We have always found it quite natural to write on the most of delicate of subjects, such as, sexual gender nonconformity and even incest, included within the unlimited plethora of topics, assumed conducive to discussion; but until the present, we had found ourselves unable to find a persuasive, legal and entirely objective way, to question the demonstrated role of the Judiciary, regarding the delicate subject of the woman’s personal liberty, as an American citizen to obtain a needed abortion.
It must relevantly, be borne in mind that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “The Establishment Clause,” inarguably, mandates a “hands off” policy regarding issues concerning the exercise or non-exercise of religion. Also relevant is “THE MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT,” sec. 2.3, which provides that no Judge shall perform the duties of Judicial Office, inclusive of administrative duties, affected by any bias: racial, gay, gender, religious, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation.
We are of the considered view that the abortion issue, [if the publicized, private issue of abortion has an understandable rationale at all] ineluctably, is a religious one and that imposition of legislation and Court Rulings, affecting this personal right of female citizens, irrefutably, constitute unconstitutional violations of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. Regarding this politically divisive, hotly contested and personally impactful subject, we are at a loss to comprehend the absence of this cogent argument.
The most overtly demonstrative proponents of criminalizing abortion, consist of a cohort of apparent charlatans who have, deceitfully and tactically, arrogated to themselves the misleading, inspirational title, and fake mantra, “Right to Life.” Their represented cause is to protect “life,” purportedly, by protecting the fetus, [despite compelling causes such as, rape, incest, psychological or economic] from abortion. The blatant insincerity of their avowed dedication, and the tactically misrepresented nature of their name, has been empirically demonstrated by their many chosen acts, unequivocally indicating, that they, in truth, maintain little or no interest in the preservation of life.
They have practiced consistent opposition to legislative measures, designed to assist the needy child, following the determinative event of birth thus, relegating their purported protection only to the fetus, they have committed the premeditated and deliberate murder of no less than five medical doctors and several medical assistants and nurses, employed in abortion clinics, they have generally supported the death penalty, vociferously oppose government regulation of lethal weapons and oppose relief for immigrant families with young children, marooned at the border. It is logically and empirically, inarguable, that their sub-rosa inspiration, observingly, is other than the preservation of “life.”
By application of the dual rational processes of empirical elimination and logical deduction, we are convincingly obliged to conclude that their underlying purpose if rationally understandable, can only be founded in religious motivation. We may never discover why such institutionalized, religiously based, zeal is solely confined to life at its fetal stage, however, we have noted that religious zeal is seldom based upon objective considerations or on unimpeachable logic.
Assuming that our point of view is correct, it would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Courts and Legislatures have been in significant violation of the Establishment Act, directed at women, and, properly and legally, must entertain the responsibility, regarding the subject of abortion, of an appropriate, and long called for sea- change of jurisprudical direction.
Of crucial importance, an implementation of our felt need for such a change, of crucial would enable the confident and necessary assurance, that when abortions are necessary, they will be performed in an approved clinical and professional manner.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 