The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on
this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as
it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and
immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her
favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of
marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "[T]he marital couple is not an
independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals
each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means
anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from
unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the
decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S., at 453.
The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state
interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their
spouses.
Sandra Day
O'Connor
The most ignorant woman on the planet
The spousal consent provision in 3 (3), which does not comport with the standards
enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot
"`delegate to a spouse a veto power which the [S]tate itself is absolutely and
totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.'" http://laws.findlaw.com/US/428/52.html
There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the
family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873),
three Members of this Court reaffirmed the common law principle that "a woman had no
legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative
in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status,
many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle
still exist in full force in most States." Id., at 141 (Bradley J., joined by Swayne
and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court
observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life,"
with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent
legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). These views,
of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual,
or the Constitution.
In keeping with our rejection of the common law understanding of a woman's
role within the family, the Court held in Danforth that the Constitution does not permit a
State to require a married woman to obtain her husband's consent before undergoing an
abortion. 428 U. S., at 69
"The marital couple is not an
independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals
each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup."
Who died and made you God, Sandra? Who gave you the authority to rewrite God's
word? It was certainly not we the people, who believe Matthew 19 and not you:
1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region
of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.
2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made
them male and female,'
5and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
We hired you to perform the simple and penultimate task of upholding the Constitution,
not of rewriting the Bible. You are too utterly dumb to realize how those stupid
written words destroyed centuries if not millennia of progress.
"In keeping with our
rejection of the common law understanding of a woman's role within the family."
Whose rejection of what? You're not merely rejecting the common law, you're
rejecting God's law. We the people never gave you the authority to reject the common law.
God never gave you the authority to reject His law. You can do nothing
constructive by attempting to change a woman's role within the family. You caused a
gender war that was destructive and completely unnecessary. You violated your oath to
uphold the Constitution, wrecked the Bill of Rights, and ruined any opportunity this
country had for free exercise of religion. You made marriage and family impossible
for fifty million American women, tried to compensate for that crime by killing tens of
millions of its citizens through 'legalized' abortions, and still subjected almost half of
the nation's children to the vagaries of single-mother households. You plunged the nation
into trillions of dollars of debt and slapped God's face when you ignored Genesis:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with
pain you will give birth to
children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.", Genesis
3:16
A feminist who believes that "equality" is giving the wife 100% and the
husband zero percent authority over murdering a jointly conceived child of God doesn't
have the moral authority to decide yet another social crisis--whether or not any US
citizen has the right to "petition the courts" for
visitation rights with any other child in the country.
Modified
Friday, July 04, 2008
Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers'
Manifesto & Christian Party
