Abortion [hyperlink blocked by lefties, inexplicably and unceremoniously]

https://medium.com/@rsklaroff/abort-the-noisy-abortion-debate-ef92d53f9ff

Abortion

I was asked to summarize what a pro-choice, highly-conservative activist might argue in favor of the GOP’s
stance, in contradistinction to the radical views of Dems; what is provided, therefore, are two methods
by which Trumpsters can approach this issue, taking into account both the faith-based postures of the
pro-lifers and the necessity to avoid repelling the prototypic pro-choice suburban housewife.

My view hasn’t changed since 1975 (discussion deferred), and it’s reinforced by the aggregate of
hyperlinks that corroborate the viewpoint in the cover-essay infra; candidly, I’d want to neutralize this
argument, except to note the stark contrast between how Reagan/Trump have handled the issue and how
the Dems would even endorse infanticide (which I had thought was rejected three thousand years ago
when placing a newborn onto a mountaintop to die was attacked by Bulfinch’s Mythology).

One disclaimer is in-order, to wit, that a member of my household nudged me to suggest definitively that
insurers should cover physician-prescribed contraceptives and abortions performed under a physician’s
care, both of which are legal (notwithstanding the Hyde amendment); in many respects, the concept of
“stare decisis” might be applicable across-the-board but, on the other hand, taking into account decisions
of the SCOTUS related to “Little Sisters of the Poor,” a competitive free-market would allow for such
distinctions to emerge so as to satisfy ethical views of insurance purchasers (with the slack taken up by
states that decide how to disburse Medicaid functions regardless of federal law).

The Tea Party Patriots movement—responsible for both the suppressed press conference of physicians
supporting the availability of Plaquenil and the emphasis upon opening the schools—has assiduously
sidestepped addressing myriad social issues; in the interim, some have resolved (such as gay marriage,
recalling my essay composed almost a decade ago supporting creation of a distinction between the boy-
girl derivation of “marriage” and the more legalistic “civil union” designation), and others continue to
fester (recalling many raging components of the Culture War that animate Cancel Culture).

Abort the Noisy Abortion Debate:

Roe Will Remain the Law-of-the-Land

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.

Recently enacted abortion-related state laws have reignited controversy as to whether the Supreme Court
might overturn precedent, Roe v. Wade.

This hyperbolic argument seems to have been designed to motivate the pro-choice community to mobilize
women to vote-out President Trump, as he could have the opportunity to appoint as many as three
textualist justices during a putative second term; others suggest burgeoning pro-life activism has been
sparked.
Calmer minds must prevail, not only because of stare decisis (invoking precedent), but also because four
conservative justices will overturn neither this decision, nor its reaffirmation (Casey v. Planned
Parenthood).

Politically, advocates range from the pro-choice posture of President Clinton (“safe, legal and rare”) to the
pro-life policy of President Trump (acknowledging exceptions for “rape, incest and the mother’s life”);
most Americans recoil at both the restrictive heartbeat laws and the liberal infanticide legislation.

{Indeed, in 1990, I submitted a resolution along these lines to the Pennsylvania Medical Society’s House
of Delegates that had been cosigned by the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood and the President of
the Philadelphia Catholic Physicians Guild; it was tabled because the Speaker feared extensive debate, but
it demonstrated that consensus could emerge (if not prevail).}

Invoking the “multiple-choice” medical-model, it is apt to ensure organized medicine doesn’t issue flawed
reports that constitute thinly-veiled advocacy, as I documented the American College of Physicians and
other entities had blithely done.

Indeed, the survival of a 23-week gestation fetus reflects the current limits of medical science, coinciding
to when endogenous surfactant production allows for pulmonary function to be initiated.

But science is routinely invoked by all parties to serve preordained conclusions, so it’s necessary to probe
a few overlooked legalities.

Four of the five conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) honored stare
decisis precedent during their confirmation hearings; because four votes are required to honor a Writ of
Certiorari, only one justice (Justice Thomas) of the nine sitting justices could potentially accept any
putative direct challenge.

Cynics have suggested that the imprecision of stare decisis constitutes a scam (per the American Thinker);
that burying an effort to overturn precedent could prevail; and that reversal will occur if “the Court feels
the substantive issue is more important than pretending that precedent matters.”

Knowing that the Court—indeed, jurisprudence—covets predictability, however, an analysis of Citizens

United by a conservative think-tank (the Cato Institute) observed decisions were eroded when precedent
had proven unworkable and/or undermined in subsequent cases; Chief Justice Roberts was quoted as
having concluded that, when fidelity to any particular precedent does more to damage the constitutional
ideal of rule of law than to advance it, “we must be more willing to depart from that precedent.”

The consensus appears to be that a triad of criteria are applicable: [1]—Has precedent become engrained
within society?; [2]—Have the facts changed?; and [3]—Was an error committed?

Notwithstanding unrealistic “personhood” assertions (from the moment of conception), [1]—Abortion is

a recognized medical procedure; [2]—The trimester-structure has remained resilient; and [3]—Critics feel
the “privacy” right was derivative of faulty logic in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Removing the first two discretionary factors, the dispositive concern is whether Roe was well-reasoned;
although it has been depicted as residing within the penumbra of the Bill of Rights, it seems uncanny to
anticipate that this factor alone would suffice to change established law.
Judaism defines the dilemma-horns confronting ethicists, recognizing that the Torah (Exodus 21:22-25)
has determined that the fetus is not yet a human being and that the Talmud would minimize abortion so
as to maximize the number of voices available to praise the Deity; the latter probes what “legalistically”
constitutes the beginning of life [often based upon breathing, noting that the Biblical Hebrew word for
"breath" is ‫( נשמה‬neshema), inhalation/exhalation].

Thus, to lower the fever of heartfelt advocates on both sides of this issue, most Americans would probably
wish Roe would continue to provide the structure upon which state-level public safety laws are enacted—
ensuring that no undue burden be placed upon a woman seeking to end her pregnancy before a viable
baby has developed—for no one would wish another Gosnell to run amok.

Judicial Watch has reported extensively on Soros’ global campaigns to further advance the left’s radical
agenda abroad and domestically and published an investigative report on the financial and staffing nexus
between his deeply politicized Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the U.S. government. OSF works to
destabilize legitimate governments, erase national borders, target conservative politicians, finance civil
unrest, subvert institutions of higher education and orchestrate refugee crises for political gain. With the
help of American taxpayer dollars, Soros bolsters a radical leftwing agenda that in the U.S. has included:
promoting an open border with Mexico and fighting immigration enforcement efforts; fomenting racial
disharmony by funding anti-capitalist racialist organizations; financing the Black Lives Matter movement
and other organizations involved in the riots in Ferguson, Missouri; weakening the integrity of our
electoral systems; promoting taxpayer funded abortion-on-demand; advocating a government-run
health care system; opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts; promoting dubious transnational climate
change agreements that threaten American sovereignty and working to advance gun control and erode
Second Amendment protections.