by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
A federal judge who is overseeing a case against anti-abortion activists has raised what some are considering to be an interesting possible way around last summer's Supreme Court Dobbs’ decision which said that the right to an abortion is not guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. What the court failed to do in that instance was to rule out the possibility that the right to an abortion may be protected elsewhere in the Constitution.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly suggested that the 13th amendment may be the one that actually protects a woman's right to abortion. That amendment, which was drafted by the “radical Republican” Congress which was running the country at the end of the Civil War, brought about the end of slavery – as well as the entire notion of ”involuntary servitude.”
In her “wonderings” regarding whether forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy could be considered "involuntary servitude,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly has asked both sides in the case she is currently overseeing to provide briefs by mid-March addressing the questions which she has raised on the matter.
The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
Forcing someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant to carry a pregnancy to term certainly sounds like “involuntary servitude” to this weary old typist. And since almost half of the population can never be subjected to this form of involuntary servitude - while the other half can - it also sounds like a clear instance of discrimination based on gender.
But, hey, I’m not a lawyer – just a malcontent with a social conscience, a blog, and time on his hands.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly suggested that the 13th amendment may be the one that actually protects a woman's right to abortion. That amendment, which was drafted by the “radical Republican” Congress which was running the country at the end of the Civil War, brought about the end of slavery – as well as the entire notion of ”involuntary servitude.”
In her “wonderings” regarding whether forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy could be considered "involuntary servitude,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly has asked both sides in the case she is currently overseeing to provide briefs by mid-March addressing the questions which she has raised on the matter.
The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution states:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
But, hey, I’m not a lawyer – just a malcontent with a social conscience, a blog, and time on his hands.
1 comment:
Interesting how this subject has no clear cut Republican or Democrat position. Isnt that enough to know that it's not a political matter? There are some things in this world that are just not at all the business of politicians or teachers or neighbors or grocery store clerks or billions of others... this would very obviously be one of them. There are so many other issues that actually need that time & attention, that need to be worked on, THAT is where government officials are elected to perform their due diligence. Unless you are going to be providing birth control & sanitary napkins & counseling & so many other things to these lives you are turning upside down by taking away their right to an abortion... unless u are actually someone they are choosing to be involved in the matter... then get lost & do your actual JOB.
Post a Comment