Americans should not have to live in fear of their judiciary. They should not have to wake up each day wondering whether their rights have been erased overnight by a secretive cabal of right-wing judges operating outside norms of accountability, who take their position as a license to impose their reactionary beliefs upon the society that elevated them.
Least of all should Americans be compelled to submit to arbitrary, religious-based edicts hatched out of the warped and subjective thought processes of those same judges. That is a direct path to the corruption of the American judicial system.
The appalling decision last week by the Alabama Supreme Court to characterize tiny amalgamations of frozen cells stored in metal canisters as “unborn children,” lovingly tended in a “cryogenic nursery,” is possibly the most extreme, repugnant example of “conservative” judicial doctrine to date. It is not, however, unique. The Alabama court found validation for its decision in the same reactionary characterizations made by Justice Samuel Alito in his Dobbs opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, written less than two years ago. In fact, the court cited Dobbs no less than 15 times in fashioning its ruling, one which now essentially stands for the proposition that a fetal embryo—which can consist of as few as 2-4 cells—enjoys the same rights (and thus the same legal status and privileges) afforded to actual, living human beings.
As Ruth Marcus, writing for The Washington Post, puts it: “Welcome to the theocracy.”
RELATED STORY: Texas conservatives test how far they can extend health care restrictions beyond state lines
Marcus focuses on the opinion of Alabama’s Chief Justice Tom Parker, a forced-birth proponent and evangelical Christian proselytizer whose homophobic and white supremacist sympathies are well-established. Parker’s writings, in fact, have been described as forming the “blueprint” for overruling Roe v. Wade. (As Marcus notes, Parker described Roe as a “constitutional aberration,” a sentiment echoed by Alito in Dobbs.)
As Marcus explains:
As Marcus notes, Parker’s concurrence is replete with similar paeans to his personal religious sensibilities. He straightforwardly cites the biblical Books of Genesis and Exodus in reasoning that these cellular embryos cryogenically preserved for potential in vitro implantation (he calls them “little people” at one point) must be subject to the state’s 1872 Wrongful Death to Minors Act. This law subjects facilities that may have improperly stored the cells to liability for causing the deaths of “extrauterine children.”
Parker’s concurrence does not carry the same weight as the court’s full opinion, but as Marcus notes, it doesn’t need to. The court’s majority wholly adopted Parker’s framing:
That single statement—that all parties “agreed” to such framing—shows just how pervasive and insidious the forced-birther position has become in red states, particularly in the wake of Dobbs. As Marcus points out, the reality—which goes unacknowledged by the Alabama court—is that there is no such consensus (legal or otherwise) on when “personhood” or even “life” begins, either in 1872 or today. The court relied on the fact that it had previously ruled its Wrongful Death to Minors statute applied to “unborn children,” regardless of viability. That ruling stemmed, in turn, from the Alabama Legislature’s amendment to the Fetal Homicide Act in 2006, specifying that the Act would apply to and include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”
But the majority opinion relies on more than simply the “agreement” of the parties about the nature of “life” in that particular case. Why, it’s just common sense, after all!
From the court’s majority opinion:
Marcus observes that the immediate (and drastic) impact of the Alabama decision will likely be the end of in vitro treatment in the state. After all, “The costs of exposure to civil lawsuits would be enormous, and—although Alabama’s criminal homicide law refers only to the ‘unborn child in utero’—who knows what could happen in terms of criminal prosecution?”
But the decision’s long-term impact, Marcus notes, is “equally sinister”:
The answer of course, is that Republican state legislators, eager to please their white evangelical constituents, will craft similar legislation in other states they control (to the extent they have not already done so). Then the forced-birth lobby will swiftly follow by bringing lawsuits in front of receptive, Republican-appointed judges just like the ones in Alabama.
As Marcus observes, that is how forced-birthers intend to establish their theocracy. If such rights and privileges are established for a cellular mass of frozen cells, then anything or anyone who interferes with its God-ordained development can then be subjected to civil (and possibly criminal) liability. That is the endgame of “fetal personhood,” an idea carefully nurtured by Republicans in their legislation and state constitutional amendments (such as Alabama’s), purporting to stand for the “sanctity” of the “unborn.”
Their ultimate goal is, and has always been, a nation in which all women and anyone who might become pregnant is forced to carry their fetus to term, no matter what stage of pregnancy. A nation in which any person who assists them in preventing or terminating that pregnancy will find themselves targeted by the crosshairs of the law.
As observed by Sarah Posner, reporting for MSNBC, the Alabama decision “represents the culmination of a movement to enshrine into law the unscientific and purely religious claim that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg, supplanting secular laws with supposedly “biblical beliefs.” And it’s already having an impact: a large Alabama hospital has already paused its in vitro treatments to weigh the impact of the ruling, the AP reports.
And as Posner notes, its implications for the 2024 presidential election are equally clear:
Posner points out that the biblical language employed by Alabama Justice Parker is identical to the “Christian nationalist” views espoused by Trump’s key advisers, who intend to pursue similar theocratic policies in a renewed Trump administration:
Much like the attitudes espoused by the Alabama Supreme Court, the plans of Trump’s future political appointees draw heavily on exploiting statutes from the 19th century. As reported by Lisa Leres and Elizabeth Dias for The New York Times, “Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion—including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.”
Trump’s advisers frankly acknowledge Trump’s intentions. As Lerer and Dias report:
Nikki Haley is also supportive of the Alabama ruling. She told NBC News, “When you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that’s a life. And so I do see where that’s coming from when they talk about that.” Haley describes herself as “staunchly pro-life” who would support a federal law banning abortion, but feels it would be impossible to get a consensus to make it happen.
It would be a mistake to view the Alabama decision as a fluke or aberration, one perhaps unique to that state alone. The reality is that it’s simply a blueprint, a template for theocratic policies eagerly sought by the Christian right and now well along in the planning stages, if only Trump gets another term in office.
RELATED STORY: Trump campaign panics over leak of his support for a 16-week abortion ban
Campaign Action
Least of all should Americans be compelled to submit to arbitrary, religious-based edicts hatched out of the warped and subjective thought processes of those same judges. That is a direct path to the corruption of the American judicial system.
The appalling decision last week by the Alabama Supreme Court to characterize tiny amalgamations of frozen cells stored in metal canisters as “unborn children,” lovingly tended in a “cryogenic nursery,” is possibly the most extreme, repugnant example of “conservative” judicial doctrine to date. It is not, however, unique. The Alabama court found validation for its decision in the same reactionary characterizations made by Justice Samuel Alito in his Dobbs opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, written less than two years ago. In fact, the court cited Dobbs no less than 15 times in fashioning its ruling, one which now essentially stands for the proposition that a fetal embryo—which can consist of as few as 2-4 cells—enjoys the same rights (and thus the same legal status and privileges) afforded to actual, living human beings.
As Ruth Marcus, writing for The Washington Post, puts it: “Welcome to the theocracy.”
RELATED STORY: Texas conservatives test how far they can extend health care restrictions beyond state lines
Marcus focuses on the opinion of Alabama’s Chief Justice Tom Parker, a forced-birth proponent and evangelical Christian proselytizer whose homophobic and white supremacist sympathies are well-established. Parker’s writings, in fact, have been described as forming the “blueprint” for overruling Roe v. Wade. (As Marcus notes, Parker described Roe as a “constitutional aberration,” a sentiment echoed by Alito in Dobbs.)
As Marcus explains:
As Marcus notes, Parker’s concurrence is replete with similar paeans to his personal religious sensibilities. He straightforwardly cites the biblical Books of Genesis and Exodus in reasoning that these cellular embryos cryogenically preserved for potential in vitro implantation (he calls them “little people” at one point) must be subject to the state’s 1872 Wrongful Death to Minors Act. This law subjects facilities that may have improperly stored the cells to liability for causing the deaths of “extrauterine children.”
Parker’s concurrence does not carry the same weight as the court’s full opinion, but as Marcus notes, it doesn’t need to. The court’s majority wholly adopted Parker’s framing:
That single statement—that all parties “agreed” to such framing—shows just how pervasive and insidious the forced-birther position has become in red states, particularly in the wake of Dobbs. As Marcus points out, the reality—which goes unacknowledged by the Alabama court—is that there is no such consensus (legal or otherwise) on when “personhood” or even “life” begins, either in 1872 or today. The court relied on the fact that it had previously ruled its Wrongful Death to Minors statute applied to “unborn children,” regardless of viability. That ruling stemmed, in turn, from the Alabama Legislature’s amendment to the Fetal Homicide Act in 2006, specifying that the Act would apply to and include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.”
But the majority opinion relies on more than simply the “agreement” of the parties about the nature of “life” in that particular case. Why, it’s just common sense, after all!
From the court’s majority opinion:
Marcus observes that the immediate (and drastic) impact of the Alabama decision will likely be the end of in vitro treatment in the state. After all, “The costs of exposure to civil lawsuits would be enormous, and—although Alabama’s criminal homicide law refers only to the ‘unborn child in utero’—who knows what could happen in terms of criminal prosecution?”
But the decision’s long-term impact, Marcus notes, is “equally sinister”:
The answer of course, is that Republican state legislators, eager to please their white evangelical constituents, will craft similar legislation in other states they control (to the extent they have not already done so). Then the forced-birth lobby will swiftly follow by bringing lawsuits in front of receptive, Republican-appointed judges just like the ones in Alabama.
As Marcus observes, that is how forced-birthers intend to establish their theocracy. If such rights and privileges are established for a cellular mass of frozen cells, then anything or anyone who interferes with its God-ordained development can then be subjected to civil (and possibly criminal) liability. That is the endgame of “fetal personhood,” an idea carefully nurtured by Republicans in their legislation and state constitutional amendments (such as Alabama’s), purporting to stand for the “sanctity” of the “unborn.”
Their ultimate goal is, and has always been, a nation in which all women and anyone who might become pregnant is forced to carry their fetus to term, no matter what stage of pregnancy. A nation in which any person who assists them in preventing or terminating that pregnancy will find themselves targeted by the crosshairs of the law.
As observed by Sarah Posner, reporting for MSNBC, the Alabama decision “represents the culmination of a movement to enshrine into law the unscientific and purely religious claim that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg, supplanting secular laws with supposedly “biblical beliefs.” And it’s already having an impact: a large Alabama hospital has already paused its in vitro treatments to weigh the impact of the ruling, the AP reports.
And as Posner notes, its implications for the 2024 presidential election are equally clear:
Posner points out that the biblical language employed by Alabama Justice Parker is identical to the “Christian nationalist” views espoused by Trump’s key advisers, who intend to pursue similar theocratic policies in a renewed Trump administration:
Much like the attitudes espoused by the Alabama Supreme Court, the plans of Trump’s future political appointees draw heavily on exploiting statutes from the 19th century. As reported by Lisa Leres and Elizabeth Dias for The New York Times, “Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion—including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.”
Trump’s advisers frankly acknowledge Trump’s intentions. As Lerer and Dias report:
Nikki Haley is also supportive of the Alabama ruling. She told NBC News, “When you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that’s a life. And so I do see where that’s coming from when they talk about that.” Haley describes herself as “staunchly pro-life” who would support a federal law banning abortion, but feels it would be impossible to get a consensus to make it happen.
It would be a mistake to view the Alabama decision as a fluke or aberration, one perhaps unique to that state alone. The reality is that it’s simply a blueprint, a template for theocratic policies eagerly sought by the Christian right and now well along in the planning stages, if only Trump gets another term in office.
RELATED STORY: Trump campaign panics over leak of his support for a 16-week abortion ban
Campaign Action