The Collapse of Liberty, the Constitution, & Women Rights
 |
| Image from health32.com |
Those who support pro-choice, for the most part, see this matter from the perspective of rationality. Abortion is a private matter. The choice strictly belongs to the women and once decided the issue is closed. The zygote and then is not sentient being until after birth.
Those who oppose abortion, of course, see this matter in terms of religious beliefs and "human" emotions. Murder is murder they proclaim. Murder is never a private matter. No matter how small the zygote is -- the fertilized zygote is a person.
The sense of compromise and pragmatism is seemingly unapproachable. To agree to disagree is not even in the lexicon of discussion anymore. For the last two years since the 2010 mid-term elections states have passed Draconians measures to restrict the access and control, through legislation and regulations, to women's right to choose.
For instance, Kansas recently passed legislation that regulated its last three clinics nearly out of existence see stories here, (cbs), here (fox), and (msnbc), but a Federal court injunction put part of the Kansas' law on hold. The goal of the legislation is to "target regulation of abortion providers,"(also referred to as TRAP Laws). In Oklahoma, the republican legislators and governor signed a law requiring women to have a vaginal ultra sound (Update).
According to a Reuters' story, an Idaho woman was nearly prosecuted for ending her own pregnancy due to an antiquated law that had been on the books since 1972. The story explained that this law predated the latest advancement for pharmaceutical (or chemical) abortions. Idaho does not have any abortion providers in the state -- and if a woman wishes to get an abortion she has to travel to Utah to do so.
In Georgia, a lawmaker, State Rep. Bobby Franklin, proposed a measure that would essentially give the "death penalty" for a woman's miscarriage (see story here). Texas, in May of 2011, passed further regulations requiring women to have sonograms, two clinics visits, and a waiting period,which was recently upheld in court,
These examples illustrate how the abortion debate conflagration has impacted the rights between personal and private liberty versus the idealized social contract of the United States. The Declaration of Independence spoke of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet the document was a list of grievances being asserted against the individual and their property. The Declaration of Independence was not speaking necessarily of a person's personal being for happiness, as it has come to be known in the modern sense, but of a person pursuit of property in the physical sense, such as a person's home. The founding fathers, in the context of their time, asserted their values and beliefs within the principles and philosophies of John Locke, which in turn follows, that a person had inherit right to life, and that the life had right to liberty, and with the liberty to pursue happiness. In our founders' day that pursuit of happiness meant property or the acquisition of wealth through property.
In the United States of America's Constitution within the Bill of Rights which established individuals' and governmental rights. The Tenth Amendment stated that the individual States maintain their sovereignty in the application of rules and property of citizenry that were not explicitly asserted by the Federal government or put forth US Congress, but the coercing of citizens against a person's personal interest and liberty was against the interest of the State as well as on a Federal level.
In the 1973 decision of Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court asserted that a person, a woman, had the right to privacy, but it also asserted that the State, had a compelling interest after the first trimester and could regulate the actions of the woman. And, therein lies the conflation of individualism versus the Constitution. States around the country have asserted more and more control over women and have been working to usurp the ruling of the United States Supreme Court.
The battle of the individual versus the minority community has political discourse into the flames of extremism. The pragmatic discussions have continually shifted to the right of center making the two extremes ever more polarized. In addition, the shifting trend of the pragmatist is moving away from the liberalism of libertarian perspectives, while chasing the extremes of socio-religious neoconservatism. And, therein lies the issue of pro-life versus the pro-choice debate, when the persuasion of the moderate pragmatist has prevailed through active engagement with players of liberalism, the extremist in the socio-religious conservative move the bar just a little bit more out of reach, and, the same could be said of the nanny-liberals liberalism on the left. Yet, the minority of each extreme impacts the writ-large social contract and the largesse body of the remaining citizenry and chips away at the freedoms, civil liberties, and the self-determination of the individual and the community-at-large.
The pro-life and the pro-choice advocates for the last thirty-nine years has seen much modulation in the discourse of the individual and private acts. This modulation has led to the eventual schism between reasonableness and emotionalism.The United States of America's Constitution was and is a rational and reasonable document, which over time has become the foundation of social contract that has allowed for the expansion of opportunities. And, in turn allowed for more lives, more liberties, and more pursuit of happiness, both in the fealty to acquisition of wealth and property and in the fidelity to the self-interest of the person. In the end, however, the separation of religious freedom, which was established in the First Amendment, has brought a convergence of religious nationalism and led to the degradation of laws for liberty.
The founding fathers believed that the religion should be separated from the identity of the nation, and that, the States could adjudicate their own relationship for religious tolerance. In modernity, the collapse of the barrier of religious tolerance between the State, both on the national and local level, and the emotional fin de seicle hangover from the last century has imperiled the personal liberties of the person. Therefore, despite the proclamations of the pro-life advocates that rationality of secularism endangers America's identity, it has been their, the pro-life advocates, zealot-like behavior, that has all been fostered by the evangelical religious movement that continues to deconstruct the United States Constitution and all the freedoms of the individual and the social justice for all.
Returning the earlier points, the sense of compromise has been untenable and the true irrationality has come from the pro-life movement. For instance, the murder of George Tiller, a doctor that performed late-term abortions due to the health of the fetus or the endangerment of the mother's health, was killed by a pro-life zealot that determined Dr.Tiller's life was forfeit (link here). Admittedly, pro-life will claim that they have been in harms way by pro-choice advocates as well (link here and here), but for every claim that pro-life advocates history reaps of their violence (quick link). Moreover, pro-life advocates has a demonstrable affect on their representative party -- republicans -- especially in primaries. And, once elected public officials, republicans, despite their claims of fiscal and small government conservatism, use government to restrict, regulate, and manipulate deliberate social outcomes.
Since the midterm elections of 2010, republican controlled State legislative houses around the country have restricted and regulated more rights of women than anytime in history. According to the Guttmacher Institute, forty-five of the forty-six State legislature have introduced 944 measures to reduce or restrict reproductive health of women (link here). Additionally, the collapse of religious separation of the State, in terms of public officials and policy has produced more vitriol rhetoric toward the restricting of citizenry liberties post 1960 after the election of President John F. Kennedy and thirty-one years later post 9/11. Presidential politics examined more and more the candidates religious background and became penultimate realized with evangelical social movements of the late 1970s and realized in 1980 with the election of President Ronald Reagan. The social conservative movements with like of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jimmy Swaggert of time, has continued the impact the republican party to this day. And, in 2001with the "clash of civilizations" (as proposed by Samuel Huntington) the attack on Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, by an extremist Islam faction led by Osama bin Laden, re-energized the social conservative right which adjoin the patriotic fervor and nationalism with the reduction of liberties the citizenry both inside and outside the United States.
Inside the United States, the United States Congress along with President George W. Bush signed off on the reduction to privacy and broad national investigatory powers for the investigative alphabet soup agencies, such as FBI, CIA, and NSA et cetera with the passage of the PATRIOT ACT. Meanwhile the executive branch was allowed to violate basic tenets of human decency outside the United State with its investigative and military agencies, with executive order memos that allowed for torture (here).
In summation, the collapsing of liberties has become a part of the cultural lexicon in America.The derisive and polarizing nature of political talk has now been enshrined in the doctrine of religious speak. The isolation of women and restriction of rights to their person, both on the conservative and liberal side of the aisles has fostered embitterment among the political parties. Erstwhile, the once shining beacon of liberty, the United States, continued degradation of liberties fostered by an era of war, nationalism, and religious fervor, which has perverted the founding fathers' vision of our republic leaving the citizenry wondering where the heck has their American Dream gone ......
These examples illustrate how the abortion debate conflagration has impacted the rights between personal and private liberty versus the idealized social contract of the United States. The Declaration of Independence spoke of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet the document was a list of grievances being asserted against the individual and their property. The Declaration of Independence was not speaking necessarily of a person's personal being for happiness, as it has come to be known in the modern sense, but of a person pursuit of property in the physical sense, such as a person's home. The founding fathers, in the context of their time, asserted their values and beliefs within the principles and philosophies of John Locke, which in turn follows, that a person had inherit right to life, and that the life had right to liberty, and with the liberty to pursue happiness. In our founders' day that pursuit of happiness meant property or the acquisition of wealth through property.
In the United States of America's Constitution within the Bill of Rights which established individuals' and governmental rights. The Tenth Amendment stated that the individual States maintain their sovereignty in the application of rules and property of citizenry that were not explicitly asserted by the Federal government or put forth US Congress, but the coercing of citizens against a person's personal interest and liberty was against the interest of the State as well as on a Federal level.
In the 1973 decision of Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court asserted that a person, a woman, had the right to privacy, but it also asserted that the State, had a compelling interest after the first trimester and could regulate the actions of the woman. And, therein lies the conflation of individualism versus the Constitution. States around the country have asserted more and more control over women and have been working to usurp the ruling of the United States Supreme Court.
The battle of the individual versus the minority community has political discourse into the flames of extremism. The pragmatic discussions have continually shifted to the right of center making the two extremes ever more polarized. In addition, the shifting trend of the pragmatist is moving away from the liberalism of libertarian perspectives, while chasing the extremes of socio-religious neoconservatism. And, therein lies the issue of pro-life versus the pro-choice debate, when the persuasion of the moderate pragmatist has prevailed through active engagement with players of liberalism, the extremist in the socio-religious conservative move the bar just a little bit more out of reach, and, the same could be said of the nanny-liberals liberalism on the left. Yet, the minority of each extreme impacts the writ-large social contract and the largesse body of the remaining citizenry and chips away at the freedoms, civil liberties, and the self-determination of the individual and the community-at-large.
The pro-life and the pro-choice advocates for the last thirty-nine years has seen much modulation in the discourse of the individual and private acts. This modulation has led to the eventual schism between reasonableness and emotionalism.The United States of America's Constitution was and is a rational and reasonable document, which over time has become the foundation of social contract that has allowed for the expansion of opportunities. And, in turn allowed for more lives, more liberties, and more pursuit of happiness, both in the fealty to acquisition of wealth and property and in the fidelity to the self-interest of the person. In the end, however, the separation of religious freedom, which was established in the First Amendment, has brought a convergence of religious nationalism and led to the degradation of laws for liberty.
The founding fathers believed that the religion should be separated from the identity of the nation, and that, the States could adjudicate their own relationship for religious tolerance. In modernity, the collapse of the barrier of religious tolerance between the State, both on the national and local level, and the emotional fin de seicle hangover from the last century has imperiled the personal liberties of the person. Therefore, despite the proclamations of the pro-life advocates that rationality of secularism endangers America's identity, it has been their, the pro-life advocates, zealot-like behavior, that has all been fostered by the evangelical religious movement that continues to deconstruct the United States Constitution and all the freedoms of the individual and the social justice for all.
Returning the earlier points, the sense of compromise has been untenable and the true irrationality has come from the pro-life movement. For instance, the murder of George Tiller, a doctor that performed late-term abortions due to the health of the fetus or the endangerment of the mother's health, was killed by a pro-life zealot that determined Dr.Tiller's life was forfeit (link here). Admittedly, pro-life will claim that they have been in harms way by pro-choice advocates as well (link here and here), but for every claim that pro-life advocates history reaps of their violence (quick link). Moreover, pro-life advocates has a demonstrable affect on their representative party -- republicans -- especially in primaries. And, once elected public officials, republicans, despite their claims of fiscal and small government conservatism, use government to restrict, regulate, and manipulate deliberate social outcomes.
Since the midterm elections of 2010, republican controlled State legislative houses around the country have restricted and regulated more rights of women than anytime in history. According to the Guttmacher Institute, forty-five of the forty-six State legislature have introduced 944 measures to reduce or restrict reproductive health of women (link here). Additionally, the collapse of religious separation of the State, in terms of public officials and policy has produced more vitriol rhetoric toward the restricting of citizenry liberties post 1960 after the election of President John F. Kennedy and thirty-one years later post 9/11. Presidential politics examined more and more the candidates religious background and became penultimate realized with evangelical social movements of the late 1970s and realized in 1980 with the election of President Ronald Reagan. The social conservative movements with like of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jimmy Swaggert of time, has continued the impact the republican party to this day. And, in 2001with the "clash of civilizations" (as proposed by Samuel Huntington) the attack on Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, by an extremist Islam faction led by Osama bin Laden, re-energized the social conservative right which adjoin the patriotic fervor and nationalism with the reduction of liberties the citizenry both inside and outside the United States.
Inside the United States, the United States Congress along with President George W. Bush signed off on the reduction to privacy and broad national investigatory powers for the investigative alphabet soup agencies, such as FBI, CIA, and NSA et cetera with the passage of the PATRIOT ACT. Meanwhile the executive branch was allowed to violate basic tenets of human decency outside the United State with its investigative and military agencies, with executive order memos that allowed for torture (here).
In summation, the collapsing of liberties has become a part of the cultural lexicon in America.The derisive and polarizing nature of political talk has now been enshrined in the doctrine of religious speak. The isolation of women and restriction of rights to their person, both on the conservative and liberal side of the aisles has fostered embitterment among the political parties. Erstwhile, the once shining beacon of liberty, the United States, continued degradation of liberties fostered by an era of war, nationalism, and religious fervor, which has perverted the founding fathers' vision of our republic leaving the citizenry wondering where the heck has their American Dream gone ......
Comments