State laws banning or limiting abortion - what to do about the federal courts?

[Xavier]

Over the last 6 years or so, there have been some positive developments on the state level, but Obama and some of his cronies on the federal courts keep pushing them back.

Mississipi is on course to implement a 15 week abortion ban.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/377031-mississippi-senate-approves-nations-earliest-abortion-ban-after-15-weeks Iowa has a 6 week heartbeat bill. South Carolina something like a personhood at conception act. All these would represent progress, but the courts so far have not allowed any ban before 20 weeks. It's a shame because many babies' lives would have already been saved in many states if not for the wretched interference of these liberals in the courts.

What's the best way to stop them and get a serious pro-life bill passed?

[Tales]

I think the March for Life should stop marching and just institute a nation-wide strike next year instead of a march.  Just tell everyone who would march to strike, for religious reasons, until Congress bans abortion federally.  Give Congress a year's advance notice, let them know that the Christians aren't going to show up to work indefinitely starting on X date one year out until abortion is banned.

Pre-organize shaming lists to shame all corporations that threaten their employees who have pre-informed them that they will be striking.

Money talks.

[dolores]

I think the March for Life should stop marching and just institute a nation-wide strike next year instead of a march.  Just tell everyone who would march to strike, for religious reasons, until Congress bans abortion federally.  Give Congress a year's advance notice, let them know that the Christians aren't going to show up to work indefinitely starting on X date one year out until abortion is banned.

Pre-organize shaming lists to shame all corporations that threaten their employees who have pre-informed them that they will be striking.

Money talks.

Congress isn't the problem (at least in the area of abortion).  As Xavier pointed out, whether a law is passed at the state or federal level limiting or banning abortion doesn't matter; the federal courts will strike it down.  And it's not really the fault of federal judges who sit on the lower courts as they are required to follow Roe v. Wade.  The only way to meaningfully restrict abortion would be to get a clear majority on the Supreme Court in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

[Innocent Smith]

Here's what everyone needs to understand. The Supreme Court was created, at its inception, as the branch of government to do the bidding of the oligarchs when democracy veers into areas and tries to form policy that they do not like. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there 5 Catholics, aka as a majority, sitting on that bench for the greater part of the last 20 years? What's wrong with these lifetime appointees?

The only way you are going to change the laws on abortion, or other libertine tragedies, is to take down the oligarchs.

But all judges actions are basically orders from above. And it would be a mistake to call them liberals. The bosses are a blend of crony capitalists and hardcore communists who live life as masters of the universe and want to place the rest of us in hyper-centralized communist hell.

You want to end abortion? You will need to abolish usury first. Then you will have to encourage a system where labor is valued as the source of all wealth.

Either way, try not to get trapped in the liberal/conservative paradigm. Because it is nothing other than a limited hangout.

[MilesChristi]

Technically speaking, the States should just pass the laws and dare the feds to intervene.

California is doing that for immigration.

[Heinrich]

Over the last 6 years or so, there have been some positive developments on the state level, but Obama and some of his cronies on the federal courts keep pushing them back.

Mississipi is on course to implement a 15 week abortion ban.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/377031-mississippi-senate-approves-nations-earliest-abortion-ban-after-15-weeks Iowa has a 6 week heartbeat bill. South Carolina something like a personhood at conception act. All these would represent progress, but the courts so far have not allowed any ban before 20 weeks. It's a shame because many babies' lives would have already been saved in many states if not for the wretched interference of these liberals in the courts.

What's the best way to stop them and get a serious pro-life bill passed?

Why do you think they want to ban guns?

[Tales]

I think the March for Life should stop marching and just institute a nation-wide strike next year instead of a march.  Just tell everyone who would march to strike, for religious reasons, until Congress bans abortion federally.  Give Congress a year's advance notice, let them know that the Christians aren't going to show up to work indefinitely starting on X date one year out until abortion is banned.

Pre-organize shaming lists to shame all corporations that threaten their employees who have pre-informed them that they will be striking.

Money talks.

Congress isn't the problem (at least in the area of abortion).  As Xavier pointed out, whether a law is passed at the state or federal level limiting or banning abortion doesn't matter; the federal courts will strike it down.  And it's not really the fault of federal judges who sit on the lower courts as they are required to follow Roe v. Wade.  The only way to meaningfully restrict abortion would be to get a clear majority on the Supreme Court in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Congress can amend the Constitution.  Also the SCOTUS is not a group of judges that magically is impartially above this all.  As Mr. Smith below indicated, they are as influenced as anyone else.  If the nation starts striking indefinitely till abortion is banned across the land, you'd see all levels of the government coming around (or putting out paramilitary to force the "citizens" back into the salt mines).

And again as Mr. Smith noted, the Catholics have had a dominant lock on the SCOTUS for ages now, nothing happened.  We had GOP house, executive and Catholic SCOTUS, nothing happened.  It doesn't happen because the oligarchs like it this way.  They like the marches that go on year after year, giving glimmers of hope, while the oligarchs sit back and do nothing other than flap a few lips in a few speeches.  Nothing gets done.  America is an allegedly Christian nation and yet we somehow cannot protect babies from being murdered by their parents.

[dolores]

Congress can amend the Constitution.

2/3 of each house of Congress can initiate the amendment process, but it cannot amended the constitution on its own.  Any proposed amendment would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.  I guarantee you neither of those super-majorities exist within the existing political framework to ban abortion.

Also the SCOTUS is not a group of judges that magically is impartially above this all.  As Mr. Smith below indicated, they are as influenced as anyone else.  If the nation starts striking indefinitely till abortion is banned across the land, you'd see all levels of the government coming around (or putting out paramilitary to force the "citizens" back into the salt mines).

Perhaps. 

And again as Mr. Smith noted, the Catholics have had a dominant lock on the SCOTUS for ages now, nothing happened.

That's somewhat misleading.  There's been a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court since 2006, but at least two of those Catholics have been public about their support for abortion.  So they call themselves Catholic, but are not truly so.  With this in mind, there has been, at most, four true Catholics at the court at any given time.

We had GOP house, executive and Catholic SCOTUS, nothing happened.  It doesn't happen because the oligarchs like it this way.  They like the marches that go on year after year, giving glimmers of hope, while the oligarchs sit back and do nothing other than flap a few lips in a few speeches.  Nothing gets done.  America is an allegedly Christian nation and yet we somehow cannot protect babies from being murdered by their parents.

As I've said, until there is a solid Pro-Life majority on SCOTUS (not just those allegedly calling themselves Catholic) the President and Congress can do scarcely little to end abortion.  Perhaps the public can change things through mass strikes like you suggested, but I doubt you're ever going to get sufficient people to do much beyond a once-a-year march.  You can call me defeatist, but it is reality.

Also, I suggest you abandon your delusion of the US being a "Christian nation."  If it was ever that, it hasn't been so for a long time.

[Kirin]

Remove religion from the pro-life movement.

By all means believe what you wish and use that as your motivation for choosing a side, but the link to organized religion is itself toxic and totally counterproductive to any efforts in this area.

The pro-life (I think pro-birth is more accurate, another argument for another time) movement in every state today is inexorably directly led by religious conviction as the lead motivator against abortion, the very language of personhood itself is very Catholic, and that alone will send alarm bells ringing for many people.

There are many "nones", agnostics, pagans, Atheists and other groups who are more divided on these issues than you would expect from the most loud examples of them. However, almost all of them will not support pro-life efforts so long as they are led by religious apostolates. Take Ireland for instance with their upcoming vote, it's expected to pass despite most of the population agree on abortion is a negative thing. Some may view it as a necessary evil, but in a country, with a long history of being tyrannized by a corrupt theocratic government for the greater part of sixty years the very idea of ceding any aspect of law to a religious party is deeply unsettling. It's not so prevalent in the US, though the Bible Belt often creates a lesser though similar impression on the minds of the non-devout.

While it may seem unfair to draw a comparison, 9/11 changed everything for many non-believers and lukewarm. Religion is not to many a thing that makes men good, or even just a neutral thing; it's a dormant monster that can at any moment for the slightest reason turn to violence and genocide, after all; how can you reason with people who think God favours them above all others and who follow arbitrary dictates without reason or consideration? This may seem unfair, but this is very often how the majority of European and the American population view it.

The pro-life movement is doomed so long as it continues to be presented as a crusade or a work of religion, now if it could actually present itself as a secular movement, it won't lead to the abolition of abortion I don't think, the time for that has passed, but it most certainly could see the deadline for them brought closer to conception which is something.

[Irishcyclist]

Remove religion from the pro-life movement.

By all means believe what you wish and use that as your motivation for choosing a side, but the link to organized religion is itself toxic and totally counterproductive to any efforts in this area.

The pro-life (I think pro-birth is more accurate, another argument for another time) movement in every state today is inexorably directly led by religious conviction as the lead motivator against abortion, the very language of personhood itself is very Catholic, and that alone will send alarm bells ringing for many people.

There are many "nones", agnostics, pagans, Atheists and other groups who are more divided on these issues than you would expect from the most loud examples of them. However, almost all of them will not support pro-life efforts so long as they are led by religious apostolates. Take Ireland for instance with their upcoming vote, it's expected to pass despite most of the population agree on abortion is a negative thing. Some may view it as a necessary evil, but in a country, with a long history of being tyrannized by a corrupt theocratic government for the greater part of sixty years the very idea of ceding any aspect of law to a religious party is deeply unsettling. It's not so prevalent in the US, though the Bible Belt often creates a lesser though similar impression on the minds of the non-devout.

While it may seem unfair to draw a comparison, 9/11 changed everything for many non-believers and lukewarm. Religion is not to many a thing that makes men good, or even just a neutral thing; it's a dormant monster that can at any moment for the slightest reason turn to violence and genocide, after all; how can you reason with people who think God favours them above all others and who follow arbitrary dictates without reason or consideration? This may seem unfair, but this is very often how the majority of European and the American population view it.

The pro-life movement is doomed so long as it continues to be presented as a crusade or a work of religion, now if it could actually present itself as a secular movement, it won't lead to the abolition of abortion I don't think, the time for that has passed, but it most certainly could see the deadline for them brought closer to conception which is something.

More b/s.

Secular movements have no interest in confronting the sin that is abortion. Abortion is a sin, end of.

You're not catholic anyhow. I don't know why your presence on this site is indulged. You add nothing of value to this site.

[Kirin]

More b/s.

Secular movements have no interest in confronting the sin that is abortion. Abortion is a sin, end of.

On the contrary.

Let me provide you with a direct example, as someone who while does not participate in the pro-life movement does share the sentiment that abortion laws are too lenient. During the previous election here, there was an independent Muslim candidate who was also an avid supporter of the pro-life movement. Initially I alongside several members of "Atheists for life" I know of (I am not a member however) looked upon this very positively. 

While we didn't share this mans Islamic faith, we could have endorsed his view that abortion laws were too lenient. However, upon learning of other aspects of his platform (sexual health clinics that cannot offer abortion services here need to be shut down because STD's are the judgement of Allah, free nursery provision should not be available because a woman who allows non family members to care for her infant commits a sin of sloth) we obviously couldn't do so. We ended up voting for a center-right candidate instead because while we didn't agree with her opinions on austerity etc, she had no interest in lobbying for the enforcement of Anglican dogmas as law and could provide reasoning for her stances.

Had that Muslim kept his opinion on sin to the side, he would have gotten more votes because his non-theological positions held high appeal in the area, prior to explaining his pro-life anti-childcare stance he was the front runner. 

I could support the pro-life movement more if it was purely to alter legislation pertaining to abortion. Sadly it never is and always comes loaded with other goals such as mandatory worship in schools, anti-same-sex marriage etc. If it was by itself without being promoted as a theological doctrine, it would draw more supporters.

I don't agree with how abortion is currently viewed in our society, but I couldn't vote for a theocracy.

You're not catholic anyhow. I don't know why your presence on this site is indulged. You add nothing of value to this site.

Clearly, I do it to torment you and MikeMac, I'm rather spiteful like that.

[Matto]

You're not catholic anyhow. I don't know why your presence on this site is indulged. You add nothing of value to this site.

I disagree with this comment, Kirin. I am a believer so I disagree with your worldview but I think you ask good questions sometimes. And I think your questions do add value to the forum. But I can also see the danger in letting you post here because your questions might sway some of us to unbelief. I don't know how popular you are here, but I would guess not very. If you write short stories, Kirin, perhaps you could try to best Ivan's The Grand Inquisitor.

[Vetus Ordo]

Remove religion from the pro-life movement.

Or from the public sphere altogether.

This is an old Enlightenment dream.

[Kirin]

Remove religion from the pro-life movement.

Or from the public sphere altogether.

This is an old Enlightenment dream.

Not quite. I would have just thought the pro-life movement would want to gather the most supporters and, if the lives of the unborn are as valuable as they claim, would put aside their bullheaded pride to achieve results.

Assuming I was planning a campaign for same-sex marriage, just to try and think of something you would be opposed to, which of these propositions do you think would be more effective to gather support?

1) Run a non-denominational platform making appeals to shared universal ethics and values the majority are likely to hold; familial piety, prizing romantic love etc.

2) Run a Dawkins/Hitchens style platform where I frequently call Christians hysterical deluded morons, post memes on twitter, lurk outside of churches menacingly and wave signs calling them out as depraved and evil?

With 1) I could gather Christian voters, which is exactly what happened in several places. With 2) I would gather a small though the doctrinally cohesive union of anti-theists but would inspire more liberal Christians to vote against me because of the torrents of abuse I pour out against them.

The American Pro-Life movement, and the vast majority of European ones, run on the principles of position 2) Non-Conservative Christians and non-believers must be called out as murderers, heretics and awaiting the unending vengeance of the Lord in the next world while the chosen elect crusade against the forces of darkness.

What you're seeing as a result in places like Ireland is that pro-life non-devout will vote against you purely to spite you or out of fear of other positions you insist must be part of the movement which they cannot subscribe to. A pro-choice movement that as a man would leave me alone, or a pro-life one who would also seek to enforce my participation in mandatory prayer in the workplace? I know which one I would have to choose.

This does not link to the wider goals of the Enlightenment, but rather simple practical management of an efficient and effective political movement.

Surely the success of the LGBT movement is proof of this? Most homosexual men are either atheists or "none" (lesbians tend to be "spiritual" according to the last pew census), and yet they still managed to run a campaign of whom the main backbone of support were theists of some form or another. Think about it.

[Vetus Ordo]

Not quite. I would have just thought the pro-life movement would want to gather the most supporters and, if the lives of the unborn are as valuable as they claim, would put aside their bullheaded pride to achieve results.

This is a sterile accusation.

The pro-life movement is based on Christian religious principles.

Human life has no instrinsic value in an atheistic framework, much less any sanctity. To claim that the pro-life movement should downplay the source and foundation of its raison d'être is ridiculous.