Roe versus Wade is a case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court in America. It deals with Abortion. The Supremes on that day in 1973 chose to allege that the Constitution gave women the right to abort their unborn children. This caused major upsets in America. It also created an industry. The fact that medical men swear the Hippocratic Oath did not seem to have made a difference. Millions of unborn children died as a result.
When the Court revisited the issue in 2022 it was a different group of Judges with different opinions, less Left Wing in their attitudes. But there were tensions inside the Court, which led to the leaking of a draft opinion written by Sam Alito. This act of sabotage caused widespread outrage among the Hard Left, among Subversives. That is why it was done.
The Unz Review deals with the issue; there are three pieces by its writers and one by Ron Unz himself. Links are below.
It seems clear to me that Sam is right. The Constitution does not grant the right to abortion; it is not mentioned or even, in all probability thought of. If people want abortion to be legal it is a matter for them acting through State governments and Politicians. Many of them did not and do not. The Supremes in 1972 were acting mala fide in an abuse of power.
Ron Unz in his commentary suggests that the real objection to abortion is blacks breeding like flies while White Men are falling in numbers. He makes lots of sense. Of course the Hard Left can't say it is true precisely because it is, because they are using blacks as a weapon, attacking civilization, causing Ethnic Fouling In America. This, in turn leads to Genocide. People on the Right Wing agree about the problem.
Back in the 1940s Bill Shockley and his team got a Nobel Prize for inventing the transistor. They changed the world. Bill went on to express his concerns about white people breeding later in life and too little while Useless Eaters, especially blacks bred willy nilly. Bill came in for serious abuse by people in the business and the Mainstream Media. The fact that he was right was treated with contemptuous indifference.
The same ugly reality applies to the Gun Control debates. Everybody knows that blacks do most of the Mass Shootings in America but lack the Moral Courage to say so.
Roe V. Wade: Were the Beatles English Protestants or Irish Catholics?
by Steve Sailer
He always has something interesting to say.
The End of Roe vs. Wade
by E. Michael Jones Doctor Jones is a Catholic. His objections are sincere but less convincing than others
The Spirit of Scalia and the End of ROE vs. WADE
by John Derbyshire
Is also sensible.Ron Unz says:
June 26, 2022 at 2:16 am GMT • 4.4 days ago
Although the Roe v. Wade ruling had always seemed totally ridiculous to me, I was very surprised that it’s now been overturned. After two full generations of heated public argument without anything actually happening, I assumed it would be around forever.Anyway, I’m taking this opportunity to republish this 2015 comment of mine on the possible hidden factors behind the abortion debate:
I’ve sometimes pointed out that the same crypto-racial angle may also originally underlie the equally contentious debate over abortion…
First, I think it’s reasonably well established that the biggest motivators of the leading pro-abortion/pro-birth-control advocates, going back to Margaret Sanger, were their concerns about the educated middle classes being swamped by the future generations of the ignorant poor, especially blacks. I think all the rightwing pro-Life groups have lots and lots and lots of quotations and other evidence to support this.
However, what’s less well known is that similar concerns may have motivated the other side. People forget that until the 1970s or so, only Catholics were strongly anti-abortion—most religious protestants didn’t seem to have any theological objections or even care much. That began to change with the rise of the Evangelical Religious Right.
Some years back I came across a fascinating account of Pat Robertson’s very early television statements on abortion, maybe made around 1970 when he was just getting started on rural cable. Apparently, he said abortion was terrible because educated white women would widely use it, while ignorant black women wouldn’t, and the blacks would swamp the whites in the South.
One reason I’m pretty sure this story is true is that just a few years ago, someone asked Robertson on his big TV show about forced government abortions in China, and he said, sure, that’s fine, China’s a crowded country and it makes good sense for the government there to force women to have abortions in order to keep the population down. Now Robertson’s getting old and careless with his words, but if he really believed that abortions violated the Will of God, would he have said that?
So it seems to me that the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion sides were really always just disputing the empirical sociological question about whether whites or blacks would have more abortions. Instead of all the endless ideological name-calling, they should have just jointly funded a sociological study and settled the abortion question that way…
• Agree: follyofwar, frontier, Friendly Neighbourhood Terrorist• LOL: Emil Nikola Richard, Skeptikal
Traitorous Eight ex Wiki
QUOTE
The Traitorous Eight, as they became known, are eight men who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory to form Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957. More neutral terms include the "Fairchild Eight" and the "Shockley Eight.." They have sometimes been called "Fairchildren," although this term has been also used to refer either to Fairchild alumni or to its spinoff companies.The Eight are Julius Blank, Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Eugene Kleiner, Jay Last, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce and Sheldon Roberts.
UNQUOTE
Some are American.
Samuel Alito ex Wiki
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (/əˈliːtoʊ/ ə-LEE-toh; born April 1, 1950) is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006.[2] He is the second Italian-American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Antonin Scalia, and the eleventh Roman Catholic.Raised in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, and educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) before joining the Supreme Court. He is the 110th justice.
In 2013, Alito was considered "one of the most conservative justices on the Court".[3] He has described himself as a "practical originalist".[4] Alito's majority opinions in landmark cases include McDonald v. Chicago, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Murphy v. NCAA, Janus v. AFSCME, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Bill Shockley ex Wiki
William Bradford Shockley Jr. (February 13, 1910 – August 12, 1989) was an American physicist and inventor. He was the manager of a research group at Bell Labs that included John Bardeen and Walter Brattain. The three scientists were jointly awarded the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics for "their researches on semiconductors and their discovery of the transistor effect".Partly as a result of Shockley's attempts to commercialize a new transistor design in the 1950s and 1960s, California's Silicon Valley became a hotbed of electronics innovation.
In his later life, while a professor of electrical engineering at Stanford University, Shockley became a proponent of eugenics.[1][2] A 2019 study in the journal Intelligence found him to be the second-most controversial (behind Arthur Jensen) intelligence researcher among 55 persons covered.[3]
PS Bill Shockley was not good at man management. He was deserted by the Traitorous Eight
Abortion ex Wiki
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy due to removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.[note 1] An abortion that occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently as an "induced miscarriage". The word abortion is often used to mean only induced abortions.[1] A similar procedure after the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb is known as a "late termination of pregnancy" or less accurately as a "late term abortion".[2]When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine.[3][4] Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions.[5] The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy.[5][6] The most common surgical technique involves dilating the cervix and using a suction device.[7] Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be used immediately following abortion.[6] When performed legally and safely, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems.[8] In contrast, unsafe abortions (those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities) cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year.[8][9] The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.[10]
Around 56 million abortions are performed each year in the world,[11] with about 45% done unsafely.[12] Abortion rates changed little between 2003 and 2008,[13] before which they decreased for at least two decades as access to family planning and birth control increased.[14] As of 2008, 40% of the world's women had access to legal abortions without limits as to reason.[15] Countries that permit abortions have different limits on how late in pregnancy abortion is allowed.[15]
Historically, abortions have been attempted using herbal medicines, sharp tools, forceful massage, or through other traditional methods.[16] Abortion laws and cultural or religious views of abortions are different around the world. In some areas abortion is legal only in specific cases such as rape, problems with the fetus, poverty, risk to a woman's health, or incest.[17] In many places there is much debate over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of abortion.[18][19] Those who oppose abortion often maintain that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life, and so they may compare abortion to murder.[20][21] Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.[22] Others favor legal and accessible abortion as a public health measure.[23]
Roe versus Wade ex Wiki
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. The decision struck down many federal and state abortion laws,[2][3] and fueled an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. It also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.The case was brought by Norma McCorvey—known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe"—who in 1969 became pregnant with her third child. McCorvey wanted an abortion, but she lived in Texas where abortion was illegal, except when necessary to save the mother's life. Her attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, filed a lawsuit on her behalf in U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional. A special three-judge court of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas heard the case and ruled in her favor.[4] The parties appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. The Court also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[5][6] The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. The Court also classified the right to abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the most stringent level of judicial review in the United States.[7]
The Supreme Court's decision in Roe was among the most controversial in U.S. history.[8][9] Roe was criticized by some in the legal community,[9] including some in support of abortion rights who thought that Roe reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way,[10][11][12] and some called the decision a form of judicial activism.[13] Others argued that Roe did not go far enough, as it was placed within the framework of civil rights rather than the broader human rights.[14] Anti-abortion politicians and activists sought for decades to restrict abortion or overrule the decision;[15] polls into the 21st century showed that a plurality and a majority, especially into the late 2010s to early 2020s, opposed overruling Roe.[16] Despite criticism of the decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe's "central holding" in its 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey,[17] although Casey overruled Roe's trimester framework and abandoned Roe's "strict scrutiny" standard in favor of an "undue burden" test.[5][18]
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds the right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", it was not considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe. This view was disputed by some law historians and criticized by the dissenting opinion,[19][20][21] which argued that many other rights, such as contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage, did not exist when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868.[22] The decision was supported and opposed by the anti-abortion and abortion-rights movements in the United States, respectively, and was generally condemned by international observers and foreign leaders.[23][24][25]
Hippocratic Oath ex Wiki
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. The Oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today. These include the principles of medical confidentiality and non-maleficence. As the seminal articulation of certain principles that continue to guide and inform medical practice, the ancient text is of more than historic and symbolic value. Swearing a modified form of the Oath remains a rite of passage for medical graduates in many countries.Hippocrates is often called the father of medicine in Western culture.[1] The original oath was written in Ionic Greek, between the fifth and third centuries BC.[2] It is usually included in the Hippocratic Corpus.