Tag

Constitution

Browsing

(RepublicanWire) – In a viral video, a member of the U.S. Army is upset with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs. The soldier claims the decision would relegate women to “second class” status. She goes so far as to question her commitment to fighting for the Constitution over the issue.

“How am I supposed to swear to support and defend the Constitution and a country that treats its women like second-class citizens? How am I supposed to do that? How am I supposed to do that? With pride? How am I supposed to do that with love and honor?”

She continues, insisting that the country she swore to defend does not care about her because it has threatened the ability to terminate one’s pregnancy.

She said, “How am I supposed to wake up every day and put on a freaking uniform that says United States army when the United States doesn’t even give a rat’s a** about me? It gives more of a rat’s a** about the guns they’re allowed to buy that kill the children that I’m forced to give birth to.”

The service member goes on to suggest that the court’s ruling and those who agree with it are not supporting the troops. “They probably were not thinking about this consequence, but it is one, and it affects the very people that those lawmakers hold to a higher standard because they support the troops,” she says. “Do you really, though? You really support the troops? Even though this is going to greatly lessen the retention of women in the ranks of this military? You support the troops even though you are going to ruin some women’s careers? I’m deployed right now, and I’m a medic, so I know how this works.”

The soldier discusses how sexual assault is an issue in the U.S. military and how difficult it can be for a female service member to obtain an ultrasound or carry a pregnancy. She ends the video by stating she will still serve her country because she “signed that contract” but that she will continue to speak out because “this is not an attack on reproductive right, it is an attack on women in this country.”

She is not the only one to bring up the military in relation to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Others have argued this could add to the problem of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

What is interesting about this particular video is her contention that she is not sure she can proudly serve her country because allowing states to create their own policies on abortion somehow makes her a “second-class citizen.” Apparently, she does not know her history, or else she would feel rather foolish making such a claim when black Americans fought and died for the United States in multiple wars despite actually being second-class citizens.

But the notion that placing restrictions on the ability of a woman to kill her baby means America is no longer a country worth serving is the type of thinking that is prevalent on the far left and yet another way to demean the country. No doubt this soldier will gain an outpouring of plaudits and sympathy from her comrades. But the fact remains that the U.S. is worth fighting for–even if more babies will be saved.

(RepublicanWire.org) – A professor at the University of Miami School of Law has penned a proposal for a “redo” of the First and Second Amendments in a Boston Globe op-ed.

Mary Anne Franks, the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the university, wrote that the first two amendments, which include the rights to free speech, religion and bearing arms, “inspire religious-like fervor in many Americans” and that both are “deeply flawed in their respective conceptualizations.”

“These two amendments are highly susceptible to being read in isolation from the Constitution as a whole and from its commitments to equality and the collective good,” Franks wrote.

The professor claims that the two amendments “tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights.”

The result, according to Franks, is that “the most powerful members of society” benefit from these rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Franks did not elaborate on individuals in these groups.

Franks proposed that both amendments should explicitly state “individual rights within the framework of ‘domestic tranquility’ and the ‘general welfare’ set out in the Constitution’s preamble.”

For the First Amendment, her proposed “redo” reads:

“Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.”

For the Second Amendment, Franks said the concept of self-defense should be expanded to include “a meaningful right to bodily autonomy” – such as on reproductive matters. Her proposal reads:

“All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.”