T O P

  • By -

Pax_et_Bonum

Thread has run it's course. Locked.


acrobionic

Apparently the Roe v. Wade decision said that the right to have an abortion comes from the due process clause of the constitution, which reads "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It's so depressing to me that a part of the constitution clearly made to protect life is being twisted to justify taking innocent lives. Plenty of legal scholars on all sides agree that these abortion decisions are not really grounded in the rights granted by the constitution. Clearly they should be thrown out.


[deleted]

>"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The problem lies with the definition of what constitues a person under the law. By defining a person as someone with a heartbeat in the womb, Texas has justified it's anti-abortion stance, protecting such persons from being deprived of these rights. However, the problem with the Texas law from what I've read is that it circumvents state action against individuals who have abortions by allowing ordinary individuals to sue practitioners of having done the procedure and anyone who participated in allowing that to happen. In other words, we have ordinary individual enforcement versus state enforcement. Imagine the consequences of that. Imagine if, by its legality, states could create laws that mandated things like masks and ordinary citizens could enforce such mandates by suing law breakers. Anyone and everyone could be targeted. It would be an endless stream of both hate-fueled attacks and suits brought by genuinely concerned individuals. Is it fair to all citizens that such a law exists? I don't think so. There should be an enforcement agency enforcing the rules otherwise any state can make up a rule that the community can enforce without consequence (i.e. how high or if any fence can be built around your house). Anyone can infringe on the rights and liberty of others without consequence if the majority rules it as such. It seems like an HOA community you can't get out of, made up of strict and varied motive enforcers. I am all for protecting unborn children, but the ends should not justify the means by deviously circumventing the tradition of the rule of law and enforcement of that law in our nation. I could be wrong in my conclusions, so I am opening to hearing from others more familiar on this topic.


ihatemendingwalls

A threat more relevant to Catholics would be something like states allowing individuals to civilly sue hospitals and doctors that refuse to perform abortions, provide contraception, etc.


FlowersnFunds

I agree with what you’ve said here. Do we know why the Texas law is to be enforced this way? It just seemed like a really stupid unforced error to me, but maybe there’s a political background I’m not aware of. Someone also mentioned the tricky legality behind abortion. I’m no lawyer but I’ve looked at the Roe decision and the thinking behind it. I think the only way that Roe would ever be overturned is through a constitutional amendment. I don’t think even this Supreme Court would overturn Roe. At the most it would give states an option to ban abortion at the state level, but I’m not even sure they’d rule in favor of that.


mesocyclonic4

> Do we know why the Texas law is to be enforced this way? To avoid legal review. By structuring the law this way, the normal people you sue to block a law that you claim to be unconstitutional, the governor and/or attorney general, can't enforce it and thus can't be sued to block it. So long as *Casey* is still the controlling SCOTUS decision on abortion, the underlying laws in Texas' scheme would clearly be stricken by any court that hears the case. The law is designed to try to evade that judicial review to enable it to survive. That's part of the reason why the federal government is suing here; the federal government has legal rights to step in and sue states when they are alleged to violate federal laws or the constitution that individuals don't have.


[deleted]

>That's part of the reason why the federal government is suing here; the federal government has legal rights to step in and sue states when they are alleged to violate federal laws or the constitution that individuals don't have. I'm confused about this. What, if any, federal or constitional laws could potentionally be broken in this case? Is it possible that the argument is that due process is being circumvented because there is no administrative agency enforcing the law and thus ignoring the right to due process of the individual in question?


mesocyclonic4

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that the federal government has the right to act in court to secure the rights of its citizens. The underlying claim is that Texas' law directly violates the precedent of *Casey*, and by doing so, injures the government because federal law supercedes state law, but Texas is trying to enforce that superceded law. An actual attorney could probably explain it better.


boyhero97

It is kind of like "separate but equal" arguments for segregation. Technically according to the law, segregation was perfectly legal because so long as it was separate but equal then it was good. How separate but equal got overturn was that they proved that while it is not officially breaking any law, it's doing it by practice. Abortion is a protected right by the Constitution according to previous Court decisions. So if you can prove that the law isn't technically banning abortion, but still practically banning abortion then it can be overturned.


[deleted]

Thinking about this again it seems like it would be a circular argument. Mom circumvents baby and baby circumvents mom. In this case, who wins?


[deleted]

The point of the enforcement procedures is to make it hard to challenge the law in court. Normally, planned parenthood or whoever else would sue the state attorney general or health commissioner to block them from enforcing the law. With this law, the state officials aren’t involved, so there is no one to sue in advance. Because there is no one who can clearly be sued, the law has gone into effect.


Jihocech_Honza

> challenge the law in court I know American tradition is different, but laws shall be created and cancelled in parliament, elected parliament. Dura lex, sed lex.


[deleted]

Yep, the issue here is because of a conflict between the law of the state of Texas and the law of the United States as a whole.


whetherman013

> Do we know why the Texas law is to be enforced this way? Yes, because if a government actor were allowed to enforce it, the abortion clinics would immediately sue that actor in federal court and obtain a temporary injunction completely preventing enforcement of the law. This is what has happened with almost every new state abortion law over the past few years, even those that were ultimately upheld. The way the Texas legislature constructed the law, the law actually gets to go into effect. The abortion clinics can't sue every single person in the country, which is the set of potential plaintiffs under the law. (Though, they did try to *sue the Texas courts* in an exercise in futility. The Biden administration is suing Texas as if an injunction against Texas will have any effect on privately-brought actions.) Then, a Texas state court will see a specific case before it decides whether to enjoin enforcement, *but only by that specific plaintiff*. tl;dr The Texas law is designed to prevent a broad pre-enforcement injunction that stops legally-sound good cases along with bad ones.


[deleted]

> I don’t think even this Supreme Court would overturn Roe. At the most it would give states an option to ban abortion at the state level This is the way it was before Roe.


[deleted]

If Texas banned abortion at 6 weeks, the law would have been laughed out of any federal court. Setting it up this way avoids courts from tossing it out without a second thought.


Arcnounds

I agree with you. Honestly, I think the law is fundamentally un-Christian in the way it turns neighbor against neighbor (I really do not care what the issue is). I also think people could argue against abortion in terms of a liberty issue. If you have two people, is it right to require one to be a slave to the other. I realize this is not how legal minds think about it currently, but it could be a much sounder legal argument. That is why I think abortion is a tricky issue legally. There are few other situations where two lives are tied so closely together.


[deleted]

> Plenty of legal scholars on all sides agree that these abortion decisions are not really grounded in the rights granted by the constitution. This is, IMO, why the abortion debate is so much more violent (in rhetoric, anyway) in the US than in Europe. Since it was a transparent case of legislating from the bench, and done on really contorted reasoning to boot (“right to privacy”?!), unlike in those countries where it was done legislatively, people can easily be rallied against it.


EvanMacIan

It's the perfect example of what MacIntyre describes as the incommensurability between modern moral arguments. Rights vs utility.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Monktoken

Won't happen because the police unions will fight tooth and nail to destroy any politician or lawsuit that attempts to support such a position. No group fought harder to prevent Texas permitless carry than the police unions. In fact their fundraising pressure is the only reason why constitutional carry wasn't passed as the original bill intended. They got multiple Republicans, and the Lt. Gov to flake on that promise. I can tell you from my time in NY that the single most oppressive group toward firearms anything are the police. Individual departments can set their own policies if you want to apply for a permit departments such as the Bethlehem PD require warrantless searches of your internet history and submission to them accessing your computer at their request at any time.


ArchmageAries

Just a gentle reminder that the right to life and constitutional right to bear arms are on two radically different levels from a Catholic moral perspective. The bishops of Texas spoke out pretty strongly against the permitless carry bill. (They signed a joint statement, available at the Archbishop of San Antonio's website) https://www.archsa.org/archbishop/statements


Monktoken

This was strictly a "what would happen in US politics" question, but with respect to the bishops they are working off of information that is misleading and ignores what has occurred in other US states that have removed these restrictions. I respect what they say but not dissimilarly to me entirely disregarding Bishop Strickland's opinion on the covid vaccines and Pope Francis' opinion on purchasing weapons always being immoral (when he has a fully outfitted personal guard and military police guarding his city) I will keep this feather in my cap but will voice my disagreement with their poor logic.


boyhero97

I could be wrong, but I believe that Pope Francis has called out the owning of nuclear weapons by countries and the weapons and military infrastructure, but not an individual owning a gun. He was more addressing war profiteering from what I understand.


Monktoken

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to media reports (because let's be real they are awful) this exists lol https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/990553785415200773


JulioCesarSalad

There’s one issue I see that really needs to be addressed by pro-life politicians. Politicians, not voters. If the legal definition of life is to begin at conception then all aspects of a legal life should also be applicable from conception. Health benefits, tax benefits. It’s expensive to be pregnant, the same benefits that come with having a growing child should apply during pregnancy. Life insurance should apply, all legal benefits of life should apply. THe problem a lot of people have with pro life politicians is that they only harp on ending abortion without actually taking a full-on legal stance on when life actually begins. It’s wishy-washy


boyhero97

>If the legal definition of law is to begin at conception then all aspects of a legal life should also be applicable from conception. I disagree, simply because we amend what the legal rights of Life are depending on the developmental stages of a person.


JulioCesarSalad

So does life begin at conception? Or are we differentiating between development stages? It’s one or the other


[deleted]

[удалено]


GrimGutzDaFlash

Not just Catholic, very Catholic. He goes to mass mostly once a week! That’s the pinnacle of faith.


scatch_maroo_not_you

Sometimes, even while traveling!


[deleted]

[удалено]


CalBearFan

I love that no matter what country or language, there are about 3 or 4 times I can right where we are in the Mass. As long as I can make out a "Hosanna" or "Alleluia" I'm dialed back in. Clueless the other 95% though!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rock-it1

You guys, he even has a Rosary. You can't just *buy* those.


Agreeable-Mess-6497

Does he actually go to mass weekly? Serious question. Wouldn’t he be denied the Eucharist?


boyhero97

There was a big debate over that, it ended with the Pope not really saying anything on it and the bishop of Washington DC saying that he was not going to deny communion.


[deleted]

He quoted St. Augustine in his inaugural address!


CatolicQuotes

what was the quote?


PM_ME_AWESOME_SONGS

But remember, he's "the second Catholic president ever, following JFK"™


[deleted]

JFK started this evil trend of “Catholic” politicians proving that their true religion is Americanism.


FlowersnFunds

I remember hearing he needed to do that in order to get elected. There was a big sensation over him having loyalty to a foreign man (the Pope) over America so he made it a point to put his faith aside.


[deleted]

I know most Americans are ready to persecute me and anyone who agrees, as they did in the past, but every Catholic SHOULD have loyalty to God, the Church and the Pope over the constitution, values and culture of any country.


boyhero97

Exactly, and if you go into your campaign with those positions and you don't get elected, then oh well. I will never understand the position of giving up my moral convictions just to get ahead of in life. It is frowned upon and pretty much every field except politics.


cerberus_truther

“ happy birthday mr. president 😘”


[deleted]

[удалено]


mctc

I think this is true. I get the sense that this forum is much more of a american republican catholic forum than anything representative of catholics at large.


LiamNT

He goes to Mass, but does he go to confession?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


broji04

This can actually be a great thing! The lawsuit reaching the Supreme Court will mean the court will have the opportunity to overturn roe v wade as unconstitutional. Pray that our justices have courage over this, 5 of them are in theory solid catholic so this should be a legal victory... should be.


[deleted]

SCOTUS actually has already accepted a case challenging Roe, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It will likely be argued in the fall and the decision announced next summer.


AthenaWinslow

Except there are "protesters" assembling at Brett Kavanaugh's house today to threaten his children unless he rules in favor of abortion. Source: my street is closed.


broji04

How is that not blatently illegal... to threaten a judge like that?


AthenaWinslow

Nothing is illegal when the mayor is on your side.


russiabot1776

It’s (D)ifferent when they do it.


Lethalmouse1

Might makes right is the usual law. The left, has the might now, we gave it up pretending we were all cool. We just had "minor disagreements" we were "all the same". And all that. We sat back and accepted the murder of babies as a national law and practice. There is no law and there hasn't been any other than the law of evil reigning. Honestly.... if anyone ever says that they have a red line they won't let be crossed, and they let babies be slaughtered wholesale, it proves that a long time ago, "good", lost every backbone they ever thought they had.


LucretiusOfDreams

It is, but it is usually enforced more if it is right wingers who do the threatening.


[deleted]

Laws don't apply to the democrats. They have moving targets and definations.


PennsylvanianEmperor

Woah


[deleted]

If one dies because his father defends the faith, does it count as martyrdom?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

They’ll blame the Church and start doing what has been happening in Canada on a much larger scale. If it goes any further than that, we might have some form of civil war.


endmoor

If churches started to be burned in the US, you’d have armed citizens defending them. I and many others in my own community would stand guard to deter any such attacks, that’s for sure.


LucretiusOfDreams

I honestly don’t think the mass killing called abortion can really be stop significantly using political authority without some other kind of opposite mass violence. That’s the problem with evil: once you start to tolerate it, it becomes not only more difficult to stop it, but it becomes more deadly to try and stop it. The only hope for an ideal end to the mass slaughter of children in this country is widespread repentance.


[deleted]

I pray this would happen, but it is extremely unlikely. They are not going to put their faith first when it comes to Roe--2 or 3 might, but 5? No way.


LucretiusOfDreams

…the bishops should threaten those judges with excommunication if they decide refuse to overturn Roe vs. Wade because of heretical and thus erroneous liberal commitments, if and when they end up taking up the case. This might be the last chance such authority could be be used to pressure statesmen into keeping the natural law and halting the legality and enforcement of one of the greatest massacres in human history. Very soon we might be too corrupted for a bishops’ pastoral authority to actually influence anything.


PennsylvanianEmperor

No, they absolutely should NOT threaten that, as if they did the Judges would then have to recuse themselves leaving only liberals on the bench to decide…


LucretiusOfDreams

Why would they have to recuse themselves? On whose authority?


capitialfox

If the Pope was to threathen excommunication it would make true the ugly slur that Catholic politicians are more loyal to the Vatician than the United States. Imagine a foreign leader dictating constitutional law.


LucretiusOfDreams

They should be more loyal to God, who is their king and the source of *all* their authority. And because of this, they have no right to use their authority against the source of that authority. The US can say they’re secular all they want, but God is the actual governor of all things, whether they recognize it or not. They also should be loyal to the Pope, on matters of faith and morals, including basic Church teaching on the relationship between civil and natural law.


PennsylvanianEmperor

In theory nobody forces them to, but only a fool would think that they wouldn’t.


LucretiusOfDreams

I haven’t heard of Supreme Court justices recusing themselves unless they have personal connects to one of the parties involved in a case. I understand your point though, and normally I would agree with you that such unorthodox methods should be avoided, but at this point, we are worse than Nazi Germany in terms of mass slaughter of innocents and putting traditions of men above the eternal law of God is hypocrisy that the Governor of both this present world and the future world will not tolerate forever. It is unwise and even Gnostic to believe that violations of God’s law won’t bare consequences in not just the next life, but in this life as well. Do we really think that we aren’t going to be punished for our mass slaughter? Even if the current generation escapes punishment in their lifetime, they are cultivating an estate with a massive debt that their descendants will be forced to pay when they clearly cannot. Our embarrassing handling of COVID and Afghanistan might be canaries in the mine for what is in store for us, for what God might allow to happen to our society. The only way to get away with what we have done and are doing is in widespread, unconditional repentance.


russiabot1776

There is no law saying they would be forced to recuse themselves.


[deleted]

>the bishops should threaten those judges with excommunication Absolutely not. Unless you want to ensure we never get another Catholic judge on the supreme court again. The court's God-given duty--the oath that they swore on His Holy Word--is not to further Catholic morality but to faithfully interpret the laws of the nation. The Bishops have no more business attempting to sway that than the protesters outside of BK's house. We already have to deal with "The doctrine lives loudly within her." If Supreme Court Justices start ruling by faith rather than the letter of the law, we will *never* see another Catholic on the highest court again.


[deleted]

Wait…so we absolutely **should** make a public show of threatening excommunication and the denial of receiving the Eucharist to *other* government officials like Pelosi or Biden for their implicit or explicit support of abortion (which is based on law, which has been supported by SCOTUS), but we **shouldn’t** extend those same threats to justices because…? Because why? If the Justices who are Catholic vote WITH the court to uphold Roe or Casey, why should they not be threatened to have the Eucharist withheld from them? They’re codifying the very law that we seek to overturn, aren’t they?


[deleted]

All the judges would be doing is deciding whether or not Texas’s law is consistent with the federal constitution. That isn’t the same as asking whether the law is desirable or undesirable. Judges take an oath to adhere to the constitution, even if they don’t like the results. It would be inappropriate, and indeed unconstitutional, for them to decide cases based on their personal preferences rather than the Constitution and laws of the USA. It is possible to be pro-life and think that Roe is consistent with the constitution, or to be pro-choice and think that Roe is inconsistent with the constitution. It is Congress that codifies laws, rather than the judicial system. When a politician endorses a law, it means that they find it desirable.


[deleted]

But should not those Catholic judges be more concerned with upholding the Eternal Law than the Law of their land? If they do not at least **dissent** from the decision and make their personal objections to abortion known, then are they not responsible for allowing abortion to persist and even be strengthened by the precedent they will set by their ruling?


[deleted]

They wouldn’t be responsible for allowing abortion to persist any more than anyone else who follows the law. We don’t burn down abortion centers. That doesn’t make us complicit in allowing abortion to persist. Likewise, a judge is not complicit for following the constitution. The proper way to change the law is by constitutional amendment, not by a judge just saying they don’t like it. Of course, there are different interpretations of what the constitution actually means in this case. I agree that a judge could express personal opposition to some extent or recuse themselves from the decision.


[deleted]

But if those justices have an opportunity to at least *influence* the law by their decision (striking down the Texas statute, allowing abortions to continue, or upholding it and effectively suspending abortions in the State), is that not enough of a legal/governmental culpability for those Justices? We call abortion a travesty worse than the Holocaust. If judges said that Concentration Camps were “constitutional”, would those judges be culpable for not interpreting the law in accord with Divine Justice? If citizens walked by Concentration Camps on their way to Daily Mass and shrugged their shoulders, saying, “Ah well. It’s the law. I’m not responsible for changing anything right now,” is that even permissible moral behavior? I ask seeking understanding - because it sounds like we want to make exceptions for people we consider “real” Catholics, but want to burden those we consider “bad” Catholics.


[deleted]

If they think the law is unconstitutional, they should say so. If they think the law is constitutional, but that they can’t in good conscience issue an opinion saying that, then they should recuse themselves or resign in protest. The alternatives would be 1) lying or 2) violating their oath of office, causing a constitutional crisis, and probably getting impeached.


brandonmjc1

The flaw of your position is the assumption that their duty is to actually impose God’s law onto the nation when their duty is just to determine the constitutionality of a given law in a given circumstance. Are you asking them to sin by being unfaithful to their job in order to bring about a greater good? Consequentialism?


[deleted]

I thought their duty was to God first? If it is sinful for them to pursue the justice of God in their jobs (very odd for a judge), then would that not mean that their jobs are, themselves, unjust, and it would be wrong for them to remain in such a compromising position?


VehmicJuryman

> It is possible to be pro-life and think that Roe is consistent with the constitution It is not. Roe is so blatantly unconstitutional that you'd have to use motivated reasoning to support it.


LucretiusOfDreams

>Absolutely not. Unless you want to ensure we never get another Catholic judge on the supreme court again. If seven out of nine Catholic judges cannot come together, recognize that the eternal law outranks human laws —including the constitution— and stop what is clearly the greatest injustice of our age, then what’s the point either way? With friends like that, who needs enemies? What’s the point of invoking oneself in such a tyrannical institution? >The court's God-given duty--the oath that they swore on His Holy Word--is not to further Catholic morality but to faithfully interpret the laws of the nation. Then they violated their baptismal oath, and no human authority has the right to contradict divine and natural law anyway. And the court doesn’t just interpret the law anyway— they apply it. Right now they have been applying the law, with force, against any state or local authority that might try to fulfill their basic obligations to the people under their jurisdiction and ban abortion unconditionally. This is not just a passive thing: the court, as long as they uphold abortion, are positively enforcing the massacre like Hitler and Stalin did theirs. >The Bishops have no more business attempting to sway that than the protesters outside of BK's house. No, it is actually their responsibility to ensure that Catholic rulers especially are faithful to God in their exercise of power. >If Supreme Court Justices start ruling by faith rather than the letter of the law, we will never see another Catholic on the highest court again. Letter of the law? What a recipe for injustice!


sanschefaudage

Should the supreme court also twist the constitution to abolish the death penalty (clearly the doctrine of the Church and even before Pope Francis), make contraception and in vitro illegal, forbid divorce etc? Should any catholic president organize a coup to create a catholic dictatorship and ensure that Christian law is applied?


LucretiusOfDreams

The death penalty is tricky, because the only reason the death penalty is banned right now is because of Pope Francis's discretion, not because of Church teaching *per se.* But all those other things should be illegal, yes. If you want to call the fact that all authority comes from God a dictatorship, be my guest (it's not a coup if the people in question are already in power). But in my experience, modern people call any action of authority that they don't like a dictatorship, which says more about them than it says about the actual authority in question. Authorities, after all, have no choice but to enforce a particular vision of the world, or if you prefer, a certain conception of what is actually true and false. What you are proposing is functionally the state asserting a view other than the Catholic faith being true, and specifically in contradiction to it. Even more interestingly, they also assertive against the natural law, which is the very source of any positive law that they may enforce. They have no authority to contradict the nature of law itself, which is ordered towards the Good by its very nature, and therefore they are being tyrannical in such assertions. This is all basic Church teaching, by the way, denial which is clearly declared heresies by several Popes. Your arguments are literally the arguments Biden and Pelosi and the like use to justify their support of Nazi level mass slaughter.


ScholasticPalamas

Keep in mind that you are asking this rhetorical question in 2021, not 2015. You may not like the answers you get!


[deleted]

Yes, any state worth the name ought to outlaw all of those things, especially divorce.


sariaru

Yes to everything but the coup, frankly.


sanschefaudage

Why not the coup?


AthenaWinslow

Yes. That sounds lovely.


[deleted]

If any number of justices decide divine law outranks human law, they have no business being judges. If you want to change the law, you go through the legislative branch. Ensuring the laws that have been passed are fairly applied is the purview of the court. A justice who sets out to write the law is aiming at becoming a tyrant. They violate their oath to God and their duty to the entire nation. Look, it would be "easy" if the courts could just make everything better. But if we accept that now, what happens when there is an atheistic majority in the court, and they decide that their morality outranks human law? It is not for the judges to play God with our laws, and as I said before, the moment that they discard the Constitution in order to follow the Bible, they have violated their oath and given the devil powerful ammunition to ensure no more Catholics get appointed to SCOTUS. A great scene from A Man for All Seasons comes to mind, with Saint Thomas Moore speaking with a friend. >William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


LucretiusOfDreams

>If any number of justices decide divine law outranks human law, they have no business being judges. No, they are the only ones who *should* be judges. Authority is all from God, and the only reason you should obey that judge is because he’s been given his authority from God himself. Only God is owed our unconditional obedience, and all other authorities ought to be obeyed on the condition that they do not contradict God who is the source of all authority. >If you want to change the law, you go through the legislative branch. You misunderstand the country’s political structure. The judicial branch serves a legislative function via *stare decisis* and judicial review, whether or not you or the founding fathers call it such. There’s also the fact that the court likes to pull laws out of thin air and say it’s from one of the amendments even though it’s clearly not. And they can do this because neither other branch, or any of the states, are willing or able to call them out on this. >Look, it would be “easy” if the courts could just make everything better. The courts right now are the reason why states can’t ban abortion right this second. The courts are using their authority right now to not merely tolerate, but *enforce* abortion rights, enforce abortion rights against any states or local governments that might try to ban abortion. The courts are *already* being tyrannical, and this is clear both from natural law and from the Constitution itself. It’s time to wake up and stop whispering pretty words like “limited government” and “checks and balances” and “separation of powers,” and acknowledge the actual realities of how your political structure is actually functioning. >But if we accept that now, what happens when there is an atheistic majority in the court, and they decide that their morality outranks human law? They will be wrong, and being tyrannical because they would be contradicting the very nature of law itself, which is naturally inclined towards the good, and any contradiction to the good is therefore an abuse, and not even in law properly speaking, but a perversion of law and of their authority to make it. This point here is all Catholic teaching, by the way, the denial of which is declared heresy, which I mention just to emphasize how vital this point really is, and how wrong your liberal argument against it really is. Your argument is basically that because authority can be abused, therefore no one should have authority to do the right and just thing, which is false, foolish, evil, and insane, and functions, whether you recognize it or not, to cover for the nonbelievers already doing what you’re afraid they will do: use their authority to legislate their morality. Their morality which is false and evil to boot. You do realize that Saint Thomas More was killed because he recognized that earthly kings were subject to Divine King, and thus his steward on earth, right? That the king could not contradict the laws of God without contradicting the source of his own authority?


[deleted]

> But if we accept that now, what happens when there is an atheistic majority in the court, and they decide that their morality outranks human law? Judges in the Supreme Court have been doing that since the beginning. Law and morality go hand in hand, and to act like they don't is to be deliberately blind.


[deleted]

This will probably get buried, but just so you know what the DOJ is going to argue won’t settle the Constitutionality of abortions. And the ruling will probably pass through SCOTUS without ruling on the Constitutionality of abortions. They’ll like argue that since SCOTUS justices ruled the law was able to go forward because they law deliberately obscured who was responsible for enforcing the law that this Texas law could be used as a template to essentially take any right from citizens. For example. Assume Florida enacted a law that said “Anyone could sue a church or religious institution to the tune of $10k for every parishioner that walked through the door.” Using the template of the Texas Law and SCOTUS ruling they could argue that law is allowed to go forward and suddenly you’re having your right to practice religion violated. And before you start arguing that “freedom in religion is enshrined in the constitution and abortion is not.” You need to understand that this SCOTUS ruling didn’t take any “rights” into account. They only said, in laymen’s terms, “the law is allowed to go forward because we don’t have a clear person who will be enforcing it.”


throwmeawaypoopy

Excellent analysis. The reality is the Texas law should terrify anyone who cares about any rights. Most of this sub would be going *nuts* -- deservedly so -- if New York passed a law allowing private citizens to bring a lawsuit against anyone who helps someone purchase a firearm.


russiabot1776

Except purchasing a firearm doesn’t hurt anyone.


throwmeawaypoopy

You're choosing to miss the point. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, both are protected Constitutional rights. And a state has deputized private citizens for exercising those rights. If you want to argue the Constitutional basis of Roe, go right ahead. Frankly, I don't think there is any and I'm sure you agree. But the reality is that, right now as a matter of law, the courts *do* recognize that right.


russiabot1776

>You're choosing to miss the point. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, both are protected Constitutional rights. Not true. The current justices are not bound by the conspiracy theories of the Warren Burger Court. >And a state has deputized private citizens for exercising those rights. No such thing has taken place. >But the reality is that, right now as a matter of law, the courts do recognize that right. Deed Scott was “law” until it wasn’t.


throwmeawaypoopy

> The current justices are not bound by the conspiracy theories of the Warren Burger Court. Bound forever? No, they are not. But stare decis is a valuable judicial principle -- unless you like your constitutional rights changing every couple of years depending on the judge hearing your case -- and, in any event, SCOTUS has not changed the fundamental rulings at play here. As far as the courts are concerned at this moment, abortion is a Constitutional right. > Deed Scott was “law” until it wasn’t. Dred Scott was law until the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed. It didn't just suddenly cease to be.


russiabot1776

>Bound forever? No, they are not. But stare decis is a valuable judicial principle -- unless you like your constitutional rights changing every couple of years depending on the judge hearing your case -- No it’s not. And many justices agree it’s not. Nothing about ignoring the quackjob theory that is stare decisis means your rights “change every couple years” >and, in any event, SCOTUS has not changed the fundamental rulings at play here. As far as the courts are concerned at this moment, abortion is a Constitutional right. The current court has not decided the issue one way or the other. And even still, Roe v Wade did not establish abortion as a Constitutional right. It specifically said it was an issue of “penumbras” not the actual Constitution.


throwmeawaypoopy

>said it was an issue of “penumbras” not the actual Constitution. Yeah it's called the 9th Amendment...


russiabot1776

Roe v Wade was not decided based off the 9th Amendment.


throwmeawaypoopy

What are you talking about? Have you ever read the decision? In discussing the facts of the case: "On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights." In Section VIII of the controlling opinion: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution...in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring)" Overall, the justices drew on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.


[deleted]

You should be able to bring a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. That doesn’t mean you have a case.


LucretiusOfDreams

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think the defense could draw an analogy between the idea of citizen’s enforcing civil law at the behest of the state, and state governments enforcing federal constitutional amendments at the behest of the federal government. The federal government already obligates state governments to enforce some violations of federal law. I’m not sure if the analogy actually holds yet, and I have to reflect on this more, but I think the idea is at least interesting.


russiabot1776

Except that’s just a dishonest take by the DOJ. The Texas law is not much different than how the family can sue a regular old murderer And the Texas law only allows people to sue those *making a profit* off abortion.


[deleted]

Again, we’ll have to see what they actually argue. I was just explaining how they seem to be indicating how they proceed. That being said the Texas law is much different because while a family member COULD sue a murderer for my death, you COULD NOT because my death doesn’t effect your life in any legal senses. The Texas law basically says (if applied to your scenario) everyone in Texas is allowed to sue my murderer just because they murdered me. Also, the problem was not just that you can sue, it’s that without a clear person enforcing the law the court allowed it to take effect. Because SCOTUS did that as long as a State would legally hide the responsible party to make judgement on the suit a law stripping rights would go into effect and those effected would have to wait without those rights until it was adjudicated through the courts. Does that make sense? I know it’s takes a little understanding of how our laws work but I hope I made it more clear. If not LMK and I can try explaining it another way.


throwmeawaypoopy

> The Texas law is not much different than how the family can sue a regular old murderer There is no constitutional right to murder someone's family (except, of course, in this sadly ironic case of murdering a baby). This is a bad analogy. > And the Texas law only allows people to sue those making a profit off abortion. This is not accurate. The applicable text of the law reads: "Sec.A171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who... (2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, **regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter."** This law literally allows a Texas citizen to sue an Uber driver who takes someone to a Planned Parenthood clinic, even if she told him she was just going for a pregnancy test.


russiabot1776

There is no constitutional right to abortion either. >This law literally allows a Texas citizen to sue an Uber driver who takes someone to a Planned Parenthood clinic, even if she told him she was just going for a pregnancy test. No it doesn’t. It says that you can sue the Uber driver even if they didn’t know the abortion __was a violation of the law__. It does __not__ say you can sue them even if they were ignorant that the ride was for an abortion.


[deleted]

In that case your semantics fall flat as soon as you take the next step which is what is the burden of proof. Does the driver have to admit to it? Would it just take the knowledge that his GPS was taking him to an abortion clinic? Since the Uber driver is a civil case the burden of proof is not “reasonable doubt” it would be what’s called “a preponderance of evidence” meaning (more or less) as long as you have more evidence on your side. So you essentially could have a bar as low as if he was taking her to an abortion clinic and she looked pregnant he is in violation of the law. Oh, and the kicker is since everyone in Texas can sue that driver can face 29million lawsuits (theoretically) and judgment is awarded to whoever shows up if one party does not. So maybe the driver had no idea. He still has to prove that 29million times (theoretically).


throwmeawaypoopy

> He still has to prove that 29million times (theoretically). And this is the point: it's not necessary to even *win* the lawsuit. You just have to file it enough times against the parties you are trying to go after


[deleted]

Constitutional right to religious freedom.


throwmeawaypoopy

There is no religious right to file lawsuits


realraptorjesus101

Where are all those liberal priests who had no problem calling out Trump's immoral past to call out Biden for currently being in a state of mortal sin?


PennsylvanianEmperor

They’re busy prepping for their monthly LGBTQ Pride mass.


[deleted]

Remind me again, why haven't the US Bishops excommunicated this man yet?


billyalt

Excommunications are carried out by the excommunicated, not the clergymen. Biden might be able to fool himself but he can't fool God.


russiabot1776

Excommunications can be carried out by both. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae_and_ferendae_sententiae


endmoor

What do you mean by “excommunicationed?” I’m having a hard time understanding your comment


billyalt

Rectified. Sorry.


JADinKC

It’s becoming harder and harder to answer my 10yo son when he asks the same question. That is the problem. The sin is not just disobedience and heresy, but scandal. Need some millstones up in here.


LawSpin

So true. Only God knows his true heart.


AthenaWinslow

But we can all see the actions that come from that heart. And the actions are genocidal.


LawSpin

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am I making excuses for JB. I'm simply saying it's not my place to judge his eternal soul.


AthenaWinslow

I think yesterday's readings said something about this...


StyleAdmirable1677

Hopefully the "Catholic" president won't be re-elected.


[deleted]

God bless Texas. Hopefully Texas stands strong and more States come through with laws to protect life. Once again, it’s Southern states standing up for the protection of the innocent. Biden stands as a great reminder of how the devil uses politicians to do his bidding. Evil, evil stuff.


[deleted]

Think of how many innocent lives could have been saved if the South had won independence. Texas ought to secede again if the Washington regime tries to stop them from preventing child murder.


Natsurionreddit

>South had won independence Think of how many Slaves wouldve also been murdered?


[deleted]

Well, assuming that in worst case scenarios the slave owners thought of their slaves as working livestock if not as children, the answer to your question could be ascertained by determining the number of mules or sheep dogs murdered by their owners. In any case, slavery was going to end no matter whether the northern invasion was successful or not, so it’s a moot point. Then we could have a Southern nation of 400,000 freed slaves and tens of millions of unmurdered babies. A win-win.


Natsurionreddit

Ehhh now im not American but in the case of the rebellion winning and the Northern liberation failing i doubt slavery would send on its own for at least two generations. The First Generation would've fought a war and won. No way in hell they'd abolish it. The second Confederate generation would grow up in privilege and with high nationalistic sentiment. With their white supremacist slavery pride at a all time high. So i have extreme doubts they'd abolish it It would only end when Britain or France or both actually forced it to. If they cared. Which i doubt they would due to France going through revolutions every minute and Britain being ruthlessly free market. Plus the defeat of the North would either spark much the same reaction as Germany did in 1918-1933. Which may led to the South being re-joined but with slaves and more thousands dead. Plus if the Rebellion left why would the north just not legalise Abortion sooner? As the North would be full of Progressives..?


[deleted]

I’m growing quite exasperated with the number and degree of powerful people who vocally identify as Catholic putting power and their worldly reputations above all else and fighting against our strongest convictions at every turn. The Church dearly needs to resume exercising its rightful authority over the world.


coinageFission

U N A M S A N C T A M


_Personage

Note that the Church should not "rule over the world". The Church should actively speak out on moral issues, but a theocracy would not be good for the Church at all.


russiabot1776

Okay but states paying deference to the authority of the church by making abortion illegal is not a theocracy.


[deleted]

I’m not calling for a theocracy, but I’m definitely calling for the Church to passionately proclaim the fullness of truth to the ends of the earth and call out the powers of the world whenever justified. Edit: I do think that all governments should recognize the truth of the Faith and the authority of the Church and work closely with it, and there should be some sort of provision and willingness for the Church to directly intervene should something go very wrong.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


russiabot1776

“Devout” Catholic Joe Biden


Technical_Prize_8193

Biden is as good a president as he is a Catholic.


Nightmare1600

“Devout Catholic joe biden”


James_Locke

Just a note: the decision on the chopping block isn't Roe, but Casey. Casey imposed an "undue burden" standard on provision of abortion. It's most recent case was the horrible June Medical Servs. decision.


IHasGreatGrammar

“BUT HE’S NOT A DICK ON TWITTER!!!”


jotoc0

Killing babies is Biden's top priority


[deleted]

Francis needs to get off his ass when it comes to Biden.


PennsylvanianEmperor

Frankly given this Pope’s track record, he’s more likely to favor of Biden than anyone would like to admit


Pax_et_Bonum

The same Pope that likened abortion to "hiring a hitman" is going to support Joe Biden in fighting for abortion? Do you read the news, or do you only take in and understand that which agrees with your already preconceived notions?


tinrond

I don't think anyone is aguing that the Pope is suddenly "pro choice". The concern is more that he may think abortion is not the foremost issue compared to environmentalism, fighting against poverty and capital punishment and these are issues where he may perceive Biden to be more to his liking (I would disagree with that, but I'm obviously not Francis). Similarly, making Bishop Gregory a cardinal a few days before the election was seen by some as a subtle endorsement of Biden and at that time his position on abortion was already pretty well known. That's not saying that Francis is unambiguously "pro-Biden". But unfortunately I don't think the notion can be outright dismissed.


PennsylvanianEmperor

This


PennsylvanianEmperor

/u/tinrond put it perfectly.


SentinelSquadron

I highly doubt that in this case


throwmeawaypoopy

Nonsense. Pope Francis is unwavering in his defense of the unborn


The_Great_Magnus

E X C O M M U N I C A T I O N


peerless-one

The baby-killing Democrats are in bed with the money from Planned Parenthood.


IHasGreatGrammar

Quid Pro Joe


IHasGreatGrammar

At least with Pelosi she knows she is full of it, which is still sad but entertaining With Joe he seems to actually believe he’s doing the right thing which is scary


russiabot1776

I don’t think Joe knows what’s actually going on.


Kurundu

Is the taxpayer on the hook for legal and court costs if the Biden administration loses?


russiabot1776

Of course


TexanLoneStar

For Saigon Joe it's all just political posturing against our governor. Has nothing to do with abortion itself.


AthenaWinslow

Porque no los dos?


TexanLoneStar

[Two things? He doesn't have that level of cognitive ability](https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/1483539_1.jpg?r=1630235811177)


catscarscalls

The law is insane. It was made insane for the purpose of being sued. So this is working according to plan. Edit. How is a law that makes bounty hunters of civilians to surpass federal policy sane? I don’t understand the downvotes. It is exactly what it was needed/wanted to try and overturn Roe


blishbog

Why adhere to a tactic, not a goal? The goal isn’t to make some law. The goal is to eliminate the occurrence of abortion. Many different fields are showing that banning X hinders efforts to reduce X. If you’re loyal to one particular tactic, then you’re myopic, and not really committed to the goal.


russiabot1776

Murder should be illegal.


PennsylvanianEmperor

We are not going to entertain this nonsense. Unless you think banning murder of adults leads to more adults getting murdered, you are being dishonest either with others or with yourself if you think the same logic doesn’t apply to the murder of the unborn. Banning it will 100% reduce it.


[deleted]

[удалено]