xmas3.gif (5334 bytes)

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





oconnor.jpg (102281 bytes)









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.