Social Security*
New Ideas on:
Taxation*
(www.BurtonRidgeway.com)
One citizen’s interference with another’s belief in abortion is an intrusion on religious freedom, which should rightfully bring a lawsuit against those who try to prevent a women’s use of a clinic.
The court’s stand that everyone is free to block entry to a clinic denies that free speech is generally limited to verbal or written communication of thought. (My definition)
When a thought is expressed in the form of a physical act, excepting flag burning, that act is not speech, and should have no constitutional protection under the provisions of the First Amendment. ( See my book, “The FECMA Conspiracy,” for my solution to the “Free Speech” problem.)
A public walkway is public property - we all have a right to it. A person who invades another’s use of the same public property - in the absence of a permit - to which they claim for themselves, should be prosecuted.
A number of experts on the constitution, such as Judge Robert Bork, have said that the document does not guarantee privacy, and he was right; privacy is to be properly addressed in legislation, not our by-laws. The constitution does, in fact, guarantee freedom of the individual in spiritual matters, therefore privacy, in that particular area.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is wrong in permitting states to make law concerning abortion, which is, intrinsically, a question for the nation as a whole, not any of its divisions. Government must disassociate itself altogether from the question of abortion, in order to maintain religious freedom for everyone.
In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992), where the court upheld Roe v Wade, the majority recognized the state’s “legitimate interest” in protecting both the health of a pregnant women and the life of the fetus that may become a child.”
Without her request, or against her wishes?
Like hell it is!!!! Unless her sanity is in legitimate question.
Without a person’s request for protection from an unwelcome influence outside herself, the state, other than domestic court, must not get involved. A person must have the right to do whatever one wishes to do with one’s own body. The “right” of the state to intervene is in the interests of those who demand that behavior of others must meet with their own beliefs, so is never in service to the interests of free individuals.
We are a society of so many convictions that our government must not be asked to enter the discussion on abortion. It is, as it has already proven itself to be, stupid.
“Some day in the not-so-distant future we will be able to make a baby from the particles of skin we wash from our bodies. At that time, will we prohibit women from bathing?”
( I forgot the source of this quote.)
The idea that aborting a pregnancy is to devalue human life assumes that there is a specifically set value to life in our nation’s basic law. There is no such stipulation. It also suggests that we all think of Human Life Value the same way in connection with any question concerning it; we do not. Legislation on this subject demands we all live according to a common religious belief, which we will not!
We must eventually eject from public discussion laws concerning anything related to personal actions taken with consent of all personally involved, that do not directly effect unrelated others. A private matter should be just that, and abortion is a very, very, private matter, until society must deal with a human life that exists, on its own, disconnected from it’s mother.
Additionally, the suggestion that women should go through the nine-month-long series of physical and psychological inconveniences because there is a demand for adoptions is terribly insensitive, and horrific! I propose that all male legislators who vote in favor of anti-abortion laws, be given varicose veins.
Dear Mr. Ridgeway;
In Baird v. Eisentsadt, my husband Bill's U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized birth control nationally in 1972, Justice Brennan wrote, "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to bear or beget a child." This quote does not exclude minors.
Had Justice Brennan stated that it included minors? If not, it didn’t. To say it did, is self serving. It seems to me that consideration of minors was not in the question posed to the Court, therefore could not have been in the decision; the Court does not answer questions not asked… . Does it?
Not only was that case the foundation for Roe v. Wade and Baird v. Bellotti but also for the 2003 gay rights victory, Lawrence v. Texas.
You wrote that if we are to believe that government should not intrude in our personal lives then (and correct me if I misinterpreted you) that should include not making laws that give rights to minors because it would impede on the parents freedom. …
Wrong! No one can mean *no* rights to minors; there’s always “Human and civil Rights.” In the absence of abuse, parents’ right to raise their children as they see fit should be sacrosanct, not answerable to judgmental yentas.
…You base this on the fact that parents are legally responsible for the child's "health, welfare, and behavior." I believe this is an oversimplification of the big picture relating to minors rights. The parental role of caretaker does not (in my opinion) equate with a role as slave owner. This is why the High Court stated, "The Bill of Rights is not for adults only."
Should a parent have the right to force a teen through pregnancy which statistics prove can. . . . .
“can”! Not “Will“!
. . . is her life and health at a higher rate than someone who is older? There are many parents who would decide her fate based on religious beliefs or who are trying to punish her. Even if a judge intervenes that judge may have strong religious convictions that would cause him to agree with the parent and hence deny her the abortion.
If parents can’t compel their children to give birth for religious reasons, then how could they compel their children to do anything for religious reasons?
You use the word “fate”; the assumption being the child is faced with death or dismemberment; we are discussing giving birth, not refusal for her to be saved with essential medical care for an illness. Parents who punish a child with an unwanted birth must have the right to do that, even if it is an obnoxious attitude, it is obnoxious to the sensibilities of busybodies, who should stay out of it.
The world does not end for the teen with this treatment; if it does, then children belong to the state, not the parents; it must *not* “take a village to raise a child“!
As for judges and their imperfections, we elect them, so we must accept their judgments. I do, however, take the position that the state should be ordered out of the abortion question; if a federal judge, who should be well qualified when appointed, makes a decision based on his/her religion, then, though that disgusts me, so be it. There’s always the appeal process - state and federal; much abused, but we are a nation of Law. We must accept disappointments. ( I live in San Diego, where a cross on a hill is driving us all to madness due to fanatic refusal to accept the rule of law when it fails to serve one‘s self! )
Judicial bypasses can also cause delays which push young women into later stages of pregnancy which are far riskier in terms of her health in having an abortion. A recent article stated that 17-year old pregnant teens are waiting until their 18th birthdays before getting the abortion so they don't have to involve their parents nor the courts. Again, this poses a significant health risk.
So, every time a teenager has a significant health behavior, government must get involved? Of course not! But this subject could take us there if we merge concern for child abuse, and a child’s personal judgment.
Is there an established degree of significance for government intrusion? Or do we make it up as we go along ?
I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone has the right to delay medical care…
Only when an abortion is deemed essential for the teenager‘s physical or mental health, not simply because the teen fears the wrath of the parent.
…. to anyone who needs it because they morally oppose it. What would happen if Jehovah Witnesses decided that no one should have blood transfusions? That is imposing their morality and conversely I do not believe it constitutes freedom that a parent has a right to impose her morality on her pregnant teen.
I have no idea how you could mate Jehovah Witnesses’ decisions regarding their own, with their making decisions regarding outsiders. You add “junk” to your argument for impact, but it’s still “Junk”. If JH’s got into making laws, I’ll move to Australia. Which is also “junk” because, the religion prohibits it. (I think).
As for a parents right to impose their morality on their kids, That’s the prime directive of parenting: to teach; if you use “impose” to differentiate from “teach,” then it’s again self-serving to your wants; we must not invade a home to impose our judgment on parenting in the absence of abuse. ( I helped found a child abuse prevention center and was its first President. { I am also from a dysfunctional family. }
You also stated, "I can’t see how a freedom fighter can think the oxymoronic idea that parents must be free to raise their children without interference ( in the absence of proven abuse ), yet can be deprived by government legislation of the right to be aware of their child’s pregnancy because the child fears the parents reaction."
First I feel the term "freedom fighter" is relative. One persons freedom could be another's oppression. So I tend not to label myself as such! I don't pretend to know everything and to know what the truth is.
Within family life, and relative to government and societal oversight, I don’t think we should touch “freedom and oppression, it‘s overkill, in both directions. “Fascistic Intrusion” may apply.
Again, I don't see children as chattel. Women used to be deemed such when they wed during much of history. Children should have rights and do have rights under the law. If a parent is a Christian Scientist, courts have upheld their minor child's right to medical care despite parental objection.
With regard to your assertion that we should absorb the losses of those unfortunate teenagers who die from parental consent laws (as was the case with Becky Bell), in order to uphold the current system of judicial bypass, I disagree for the following reasons.
The judicial bypass puts an undue burden on minors. Often the teen will have to lie to his or her parents in order to get out of school and seek court interference. In many states at least one parent must be notified of the request for a bypass thus putting the minor at risk for fallout from that parent.
Most minors feel that they can tell their parent if they are pregnant and want an abortion. However, there are many who cannot. Bill had a case where a 12-year old was impregnated by her step-father. Should he, because he is legally her father have the right to decide for her whether she should be forced to give birth? If that had been the case the risk to her life and health would have been great.
Not this father, but yes to the mother, unless judged mentally deficient, then she could be bypassed. A pregnancy caused by a family member is the result of abuse, and unacceptable in itself; let’s not bring that into the question of a parent’s right to know of a child’s pregnancy. If the decision is taken from a parent based on proven socially and legally unacceptable decisions of the parent, fine, but the parent must know of their child’s condition and attitude, and not be told afterwards, or never be told, that the teen had been pregnant and aborted.
Yet the former head of National Right to Life, Mildred Jefferson, MD said at a lecture with Bill that the child should be forced to give birth and then raise the baby as her sister and the parents be the mother and father. In that case, who should decide for that little girl? What if she wanted to have an abortion and the judge said no? Or what if the abortion laws are overturned and she had no choice at all nor her parents?
Anti-abortionists are immune to reason. I entertain nothing of what they have to say, and have no hope for the salvation of their souls.
I don't see that preserving parental authority, even when it comes to whether or not their child should have an abortion or a baby is a loftier goal than saving the lives of teens. I don't see that as a freedom issue.
The saving of a teenager’s life is not a question unless the teenager’s health or physical condition makes it so. This argument is also added junk to make the elephant bigger ( this abortion thing *is* an elephant.) The living must always come first, however, I devalue arguments that use unacceptable possibilities to add more bricks to the building, which is already blocking the sun.
If the teenager resided in her mother's womb then I would agree with you. But as the 14th amendment states, "A citizen is one who is born."
You betcha! ( Though it’s not true. But that another topic.)
As far as freedom bringing its own tragedies as does the lack of it as you put it, I also do not agree. Freedom brings opportunities that if used responsibly can be a positive force for humanity.
But it still brings tragedy. Freedom of speech permits on-line provocation to bomb and destroy in the names of many things. Difficult as it is to accept that, “we” do. That’s tragic!
( “I” don’t. Provocateurs should be as guilty, but their subtlety provides their escape. )
However if one uses one's freedom to oppress others, then they have abused their freedom.
Parents do in fact oppress their children. All the time! Should that call for neighborly and judicial oversight? We ride on a very thin line of reason here, so we each take it where we want it to go, and no further. But the freedom was not the cause - oppression was.
There are many more arguments that I could go into however they are very lengthy and complex. I hope this helps clarify our position.
Joni Baird
God! I wish everyone would just do as I say!
B.R.
WE INVITE YOUR COMMENTS. Please be civil.
What is your opinion of this web site?
© 1997 burtonridgeway@yahoo.com
Please visit these other briefs:
A better way to secure our benefits:
Social Security
*
New Ideas on:
Taxation
*
“Political leaders everywhere have come to understand that to govern they must learn how to act . . . who are we really voting for? The self-possessed character who projects dignity, exemplary morals, and enough forthright courage to lead us through war and depression, or the person who is simply good at creating a counterfeit with the help of professional coaching, executive tailoring, and that the whole armory of pretense that the groomed president can now employ? Are we allowed anymore to know what is going on, not merely in the candidate’s facial expression and his choice of a suit, but also in his head? Unfortunately. . . This is something we are not told until the auditioning ends and he is securely in office. . . As with many actors, any resemblance between the man and the role is purely coincidental.”
Arthur Miller, playwright.
A proposed end to the spectacle we must tolerate
”The FECMA Conspiracy.” A good one, for a change!
*
We need a better approach to:
"The War on Drugs"
*
Our kids are in trouble:
Public Education
*
Are we destined to go on and on about
the individual’s right to own an arsenal?
Guns and the 2nd amendment
*
Is it really a threat?
National ID Card
*
Commentaries on the not-so-little things about:
Law and Order
*
My solutions regarding:
Health Care
*
Commentaries on miscellaneous:
Issues and questions
*
Proposed changes to the U.S. Constitution
*
It all starts in our cities
*
Rev./Rab./Fr. Burton
at the pulpit
*
On Near-east problems
*
Home page
*
For your funny bone:
Thoughts too minor for serious people