The Equal Garbage Amendment (EGA) Is Back

[Flanders]

Democrats are pushing their democracy over individual liberties in an all-out effort to get voter to the polls in 2020. Serendipitously, horse manure shakes rank & file suckers loose from a few bucks in campaign donations. A few days ago somebody at the DNC decided that a one-two sucker punch ——democracy and the ERA —— was a brilliant strategy. A memo went out to top Democrats —— The ERA is a winner. Speaker Nutso had to put her stamp of approval on another crackpot policy:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) conversation is returning to Capitol Hill Tuesday as the House Judiciary Committee hosts the first congressional hearing in 36 years to discuss the legislation.


​

House committee to hold hearing on Equal Rights Amendment
By Elizabeth Campbell
CBS News April 29, 2019, 3:38 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-equal-rights-amendment/
​

Assuming Democrats are serious about garbage they have to believe that the Equal Rights Amendment has a chance now that Phyllis Schlafly (1924 - 2016) is gone. Should the House and Senate send it to states for ratification, today’s faces of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment are more than enough to defeat the ERA (EGA) a second time. See this thread:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-Of-The-19th-Amendment&p=2897059#post2897059

​

Yet Schlafly's legacy is perhaps most tied to her outspoken criticism of the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would have explicitly prohibited gender discrimination. It was passed by Congress in 1972 but defeated in the years to come, when it failed to be ratified by enough states — partly because of Schlafly's fierce opposition.

"Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there's nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support," she said in 1973. "It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed."

When Schlafly spoke to NPR's Michel Martin in 2014, she explained her motivations for opposing the amendment.

"When I went to the hearings for the Equal Rights Amendment and I heard what they were saying, and they had absolutely no benefit to offer women, but we could see a lot of disadvantages in it," Schlafly told Martin.
​

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...conservative-icon-phyllis-schlafly-dies-at-92

Much of the garbage in the defeated ERA sneaked in through state courts —— garbage like tax dollars paying for abortions.

Laws can be repealed and/or overturned. It is nearly impossible to repeal a constitutional amendment. Ratifying the ERA is the only way Democrats can protect their garbage.

Finally, I wonder how effective Planned Parenthood fatties in the video would be if they were dancing around 60,000,000 million little red crosses?

SEE VIDEO:

WATCH: Students Dance Around, Mock Cemetery For The Unborn: 'Look, There's Mine Right There!'
"Stop, hey, hey, what's that sound, all the fetuses are in the ground!"
Courtesy of 'Students for Life'
By Amanda Prestigiacomo

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46630/watch-pro-planned-parenthood-students-dance-around-amanda-prestigiacom

​

p.s. “. . . what's that sound, all the fetuses are in the ground!"


Screaming is the sound they hear:

A long time ago I asked myself what inhuman pain I would have felt while I was being torn apart had my mother aborted me? I still cry knowing that no one hears the screams of a fetus while it is being torn to pieces more methodically than animals tear apart a prey. Science gave us so much unnecessary brutality, the least scientists can do is find a way to record the screams of a fetus so Democrats can hear them.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426

 

[Flanders]

p.s. “. . . what's that sound, all the fetuses are in the ground!"


Screaming is the sound they hear:

In a major development that strikes a huge blow to claims by pro-abortionists that a fetus feels no pain, researchers have discovered that the sense of touch is developed by the prenatal brain.

According to Medical Express:


​

The development of a sense of touch has been studied by scientists for many years, but how it develops is still unclear. Prior research has shown that once it has developed, it exists as a sort of map imprinted on the cerebral cortex. Some have suggested that a basic map is created in the brain before birth and data points for it are added as newborns develop—sensory input from various body parts is simply added to the map. But now, that view might have to change, as the team in Spain reports evidence that suggests the map is already in place by the time a baby is born.

In their efforts, the researchers used mice to better understand how the sense of touch might develop because mice have what are known as cortical barrels—regions within the cortical layer that are visibly darker when stained. Prior research has shown that the map outlining the sense of touch in mice can actually be seen under a microscope by studying the cortical barrels. Prior research has also shown that brain function such as recognizing and responding to sensory information arises due to electrical signals that stimulate growth of neurons. Thus, to learn more about the development of the sense of touch in mice (at least concerning its whiskers) the researchers studied brain slices at various stages of development to monitor cortical barrel development, and also studied brain waves that have previously been identified as those associated with sensory processing.

In looking at their results, the researchers found that the sensory map created to process the sense of touch was built while the mice were still embryos. And it developed due to signals sent to the cerebral cortex by the thalamus, which also plays a major role in relaying synaptic information throughout the life of the mouse. The researchers suggest that it is likely the same process occurs in humans because “the organization of the cortex is conserved evolutionarily between species.”


​

Get that? If embryos develop the sense of touch before being born it means that pre-born babies can indeed feel pain - and that makes abortion an act of torture, cruel and unusual punishment.
​

Democrats endorse the cruelest methods imaginable to execute babies, while they always wrap themselves in moral superiority whenever they fight against the death penalty.

Pro-life people have argued that fetuses feel pain; they point out ultrasound show fetuses trying to get away from the abortionists forceps, for example. Pro-aborts dismiss this as purely involuntary spasms. But this research should demolish the claims by the abortion lobby that abortion is painless. If mice develop a sense of touch in the womb, it seems likely that humans do so too. And if they can feel touch, they almost certainly can feel pain.


​

Unborn Babies feel Pain
By Timothy Birdnow
May 5, 2019

https://canadafreepress.com/article/unborn-babies-feel-pain
​

 

[Flanders]

A long time ago I asked myself what inhuman pain I would have felt while I was being torn apart had my mother aborted me? I still cry knowing that no one hears the screams of a fetus while it is being torn to pieces more methodically than animals tear apart a prey. Science gave us so much unnecessary brutality, the least scientists can do is find a way to record the screams of a fetus so Democrats can hear them.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-On-The-Northern-Border&p=2786426#post2786426

Democrats do not want to hear the screams:

Editor’s Note: Be aware of the graphic description of abortion contained in the court decisions quoted below:

Lawmakers are restricting abortion in a number of states this year with the intent of provoking lawsuits that will reach the Supreme Court and overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a right to abortion.

That’s because President Trump has appointed two justices who have shifted the court to the right.

In addition, there is considerable scientific evidence of the personhood of the unborn that was not available in 1973. Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, admitted that if the personhood of the unborn where to be established, the premise of the ruling would collapse.

But the justices in recent months have sidestepped the issue several times. On Friday, one member chastised his colleagues for their avoidance.

“This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas.

He was talking about a complaint against the 2016 Alabama law on the dismemberment of unborn children, which the lower courts struck down because of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

“Earlier this term, we were confronted with lower court decisions requiring states to allow abortions based solely on the race, sex, or disability of the child. … Today we are confronted with decisions requiring states to allow abortion via live dismemberment,” Thomas wrote.

“None of these decisions is supported by the text of the Constitution.”

Thomas quoted from the court of appeals, which said: “In this type of abortion the unborn child dies the way anyone else would if dismembered alive. It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. It can, however, survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off … at the end of the abortion – after the larger pieces of the unborn child have been torn off with forceps and the remaining pieces sucked out with a vacuum – the abortionist is left with a tray full of pieces.”

Thomas explained the Alabama law did not prohibit abortion, but “it does prevent abortion providers from purposefully ‘dismember[ing] a living unborn child and extract[ing] him or her one piece at a time from the uterus through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or similar instruments’ that ‘slice, crush, or grasp … a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off.'”

Thomas said: “The notion that anything in the Constitution prevents states from passing laws prohibiting the dismembering of a living child is implausible. But under the ‘undue burden’ standard adopted by this court, a restriction on abortion” even when the procedure is “gruesome” – “is unconstitutional if ‘the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision ‘is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion…'”

He pointed out the appeals court even found the abortion standard was an “aberration of constitutional law” and recommended it be overturned.

WND reported the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it had to throw out the Alabama abortion restriction because of the Supreme Court’s precedent.

Chief Judge Ed Carnes lamented in his opinion that he was bound by precedent.

“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” he wrote.

Judge Joel Dubina wrote separately to express his agreement with Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia in Gonzales v. Carhart in which Thomas wrote, “I write separately to reiterate my view that the court’s abortion jurisprudence,” including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, “has no basis in the Constitution.”

When the case was at the 11th, the judges were revolted by the procedure.

They snarked that “a majority” of the Supreme Court “discovered that [abortion] right lurking somewhere in the ‘penumbras of the Bill of Rights’ as illuminated by the ‘concept of ordered liberty.'”

“In this type of abortion the unborn child dies the way anyone else would if dismembered alive. ‘It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb,'” the ruling said.

“It can, however, ‘survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.'”

The 11th Circuit is not the only court to take the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to abortion to task lately. About the same time as the 11th Circuit ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled an unborn baby is a “person” under the law, and, consequently, causing the death of that person can be punished with execution.

Further, in a special concurrence, Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade.

“I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade,” he said. “I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.”

Parker affirmed the Alabama court’s rationale that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.”

He asserted Roe is “without historical or constitutional support, carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn child’s inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion.”

“This judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law … and common law of the states,” Parker said.

Thomas argued that court precedents that are “demonstrably erroneous” should be overturned.

That stance drew criticism from the left, including by members of the court.

The far-left Think Progress reacted with a piece headlined “Justice Thomas just admitted he wants to burn down the very idea that courts should obey precedent.”

“After nearly three decades on the Supreme Court – Thomas finally articulated his approach to stare decisis, the principle that courts should generally follow the rules announced in past decisions,” Think Progress said.

The piece said Thomas apparently believes that the court should “burn down any decision that five of its members do not like.”

But that is precisely the standard for the nine-member court, and many decisions are 5-4. It was only five justices who created same-sex marriage in 2015, despite, according to the dissenting opinion, the ruling’s lack of any connection to the U.S. Constitution.

141 times

WND reported the Congressional Research Service documented the justices have reversed themselves at least 141 times over their history.

“How the court uses precedent to decide controversial issues has prompted debate over whether the court should follow rules identified in prior decisions or overrule them,” the report said. “The court’s treatment of precedent implicates longstanding questions about how the court can maintain stability in the law by adhering to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis, while correcting decisions that rest on faulty reasoning, unworkable standards, abandoned legal doctrines, or outdated factual assumptions.”

Those “outdated factual assumptions” are what worry pro-abortion activists.

The Roe justices said science wasn’t able in 1973 to conclude when personhood begins. But now it has been documented in multiple ways that the fetus is a separate, unique individual who, like a 3-year-old, eventually turns into an adult.

And there have been several efforts to amend existing law to recognize the humanity of the unborn, which would bestow all of the Constitution’s protections for individuals on the unborn.

The report lists the 141 cases that overruled Supreme Court precedent and explains on what basis the judgment was made.

The national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List commented about the high court’s decision not to hear the Alabama case.

“Once again the Supreme Court has punted on abortion, this time refusing to take up Alabama’s humane law protecting unborn children from gruesome dismemberment abortions in which a child is torn apart, piece by piece. Unborn children and mothers will continue to be victimized by the abortion industry while the Court does nothing. Justice Thomas is absolutely right when he says: ‘This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control … we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this Court has wrought.'”


​

Supremes warned: Abortion rulings 'out of control'
Posted By Bob Unruh On 06/28/2019 @ 1:53 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2019/06/supremes-warned-abortion-rulings-out-of-control/
​