban to the population. The desired consequence seems to be to decouple the state from the responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of the regulatory regime,
I would grant temporary legal protection in order to maintain the status quo ante – before the law comes into force – so that the courts can examine whether a state can evade responsibility for its laws in such a way that
TThe consequences of the approval of state action, both in the present case and as a model for action in other areas, recommend at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program developed by the state takes effect.
We are also asked to do this without an ordinary briefing on merits and without a verbal discussion. These questions are particularly difficult. "
Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote:
"The majority of the judges have chosen to bury their heads in the sand.
Since the court's inaction rewards tactics aimed at avoiding judicial review and does significant harm to the applicants and women in Texas, I disagree. [The] The law is clearly unconstitutional under the existing precedents.
In fact, the Texas legislature has named the citizens of the state bounty hunters and offered them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical practices.
Today the court is finally telling the nation that it refused to act because the state's move, in short, worked. … It cannot be that a state can evade federal judicial control bythe enforcement of unconstitutional laws against its citizens. "
Of course, these different arguments are valid and the faithfully on the court to know that this is the case. As for the constitutionality of the abominable law that Aspect not mentioned by those who think differently is that's it, in fact a religious foundation; and a Violation of the 14thNS Modification.
The legislation serves no useful purpose. All it does is authorizeing relhonorable fanatics state power to punish and profit from them long dreamed of lust to force observance their religious beliefs on the Rest of the population. and it interferes with what Republicans call "individual freedom" to make their own medical decisionS.
Ted Cruz, a Republican Senator from Texas and in-the-wool pro-life advocate stateD. less than a month ago:
"In America, we give people the freedom to make choices about their own health, even if we don't approve of the choices. I believe in individual freedom. I believe in personal responsibility. I think you should have the choice of making your own medical decisions with your doctor. "
Other republicans Politicians have expressed the same feeling that medical decisions are strictrsonal – except for women; and there is the violation of the lawtests the 14thNS Modification. It clearly states that
"No state may enact or enforce laws that limit the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor may a state deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process; deny the same protection of the law to any person in their jurisdiction.”
In fact, the Texan religious law robs women their freedom and the privilege make their own medical decisions, and it robs healthcare professionals Property by forcing them to pay a bounty to religious vigilantes when they sue them in civil court. Plus met denies women the same protection of the law that it naturally grants to people.
No doubt there will be a great struggle for this Texan religious law. What seems pretty sure is that the religious Fanatics in the High Court allowed it set a precedent to the other republican states follow granting that there is a clever way to restrict a woman's right to vote without judicial review.
It's time for that Smart stop legal maneuvers and for women's rights advocates to target the source of this barbarism Control measures – religion in the sense of the extremist and fanatical religious right.
As mentioned earlier in this article, The US Constitution forbids forced adherence to any religion. TThere isn't a soul in America here that doesn't know that this Texan law is established and driven by religionwe fanatics and that it does not serve any social good. What it does is rob Women of their basic human right to control their own bodies, and creates a class of religious vigilante group enjoy that now the full support of Republicans in Texas, evangelical extremists, and now the Supreme Court.
Sound engineer and trainer for SAE. Writes op / ed comments that support secular humanist causes and expose the oppression of women, the poor, and minorities. An advocate of religious freedom and especially religious freedom.
Born in the South, raised in the Midwest and California to get a comprehensive look at America; it does not look good.
Former clergyman, lifelong musician, Mahayana Zen Buddhist.