hed
This is in response to two recent articles by Jamie Stiehm of May 13; “The proverbial fence: Which side are you on?”, and May 18: “A sad situation, the state of the nation”, in which she makes numerous perverse and ruthless remarks about several Supreme Court judges, and Catholics, relevant to the recent leak:
1) She states that “The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision came in an era of expanding civil and women’s rights, causing no controversy at the time. And she goes on to say ad infinitum that it has been upheld without controversy ever since. Response: In/act, even distinguished pro-abortion jurists have slammed the decision for being without constitutional foundation. Harvard law professors Archibald Cox, Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe have said the decision was fatally flawed. Even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was lawmakers, not judges, who should decide the issue. The New Republic, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, said at the time that it was not the provenance of the court to rule on abortion. So it was settled law of the land but never voted upon by Congress.
2) She states “On this side of the fence, it’s our (women’s) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life chances are much greater with equality, freedom and autonomy.” Response: But what about the life of the conceived child? Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right. Instead the Supreme Court said: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Then the High Court made a key admission: “If this suggestion of person hood is established, the appellant’s case
(Roe J, of course collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th amendment’: i.e. which says “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of/aw, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” And how does her pro-abortion stance square with the Democratic platform of professing to defend and protect the marginalized, voiceless, and powerless in society??
3) She unabashedly and without reservation stated that since “the majority of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic, they are ‘Radical Right’, and “Is Rome coming home for us, into our intimate spaces?” Response: First of all, six of the Justices are proclaimed Catholic, including Sonia Sotomayor (but check her record on abortion). Secondly, because she can swipe with such a broad brush, she needs to look out for Orthodox Jews, Fundamentalists, Mormons, and Muslims, who share many of the same beliefs. Thirdly, have no fear Jamie Stiehm, because in your court you have both professed Catholics Nancy Pelosi and Joe Bi den (who by the way NEVER voted against the Hyde Amendment nor the Mexico City Policy as a 36 year Senator or 8 year VP, but miraculously professed opposition to both when declaring candidacy for the Presidency in 2019!)
4) I woudd presume that she has similar disdain for Legislators of all faiths who voted against thethe ‘Women’s Health Protection Act, H.R. 3755’ which failed to pass in late February, as it is closely related to overturning Roe v. Wade. Thisdeceptively-named, extreme bill would have imposed abortion on demand nationwide at any stage of pregnancy through federal statute. Even worse, it would have eliminated modest and widely supported pro-life laws at every level of government-including parental notification for minor girls, informed consent, and health or safety protections specific to abortion facilities. It would have forced all Americans to support abortions here and abroad with their tax dollars. It would also likely have forced health care providers and professionals to perform, assist in, and/or refer for abortion against their deeply-held beliefs, as well as force employers and insurers to cover or pay for abortion.
human beings, and basic morality. Such disinformation displayed by Jamie Stiehm leads to division, not to intelligent discussion. The fact that she is a nationally syndicated columnist is shameful.