About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

About the Dog and the Car
Author: Raine    Date: 12/02/2021 14:06:29

Yesterday SCOTUS started hearing arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Mississippi is trying to change the meaning of viable. In other words, they want Roe v. Wade gutted at the very least -- killed at worst. The usual babble came from the pre-TFG conservatives, but one of the newer justices had a line of questioning that was so outlandish and insulting it's really hard to believe that she ended up a judge at all. Justice Barret asked about adoption laws removing the burden of parenthood.
"I have a question about safe haven laws. You can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after giving birth. The cases emphasized the burden of parenting. But women don't have to parent if they don't want to! Why don't safe haven laws take care of that?" asked Barrett, who has seven kids, two of whom are adopted.

Safe haven laws exist in varying capacities in every state and prevent parents or guardians from getting into legal trouble for voluntarily giving up a newborn baby, USA Today previously reported.

The justice also asked if safe haven laws take care of the argument that "forced motherhood would hinder women's access to the workplace and to equal opportunities" and "the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy."

"However it doesn't seem to follow that pregnancy, and then parenthood, are all part of the same burden," she added. "And so it seems to me that the choice, more focused, would be between, say, the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more and then terminate parental rights at the conclusion."
Never mind that Safe Haven laws are to protect children and take away undue stress on the court system for these women. Safe Haven laws by and large are a product of the restricting of abortion rights and access to lower-income women. If we had more access to the medical procedure, we probably wouldn't need them at all.

And about the argument that the state is making that "parenthood is no longer an undue burden"? Correct me if I am wrong, as I have never given birth... if you give birth to a child you are scientifically a parent. There is a choice not to raise the baby, but the birthing bell is not un-rung. There is still a gestation period, doctor appoints, examine, risk, and the list goes on -- all with no medical leave to help alleviate the burdens of pregnancy.

Don't even get me started on how many kids are in the foster system that never get adopted. As Tri has said in the past, our adoption system in this country is a VERY undue burden to couples who actually want to adopt.

This conservative mindset is dangerous and makes no sense. That said, the so-called pro-life movement might get what they have been beating the drums for for decades, they might actually catch the car.
 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/2581/images/nowwhat.png


So what's next? I don't know... what I do know is the dog actually CATCHING the car usually doesn't end well for the dog.

&
Raine
 

12 comments (Latest Comment: 12/02/2021 15:32:31 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati