The Homa Files

That’s among many head-scratchers…
=============

Listening to pundits on both sides of the abortion issue following the the leaked Supreme Court document, I’ve been struck by a couple of head-scratchers.

Let’s start with…

> “Happy Mother’s Day” … surely, the timing was motivated by politics but, coincidentally, it hit in the week running up to Mother’s Day.

Really?

BTW: To be politically correct, should we be saying “Birthing People’s Day”?

=============

> Women’s Rights … We’re in a new age of gender ambiguity and fluidity … with a SCOTUS appointee saying that one need be a biologist to to define “woman”.

If we can’t pin down “woman”, how there be “women’s rights?”.

Shouldn’t it “people’s rights”?

==============

> “My body, my choice” …. that is, unless you’re talking about vaccine mandates.

Strikes me that many in the pro-choice contingent were among the most ardent supporters of vax mandates.

Hmm

=============

> “An unborn child” … In his extemporaneous reaction to the leaked document, President Biden remarked about decisions “to abort a child”.

Oops.

The media is just playing the comment to be another case of Biden’s sloppy tongue (and thinking).

Apparently, they forget that in 2016, addressing the abortion issue, Hillary Clinton declared that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights” — like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of justice. Source: NYT

Did she say “person’?

I see a pattern here…

==============

> “Rule of Law” … When protesters breached the Congressional Halls on January 6, it was broadly and understandably condemned by most people as violating the Constitution and “rule of law”

But, when a leaker violates the SCOTUS process — trying to “motivate the base” and intimidate  Justices before a final vote — it’s a case of ends justifying means.

Situational ethics?

============

> Misinformation… For the past week, the chatter has been about the need for a Federal “Misinformation Panel”.

Hmm.

The leaked SCOTUS opinion draft clearly states that the proposed ruling does not “make abortion illegal”. It simply relegates abortion decisions to the states.

And, it makes clear that abortion is fundamentally unique issue in that  “abortion destroys . . . potential life”.

So what?

Other issues — such as the right to interracial marriage, the right to obtain contraceptives, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage — do not “involve the critical moral question posed by abortion.”

Therefore, the draft abortion ruling would not apply to or set precedent for the other flashpoint issues.  Source

Of course, that hasn’t stopped Pelosi, Schumer, et. al., from hitting the air waves bellowing that the proposed ruling would jeopardize those other issues.

Misinformation?

============

I could go on, but this is making me dizzy…

This entry was posted on May 4, 2022 at 10:30 am and is filed under Abortion, SCOTUS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.