When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
You had it right the first time. That's an opinion piece in a lifestyle magazine, and it supports the officially-sanctioned narrative, so it's propaganda, not Journalism.
liberal classic liberal. This is common knowledge (unless you have been in a coma for the last 100 years when the term got repurposed to mean the opposite of the original definition).
It means the opposite?! You know the Democrats have all been telling me that the original Republicans were the ones who pushed for the abolition of slavery, who were the party of the "negro" in the 1800's, and who fought for Civil Rights. But then--apparently--the Republicans somehow became the opposite too, just like the term "liberal."
I mean, I consider myself to be a liberal, but *not* in the sense that this term is used today. The far-left have appropriated the banner of liberalism as a disguise.
In the classical definition of the term, Liberalism means much the same thing as present-day Libertarianism, just without the fixation on anarchism as a panacea in much the same way as the far-left often fixates on the illusion of Marxist-style socialism as an ideal state of being.
So, this is interesting.
Today, Facebook "suggested" to me an account by the name of Being Classically Liberal.
I have followed it, obviously. It's mostly Ron Swanson-esque memes.
But this is an indication to me that while I appear to have done a reasonably decent job overall of de-trackifying myself by various technological and behavioral means, I am not yet 100% successful.
Unsurprisingly, we're now starting to see fear-mongering from places such as Washington Post, about how certain politicians plan to immediately push for a nation-wide ban on abortion as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned and the reds once again hold both the Congress and the Executive.
But... hang on a sec. Wouldn't the same ruling which finds the court's prior decision in Roe to be unconstitutional also prevent a Federal abortion ban?
Apologies if I'm too much of a legal layman, but can you point to the document where the Right to kill your baby exists?
The core of Roe v. Wade was an argument that state laws denying women the right to an abortion (as Texas was doing at the time) constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically deprivation of liberty and the implied right of privacy.
This ruling was consistent the court's earlier ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) which struck down a Connecticut law restricting access to contraceptives, and for the same reason.
So that's where you'd point. Constitution, 14th Amendment.
The draft opinion which we have in front of us here in 2022 does not ban abortion. Rather, it claims that the decisions in Griswold and Roe were an overreach of federal judicial power, specifically that state restrictions on abortion do not constitute a violation of the 14th Amendment, and that the 10th Amendment reserves this as a matter for the people of the individual States to decide.
Those are really the key issues here.
Now, would a majority-leftist court maybe bend the 10th Amendment a little to achieve a social goal? Maybe.
Is the majority-rightist court we have right now maybe bending the 14th a little for the same reason? Maybe.
05-06-2022, 11:17 AM
classic liberal. This is common knowledge (unless you have been in a coma for the last 100 years when the term got repurposed to mean the opposite of the original definition).
0
