Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Even if the SCOTUS ruling comes out, there may be enough challenges to abortion bans that will prevent states from enacting such laws. This is from Florida where a synagogue says that in addition to violating privacy rights, the abortion ban is also a violation of the 1A religion clause.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/fl-ne-nsf-south-florida-jewish-congregation-challenges-abortion-law-20220614-t3n53g67cffzjhc25z6hklq6sq-story.html
The article only cites violation of religious freedom rights of Jewish women. But it seems that there would be an equal, if not more extreme, direct violation of religious freedom rights for Jewish doctors.
Abortion is not a Jewish tenet or common practice like circumcision and is not required to practice the religion. There is a difference between stating when they believe life begins and facilitating abortions. Furthermore Maimonides is a scholar but not a religious figure.
DP. The point is that the ruling does not allow exceptions for the health of the mother. In Judaism, the life of the mother takes priority over the life of the fetus because it is not yet living until birth. The absolute definition of life prior to birth and giving the fetus more right to life than the mother is a violation of the Jewish religion. The mother's right to a medical procedure that will preserve her life should be protected by the first amendment. So with no protection for the life of the mother, the Florida law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
But the Dirty Six are Roman Catholic who believe that the life of babies trump the life of the mother because they are born without original sin. It is immaterial to these zealots that there are children at home who will now have no mother. The longer I live the more I am disgusted by organized religion and convinced it exists only to harm women
Anonymous wrote:Jane's Revenge is planning a large, violent event. Should be interesting times.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Jane's Revenge is planning a large, violent event. Should be interesting times.
You’re a forced birther who exclusively reads right wing propaganda. No one cares what little made up tidbits you try to get people excited about. You have had literally nothing to say about decades of actual violence by the forced birthers. I’m sorry no one’s getting too excited about some red paint.
Anonymous wrote:Jane's Revenge is planning a large, violent event. Should be interesting times.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Even if the SCOTUS ruling comes out, there may be enough challenges to abortion bans that will prevent states from enacting such laws. This is from Florida where a synagogue says that in addition to violating privacy rights, the abortion ban is also a violation of the 1A religion clause.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/fl-ne-nsf-south-florida-jewish-congregation-challenges-abortion-law-20220614-t3n53g67cffzjhc25z6hklq6sq-story.html
The article only cites violation of religious freedom rights of Jewish women. But it seems that there would be an equal, if not more extreme, direct violation of religious freedom rights for Jewish doctors.
Abortion is not a Jewish tenet or common practice like circumcision and is not required to practice the religion. There is a difference between stating when they believe life begins and facilitating abortions. Furthermore Maimonides is a scholar but not a religious figure.
DP. The point is that the ruling does not allow exceptions for the health of the mother. In Judaism, the life of the mother takes priority over the life of the fetus because it is not yet living until birth. The absolute definition of life prior to birth and giving the fetus more right to life than the mother is a violation of the Jewish religion. The mother's right to a medical procedure that will preserve her life should be protected by the first amendment. So with no protection for the life of the mother, the Florida law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
But the Dirty Six are Roman Catholic who believe that the life of babies trump the life of the mother because they are born without original sin. It is immaterial to these zealots that there are children at home who will now have no mother. The longer I live the more I am disgusted by organized religion and convinced it exists only to harm women
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Even if the SCOTUS ruling comes out, there may be enough challenges to abortion bans that will prevent states from enacting such laws. This is from Florida where a synagogue says that in addition to violating privacy rights, the abortion ban is also a violation of the 1A religion clause.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/fl-ne-nsf-south-florida-jewish-congregation-challenges-abortion-law-20220614-t3n53g67cffzjhc25z6hklq6sq-story.html
The article only cites violation of religious freedom rights of Jewish women. But it seems that there would be an equal, if not more extreme, direct violation of religious freedom rights for Jewish doctors.
Abortion is not a Jewish tenet or common practice like circumcision and is not required to practice the religion. There is a difference between stating when they believe life begins and facilitating abortions. Furthermore Maimonides is a scholar but not a religious figure.
DP. The point is that the ruling does not allow exceptions for the health of the mother. In Judaism, the life of the mother takes priority over the life of the fetus because it is not yet living until birth. The absolute definition of life prior to birth and giving the fetus more right to life than the mother is a violation of the Jewish religion. The mother's right to a medical procedure that will preserve her life should be protected by the first amendment. So with no protection for the life of the mother, the Florida law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.