More Conservative Support For ACA

A Reaganite judge with standing wrote the opinion while another conservative fav dissented, but did so on jurisdictional grounds because the "thing looks like a tax and acts like a tax," saying it is too soon to decide the challenge. I prefer that, if possible.

MNF

A bit less exciting than some games, but the Bears did come back, the Eagles again blowing it in the 4th.

Duane Buck Loses In The End

The Supreme Court did a few things of note today. It handed down a couple per curiams without recorded dissent, giving the sixth circuit this time a rap on the knuckles (I have been told that the Sixth Circuit has been known to be a problem ... the Ninth isn't the only one, just a familiar target). It will decide if a minor can be given life without parole if guilty of murder (the answer was "no" in a non-capital case, Stevens praising Roberts' concurrence which held it was unconstitutional in some cases).

The most notable, at least in coverage, is the disposition to a case the Court held for further review. It involved an expert that testified in a capital sentencing phase that race was a factor that statistically made it more likely a person would be dangerous. The earlier decision got some attention, particularly because Texas itself admitted error. As noted by the dissent today, the state said:

[T]he infusion of race as a factor for the jury to weigh in making its determination violated [Saldano’s] constitutional right to be sentenced without regard to the color of his skin.

The troublesome witness tainted various sentencing decisions, but (again from the dissent) re-sentencing was not too promising for many of the defendants:

Accordingly, in five of the six cases the attorney general identified, the State confessed error and did not raise procedural defenses to the defendants’ federal habeas petitions. Five of the six defendants were thus resentenced, each to death.

Such is often the case, underlining the limited nature of these rulings. Still, the principle here is important [see "loki" discussing the matter here] and that one defendant counts. The state opposed one motion, however, and after looking over it some, the Supreme Court denied cert. Sotomayor (with Kagan) dissented. Alito (with the strange bedfellows of Scalia and Breyer) concurred, noting that the defense called the witness this time. But, if the use of race taints the jury's judgment, why should that matter at the end of the day? Also, the state DID ask if race increased dangerousness and repeated the reference to his dangerousness in his summation. The defense's use (per dissent) also was different:

In this case, first on direct examination by the defense, Dr. Quijano merely identified race as one statistical factor and pointed out that African-Americans were overrepresented in the criminal justice system; he did not state a causal relationship, nor did he link this statistic to Buck as an individual). Buck did not argue that his race made him less dangerous, and the prosecutor had no need to revisit the issue. But she did, in a question specifically designed to persuade the jury that Buck’s race made him more dangerous and that, in part on this basis, he should be sentenced to death.

Troubling conclusion, particularly troublesome that Breyer needlessly concurred in Alito's statement. Ginsburg silently went along, for whatever reason -- who knows what goes behind the scenes in cases like this. For instance, it is known (sorry if this seems arbitrary) that justices count noses and Ginsburg might have saw this as a loser, something that did not have five votes. But, though it is not surprising that Breyer is not as liberal as the stereotype, it is annoying Breyer felt a need to go on the record here. The reasoning seems more form than substance.

Meanwhile, earlier Thomas was the only one who wanted to take a cross case that some thought was prime for review, a time for the Supremes to clarify its display jurisprudence. Thomas' unconvincing simplistic allegation that the Court really has no standards (close cases go different ways ... shocker) aside, it would have made sense to take the case to clarify things now that O'Connor is gone. It's a pretty good bet that Alito doesn't share her views on the matter. As Greenhouse notes, it is not that I actually would agree with the result.

But, maybe Kennedy wants to let the endorsement test lie, unlike Thomas, respecting the passage of time.  [Or, that life is complicated.]

Sunday Night -- Another Great Finish

Will the Bears and Eagles do it too? Some good football this weekend.

More Football

They did it again -- after the Pats went ahead late in the 4th, the NYG (with help of a great catch & a penalty this time, already in position for the tie) went down the field and won. The other late afternoon games were pretty good too. Each NY team (3) is in first.

Sunday Sports Update

Bad Teacher was boring -- turned it off part way through. Messy First Half (3-0), but Jets D continued to dominate, offense (lots) added. Miami will finally win, the Colts won't. Other games unexceptional.

Charming Story of Day

Patrick Henry High School (San Diego) just elected a lesbian couple as homecoming king and queen. The Wikipedia article suggests the school has had an independent frame of mind over the years. The queen part of the couple noted:

'We have a lot of support, but there are also a lot of people who are angry about it.

'Anonymous Patrick Henry students are saying they're embarrassed and that it's wrong for a girl to take the spot of king.

'But there's no other way for us to run as a couple. It's not really fair for us not have the right to run as a couple.'

They did not originally plan to run but received encouragement from students and facility. The king part had this to say on Facebook to some critics:

For all the girls who think tradition should be continued, go back to the kitchen, stop having sex before you're married, get out of school and job system, don't have an opinion, don't own any property, give up the right to marry who you love, don't vote, and allow your husband to do whatever he pleases to you. Think about the meaning of tradition when you use it in your argument against us.

Yes. A key to education is repetition and it has to be repeated over and over and over again that "tradition" is a poor single reed to rest on when defending something.

Need a Minister For Your Marriage?

The first step to solving this conundrum is to unpack the different components of religion. In my own work, I have argued that all humans, even young children, tacitly hold some supernatural beliefs, most notably the dualistic view that bodies and minds are distinct. (Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies.) Other aspects of religion vary across cultures and across individuals within cultures. There are factual beliefs, such as the idea that there exists a single god that performs miracles, and moral beliefs, like the conviction that abortion is murder. There are religious practices, such as the sacrament or the lighting of Sabbath candles. And there is the community that a religion brings with it—the people who are part of your church, synagogue, or mosque.

-- Does Religion Make You Nice? Does atheism make you mean?

I originally quoted that in a a discussion on the meaning of "religion," which is one of those things that I think are defined too narrowly by many, along with words like "morals" or "value voters."*  The discussion includes a comment about Unitarian Universalism, which is defined by the cited source as "not an atheist movement, but a religious movement into which some atheists may comfortably fit."  Looking at the website of the UU church in my city, I found this interesting sermon that included a citation of the actress Mayim Bialik, an impressive role model.  She even manages to (in "Operation Hot and Holy") find a proper dress for the Emmys that matches her religious faith.

The sermon also speaks about current events:

Although participants might disagree, I see Occupy Wall Street as a fundamentally religious movement in that it’s struggling to embody the beloved community – asserting a vision of the world as it should be in the very midst of the world as it is.

The whole thing is interesting reading.  [Just heard Andy Rooney has died. Impressive career, not just as a curmudgeon.]  The church also joined a brief on the "ministerial exemption" case pending in front of the USSC.  Some might think UU is not a "religion" or would not be satisfied since its views are so diverse that it seems more like the United Nations of Religion than one faith.  It appeals to me.

Another organization, one that even some of its members don't treat as a "religion," is the New York Society Of Ethical Culture. NY state law expressly allows leaders of that society to preside over marriages. [The Texas case cited by the previous link is interesting and cites a broad based definition of religion that I have for some time found useful. The "report" on the ruling also is a telling discussion that mirrors some sentiments addressed here.]  The society to me is not merely "ethical" in nature, but has various aspects that would traditionally be deemed "religious." To cite the Wikipedia entry linked above:

Ethical Societies typically have Sunday morning meetings, offer moral instruction for children and teens, and do charitable work and social action. They may offer a variety of educational and other programs. They conduct weddings, commitment ceremonies, baby namings, and memorial services.

The footnote below cites case law back to the 1950s that confirms such an argument. The Universal Life Church is a more tricky case (though it does not merely involve a freestanding believer, who has been protected, but an actual church, one with ceremonies and leadership) and an upcoming article will cover the NY situation in particular. The church has a basic creed:

"Do only that which is right".

Every person has the natural right (and the responsibility) to peacefully determine what is right. We are advocates of religious freedom.

The Universal Life Church wants you to pursue your spiritual beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority.

Since each person has such a right, under the church's philosophy, each can become a minister, one that, yes, many places will let solemnize weddings. This has shades of Quakerism. Conan O'Brien just presided over a same sex marriage of a staffer, noting that he did so under the authority of being a minister of this church.  More about the religion can be found here.  Again, some may not take this seriously, more so than the others.  But, is "religion" about some organized church or can it be a community of believers as a whole?  And, who decides who they are?  If there is not a proper gatekeeper (who decides?), does it not count?  Many do believe that they themselves have to determine the meaning of their faith and/or religion.  This so even if they are members of a church, sometimes one that can be rather hierarchical or touchy about doctrine.

As to the marriage thing, the important thing (for official purposes) is the state license. I'm not sure -- as long as there is a witness -- who "presides" over it. It is fact probably misguided on First Amendment grounds to favor certain "real" religions in this respect.

[The lack of complexity of doctrine is not too convincing and who wants to go there?  The lack of exclusivity of clergy is duly noted, but again, who cares?  They are merely witnesses ... for legal purposes.  Does it make you feel better if clergy from the Church of Satan do the honors? And, a religion can reject hierarchical lines -- it seems a dubious 1A matter to disfavor them, again when the real issue is a valid license.

Yes, legislators probably didn't have this sort of thing in mind, but they are not always able to know what is ahead and to the extent they could, it seems like religious favoritism to deny ULC ministers the right to preside.  Maybe, a required class or some such thing for all who wish to preside might be a good idea anyways.  Is it really so notable that a religious body with the suitable complexity and hierarchy selected the person who presides?  Many do not trust many religions overall.]

[A bit more: See this article for a discussion on internet ministers.

Looking at a few cases, the concern is sometimes raised that the religious presiding officiant is someone chosen with a certain amount of care, since they "sanctify" the proceedings and perhaps they might have certain obligations (like signing and returning the certificate).  The latter is better done by a test or providing instructions to the person, the former boils down to the people involved.  If the ULC or some other church matches their faith and/or beliefs, it "sanctifies" things. Depriving people of free exercise of religion here seems downright petty.

A notary in NY has the power to serve as a witness to oaths and affirmations, pursuant to passing a test and paying a fee.  This might not involve marriage, though it can involve a lot of important things, including public officials being sworn in.  The confusion over marriages here is silly. See also, here, as to online "congregations" and the issue of penitent privilege, which if we do allow, might very well be different, given the lack of witnesses, it not merely being a follow-up to a civil procedure (license) and the importance of testimony in a court of law.]

---

* The original footnote (slightly edited):

Religious freedom would include making choices regarding God and not favoring those that choose to model morality and such on God, but matters of conscience are probably also a necessary aspect ("penumbra" if you like) even if seen as a freestanding matter. As Justice Douglas (in a dissenting opinion also making the equal protection point) once noted:

It is true that the First Amendment speaks of the free exercise of religion, not of the free exercise of conscience or belief. Yet conscience and belief are the main ingredients of First Amendment rights. They are the bedrock of free speech as well as religion. The implied First Amendment right of "conscience" is certainly as high as the "right of association" which we recognized. Some indeed have thought it higher. Conscience is often the echo of religious faith. But, as this case illustrates, it may also be the product of travail, meditation, or sudden revelation related to a moral comprehension of the dimensions of a problem, not to a religion in the ordinary sense.

Citations omitted. On that general subject, many would agree that certain positions are not "secular," putting aside the fact that they do not necessarily rise or fall on the existence of God. And, there are "non-theistic" religions out there. The lower court rulings cited by that footnote provide useful open-ended meanings to "religion." 

The Mighty Macs

No NBA? Well, here's a replacement, even providing a former NBA ref in a small part. Good formula film (life a bit more complicated) of a small Catholic college women's team going all the way in the early '70s. Nice role for Marley Shelton as a nun / assistant coach.

Love Times Three

I discussed a "sister wives" legal case here, noting the difference between not providing civil recognition and making it a crime even without an attempt to fraudulently obtain that (bigamy). Polygamy is an ancient practice that continues to be legally practice in many cultures (e.g., Islam recognizes it), which over the years led to some legal recognition even in the U.S. And, of course, it is a usual bugaboo when same sex marriage is involved. More directly, I have addressed Utah's law that criminalizes "purported" marriages, in effect those declare themselves married to more than one spouse for religious or other reasons.

Love Times Three (by four Dargers -- three wives and a husband with Brooke Adams, a journalist) is not really about that though the laws clearly are of immediate concern to them. A few Amazon reviewers wanted them to justify themselves more, such as talking about the so-called "excessive male" problem. On that front, it is more like this review of an article. We do not get a complete discussion of why polygamy (polgyny) is required under their "independent fundamentalist Mormon" (I sometimes wonder if the term is appropriate, as compared to the more official Church of Latter Day Saints, but it seems to be here) faith or an answer to all the problems some have with it. It is more an account, the four taking chances speaking with a chapter that does the same for the oldest of each mom, of their lives.

On that front, it was a good book. A few Amazon reviewers were bored by it, but it is not like their lives are free from conflict. The third wife (the twin to another) came in a decade or so later than the other two after struggling as the sister wife of a much older man. One chapter is about the death of a baby and the concern when an official investigation was put forth. One wife had a bad time with one of her births, leading to conflict. And so on. The overall typical nature -- more or less -- of much of their lives is part of the theme of the book. But, it is not like everything is hunky-dory, no conflict or crisis. The bunch's overall down to earth style (the book link has some video; listen also here) appeals.

No, this isn't a "tell all" book with all the juicy bits.* Each came from polygamous backgrounds, so it is far from surprising that they continued that lifestyle (a word they use). One wife notes that she doesn't expect legal recognition of the marriages, just for it not to be deemed criminal. As to the reason why they chose the life, putting aside their background, family comes out to be the major reason. Each wife appreciates a big family and having such a big support system (the conflicts that arise are touched upon -- again, the book does not simply sugarcoat things). Another reason is hinted at -- the belief that spirits are waiting to be born. A big family, which polygamy of this sort furthers (one woman, multiple men, is rare in world cultures, though it de facto occurs in certain situations, such as when men are away at war or in prison) furthers this. But, again, like many religious and cultural beliefs, sometimes there is no big reveal. It is what they or we are familiar with and wish to continue.

Various reasons are provided to oppose polygamy though if we respect freedom of choice on the matter, criminalization appears to be a dubiously overbroad means of addressing it. And, though eight states directly criminalize the practice (see first link), only blatant cases tend to be addressed by the authorities. The fact some specific close-knit group supports underage marriage doesn't mean that is the way of all. Child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church underlines that sort of thing is not somehow "polygamous" in nature. If there is some sort of welfare fraud because "single" moms actually are being supported by the father, it is largely a result of criminalization. Conservative views about women or faith are not unique to this group and the moms here seem fairly liberal on various subjects. They even recognized, if not accepting it, the right of same sex couples to have unions like theirs.

The practice also is said to lead to inequality. The women do choose this path, like some choose other religious or moral paths with conservative aspects that might limit their discretion in ways I oppose. The idea -- suggested by some -- that it isn't really consensual raises red flags. How do we know if such and such religious belief is not really "consensual" then? I think the Roman Catholic faith has various very misguided beliefs as do many who actively take part. Are those who follow them, including on birth control issues, not really consensually doing so if driven by religious faith? The stance seems selective on that front. And, freedom of conscience is a special value that deserves more.

The three wives here seem quite happy in their choices and each are pretty independent people, more so than many monogamous wives probably. The system as a whole has some feminist support because of the support system involved, plus the realization that a women should have choices. Still, there is a problem with a system where one man marries three women. There is some inequality there though the women here in no way are "ruled over" by Joe Darger as such. If it works for them, okay, but I can see people having some concern. And, it makes some sense not to provide full civil recognition, in part since our system of marriage is set up as (per Griswold v. Connecticut) as a "bilateral loyalty." Various secular reasons, including involving decision-making, makes that reasonable. Sex classification is more problematic on that front.

The other concern is the children. We are talking over twenty here. Again, it seems they are doing fine. And, three moms is great on that front in various ways. But, again, one dad. Me, I would think it more reasonable if there were less children overall. You know, like ten. Still, not like I have any standing on family rules or anything -- I'm not part of some model family or anything. And, big families (REAL BIG) have thrived over the years. And, monogamous marriages have large families (Scalia has nine) while others have many children out of wedlock, various parents involved, often with one or the other not having much of a role.

I will end with the "excess men" issue, which is not addressed in the book. The concern seems more likely to occur in close-knit communities where there is limited resources, here marriage possibilities. The Dargers are independents, who do not live in such a community. As with Islam, polygamy is only allowed if each partner can handle it, financially and otherwise. This as well as personal choice leads only some fundamentalist Mormons (the same is the case with Muslims) to choose this path. In a closed community, this would mean choices would have to be made and there is some evidence of abuses. That is, expelling "excess" males, even as teenagers, or use of underage females.  

But, it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to suggest polygamy -- again, a time-old practice (I have never heard, e.g., the abuses arising in nations that allow it, particularly the idea such cultures expel young men to allow others to have polygamous marriages) -- overall is the problem as compared to misuse. Alcohol use leads to abuse. The numbers of fatalities on the road underline the point. Is alcohol to be banned? I think not and nor should polygamy, even if many do not think it is right for them.  And, criminalization as with misuse of drugs and other issues, would make stopping abuses harder both because of decreased oversight and a smaller pool, the current practice only encouraging secrecy and closed societies. 

The Dargers have made a choice that seems to work for them; they should be able to make it without being deemed criminals, even if the reader might think it is a wrong one. 

---

* The makers of the HBO series Big Love, started by two gay guys who are open to alternate lifestyles, referenced a magazine story about the Dargers as partial inspiration. The book notes that it is not simply a carbon copy though, various bits not their life choices. The show at one point shows the husband getting worn out at his middle age from having to have sex with each wife. He eventually gets some pills to help.

I do find that a curious issue, one the book doesn't really address. Each wife has a couple days of intimacy with the husband, but marriage isn't quite that scheduled, is it? There is some flexibility for special occasions and such, but that seems a tad artificial though some reference to a husband away for business except for a couple days might be raised. Are sex toys used? The book is again not really that intimate about things.

Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor and Laughter are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life

The author provides a light but serious account of the issues meant for diverse religious traditions. Recommended. His point that if Jesus was human and God and that humor is part of a healthy human (sure enough), humor was part of his c.v. was a nice touch.

Football Sunday

There were a few potential upsets, including against the Giants, but Rams (we won a game!) were the champions (against the Saints! by a healthy margin!) yesterday. Steelers, mild upset. Arizona and Miami two that blew their chances. Not too interesting overall.

Steveeeee Somersssss

One of the good guys on NY radio.

Fleeing Hitler: France 1940

'Fleeing Hitler' can be enjoyed on many levels, from WWII history of a largely forgotten and unknown but major event, to personal stories of survival, to general lessons about evacuations and what happens when a modern western industrial society breaks down.

Good little book, as the customer reviews at Amazon suggest, on a little known "exodus." Covers various angles with good illustrations.

More on Personhood Amendments

The Ohio Personhood Amendment will insert Section 16(b):

"Person" and "men" defined:
The words "person" in Article 1, Section 16, and "men" in Article 1, Section 1, apply to every human being at every stage of the biological development of that human being or human organism, including fertilization.

"Our American forefathers" allowed abortion (and slavery and a lot of other stuff, but still, not a great reference). The Bible is also referenced.  Debatable as that might be, it's not something to use to defend secular law, nor does it quite get where they want to go -- the Bible allows the taking of "life" for any number of reasons, particularly in the Old Testament.  Then, there is a scientific definition, but again, particularly since science cannot define something like "person" (a legal or moral term), even putting other questions [touched upon by my previous discussion of this topic], this really only takes you so far.

My last discussion arose in particular from the Mississippi personhood amendment, and Rachel Maddow has focused on that (including last night), but references are made to a half-dozen or so of these things. This discussion led me to some helpful articles, including this one on the science of birth control. One article is by Michelle Goldberg, who wrote two interesting books -- on Christian nationalism and reproduction issues. Both are recommended. It includes discussion of the affect of such laws on IVF issues, noting the results of the restrictive policies in Italy and Germany. And, per my comment that effects on abortion and birth control are likely to be struck down but that it still would have some legal effect:

“People think, Oh well, they’re going to try to ban abortion but they’re not going to get away with it,” she says. “In Mississippi, there are a host of other issues—how does it change property law, districting, how do you count your citizens. You could imagine a new court case filed every day.”

Such issues and the reach of such a provision was noted by the dissents of Blackmun and Stevens in a case back in the 1980s involving a Missouri law of a similar caliber. Stevens' Establishment Clause discussion is also telling.* The Salon article notes the risky move taken here, one that (akin to some on the right loathe to have Christine O'Donnell run for the US Senate) some on the pro-life ("pro-life") side rather not take:

Personhood could represent the most audaciously successful reframing of the national abortion debate yet – in which pro-choicers have to fight over whether forms of birth control are abortion, as opposed to ensuring a woman’s right and access to reproductive choice. But even in Mississippi, allowing the fringe to drive the antiabortion movement could represent the point where it overplays its hand.

Goldberg notes that the effort can be seen to arise from "beast" itself:

It’s built around a few lines in Roe v. Wade that grapple with the question of whether a fetus is a person under the 14th Amendment. “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment,” wrote Justice Harry Blackmun, before concluding that a fetus is not in fact a person.

Not really true and not needed to overturn Roe, underlined by the fact that those on the Supreme Court that wish to do so do not claim states cannot choose to allow abortions early in the pregnancy. Dorothy Beasley, the assistant D.A. who defended the restrictive law in Doe v. Bolton might have spoke of fetal Ninth Amendment rights, but even there abortion was allowed in a few cases (including, unlike in the Mississippi case here, for rape). I have looked through many lower court opinions and rarely was it suggested that that "persons" were being killed here. One outlier suggested otherwise, but though it upheld the anti-abortion law, even it noted that a woman still had some right to protect herself. I think the dissenting opinion is more correct:

I will not debate the biological or philosophical conclusion of the majority that, from the moment of conception a human life has commenced, although retired United States Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark does appear to take issue therewith, Clark, Religion, Morality and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, 2 Loyola Univ. (L.A.) L.Rev. 1, 9-10 (1969). I am, however, more inclined to the view expressed in Doe v. Bolton, 319 F.Supp. 1048, 1055 (D.C.N.D.Ga., filed July 31, 1970) that "once conception takes place and an embryo forms, for better or for worse the woman carries a life form with the potential of independent human existence."

I understand and basically support the desire to give some meaning to human life, so that embryos are not treated the same way as a chair. The words used here are controversial, so how it is done is tricky, down to the nuances of the word "life" itself. I referenced in my first discussion Stevens' statement in an abortion ruling that it is logical for the state to regulate and protect the growing life in different ways from fertilization to birth. This is quite different from treating fertilized eggs as "persons," particularly if this means trumping the rights of girls and women from having an abortion for any reason other than maybe severe health risks (strictly applied). The dangers of treating fetuses as persons was noted by Rachel Roth in Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights. Imagine if we push things back to conception. This would be true even if we are speaking of personal belief and practice. Much more so by secular law.

The Supreme Court has treated "persons" as humans who are born. Roe itself underlines this does not mean a state must allow pregnant women to abort until birth. A case a few years previously noted this in passing:

We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not "nonpersons." They are humans, live, and have their being.[3] They are clearly "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The matter of what "being" means is obviously greatly debated, including various proposals to have an earlier abortion cut-off. Trying to give "being" to a fertilized egg, however, is a bit much. Consider as well an important 19th Century case, if involving a lower court, that allowed a Native American to obtain habeas relief, holding for that purpose, he is a "person." In part:

Webster describes a person as "a living soul; a self-conscious being; a moral agent; especially a living human being; a man, woman, or child; an individual of the human race."

The fact that this would give an unborn Native American standing is I would think not a reasonable assumption as such. And, to say as much is not (sorry Ronald Reagan) to harken back to Dred Scott v. Sandford which removed blacks from the community of "persons" worthy of respect under the U.S. Constitution. The ability to give some legal protection to unborn human life is possible without going that route. I might also suggest for discussion that such life might have aspects of personhood as I think at least certain non-human animals have. But, as Roe notes, not in a "full" sense.

A final word on the issue of birth control, which Rachel Maddow and others flag. As one article noted:

The package insert for Plan B says that while the pill works principally by stopping ovulation (release of an egg) or fertilization, it may also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg by altering the lining of the uterus.

The use of "may" is telling -- the discussions underline that this hasn't been proven. Now, even if you are wary, on balance, only a distant chance might not be enough for you to disallow such contraception. This is so particularly if you recall that many fertilized eggs naturally die off, so (along with use of morning after pills in case of rape or other special cases) preventing conception in the first place will actually stop such "needless loss of life." But, as with those against the death penalty, the risk might be too much, especially since the people involved are very wary of the thing in the first place:

Scientists say hormonal birth-control pills and the morning-after pill work primarily by preventing fertilization in the first place, but the outside possibility, never documented, that an egg could be fertilized anyway and blocked is enough for some pro-lifers.

And, as I noted last time, the website for the Mississippi measure speaks in such a way that makes clear it admits "some" types of birth control might not be allowed. It's a tricky issue, but I'm not sure how much it can be avoided. Either side will also spin things some, prohibition of birth control (really some types) making it sound particularly bad. Bottom line, if the pro-choice side has to fight even on this battlefield, regarding something many who find abortion very distasteful will admit is at best ill-advised, it's very troubling.

The questions here will continue to be strongly debated and people on my side support wide discretion. But, there are reasonable matters of debate and then there are extreme measures. This falls quite far along toward the latter.

---

* The majority did not address the issue on the merits, but the plurality summarized the provision thusly:

The first provision, or preamble, contains "findings" by the state legislature that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing.

The connection between this and "personhood" is clear.

Ends With A Whimper

Basically lame Game 7: Cards went ahead, 2/3 of game involves them getting more so.  They should not have had home field advantage as a wild card team.  The rain again affected a game in the playoffs.  And, the Rangers shouldn't have pitched Oliver in the 10th.  Oh well.

British Monarchy Scraps Rule of Male Succession

No Reed v. Reed in the land of parliamentary supremacy; no First Amendment either.  So, it was left to a Conservative (mostly so) government to apply equal rules for sex, but no Catholics need to apply.  We have that no titles of nobility thing. 

Pearls To Swine Vids

Yes, the comic has been animated -- see YouTube for various examples. Pretty good. Not good -- twice being one out away from winning your first World Series and blowing it. Should have let the real reliever hit in the 11th, but still probably would have lost.

Court Watch

Obama tries again with the "Liu seat."  Mid-40s, appeals experience.  Clerk to both Kozinski and Ginsburg.  [Not mean to Alito.]  I think Orin Kerr is wrong on the upcoming GPS case.  Various comments underline the point and he is missing it.  Search AND seizure.

Paul Clement: Have Bad Cause? I'll Be Your Advocate!

At the moment, he is defending both Arizona’s tough new law against illegal immigration and Congress’s prohibition against interstate recognition of same-sex marriages. And if, as expected, the Supreme Court soon announces that it will hear a challenge to last year’s health care law, it seems increasingly likely that it will be Mr. Clement who argues, in the thick of the 2012 campaign, that President Obama’s signature domestic achievement is unconstitutional.

I originally posted this quote alone, but upon re-reading it, the verbiage is questionable.

Justice Sotomayor's first opinion spoke of "undocumented immigrants" and Rudy Giuliani famously noted ("Mitt Romney's position of the hour" ... ha ha) that they are not guilty of a federal crime. The paper there noted his "literal definition of illegal immigration." This concern for "literal" definitions is selective and the felt need to flag it is suggestive. It is true that it is "illegal" to break civil requirements -- double parking isn't generally "legal," for instance. But, since the connotation here often is criminal, and the fact that some states are pushing to make them "criminal" in ways the Obama Administration opposes, it is notable. Colbert had a good segment on the matter on Wednesday's show.

"Congress’s prohibition against interstate recognition of same-sex marriages." It is appreciated that the more accurate "same-sex marriages" is used, but um, not really. DOMA does not "prohibit" interstate recognition. NY, e.g., recognizes same sex marriages performed in Connecticut. And, did so even before it performed their own. DOMA, basically redundantly, says this isn't mandatory. But, it surely doesn't "prohibit" it. And, that isn't what Obama is opposing. He is opposing another section that prohibits the application of federal benefits to the marriages in question. I guess, though it's a curious way to say it, this is in a way "literally" a barrier to "interstate recognition," to the degree federal benefits are "interstate," but really, is that what it implies?

The US Supreme Court website has linked to the briefs in the health care litigation, one of the lesser known aspects, such as this citation finder. Though I still find it premature, the betting man might say that the Supreme Court might take one of those cases this term (the beginning of next also would fall within the 2012 election cycle). It's about as likely as the Dolphins or the Colts or the Rams winning a game any time soon. Anyway, kudos on no "Obamacare," and "President Obama’s signature domestic achievement" works though again Congress had something to do with it. This solitary focus on "Obama" annoys me.

As to "is unconstitutional," technical pass -- only a few parts of it are being challenged, but there is an argument that it must fall completely all the same. So, ending the doughnut hole (what? you never heard about that? shocker) etc. isn't "unconstitutional" as such, but some want to toss the baby with the bathwater. One last tidbit -- "tough new law" ... well, that's an opinion. But, news articles generally do have opinions in them, including what is supposed to be totally objective statements, not just "he said/she said" business. Such is the nature of the beast, sorry if that is too messy for you.

But, it can be taken into questionable directions.