As we approach Independence Day (and a very happy and memorable Independence Day as we celebrate those noble individuals who were willing to put all on the line to attempt an experiment in civil liberty), we at D-J finally have some time to reflect on the recent SCOTUS decisions. We’ve been faced with a deluge of assignments by clients regarding each of these decisions and how to handle them within their organization; our staff being taxed to its limit. Hopefully these sections will provide some background of our position on the topics, and how we might suggest YOUR organization deal with them. At D-J, we are extremely grateful to the founders of OUR constitution and the altruistic wisdom–wisdom which would later be backed up by their own sweat and blood–in their attempt to birth a nation and one of the few true constitutional republics then on the planet. One might look at the constitution in some ways as divinely inspired in that few OTHER attempts have successfully codified a document which might bring forth basic human rights in a framework to enshrine and protect them; one which transcends time and technology.
The Fourteenth Amendment was quickly passed in the aftermath of our Civil War. In the haste to GET such an amendment, when one considers the writers’ intent, it was worded somewhat poorly to achieve the intended objective (Diatomaceous-Johnson didn’t exist at the time; as a client the then-congress would certainly have benefited from the input of our staff). Its intent was to make former slaves citizens and ensure that they–and their descendants–would be allowed full and equal protection under the law (an objective that wouldn’t be fully realized until approximately 120 years later when the US entered the zenith of its ‘golden age’ of equality–one which unfortunately was short lived as the pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction). The original intent was narrow in scope; at the time it didn’t apply to Native Americans and it wasn’t until 1924 that Indians would be granted citizenship rights (we’re not saying this was morally correct but showing that the original Amendment wasn’t some broad based ‘catch all’ designed to be used for whatever purpose a prevailing court wished to impose).
Notably, ratification of the 14th was REQUIRED for former confederate states to re-enter the union. In some ways, the ratification was thus coercive and punitive in nature. Parts of the Amendment are worded that way; specifically preventing a former commissioned confederate to participate in state or Federal office, regardless of the will of the people of that state. Further, it allows for taxation of the former confederate states WITHOUT legitimate (citizenry directed) representation (at the time) and allowed the writing off of the North’s war debt while holding the former confederate states responsible for paying not only their own war debts but also what debts were incurred by the North. Hardly a ‘with malice towards none with charity for all’ approach. Nevertheless the Amendment was duly ratified–and has been problematic ever since.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
In this day and age, most everyone believes that it’s a GOOD thing for the bill of rights be applied towards all states; many states had individual state constitutions which did exactly that. But the 14th was the amendment which later provided for ‘incorporation’ — that the rights affirmed by the US constitution were applicable to the individual states (whether that’s the unfettered right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion, speech, etc.). So long as this interpretation doesn’t ‘make up’ new rights that weren’t IN the US Constitution, it can cause little harm and actually do some good. BUT–this Amendment HAS been used from time to time to rationalize the granting of rights which do not and never have existed.
To the point, the original Roe decision was a horrid one and set dangerous precedent for a constitutional republic; namely that a group of nine men could simply make up law (to fit whatever agenda they desired) and use some fancy prose to rationalize it. Our US constitution is wholly silent on the issue; and those framing it were keenly aware that the procedure DID exist. In fact, abortion techniques were documented as far back as 1550 BC and somewhat refined during the Middle Ages; some of the technology adopted in Western Europe and gradually diffusing across the globe. The framers of our constitution (and those amending it) CHOSE to remain silent on the issue (as they did with many other issues). Perhaps realizing that not only was this NOT an affirmed right, but also that by requiring due process before depriving an individual of life (and that a fetus could be so defined), it would open a can of worms which could not be solved on a legal level. In fact, the same 14th Amendment which was perverted by the Burger court to rationalize its decision would at face value argue AGAINST aborting a potentially viable fetus (although to be objective the Constitution uses ‘born’ with good intent).
Alito’s opinion is brilliantly written and nothing from our staff could make it better:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22067246-dobbs-decision
It rightly declares that there’s nothing in the constitution about abortion, and that the issue is remanded to the states (again according to the constitution). The people of the states (or Federal government for that matter) can pass whatever laws (if any) they deem appropriate to allow or truncate the procedure. Effectively righting a ‘wrong’ of a previous court.
Interestingly enough, those who howl “My Body, My Choice” loudest were some of the FIRST to force lockdowns, mask mandates, and vax mandates on whatever citizenry they could coerce in so doing. The Biden regime was adamant about this–having the net effect of scarring the economy, forcing very productive workers out of the labor market, and horribly scarring our most precious asset–that of our children. We shudder to think of the mental scarring that these precious children will have to undo later in life when having imprinted in their brain early in life the twilight zone images of masked caretakers devoid of expression, warmth, and caring. Against all principles of medical science (metadata from previous H1N1 outbreaks showed marginal–if any–gains from masks; this was later validated by Covid data. AND when used ‘improperly’ –as is usually the case in a general population who isn’t exceptionally diligent about sanitizing and changing masks as well as ensuring a proper seal–it can actually make things worse by forming a sort of ‘Covid Carburetor’ aerosolizing fine virus laden particles contributing to them lingering longer and posing a greater threat). Whether to mask or vax has always needed to be a personal decision after carefully weighing what is known of risks and benefits. Now–the ‘mandate’ crowd–has put itself into a wholly untenable position and can no longer argue ‘My Body, My Choice.’ This went out the window when the FIRST mask or vax mandate was issued and accepted.
We at D-J have NEVER shied away from declaring our position on events, or from advising clients with a “NO BS” position. So–where do WE stand ?
First off, the ONLY potential legal OR constitutional ‘protection’ towards a woman having an abortion ironically enough comes from the second amendment. This amendment not only is a safety valve against tyranny, but also codifies (this concept is in the ‘Heller’ decision by the way) an inherent right of personal self defense. If a twelve year old attempts to shoot a person, that person threatened has the inherent right of self defense in using deadly force (via arms) to thwart the attack. Rightly, the bar TO use deadly force is usually relatively high (like a direct and imminent threat). So, logically, if a twelve-year old trying to kill someone else can be targeted so could a fetus threatening the life of the mother. This would have to be a direct and imminent threat; however, one CAN make a coherent legal (and potential moral) argument that a pregnancy posing a bona-fide direct threat to the health of the mother could be terminated (now, this decision must be entirely up to the mother to be with legitimate and objective medical diagnosis of the situation). This is the only case we can think of which is logically, legal, and morally consistent. And rightfully rests with the mother to be in how far she wants to risk her own life to bring a newborn into the world.
For EVERYTHING else, we believe (and recommend to our clients) to stay out of it. They are free as they see fit to share personal positions and potential options; however, this is a no-win situation in which EVERYONE is basing formulated opinions on faith of some sort. While we believe guidance from faith essential and appropriate in making decisions for oneself, there is great pitfall in attempting to coerce others to accept what the God of OUR understanding is saying to US. In relaying this information, it needs to be of a suggestive and welcome nature such that the recipient can develop an understanding of what the God of THEIR understanding is saying to THEM.
The key issue becomes defining WHEN life begins. Does it begin at conception ? Does it begin when a heartbeat is detected ? Does it begin when the fetus could survive outside of the mother ? Does it begin when electrical activity starts to occur in a brain ? Does it begin at birth (this being a relatively untenable situation for anyone in that taking this position means that killing a kid a few hours before being born would be OK but killing a kid shortly after being born would be murder–which is absurd) ? While arbitrary benchmarks can be proposed, NONE of these can ever meet an objective test of what life actually is or when it actually begins. ANY of them must be accepted wholly on faith and belief of a person–and what that person believes from his relationship with his or her Almighty. While consensus of one group larger than another group MIGHT be obtained, neither group is ‘right’ from a legal perspective–OR a moral perspective outside of the respective groups’ belief system.
Which once again shows the brilliance of Alito’s decision (and that of the founders as well). There is no legal ‘right’ to an abortion, but there also isn’t an easy way to truncate this which is absent from faith and belief. Now, faith and belief HAS been made into law; however, we’re not sure that legal coercion is the way to go.
What CAN we do ? Well, we advise for our clients to simply respect the belief systems of their employees. As such, ANY funding of abortion by an entity other than the woman’s acquired assets (whether that third party funding comes from taxes or from health care plans which include elective abortions as covered–or by covering a trip to another state or country where abortion is legal) is wholly wrong. NO ONE should be forced to pay for another woman’s abortion. Also immeasurably wrong is coercing a health care worker in any way to perform these against his or her values system. Earned sick time of employees can be used for ANY purpose for health; whether that’s to take care of a child or to abort. We advise against taking a position OF encouraging abortion by an entity, but also believe there’s nothing wrong with helping a mother take care of her child. And indicate that your organization is available to support women in times of pregnancy–no matter how it turns out.
We believe the more militant on EITHER side of the equation best put their money where their mouth is. And by voluntarily providing these resources (as well as faith, comfort and belief) incentivize others to do the ‘right’ thing. For those wishing to truncate abortion access, they are free to point out alternatives for raising a child (adoption, assistance, etc) and fund these. They are free to provide broadband access to contraception. They are free to provide information and comfort to a pregnant and scared woman–and devote THEIR time towards helping her raise her child. They are free to declare THEIR religious or faith based opinions (on their own time) and provide education and understanding. They are free to inform individuals that terminating a pregnancy may well lead to physical scars as well as mental scars later in life and isn’t a decision to be taken lightly. As far as the so-called ‘pro choice’ crowd they ALSO are free to provide broadband access to contraception (on their own dime) as well as personally fund procedures (from willing–not coerced–medical professionals). And to provide post-procedure counseling and medical resources for those women who might have been scarred by the procedure.
At D-J, we welcome differing points of view. When it comes to assessing the ‘wrong’ ones we use the simple but effective test of coercion and propaganda. Coerced–or parroted ‘bumper sticker’ propaganda– viewpoints are almost always wrong.
We wish all of our clients a wonderful Independence Day (please come back with all your fingers if you’re enjoying fireworks) and will publish the remaining elements of the ‘trifecta’ SCOTUS decisions in due time.
Diatomaceous-Johnson 