And it will be the women without the means to travel to another state that will be forced to carry their babies to term, so the residents of that particular state will end up footing the bill. Such an expensive proposition just to enforce a political point, but then our politics these days overwhelmingly have nothing to do with the interest of the "people".
Just trying to get the post back on track... Abortion: Roe vs Wade
But what is the moral? If we tolerate such threatening behavior, such a violation of the privacy of others, what will follow? Anyone who considers how it would feel to have an angry mob in front of his/her home knows the intent is intimidation. Our homes and private lives should not be violated.
I wonder how many people opposing abortions realize that may interfere with people's sex lives. The "moral" is not just a matter of religious attitudes but sex leads to pregnancy and if one does not want a child, abstinence is the moral choice.Political point.
I am quite sure there would be no Roe versus Wade argument if it were not for the religious drive and churches becoming political. And the thinking stops at being sure babies are not aborted. The well-being of the child after that is not taken into consideration, so there is no cost to consider. That is why people are fighting for abortions. They are the ones who really care about the lives these children will have.
If any of these pickets are arrested they can certainly try the rage defense in court. The hope of influencing a judges decision never even crossed their minds. Huh? Good luck with that.
From a quote by Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at Georgetown:
I have doubts that will happen, as the justices in question have a personal ax to grind re: Roe and so convinced are they of their righteousness they don't give a damn what the majority of citizens want. They have agendas.
That definitely would have been their best course of action, but they were appointed specifically to NOT leave it alone. They were chosen because of their views denying the Constitutional protections for abortion, and now they're doing what they were put on the court to do, regardless of public opinion or scientific consensus.
Young people expressing their feelings? Are you kidding? As a college student I was very familiar with the scent of tear gas in the air and in my eyes. As a poster aficionado I collected protest posters of the 50's and 60's and a few years ago contributed them to a college library.
I agree that judges and jurors for trials involving statutory law shouldn't be harassed, but SCOTUS justices are different animals; they're deciding Constitutional law. And when they have extreme biases that affect their decisions and pervert the original intent when the Constitution was amended throughout the years, people have an obligation to protest. Loyalty to our country means being loyal to the Constitution — not to the church.
I am not religious and am perfectly OK with Roe v Wade as it stands, but I am a strong believer in the SC and the independence of its judges. Any decision of the Court will always have those who disagree, but disagreement is not a license to issue death threats and parade in front of the homes of judges. We need to respect the law, and those who disagree with a new (but yet to happen) decision on Roe V Wade need to calm down and work to amend the Constitution. Mob rule is not the way our democracy works, nor should it ever be the way.
Decor? Never had a protest poster on the wall. I swiped them on weekends to preserve what I believed was an interesting slice of 50s and 60s history. The library I donated them to was glad to get them.
