Reducing abortions

[Ken]

I may be wrong, but I've always understood the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to be the source of congressional power to pass law and that Supreme Court precedent required that any law passed by Congress be at least tangentially related to issues of interstate commerce. That for instance, is why Congress cannot pass a law about the drinking age in Pennsylvania or pass a national law legalizing or outlawing same-sex marriage.

I think it's broader than that. Here is one useful overview.

And Article I of the United States Constitution seems to give Congress powers that are not directly related to interstate commerce. For instance:

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

That last paragraph is an interesting bunny-trail given current immigration debates ... but probably not appropriate for this thread.

FYI….That last clause wasn’t about immigration. That was the clause that prohibited the international slave trade after 1808.

[temporal1]

Falco:
FYI….That last clause wasn’t about immigration. That was the clause that prohibited the international slave trade after 1808.

Whopping distinction.

The for-profit corporate abortion industry promoters+enablers are out en masse. $$$$

“In wake of abortion law, Illinois governor trying to lure Texas corporations away: report”
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south- ... ay--report

“How Illinois Became an Abortion-Rights Haven”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch ... ghts-haven

“Pritzker declares Illinois “most progressive state in the nation” on abortion”
https://www.wcia.com/news/local-news/pr ... -abortion/

[Bootstrap]

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

That last paragraph is an interesting bunny-trail given current immigration debates ... but probably not appropriate for this thread.

FYI….That last clause wasn’t about immigration. That was the clause that prohibited the international slave trade after 1808.

But it does not specifically say "slave". On the other hand, it did say 1808, so it has expired, and slavery was the main reason for this. There's some interesting history here ...

[Ken]

That last paragraph is an interesting bunny-trail given current immigration debates ... but probably not appropriate for this thread.

FYI….That last clause wasn’t about immigration. That was the clause that prohibited the international slave trade after 1808.

But it does not specifically say "slave". On the other hand, it did say 1808, so it has expired, and slavery was the main reason for this. There's some interesting history here ...

Well, technically the Constitution prohibited Congress from prohibiting the slave trade until 1808, which they promptly did in 1807 with an effective date of 1808. Anyway, this is an explanation of the issue. But it was definitely all about slavery and not ordinary white immigration, which was completely unrestricted at that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohi ... _of_Slaves

[temporal1]

.. ordinary white immigration ..

i don’t believe there was such a thing, the “melting pot” philosophy came later, maybe 1900’s.
peoples migrating from western Eurpoean countries did not view themselves as one group, and they were often hostile toward one another. they would not have judged one another as, just “more white people.” as is apt to be common perception today, after loads of filtering.

ordinary migration is decidedly different than any form of forced migration, slavery, indentured servants, refugees, etc., no matter ethnicity or other distinction. there was no, “o. you’re white, everything’s ducky.” no. each group had to find their way.

but in youthful U.S., a lot was (and is) going on, the dust was not settled in any way.

when i was a teen in the 1960’s, the world was in turmoil over several big issues. the world was blowing up.
in my naive mind, i dreamed of a world with no religion! - and, a world wherein there would be no color/racial distinctions.
after all, these are issues that divide and cause wars, right?

i grew up.

[temporal1]

Rod Dreher / “Abortion And Our Liberal Democracy”
https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... democracy/

.. So, if this were to become law, there would be no restrictions on abortion, anywhere. Partial-birth abortion (see above) would presumably once again be legal, though now abortion providers stay on the right side of the law by injecting poison into the heart of the unborn child to kill her before she is delivered in the abortion procedure.

As NPR reports, this is largely symbolic, but it’s a sign of how ghoulish the pro-choicers are.
Check out the abortion laws in European countries — they’re almost all more restrictive than this new bill.

Oh, and by the way: the Woke Capitalists are at it again, using corporate policy to attempt to punish states for enacting socially conservative legislation that they don’t like. If a major corporation offered to help its employees move out of a state that had recently passed pro-choice or pro-LGBT legislation, we would never hear the end of it.

What corporations and the media are doing is creating a world in which anybody who disagrees with progressive social and cultural values are treated like lepers.

This is why I have mostly given up on liberal democracy — not as an ideal, but as something possible for us. Liberal democracy has been hollowed out from within. How are you going to have a functioning liberal democracy when major stakeholders in society — like corporations, who are democratically unaccountable — consider citizens who disagree with them on certain issues to be untouchables?

Yesterday I gave an interview to Matt K. Lewis, who talked mostly about Hungary.
I told him that I had mostly given up on liberal democracy, not because I don’t like it — I would prefer to live in a liberal democracy — but because I no longer believed that we had a real liberal democracy.

Why not? Because the forms exist, but the progressive left — including Woke Capitalists — has hollowed them out.
I told him that I thought the future was going to be a struggle between left-wing illiberal democracy (such as is coming into being here in the US), and right-wing illiberal democracy (like Viktor Orban is trying to establish in Hungary).
That being the case, I know whose side I’m on.

[Ken]

.. ordinary white immigration ..

i don’t believe there was such a thing, the “melting pot” philosophy came later, maybe 1900’s.
peoples migrating from western Eurpoean countries did not view themselves as one group, and they were often hostile toward one another. they would not have judged one another as, just “more white people.” as is apt to be common perception today, after loads of filtering.

ordinary migration is decidedly different than any form of forced migration, slavery, indentured servants, refugees, etc., no matter ethnicity or other distinction. there was no, “o. you’re white, everything’s ducky.” no. each group had to find their way.

but in youthful U.S., a lot was (and is) going on, the dust was not settled in any way.

when i was a teen in the 1960’s, the world was in turmoil over several big issues. the world was blowing up.
in my naive mind, i dreamed of a world with no religion! - and, a world wherein there would be no color/racial distinctions.
after all, these are issues that divide and cause wars, right?

i grew up.

I just meant Europeans coming on their own accord as opposed to black slaves arriving on slave ships.

[temporal1]

As I have said earlier on this forum I think IVF that leaves dozens of babies sitting in a freezer is wrong and immoral,
and eventually leads to murder.

It is gruesome and disgusting to create dozens of frozen, unwanted embryos.
And yes I’d support criminal penalties for creating an embryo with IVF with any other plans than immediate implantation in the mother who wanted it. I realise edge cases happen so let’s not talk about edge cases.

There is no moral or legal principle of “miscarriages due to negligence”. That isn’t murder.
Murder is intentionally trying to end a human life, and that’s what I’m saying is wrong.

MORAL DILEMMAS

“Twins born from embryos frozen nearly 30 years ago break record”
https://www.wate.com/news/top-stories/t ... ak-record/

.. Philip and his wife, Rachel Ridgeway, said they knew they wanted to participate in an embryo adoption program
when they discussed having more kids.

“We wanted to be able to go in and find embryos that had been overlooked for reasons beyond their control that have been waiting so long for a mom and a dad,” said Rachel.

The now parents of 6 are from Portland, Oregon but traveled to Knoxville to participate in the National Embryo Donation Center’s program. ..

Josh is correct. something is wrong here. there is a huge disregard for human life, in the pursuit of human life.