(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Far-Right calls story of Raped 10-Year-Old a "Lie" [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-07-14
I’ve haven’t spoken up in a while. A lot has been happening. But the worst thing, the absolute worst — has been the Right-wing SCOTUS overturning almost 50 years of precedent and throwing the concept of Reproductive Autonomy out the window. Let’s be clear about what this means as Hayes states:
They want a world where this child will be forced to carry her rapists baby.
Which means that their asking for this child to die, and also for the fetus to die because there is literally no physical way that a 10-year-old girl can safely give birth. The abortion she was granted in Indiana saved her life.
And yet it’s worse than that.
As Justice Thomas stated in his concurrance the precedent that was undermined by reversing Roe also undermines other cases such as Griswald, Lawrence and Obergefel.’
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked. Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.” The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage. Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested.
So deep is Thomas ‘conceit here that he makes this ridiculous argument, but at the same time strategically omits the one case that would potentially impact his own life, and that case is Loving v Virginia which granted the right to interracial marriage, It is highly convenient that Thomas finds the rationale behind Obergefel suspect, but not Loving since he himself happens to be in an interracial marriage.
Let me say it for you: What a fucking selfish dick.
Just to go one more step, let me point out that Thomas and Alito’s entire argument behind all of this is paper thin and stupid. He claims, like many on the right, that the only “original” rights that exist within the Constitution are those which are “specifically enumerated.” And other rights such as the right to privacy and personal autonomy — which are clearly implied by the 4th and 6th Amendments — are merely “Judicial constructs’ which are artificial overreach by activist judges.
And yet the 9th Amendment says this:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, just because there are some rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that the list is complete, or that this list can be used as an attack on other unenumerated rights held by the people. But use this enumerated list as an attack on other rights — privacy, marriage, contraception, body autonomy — is exactly what the right-wing court has implemented.
This is made even more clear by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ultimately, the powers belong to the people. The Constitution is not list of rights, it’s a list of Governmental Limits. It’s a list of powers granted to the Federal Government, not a list of personal rights granted to the people. All of this Federalism logic has that entirely backward.
The real question is what can we do about it? What can we do to recover and retain our existing rights?
Well, some have clearly criticized President Biden’s executive order as being insufficient. And it is. The powers of the President are greatly diminished compared to the Supreme Court which has been the final arbiter on Federal Law and the Constitution since Marbury v Madison.
Similarly, the Women’s Health Act which codifies Roe and has already passed the House only to to be trapped in the bear trap that is the 50/50 Senate would be helpful but also insufficient as the exact same SCOTUS could easily reverse it as well.
What we may need, ultimately, is a New Constitutional Amendment. A Human Rights Amendment that codifies the right for privacy, freedom of choice to marry, and also personal autonomy that would not just enable Roe, but also Griswald, Lawrence, Obergefel and Loving. We need to get out there and swallow the entire enchilada and even enshrine full LGBTQ rights as well.
This, of course, would be a long-term final solution and is worth persuing starting NOW — but there is another way that might be more short-term. In order to protect the Women’s Health Act from being yet again easily overturned by a right-wing SCOTUS perhaps it’s time that the US looked back and considered finally ratifying some UN Treaties. Specifically, the UN Treaty on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which was last considered by the Senate in 2002.
Aside from civil rights issues, the Convention also devotes major attention to a most vital concern of women, namely their reproductive rights. The preamble sets the tone by stating that "the role of women in procreation should not be a basis for discrimination". The link between discrimination and women's reproductive role is a matter of recurrent concern in the Convention. For example, it advocates, in article 5, ''a proper understanding of maternity as a social function", demanding fully shared responsibility for child-rearing by both sexes. Accordingly, provisions for maternity protection and child-care are proclaimed as essential rights and are incorporated into all areas of the Convention, whether dealing with employment, family law, health core or education. Society's obligation extends to offering social services, especially child-care facilities, that allow individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and participation in public life. Special measures for maternity protection are recommended and "shall not be considered discriminatory". (article 4). "The Convention also affirms women's right to reproductive choice. Notably, it is the only human rights treaty to mention family planning. States parties are obliged to include advice on family planning in the education process (article l O.h) and to develop family codes that guarantee women's rights "to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to hove access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights" (article 16.e).
Current this Treaty was signed by the US in 1980 but not ratified by the US Senate. Ratification would require 2/3rds of the Senate, which is frankly a far lower bar than a full Constitutional Amendment, but the fact is that Treaties can and are used to enable and support US Legislation as Treaties are considered to be part of our Constitution once ratified.
At this point in time, it has been ratified by 187 nations with only Iran, Niue, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga and the US being where it hasn’t been ratified.
Even with the high-bar of Senate Ratification, there is still another option.
In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.
More on Executive Agreements:
Under U.S. law, the term “treaty” is reserved for international agreements submitted by the executive branch to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. Only if the Senate ratifies a treaty by a two-thirds majority may the treaty enter into force. International agreements that enter into force without the advice and consent of the Senate are often referred to generically as “executive agreements.” Bear in mind that this generic term encompasses three distinct types of agreements: Agreements concluded on the basis of the president's constitutional authority (executive agreements);
Agreements concluded pursuant to a statute enacted by Congress (congressional-executive agreements); and
Agreements concluded pursuant to the terms of a duly ratified treaty. The president must transmit the text of an executive agreement to Congress within 60 days of its entry into to force, pursuant to a 2005 amendment to the Case-Zablocki Act (codified at 1 U.S.C. §112b), as implemented by 22 CFR Part 181.
In theory, until a Constitutional Amendment can be ratified by the States or the UN Treaty can be ratified by the Senate — the President can enter an executive agreement with the existing UN Treaty and through it establish a legal basis that would be resistant to the arguments currently being presented by the Sinister Six in the SCOTUS.
It’s not a perfect solution, but it would grant some legs to the Women’s Health Act that wouldn’t allow it to be easily knocked down.
And it just might help. It’s a better option than forcing a 10-year-old to give birth.
Now, we just need to hold the House and gain a couple more seats in the Senate for the 2022 midterms.
Sure, no problem. Piece of cake.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/14/2110341/-Far-Right-calls-story-of-Raped-10-Year-Old-a-Lie-Then-the-Rapist-gets-arrested
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
