Republicans and "Personhood"

Discussion
1

Hi All,

I am trying to warn as many young women as I can that unless they mobilize some grassroots against Republicans regarding giving fetuses "personhood," they are going to find themselves one day needing immediate medical attention but unable to get any unless some addled judge says it is OK for them to do so. The state of New Hampshire Republican Party has included a "personhood" for the "pre-born" plank in its platform. Rand Paul, a popular Republican, is campaigning in favor or a Constitutional Amendment giving fetuses "personhood" at time of conception. Those are only two examples of the trend.

By way of reminder, the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution does (thankfully) indicate that no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It does not describe what is a "person."

It is one thing to have a personal belief against abortion of any kind, or to have principles against contributing tax money to provide for them. However, it is a different matter to use the legal system to impose personal beliefs on the general public.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-hampshire-republican-party-adds-personhood-to-official-platform/article/2553801?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Politics%20Today&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Politics%20Today%20-%2009/23/14&utm_medium=email

Marcy

2

Hi Marcy,

You raised a most interesting point when you said:

By way of reminder, the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution does (thankfully) indicate that no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It does not describe what is a "person."

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. Fred Korematsu, the then 23-year-old Japanese American and the case's namesake, with the help of the ACLU, argued that his 14th Amendment rights were violated, especially since the Amendment named "any person" and not "any citizen."

BTW, in a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Surprise! Six of eight Roosevelt appointees sided with Roosevelt.

Anyhow, I think it is quite possible for someone to argue that since "person" is not defined in the 14th Amendment, an aborted fetus could be considered a "person" whose right to life was deprived "without due process of law." Let's see how far pro-lifers could get with that line.

You also said:

It is one thing to have a personal belief against abortion of any kind, or to have principles against contributing tax money to provide for them. However, it is a different matter to use the legal system to impose personal beliefs on the general public.

I certainly agree with you. Unfortunately, "to use the legal system to impose personal beliefs on the general public," is a common, everyday practice. It's known by many names, including "lobbying politicians."

Still, while I'm not passionate about abortion, but have you noticed that the most passionate, vociferous pro-lifers are mostly men and that these men are usually warmongers and anti-immigration? Go figure.

I recall many years ago when I heard a libertarian say that among the talks about unsafe sex, the emphasis is always about avoiding STDs. But one of consequence of unsafe sex that's not emphasized, or hardly spoken of, is unwanted pregnancy. How about that?

I hope all is well with you. It's mostly OK with me.

Talk to you.

Alton

3

Hi Alton,

Always a pleasure to hear from you! Indeed, Korematsu vs U.S. dealt with personhood, and came to an abominable decision. I fear that just as a "Roosevelt Court" came to such a decision, so would a "Conservative Court" (I am refraining from calling it a "Rand Paul Court") come to a similarly abominable decision. Thus my reminder that the original document, the Constitution, does not describe what is a person, opening the door to all sorts of esoteric interpretations, as well as prompting calls for a Constitutional Amendment.

Of course the widespread practice of lobbying often serves to promote personal beliefs, as does congressional legislation, local initiatives, etc. All we voters have to do is ask ourselves how far afield from the Constitution any proposal is. Or to what extent is any proposal hanging on personal beliefs rather than a bare bones interpretation of the Constitution.

No, I am not passionate about abortion either. However, I am passionate about calling things by their proper name. And calling Rand Paul a libertarian, given his willingness to intrude on people's lives based on his personal beliefs, in my view is a stretch!

BTW, off this topic. I read your post about Millennial folk, and enjoyed it. But, again, I am picky as to who I call a libertarian. Oh sure, now that some are making nice money, they are not sure they want to pay so much in taxes. Sure, now that they see they are probably not going to get a cent off Social Security they might be inclined to talk about doing away with it. However, the Millennials I have spoken with are supportive of education financial aid, state-sponsored health care, government-sponsored home buying and ownership assistance, and other non-libertarian ideas. Sorry, I am just plain picky!

Regards,

Marcy