Systematic dishonesty. First Kristi Noem refuses to answer question about 10 year old and abortion, and election rigging for 2024 may happen
In one sense, we should say thank GOD for one thing. DeSantis, warts and all, will likely supersede Donald Trump and spare us all the agony of a 2025 Trump POTUS swearing in ceremony. We can give thanks for that . However in saying this, the problem remains that US Politics may be moved into the post Truth stage, by Trump's inheritors. Here are two portents as to why I say this
A. First of all is the beyond INSANE interview Kristi Noem had with CNN where Noem could not even ADMIT that a 10 year old, MADE pregnant, had any business getting an abortion. In this case, it should be a no brainer. Likely the pregnancy will damage the health of the mother, but in this era of 2022, where GOP figures refuse to even consider what to do if a woman is a victim of incest, which is horrendous in itself, the refusal of Noem of even considering if a pregnant 10 year old might have a right to end a pregnancy which would deform her for life, speaks volumes.
This BONKERS mind set is not just Noem's "problem": It is GOP orthodoxy, and will ignite interstate hate in the USA only rivaled by the Pre Civil war state fights over slavery.
B. The US supreme court will rule in early 2023 , with 6 "conservative " (?) justices green lighting scenarios where GOP governments in key states will FORCE a slate of electors for their state, AUTOMATICALLY backing the GOP candidate for POTUS, regardless of the popular vote of the state.
C. Let us, in the abortion wars cue into one fact, I.e.
quote
In addition, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. The chronology starts with a sketch of events in the first six Christian centuries when Christians sought ways to distinguish themselves from pagans who accepted contraception and abortion. During this period, Christians also decided that sexual pleasure was evil. Early Church leaders began the debate about when a fetus acquired a rational soul, and St. Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion, Church leaders considered a woman's situation when judging abortion, and abortion was listed in Church canons as homicide only when the fetus was formed
end of quote
IMO, as to the rigidity of the Christian right, and in particular NOEM NOT considering the situation of a young girl, you tell me if that is in any way commensurate with Early Christian thought as to abortion? FLAT OUT NO
In A and B, the dysfunctionality is revealed. In C, the ultimate wedge issue, the modern GOP fanatics do not have the grace of God to even remotely consider a woman's situation. Instead we will have GOP police fan out all over the USA to charge with homicide women trying to leave their states of residence. How well will that work out ? TERRIBLY. It will make the culture wars as of 2020 seem tepid.
In a word, people to paraphrase " Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", something is really off here in the run up to 2024
https://www.rawstory.com/kristi-noem-2657602594/
quote
July 03, 2022
?????
Dana Bash, Kristi Noem (CNN screenshots)
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) was put on the spot during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" when the anti-abortion Republican was asked about a pregnant?10-year-old Ohio girl's inability to get an abortion in her state .
What followed was Noem expressing outrage about how the child got pregnant which then forced host Dana Bash to ask her to stick to the question and address the abortion issue.
"The Indianapolis Star is reporting a 10-year-old girl in Ohio, who is six weeks and three days pregnant, now has to travel across state lines to Indiana to receive an abortion," Bash began. "Because this was a trigger law that was passed before you became governor, I want you to be clear, will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?"
"What is incredible, Dana, in this tragic story, because I heard about this last night, what is incredible is no one is talking about the pervert, horrible, deranged individual that raped a 10-year-old. What are we doing about that?" the GOP governor parried.
"I couldn't agree more but our bodies are our bodies and women are the ones who get pregnant. In this case, it wasn't a woman, it was a girl," Bash pressed.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Every single life is precious," Noem offered. "This tragedy is horrific. I can't even imagine. I've never had anybody in my family or myself gone through anything like this. I can't even imagine. But in South Dakota, the law today is that the abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother."
"You would be okay with a 10-year-old girl having to have a baby," the CNN host persisted.
"No, I'm never okay with that. That story will keep me up at night. It breaks my heart," Noem replied.
"Will you change the law to have an exception for a situation like that?" she was asked.
"I can't even imagine," Noem replied. "I would say I don't believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. There's more we have to do to make sure we are living a life to say every life is precious, especially innocent lives that have been shattered like that 10-year-old girl."
"It's incredibly complicated, I get it," Bash pressed. "But i guess my question is, given how heartbroken you seem to be about the situation, maybe the question is this, because what I keep thinking about is, how is a 10-year-old girl physically, probably can't even carry a baby without being, never mind emotionally and physically tormented, but physically hurt. Would you consider that mother's life at risk?"
end of quote
"That's something in that situation the doctor, the family, the individuals closest to that will make the decision for that family," she replied.
end of quote
next
https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-election/
quote
July 03, 2022
Amy Coney Barrett (AFP)
Six Republicans on the?Supreme Court just announced—a story that has largely flown under the nation's political radar—that they'll consider pre-rigging the presidential election of 2024.
Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate.
Here's how one aspect of it could work out, if they go along with the GOP's arguments that will be before the Court this October:
It's November, 2024, and the presidential race between Biden and DeSantis has been tabulated by the states and called by the networks. Biden won 84,355,740 votes to DeSantis' 77,366,412, clearly carrying the popular vote.
But the popular vote isn't enough: George W. Bush lost to Al Gore by a half-million votes and Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton by 3 million votes but both ended up in the White House. What matters is the Electoral College vote, and that looks good for Biden, too.
As CNN is reporting, the outcome is a virtual clone of the 2020 election: Biden carries the same states he did that year and DeSantis gets all the Trump states. It's 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, a 74-vote Electoral College lead for Biden, at least as calculated by CNN and the rest of the media. Biden is heading to the White House for another 4 years.
Until the announcement comes out of Georgia. Although Biden won the popular vote in Georgia, their legislature decided it can overrule the popular vote and just awarded the state's 16 electoral votes to DeSantis instead of Biden.
ADVERTISEMENT
An hour later we hear from five other states with Republican-controlled legislatures where Biden won the majority of the vote, just like he had in 2020: North Carolina (15 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Arizona (11).
Each has followed Georgia's lead and their legislatures have awarded their Electoral College votes—even though Biden won the popular vote in each state—to DeSantis.
Thus, a total of 88 Electoral College votes from those six states move from Biden to DeSantis, who's declared the winner and will be sworn in on January 20, 2025.
Wolf Blitzer announces that DeSantis has won the election, and people pour into the streets to protest. They're met with a hail of bullets as Republican-affiliated militias have been rehearsing for this exact moment and their allies among the police refuse to intervene.
After a few thousand people lay dead in the streets of two dozen cities, the police begin to round up the surviving "instigators," who are charged with seditious conspiracy for resisting the Republican legislatures of their states.
After he's sworn in on January 20th, President DeSantis points to the ongoing demonstrations, declares a permanent state of emergency, and suspends future elections, just as Trump had repeatedly?told the world ?he planned for 2020.
Sound far fetched?
Six Republicans on the Supreme Court just announced that one of the first cases they'll decide next year could include whether that very scenario is constitutional or not. And it almost certainly is.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution?lays out the process ?clearly, and it doesn't even once mention the popular vote or the will of the people:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress... [emphasis added]
"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons … which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…"
It's not particularly ambiguous, even as clarified by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Neither mentions the will of the people, although the Electoral Count Act requires each state's governor to certify the vote before passing it along to Washington, DC. And half of those states have Democratic governors.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court's probable 2023 decision. As Robert Barnes wrote yesterday for The Washington Post:
"The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats."
While the main issue being debated in Moore v Harper, scheduled for a hearing this October, is a gerrymander that conflicts with North Carolina's constitution, the issue at the core of the debate is what's called the "Independent State Legislature Doctrine."
It literally gives state legislatures the power to pre-rig or simply hand elections to the candidate of their choice.
As NPR?notes :
"The independent state legislature theory was first invoked by three conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices in the celebrated Bush v. Gore case that handed the 2000 election victory to George W. Bush. In that case, the three cited it to support the selection of a Republican slate of presidential electors."
That doctrine—the basis of John Eastman and Donald Trump's effort to get states to submit multiple slates of electors—asserts that a plain reading of Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution says that each state's legislature has final say in which candidate gets their states' Electoral College vote, governors and the will of the voters be damned.
The Republicans point out that the Constitution says that it's up to the states—"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"—to decide which presidential candidate gets their Electoral College votes.
But the Electoral Count Act requires a governor's sign-off, and half those states have Democratic governors. Which has precedence, the Constitution or the Act?
If the Supreme Court says it's the US Constitution rather than the Electoral Count Act, states' constitutions, state laws, or the votes of their citizens, the scenario outlined above becomes not just possible but very likely. Republicans play hardball and consistently push to the extremes regardless of pubic opinion.
After all, the Constitution only mentions the states' legislatures—which are all Republican controlled—so the unwillingness of the Democratic governors of Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to sign off on the Electoral College votes becomes moot.
Under this circumstance DeSantis becomes president, the third Republican president in the 21st century, and also the third Republican President to have lost the popular vote election yet ended up in the White House.
This scenario isn't just plausible: it's probable. GOP-controlled states are already changing their state laws to allow for it, and Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate.
Those state legislators who still embrace Trump and this theory are?getting the support of large pools ?of rightwing billionaires' dark money.
As the highly respected conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig?recently wrote :
"Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine … and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency."
I take no satisfaction in?having accurately predicted—in March of 2020 —how Trump and his buddies would try to steal the election in January of 2021. Or how the Supreme Court would?blow up the Environmental Protection Agency .
Trump's January 6th effort failed because every contested state had laws on the books requiring all of their Electoral College votes to go to whichever candidate won the popular vote in the state.
That will not be the case in 2024.
As we are watching, the Supreme Court—in collaboration with state legislatures through activists like Ginny Thomas—are setting that election up right now in front of us in real time.
We damn well better be planning for this, because it's likely coming our way in just a bit more than two short years.
end of quote
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/
quote
Conscience
.?Autumn 1996;17(3):2-5.
Abortion and Catholic thought. The little-known history
No authors listed
Abstract
PIP:?This article traces the history of the abortion policy of the Roman Catholic Church. The introductory section notes that the Church has consistently opposed abortion as evidence of sexual sin but has not always regarded it as homicide because Church teaching has never been definitive about the nature of the fetus. In addition, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. The chronology starts with a sketch of events in the first six Christian centuries when Christians sought ways to distinguish themselves from pagans who accepted contraception and abortion. During this period, Christians also decided that sexual pleasure was evil. Early Church leaders began the debate about when a fetus acquired a rational soul, and St. Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion, Church leaders considered a woman's situation when judging abortion, and abortion was listed in Church canons as homicide only when the fetus was formed. St. Thomas Aquinas declared that a fetus first has a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and finally a rational soul when the body was developed. The next period, 1500-1750, found anyone who resorted to contraception or abortion subject to excommunication (1588), saw these rules relaxed in 1591, and banned abortion even for those who would be murdered because of a pregnancy (1679). From 1750 to the present, excommunication was the punishment for all abortions (1869). This punishment was extended to medical personnel in 1917, but the penalty had exceptions if the woman was young, ignorant, or operating under duress or fear. In 1930, therapeutic abortions were condemned, and, in 1965, abortion was condemned as the taking of life rather than as a sexual sin. By 1974, the right to life argument had taken hold and became part of a theory of a "seamless garment" representing a consistent ethic of life. The current Pope recognizes that the moment of ensoulment is unknown but condemns abortion in all cases (except as the unintentional byproduct of another medical procedure).
Similar articles
end of quote
Andrew Beckwith, PhD
Consultant senior chez Corevalue
1 年Don't dump Trump 2 quickly!????