Tag Archives: rights

Dehumanizing Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Florida has a law (HB5, Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act) banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Florida’s Governor DeSantis (R) has characterized the law as

protect[ing] babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have sued, claiming that the ban violates the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution, Art I, Sect 23, grants a right of privacy to every natural person. The only part of the Florida Constitution that directly addresses abortion is Art X, Sect 22, which authorizes the State’s legislature to enact laws requiring notification of a minor’s parent or guardian prior to termination of the minor’s pregnancy.

Whitney White, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project:

…we are dismayed that it has allowed this dangerous ban to remain in effect and to harm real people each and every day until this case is finally decided[.]

The State’s district-level judge, Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper, siding with PP and the ACLU in issuing an injunction barring enforcement, wrote in part that (as cited by Fox News)

the Florida Constitution contains an explicit “right to privacy” that is “much broader in scope” than any privacy right under the United States Constitution. He further ruled that a 15-week cutoff for abortions is not supported by sufficient state interest.

Florida appealed the judge’s ruling and got the injunction lifted; the matter now is before the State’s Supreme Court.

It’s important to note that, both the ACLU’s and Cooper’s arguments can have legitimacy only by denying that unborn babies—especially after those 15 weeks—are not “real people,” are not natural persons. The only way in which the law’s abortion cutoff time is unsupported by sufficient State interest is by denying that unborn babies are not natural persons. After all, a core responsibility—a core duty—of the State government is to see to the safety and welfare of every “real” natural person in the State.

This is Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and a Florida judge shamefully denying babies’ personhood, shamefully dehumanizing babies, just because they’re unborn.

Proud Censorship, and Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois’ law banning even the possession of semiautomatic weapons took effect last Tuesday, when the Progressive-Democrat governor, JB Pritzker, signed the bill after the Illinois House passed what the State’s Senate had handed over.

Aside from the plain unconstitutionality of the law, though, what especially drew my attention is this statement from Pritzker:

We will keep fighting—bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest—to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks[.]

No one is to be allowed access to, Illinois’ children are to be denied, information regarding firearms other than what the Progressive-Democratic Party that rules Illinois approves.

Pritzker openly brags about that denial of speech.

Related is this position by Edwards County, IL, Sheriff Darby Boewe:

Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.

Boewe is absolutely correct on the matter except for the narrowness of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What that Amendment says, in full, is this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to be able to mount an effective Militia, each of us American citizens must be able to be individually armed and facile with our individually owned weapons. Government is not permitted to limit the weapons any of us can possess and keep with us wherever we might go (especially if we’re needed for a Militia and its suite of weapons), nor is Government permitted to dictate to any of us our purpose in the possessing and carrying—that Militia is only one such purpose. Defense of life, liberty and property is only one such purpose. Shall not be infringed is much broader.

Go Figure

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican-led House of Representatives is setting up a select committee to investigate Biden administration pressure on and collusion with (yes, both) Big Tech to suppress or outright censor speech of which Biden-ites disapproved, a suppression/censorship that primarily affected Republicans and Conservatives.

President Joe Biden (D) demurs.

“House Republicans continue to focus on launching partisan political stunts,” said spokesman Ian Sams, “instead of joining the president to tackle the issues the American people care about most like inflation.”

Yet when the Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen “investigated” the Trump administration and former President Donald Trump (R) himself throughout his four years in office, that was all on the up-and-up.

Go figure.

More Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Meta, the owner of Facebook, is expanding its censorship practice.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, said Monday that they will be taking down posts that support the raids of Brazilian government buildings by supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

And it was preplanned:

“In advance of the election, we designated Brazil as a temporary high-risk location and have been removing content calling for people to take up arms or forcibly invade Congress, the Presidential palace and other federal buildings,” a spokesperson for Meta said in a statement reported by Reuters.
“We are also designating this as a violating event, which means we will remove content that supports or praises these actions,” the statement continued. “We are actively following the situation and will continue removing content that violates our policies.

All because Mark Zuckerberg disapproves of opinions different from his own. And he’s proud of his censorship.

The correct answer to distasteful, even despicable, rhetoric—Facebook posts or otherwise—is answering rhetoric that makes the differing case. Merely censoring, deleting, canceling rhetoric is either laziness or cowardice. Or both.

The Federal Judge is Right

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia has upheld West Virginia’s law barring transgender student athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, even from playing on girls’ and women’s teams. Goodwin

found that West Virginia’s definition of “biological sex” for school sports is “substantially related to its important interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.”

Goodwin further ruled that

the law was designed to “prevent transgender girls from playing on girl’s sports teams,” but said this was legally permissible if there was a substantial government interest in doing so.

The State’s government most assuredly has that interest. After all, as Goodwin also wrote,

While some females may be able to outperform some males, it is generally accepted that, on average, males outperform females athletically because of inherent physical differences between the sexes. This is not an overbroad generalization, but rather a general principle that realistically reflects the average physical differences between the sexes.
…there is much debate over whether and to what extent hormone therapies after puberty can reduce a transgender girl’s athletic advantage over cisgender girls. …
The fact is, however, that a transgender girl is biologically male and, barring medical intervention, would undergo male puberty like other biological males. And biological males generally outperform females athletically. The state is permitted to legislate sports rules on this basis because sex, and the physical characteristics that flow from it, are substantially related to athletic performance and fairness in sports[.]

Biological men—which is what they are, from the bottom of their DNA and XY chromosomes on up through their stronger muscles and larger bones (which actually began their development differing from women development in the womb)—regardless of how they might self-identify or how much hormone therapy or gender surgery they might have gone through, have no business competing against women in sports. That denies the women contestants their own opportunities for recognition and financial aid.

Sports, too, are the path out of poverty-ridden neighborhoods for girls and young women just as it is for lots of young men; this path would be denied them by transgendered men competing against them.

Biological men, however transgendered, by competing against women in sports erases women, their very womanhood, in sports.

There is a Title IX case, using the transgendereds’ logic that the law’s specification of sex is broader than biology, for sports programs to create Transgender Athletic Associations/Conferences/Leagues for transgender athletes to compete in. They should make that case. Better, though, would be for Congress to update Title IX to the current state of medical technology and mandate explicitly transgender athletic programs.

Goodwin’s ruling can be read here.