Posted on 02/20/2016 3:09:57 PM PST by ebb tide
Two professors representing the law schools of Marquette University and Georgetown University, along with a Georgetown Law student, joined 110 female attorneys in signing an amicus curiae brief to the U.S.Supreme Court in which the women argued that they would not have been able to achieve "personal or professional successes" in life "were it not for their ability to obtain safe and legal abortions."
Lisa A. Mazzie, professor of legal writing at Marquette University Law School, and Jill Morrison, executive director of the Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship Program and visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, signed onto the brief submitted last month in support of abortionists in Texas in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, which will be argued before the Supreme Court n March. Both of the professors listed their place of employment at the Catholic law schools when signing the brief.
Mazzie and Morrison joined other female attorneys urging the Court to overturn health regulations placed on abortion facilities by the state of Texas "united in their strongly-held belief" that women need abortions to be successful in life.
All of the signers of the brief are "lawyers who have obtained abortions" and "care deeply about the reproductive rights this Court has recognized" in Roe v. Wade and elsewhere. The signers "believe that, like themselves, the next generation of lawyers should have the ability to control their reproductive lives."
The main points of the brief argue that "Abortion Access Directly Affects Educational Access;" "Safe and Legal Access to Abortion Is Critical to Professional Freedom and Advancement for Women Lawyers;" and "Safe and Unrestricted Access to Abortion Plays a Critical Role in the Lives of Women Lawyers."
Morrison is formerly with the National Women's Law Center where she was an attorney in the Health and Reproductive Rights Group, according to her Georgetown profile. At the time, she was also a writer for the pro-abortion RH Reality Check website. In her last post on the site, Morrison attacked the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception as resulting in "more sterilizations" and "furthering racists, classist and xenophobic aims" in Puerto Rico. Morrison also attacked Catholic hospitals over ethical directives on abortion in a post on the site.
Morrison's Georgetown profile also states that she currently serves on the advisory board of Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), a group that includes legal access to contraception, sterilization and abortion in its understanding of "reproductive justice."
Mazzie has also written in support of abortion in the past, arguing that legal abortion is part of the struggle for women's equality. "For young women coming of age today, their equality with men seems assured. ... For them, women have always been able to vote, abortion has always been legal, and women have reached high places in politics," she wrote in 2011. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is "gravely contrary to the moral law," and formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. Further, "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sentential."
Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution on Catholic universities, notes the role of all teachers in protecting the Catholic identity of universities, and states:
The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine. ... All teachers and all administrators, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the Institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least to respect, that identity. ... In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching.
A student also signed the brief noting that she is a J.D. candidate at Georgetown Law and a national board member of LSRJ. A profile of the student on the Georgetown Law website states that she formerly worked in the office of the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Georgetown Law profile also lists several instances where the student assisted in cases advocating against restrictions to legal abortion access. As The Cardinal Newman Society previously reported, the lead counsel in Whole Woman's Health v. Cole who will be arguing before the Supreme Court in support of Texas abortionists is an adjunct law professor at Fordham University School of Law, Stephanie Toti. Toti is the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, a global legal group that fights for "expanded access to reproductive healthcare" including "birth control" and "safe abortion."
Legal Writing professors aren’t usually tenure track, so you have here a very low level professor/lecturer and a visiting professor. Neither are permanent faculty and are not in a position to speak for the schools they purport to represent. I’d bet a fistful of dollars that neither will be back next year.
They may be profs at a Catholic school but they excommunicated themselves when they had their abortions.
I always remember what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in the press conference where Slick announced her nomination. She said, paraphrasing, that a woman can never be equal to a man without the right to choose.
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?
As mentioned in related threads about abortion, please consider the following.
Note that, unlike the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights which the states amended to the Constitution, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called right to have an abortion.
The reason that the so-called right to have an abortion now exists as a PC, ”constitutional” right is this. Corrupt, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices not only stole legislative powers to wrongly politically ”amend” the Constitution from the bench with the so-called right to have an abortion, but they also wrongly breached the Founding States division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment (10A) and stole 10A-protected state legislative powers to do so.
The reason that the corrupt Court got away with doing so is because many generations of parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers, 10th Amendment-protected state power to prohibit the constitutionally non-enumerated ”right” to have an abortion in this case.
But since the so-called right to have an abortion is not a constitutionally enumerated right, pro-abortion factions must continually fight for pro-abortion judges to be confirmed to the Supreme Court in order to keep the vote-winning, PC right to have an abortion alive.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, but also protect the states from federal government overreach, unconstitutional federal funding for abortion an example of such overreach.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion activist justices.
How about these women exercise some self control when it comes to sexual encounters, then abortion wouldn’t be an issue.
Apparently that is too much to ask.
Perhaps the men involved might consider the same self-control.
maybe if these whores (?) would just keep their legs a bit closer together, they would find they can succeed on their own merits ...without callously murdering defenseless bablies to do it
or something like that.
just saying... it could help them a whole lot if their priests were preaching/teaching/advocating wholesome moral values
(but maybe they have good priests and are just refusing to listen? who knows about people with such distorted values, anyway? They must have learned them from somewhere!? People aren’t born with such sickening attitudes, at least nobody I’ve ever known was...)
It takes two.
Yes, because women have no say in the matter when it comes to a “hookup” or “booty call”.
It takes two to tango. Both parties are responsible. Actions have consequences.
What I’m saying is that in the casual sex culture, women have the final say in the matter.
I get it. You don’t like women.
How about keeping you legs closed and not getting pregnant?
It takes 2 but only one gets pregnant. Tell the other party no, I’min law school.
I hope not.
And I take it the you don’t believe that women should be held responsible for their own decisions.
Like I said, it takes two to tango, and both parties are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
**Abortion Needed for ‘Personal or Professional Success’**
False.
While you are morally correct, in reality, it falls on the female, because the male has no say in the abortion. If the law stated the male had a say, and was somehow physically/mentally traumatized like the female could be, then I would agree entirely with you. Good luck with that.
Thank you.
I could have worded that post better. But you evidently got the gist of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.