Pogo
Well-Known Member
National service, I don't think is a bad idea in many ways.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion Rights
- Thread starter crossfire
- Start date
This would fit "badges and incidents of slavery:" restriction of movement.
Not if they don't have the time or resources.
And in the 17 that don't, 6 weeks effectively amounts to a total abortion ban.
Do you think it's normal or reasonable to have to leave your own state to access basic healthcare?
Would you think it reasonable if, say, 90% of Americans would have to travel more than 100 miles to get chemotherapy or have a broken bone set?
This map depicts abortion access across America and it's really bleak
Twenty-seven major cities in the country are 100 miles or more from their nearest abortion provider.
www.motherjones.com
"Badges and Incidents of Slavery:" Racial Discrimination (In this case discrimination against pregnant persons.)
From the Associated Press:
apnews.com
From the Associated Press:
Dozens of pregnant women, some bleeding or in labor, are turned away from ERs despite federal law
More than 100 pregnant women in medical distress who sought help from emergency rooms have been turned away or negligently treated since 2022.
How do you reconcile these two statements with the reality of the long arm of Texas trying to reach across state borders? You stated you disagree with it, but it is a reality. Fortunately, Washington State has implimented Shield Laws to protect against this.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
If true, I would be against that.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Well he can't legally do it, but it is typical of the things he thinks are acceptable. Reason for thought.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Couldn't this amendment be used to outlaw Alimony. Alimony can be looked at as involuntary servitude. One has to work so many hours, per week, as a slave. The legal fix could be the person receiving alimony, has to work for the giver, so it is earned income.
That amendment could also apply to income tax, and any future obligations caused by adding to the national debt; involuntary servitude without any crime committed. They made it a crime, not to pay taxes, but that may be illegal based on the 13th. The state could force anyone to be shaken down, and make it crime not to allow it. That is putting the slavery cart before the freedom horse. We may need to challenge the income tax due to slavery issues and no standing in court to the forced slavery.
We can have a service for a fee type government, like they had before they added slavery back.
The 13th Amendment problem, with the abortion issue, is the Constitution, says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with the right to life in the main body, and not just an addendum like an Amendment. The unborn baby has a right to life. Killing the unborn is not a justification for happiness. The unborn now has an inability to have a standing in court. It has no voice or protection under the law in many Liberal States.
This is why the abortion debate, for years, shifted to the argument for when life begins. According to science, all the cells of the unborn are alive. The integrated whole is also growing in proportions, even if not yet conscious.
An interesting Amendment that the Supreme Court says protects the unborn, is US citizen clause is the 14th Amendment.
THE CORPUS OF SUPREME COURT OPINIONS FROM 1850-1880 CONFIRMS THAT AN UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.Jul 28, 2021. This gives right to life. Each unborn may need to have a day in court. Trump is not a radical as he could be simply by being a stickler for the law.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Not if you accept equality in cause, but you do you, on the other hand, if there is according to your logic, then alimony is not involuntary servitude but a contractual obligation.
best I can do for responding to your logic.
They sure do have a different vision of Ameristan.
One where "liberty" is the right to be a conservative
Christian....enforced by a more powerful central
federal government.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Clause 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
An unborn fetus has not been "born or naturalized in the United States," so is not yet a citizen. The pregnant person has been born, however, and can be counted among the citizenry.
Clause 2: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The pregnant person would qualify for this, but not an unborn fetus.
Clause 3: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The State is not depriving an unborn fetus of life, liberty, or property, but the State would be denying a pregnant person liberty if it enacts laws forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. (See 13th amendment, "Badges and Incidents of Slavery--Forced labor for the benefit of another person" from the opening post
Clause 4: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The United States even recognizes bodily autonomy of corpses, (the right to not have its organs utilized without permission) so would also have to recognize bodily autonomy of pregnant persons and give pregnant persons the same protections afforded to corpses.
Likewise, a person who has been born does not have the right to demand tissues or organs from any other person, nor can the State compel a person to donate bodily tissues or organs to another.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
This claim is as true as the claim that abortion is illegal in the US. How can that be? Well, Clizby's claim only means that abortion is legal in some states, just not all of them. By the same token, abortion is illegal in some states, just not all of them. Such word games have no place in an honest discussion. We all know what the situation is. Some women living in states that criminalize abortion are forced by their circumstances to have a baby that they do not want. Nobody is arguing that abortion is illegal in all states in the US.
Logically, this claim is known as a slippery slope fallacy.
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect).
An argument isn't wrong just because it
can be taken to an extreme by ignoring
complexities.
I wonder....if we let anti-abortionists have
their way, will they eventually claim that
every sperm & egg has a soul?
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
It gets worse. Some fertilized eggs split into two embryos, producing twins. I'm not even going to get into what's up with triplet, quadruplets, quintuplets, etc., vis-a-vis parceling out souls to embryos. However, some folks have very good imaginations and can come up with interesting solutions to puzzles over how to explain such things. I suppose that Quizby's concerns over the preservation of human life in such crowded wombs would increase accordingly.
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Amendments amend the original document. That's why they're amendments.
If you think a vague "right to life" supersedes the rights enshrined in the Constitution, just wait until you hear about the Second Amendment.
I think the connection between slavery and pregnancy would have to be legally connected not simply implied.
Get a court to rule that a forced unwanted pregnancy is a form of slavery.
IOW, sure take it to court, get a ruling and set a presidence. The opinion of various anonymous folks of a forum isn't going to get you anywhere.
So far I have documented 3 of the 5 badges and incidents of slavery as defined by the courts as occurring in regards to abortion restrictions. If you have any articles documenting the other two badges and incidents of slavery (property and contract restrictions, as well as court and testimony restrictions) I'd love to see them.
It will help to poke holes in my argument--like how scientific peer review works.
Last edited:
17 states tried to sue the federal government over the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act, saying that employers should not allow employees to take time off to travel to another state for an abortion. A federal judge dismissed the case saying the states lacked standing, so you can tell it was the state politicians driving this, not the employers.
Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging federal rules to accommodate abortions for workers
A lawsuit challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled on Friday.
However, a Federal Judge in North Dakota just put a preliminary injunction on the Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act in a case brought forward by the Catholic Benefits Association and the Diocese of Bismarck on the basis that it violated their religious freedom.
Judge blocks mandate requiring employers to accommodate abortion
A judge said it is “a precarious time for people of religious faith in America," calling the govt's actions "illegal and unconstitutional."
www.liveaction.org
In another case, a Tulsa, Oklahoma employer just got sued for violating the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act, and the employee wasn't even seeking an abortion. (She did have a high-risk pregnancy and they fired her over it.)
Tulsa employer sued for violating Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and ADA
A Tulsa employer is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma
The lawsuit against Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc. said the agency did not allow a medical assistant at a Tulsa facility to sit, take breaks, or work part-time as her physician said was needed to protect her health during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy.
The lawsuit said the practice forced her to take unpaid leave and refused to guarantee she would have breaks to pump breastmilk.
Urologic Specialists fired her when she did not return to work without those guaranteed breaks, according to the lawsuit.
“A pregnant employee does not have to risk her health and safety just to keep her job,” said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District. “Federal law requires employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant employees absent an undue hardship. The EEOC will continue to vigorously protect expectant and new mothers in the workplace.”
The lawsuit against Polaris Industries, Inc. in Alabama states the company refused to excuse an employee's absences for pregnancy-related conditions and medical appointments.
It also accused the company of requiring her to work mandatory overtime despite knowing her physician restricted her from working over 40 hours per week during her pregnancy.
The employee resigned to avoid termination and to protect her pregnancy.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Well she could have gone to a different state, it was her choice to stay in her job etc,17 states tried to sue the federal government over the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act, saying that employers should not allow employees to take time off to travel to another state for an abortion. A federal judge dismissed the case saying the states lacked standing, so you can tell it was the state politicians driving this, not the employers.
The two main states leading the lawsuit were Tennessee and Arkansas, who were also joined by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.
Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging federal rules to accommodate abortions for workers
A lawsuit challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled on Friday.apnews.com
However, a Federal Judge in North Dakota just put a preliminary injunction on the Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act in a case brought forward by the Catholic Benefits Association and the Diocese of Bismarck on the basis that it violated their religious freedom.
Judge blocks mandate requiring employers to accommodate abortion
A judge said it is “a precarious time for people of religious faith in America," calling the govt's actions "illegal and unconstitutional."
In another case, a Tulsa, Oklahoma employer just got sued for violating the Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act, and the employee wasn't even seeking an abortion. (She did have a high-risk pregnancy and they fired her over it.)
Tulsa employer sued for violating Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and ADA
A Tulsa employer is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Urologic Specialists of Oklahomawww.ktul.com
The lawsuit against Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc. said the agency did not allow a medical assistant at a Tulsa facility to sit, take breaks, or work part-time as her physician said was needed to protect her health during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy.The lawsuit said the practice forced her to take unpaid leave and refused to guarantee she would have breaks to pump breastmilk.Urologic Specialists fired her when she did not return to work without those guaranteed breaks, according to the lawsuit.“A pregnant employee does not have to risk her health and safety just to keep her job,” said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District. “Federal law requires employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant employees absent an undue hardship. The EEOC will continue to vigorously protect expectant and new mothers in the workplace.”The lawsuit against Polaris Industries, Inc. in Alabama states the company refused to excuse an employee's absences for pregnancy-related conditions and medical appointments.It also accused the company of requiring her to work mandatory overtime despite knowing her physician restricted her from working over 40 hours per week during her pregnancy.The employee resigned to avoid termination and to protect her pregnancy.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
While you're at it, throw in compulsory jury duty as well.