Kansas governer signs one of countries harshest anti-abortion laws.

            Kansas Governer Sam Brownback signed a bill that declared life starts at fertilization, blocks tax breaks for abortion providers and bans abortions performed solely because of the baby’s sex. The House voted 90-30 for the bill and hours later the Senate voted 28-10 in favor of it. This of course is in direct violation of Roe vs. Wade and the Supreme Court ruling that abortion is ok until the fetus reaches viability, which us 23-25 weeks.

                The bill passed despite the lack of reliable data on the amount of sex selection abortions performed. In 2008 2 Columbia University economists did a study that suggested aborting female fetuses,  which is relatively normal in some countries where parents prefer males, is being done on a limited basis in the U.S. Pro-choice proponents say that there is not any evidence of such procedures in Kansas. Pro-life supporters believe it is a growing problem that is exacerbated by the sophistication of prenatal resting.

               This bill also requires doctors to tell women about the disputed link between abortion and breast cancer. Which again shows that the anti-abortion stance of the Republican party is a bit of a witch hunt. It again shows their disdain for the Constitution and the 1st Amendment. There is nit supposed to be an establishment of religion, therefore a lawmaker cannot force their religious beliefs on anyone at anytime, for any reason. Roe vs. Wade is Federal law and the Constitution stated that Federal law is the law of the land.

             Despite the fact that the legislation is 70 pages long, it apparently doesn’t state everything Governer Brownback wishesto stay on the issue of abortion. Before he signed HB2253 into law, an AP photo reveals that he made a few additions of his own in his notes. He typed a couple of phrases; building a culture of life and all human life is sacred. He ended up using these on his speech to abortion opponents before approving the bill. He also wrote Jesus and Mary at the top of the page.

                 While hardly the first time a politician has used his religious beliefs to justify their anti-abortion stance. It is a relative slap in the face of the historical seperation of church and state. This is because the pro-life movement has branded reproductive freedom as blasphemous to the Christian faith. Catholic lawmakers are often very hostile towards abortion rights.

              But even as the Republican party and the Tea Party use Christianity as the reason for their position, their position is not really reflective of the Christian Coalition in the U.S. Abortion rights aren’t always in sharp opposition to religion. Over 75% of white Protestants, along with 65% of African American Protestants and 63% of Catholics support a womanish Constitutional right to legal abortion services.

              So once again it seems the Republicans and their conservative base are manufacturing an issue to keep focus off of their inability to help the country. Again they work against the majority as if they were dictators. President Obama and Democrats need to stop thus insanely push to control a womanish body and choice or it may lead to something worse. The Republican ignorance of the Constitution borders on treasonous in many different areas. You cannot be a protector if the Constitution if you only believe in enforcing the parts that work for you.

Posted from WordPress for Android

Advertisements

Lochner v. New York

               This one of those post that you get a little more than you expect while writing it. I have heard about it recently and decided to see what it was all about. Being that I am not in law school it never truly crossed my radar. But here is some of what I learned. I hope it clears this up a little or enlightens you as it did me.

               Lochner v. New York is widely viewed as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history. It is taught in law schools along side upholding segregation and permitting Japaneese detention camps. Even Robert Bork, who claimed women werent discriminated against anymore, called it an abomination, that it is the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.

                Lochner fabricated a so called right to contract in order to strike down a New York law preventing bakery owners from overworking bakers. It had implications for any law trying to protect workers. Lochner established that any law that limits any contract between employer and employee is constitutionally suspect. Lochner essentially placed any law benefitting workers on constitutionally weak footing. It also concludes that the Constitution prohibits states from interfering with most employment contracts because the right to buy and sell labor is a fundamental freedom protected by th 14th Amendment. The “right to contact” it invented does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

              The court admitted that while in certain circumstances states may legitimately regulate certain contracts through their police powers. The baking industry, unlike the mining industry, was not an unhealthy trade. Therefore it was not legally subject to regulation.

              For the next 32 years federal courts used Lochner to overturn numerous laws attempting to regulate various aspects of business, employment and property interests. During this period, referred to as the Lochner era, public sentiment strongly supported the idea that government should minimally interfere with the new industrial capatalistic market, an idea known as laissez-faire economics. Following the stock market crash of 1929 FDR began to establish a social and economic reform program based on a series of new federal laws. The court using the Lochner decision consistently overturned the laws much to the dismay of the public and President.

              Finally in 1937 the court embraced Holmes dissent in Lochner. In the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parish in letting stand a Washington law setting a minimum wage for women, the court ruled that freedom to contract was not unlimited. For the rest if the 20th century government was given the freedom to regulate workplace and other economic affairs. So technicall the law was overturned in 1937.

              Rand Paul cited this in his 13 hour filubuster as a wonderful law. This law gave employers the right to treat employees however they wanted. That is not a good way for a leader to look at a law that is widely considered one of the worst in American history. As I read this I started to realize similarities between what happened then and what Republicans are trying to do now. That is scary, I realize conservatism is a means of living in the past, but this is ridiculus. I believe the Constitution is a progressive document as well as us breaking from a world power like England was progressive. Progress moves us forward, that is what the American experiment needs.

Posted from WordPress for Android