Category Archives: Ethics

Did you know that there will likely be further demonstrations this weekend in response to the agony and anger caused by the Supreme Court’s decision about abortion?

According to authorities, tear gas was deployed to disperse protesters outside the Arizona State Capitol. Numerous protestors gathered in New York City’s Washington Square Park to oppose the judgment. Anti-abortion protestors were there, although they maintained a low profile. Following the demonstration, at least 20 individuals were “taken into jail with charges pending” throughout the city. In 2019, the biggest proportion of abortions performed on women requesting the procedure were performed on black women.

According to the statistics, they also had the highest abortion rate, with 23,8 abortions per 1,000 women. Black women who are pregnant or have just given birth are three to four times more likely to die than White women in the same circumstances. Friday, after the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion groups protest in Washington, D.C. Champagne is consumed by anti-abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court. Rachel Herring, an anti-abortion campaigner, said, “According to Judaism, life starts with the first breath, when the soul enters the body.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, supporters for abortion rights pound on the doors of the Arizona State Senate. On Friday, June 24, anti-abortion demonstrators celebrate in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. An anti-abortion activist wears socks that proclaim “abortion is cruel” while arguing with an abortion rights activist. On Friday, Jill McElroy and her nine-year-old daughter Meriam joined in an abortion rights rally in front of the Supreme Court. She stated, “A lesson we have always taught our children is that they are the masters of their own bodies, and the Court’s ruling today goes against that, and as a family, we believe that’s wrong.”

Champagne is consumed by anti-abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court. I was there at the moment the decision was made. I am delighted. Earlier, I was walking on air, says pro-life activist Noah Slayter. Friday, the phrase “Our bodies, our choices” is spray-painted on a temporary wall in Washington, D.C.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-choice protestors pound on the doors of the Arizona State Senate on Friday. Outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, an anti-abortion protester wears socks that proclaim “abortion is cruel.” In Arizona and Arkansas, abortion providers have began discontinuing their services. Dr. DeShawn Taylor remarked that she anticipates a period of darkness, albeit hopefully not for too long.

Approximately twenty abortion appointments originally planned for Friday through next week were canceled by Taylor’s facility. The head of Planned Parenthood said, “The majority of patients were desperate or scared” before to Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on abortion availability in certain states. A new legislation in California shields anybody conducting, helping, or receiving an abortion from any prospective civil action originating from outside the state. A clinic owner in Mississippi said that a woman should not have to leave the state to get medical treatment.

Why did Trump campaign records reveal that advisors were aware that the false electoral strategy was without foundation?

The convocation of the electoral college on December 14, 2020, was expected to herald the conclusion of that year’s tumultuous and protracted presidential election.

A rally outside the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta three weeks after the 2020 election. (Kevin D. Liles for The Washington Post)

In seven swing states won by Joe Biden, though, Trump supporters turned out ready to proclaim victory. Internal campaign emails and memoranda indicate it was part of a larger plot to provide Vice President Mike Pence with a cause to declare the election’s conclusion uncertain. Members of the committee have said that they would provide evidence that President Trump was engaged in an attempt to submit fraudulent electoral ballots for Vice President Joe Biden that failed. The committee got a court order telling Trump’s lawyer, John Eastman, to give the committee the papers.


The Justice Department and a prosecutor in the Atlanta region are also probing the voter fraud. Emails reveal that only days after the election, some Trump aides were planning on how to make a legal justification for promoting their own electors. They pondered whether state legislatures, which in a number of critical states were controlled by the GOP, could designate electors for Trump even if the certified results indicated that Biden had won. A legal consultant for Trump contended that the strict deadline for winning the election was January 6, not December 14. He drew attention to the fact that certain state legislation may be difficult to comply with.


The bogus Michigan electors were unable to convene in the state’s Senate chamber and instead decamped to the state party headquarters. Your tasks are vital. A campaign official wrote to Georgia’s fictitious electors that their efforts would be hindered unless absolute secrecy and discretion were maintained. Robert Spindell Jr., who signed an elector certificate for Donald Trump in Wisconsin, said the general consensus among the lawyers was that if Trump won any of these cases, something had to be done. The electors didn’t have any legal standing, and vice president-elect Mike Pence didn’t recognize them. This made him a target for the crowd that burned down the Capitol.

For more information about this read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/trump-documents-fake-elector-plan/?fbclid=IwAR2-lGCprzKOhWX0tgYKw5fV1YBAeI0RpQKSjLNDU7g2dqdX9P9Dw8ZvzsM

Did you know that in the face of anti-Asian prejudice, these organizations agree on the next steps to be taken?

The United States observes Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

There has been an increase in the amount of violence directed against this community. According to the survey, women reported 61.8 percent of all hate events, with verbal harassment accounting for 63% of all instances and physical assault accounting for 16.2 percent. Stop AAPI Hatred is one of the various organizations formed to assist the AANHPI community. It was founded in March 2020 to detect and react to anti-Asian hate. The San Francisco-based organization invites individuals to report any abuse they have experienced so that the data may be used to better understand what is going on throughout the nation and how to combat it.


They also provide a framework for public policy to prevent harassment and bigotry. Soar Over Hate, located in New York, is another organization that was formed in response to the violence. The organization assists victims of anti-Asian hate crimes in obtaining self-defense weapons. They also provide a grant to high school students as well as a therapeutic fund that covers up to ten free therapy sessions. AAPI Women Lead looks at how AAPI women, girls, and gender-expansive populations are represented in the United States.


The organization, based in Oakland, California, has been working to reduce hate crimes. According to Tran, violence against women and our gender nonconforming or gender expansive groups is intersectional. Racial and patriarchal violence affect Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. A panel on mental, emotional, and spiritual wellness in the AANHPI community will be held during AAPI Women Lead. Acupuncturists, herbal medicine practitioners, and intuitive healers will be on the panel. As Connie Wun, co-founder and executive director, remarked, they reclaim our practices as a component of our resistance.

Did you know that most Americans don’t support politicians punishing firms for their views, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds?

A Reuters/Ipsos survey revealed that a bipartisan majority of US voters reject governments penalizing firms for their social viewpoints, signaling a chilly response for campaigns like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ against Walt Disney Co.

Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla. on Feb. 24, 2022.John Raoux / AP file

However, a two-day survey concluded on Thursday found that 62% of Americans — including 68% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans — said they were less inclined to support a politician who favors suing firms for their political beliefs. As a result, DeSantis signed a measure this week depriving Disney of self-governing power over its Orlando-area parks in punishment for the company’s objection to a new Florida legislation restricting the teaching of LGBTQ matters in schools. Though it was an effort by DeSantis, a rising star in the Republican Party, to enhance his conservative credentials as a cultural fighter in advance of a potential challenge for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

Do you believe that Republican senators kept their promise toward an African American woman after their line of questioning?

At the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week, Republican senators made a solemn promise to Ketanji Brown Jackson: They promised that they would not treat her as harshly as Democrats had treated Brett M. Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings—a set of circumstances that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) described as “one of the lowest moments in the history of this [Senate Judiciary] committee.”
The reviews have been received. Americans favor Jackson’s confirmation substantially more than they support other recent candidates. Still, they also believe that Republicans handled Jackson’s confirmation roughly as severely as Democrats managed Kavanaugh, if not worse than Democrats dealt with Kavanaugh.
According to a survey conducted by Quinnipiac University last week, there is reasonably significant support for Jackson’s confirmation: 51 percent of respondents backed it, while just 30 percent opposed it. It is more popular than during the verification of Trump’s past two candidates, including Kavanaugh, whose nomination was rejected by the public. According to a CNN survey, Americans are vehemently opposed to it by as much as double digits.
However, it is also essential to consider how we arrived at that position.
Even as Americans opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation, they were primarily dissatisfied with how Democrats handled his confirmation hearings—particularly their treatment of decades-old sexual misconduct claims, according to several. According to the CNN study, 56 percent of respondents gave unfavorable feedback, while just 36 percent gave them good reviews.
However, the Republican response to Jackson’s hearings — and, it seems, her track record on child pornography cases, which was the central line of attack — has received a mixed reception. According to polling, only 27 percent of Americans approve of their strategy, compared to 52 percent who are opposed to it, according to polling. According to the CNN survey, Democrats and Kavanaugh are separated by a 25-point margin, compared to a 20-point margin for Republicans and Kavanaugh. This time around, there are also more undecideds, which may be because Jackson’s hearings were not as well-publicized as they could have been.
Independents disapproved of the other party’s actions in both instances: on Kavanaugh, they disapproved of Democrats 58-30, and on Jackson, they disliked Republicans 54-25 in both cases, according to exit polls.
It is worth noting that, apart from the public’s support for the candidate, there was a significant difference between the two confirmations. Neither side walked away from the Kavanaugh hearings with glowing recommendations. Republicans’ handling of the situation was perceived in an unfavorable light on par with Democrats’ handling of it. When it comes to Jackson, Democrats, on the other hand, earned more favorable ratings (42 percent) than they received terrible reviews (34 percent). As a result, it is not just a case of people loathing all politicians.
The crucial issue that arises from this is: why did people express dissatisfaction with how the Republican Party handled Jackson’s hearings? After all, their negative vote margin is about 2-to-1, owing to many party members’ disapproval of their actions. Republicans are divided on the issue, with 52 percent supporting it and 26 percent opposing it.
That suggests that even Republican members of Congress felt their party went a little too far in criticizing Jackson’s record as a district judge in child pornography cases (when, in fact, her record was relatively ordinary) during the 2016 election.
The connection to the Democrats’ treatment of Kavanaugh is again illuminating. In that case, too, 26 percent of the opposing party expressed dissatisfaction with the way their side handled the situation. In contrast, approval was far higher – 67 percent. As a result, intraparty assessments of the Republican Party’s treatment of Jackson are, on the whole, more unfavorable than those of the Democratic Party’s handling of Kavanaugh.
Furthermore, Republicans supported Jackson more strongly than Democrats did Kavanaugh.
While Democrats overwhelmingly opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation by 91-7, about 1 in 5 Republicans (21 percent) believe Jackson should be approved, with a comparatively small majority of 60 percent against. If people like Jackson over Kavanaugh, it is likely that their threshold for believing she was mistreated will be lower than it is for Kavanaugh.
However, many Republicans may wish their side had opposed Jackson even more aggressively than they did.
There are many unknowns in this set of data.
Overall, though, the American people do not believe that Republicans have elevated the level of conversation in the wake of Jackson’s hearings. As long as Republicans say they are the party of Abraham Lincoln, they would keep the principles of Lincoln’s time in office. But they would fall short of what Lincoln did,
From listening to the hearings and hearing all of the questions that were not connected to the judge’s credentials, it is clear that the Republican Party has regressed significantly. Because they treated an African-American woman who was well-qualified for the job, they show that they do not know the law.

Reference

Americans strongly disapprove of GOP pushback on Ketanji Brown Jackson. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/01/americans-disapprove-gop-jackson/?fbclid=IwAR0R1DXxA3QB5kHfs9ROkOimrD8gbkXdJl0OT9h1_xMaWwkaW6alQJW8Pwg

Did you know that Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, exchanged texts with Mark Meadows about efforts to overturn the 2020 election?

Following the 2020 presidential election, Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, urged White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in frantic text conversations during the crucial weeks following the vote to continue unrelenting efforts to reverse the result, according to copies of the texts obtained by CBS News top election and campaign reporter Robert Costa and Bob Woodward of The Washington Post.

This is what happens when individuals have a hidden agenda. Mrs. Thomas has not only gotten her husband into a pickle; she has gotten herself into one as well. Why would she jeopardize her status by doing such acts?

Reference

Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, exchanged texts with Mark Meadows about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-ginni-thomas-clarence-wife-mark-meadows-texts-2020-election/?fbclid=IwAR0WUTrGzb_8JHYuRc3lv3J4j1d9YbL7fNyMkfos-qagSeAZOaVEt5pkf3g

Why did Mike Braun clarify his assertion that states should decide the legality of interracial marriage?

Sen. Mike Braun, a Republican from Indiana, told reporters in his state on Tuesday that states should determine whether interracial marriage is allowed before claiming he misunderstood the questions and condemning “racism in any form.”

Mike Braun is interviewed in Bekah’s Westside Cafe in Lebanon, Ind., in April 2018.


Inquired as to whether or not he thought “interracial marriage should be left to the states, Braun said, “Yes, I believe that’s something — if you don’t want the Supreme Court to weigh in on matters like that, you’re not going to be able to have both your cake and eat it.” But, honestly, I don’t believe that’s right.” In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, allowing interracial marriage in the United States.
Afterward, Braun was quizzed on his thoughts on the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to sexual privacy and made the use of contraception for married couples permissible under federal law. The states, according to Braun, should be the ones to decide.
It’s possible to mention a wide range of difficulties, Braun said. But, as far as what they’re going to be, I’m going to suggest that they aren’t going to be all going to make you happy in a particular state but that we’re better off letting forms express their points of view rather than homogenizing it throughout the nation, as Roe v. Wade did.”

“Initially limiting” Braun’s contention that the Supreme Court had seized states’ powers in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, the Times of Northwest Indiana reports. However, he maintained his position when asked about other decisions, such as the Loving v. Virginia case.
Braun afterward issued a statement indicating that he had “misunderstood” the questions asked.
“I misread a line of inquiry earlier at a virtual news conference that turned out to be about interracial marriage. To be quite clear, the Constitution forbids all forms of discrimination based on race. So the issue of racism isn’t even up for question, and I firmly oppose it at every level, from the state to the person. It was Braun’s opinion.
In a short interview on Wednesday, Braun told CNN that he doesn’t think states should decide on interracial marriage.
That’s not the case, Braun said. Even though one may be forgivable, he exposed his true identity. We learn a lot about him through his reaction. When a racist is apprehended, they immediately attempt to paint themselves as victims of their own ignorance since it would be so handy.

Reference

Mike Braun clarifies his assertion that states should decide the legality of interracial marriage. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/politics/mike-braun-interracial-marriage-comments/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0jpCRaI0ml0-B9YMxOUafjGrKhdb8fxcqJcMgqxLw7BywL4207X-0bq-s

Condemnation or Russian President

US President Joe Biden has condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for his country’s invasion of Ukraine. He then referred to Putin as a “murderous despot” and “pure thug.” Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, says he is “prepared for conversations” with Putin. The concern today is what Biden’s views — and those of others — signal for the future of the Ukraine conflict. What does President Putin anticipate when he behaves adolescent-like? The Ukrainian people have historically been fearless. Some Ukrainians have relatives in Russia, but they cannot obtain accurate information due to state-controlled media. The Ukrainian people and the Russian people in Russia should be free to think for themselves. Why should one individual dictate what they should consider? One day, the Russian people will rise up against such activities and liberate themselves from their ignorance.

Photo by u0414u043cu0438u0442u0440u0438u0439 u0422u0440u0435u043fu043eu043bu044cu0441u043au0438u0439 on Pexels.com

Reference

Calling Putin a war criminal is a bigger deal than you think. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/21/politics/putin-war-criminal-ukraine-russia-what-matters/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0gr6FalS9OzEebI80a2u9_3kO4v81lnPPzuz1jK60NU-9mAhmUpwPNmSg

Are you familiar with NATO’s Article 5 and its application to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

US authorities have made it plain that American soldiers would avoid confrontation with Russian forces, and NATO countries have resisted requests to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying that it might result in a “full-fledged war in Europe.”

Photo by Katie Godowski on Pexels.com

If Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine crossed into a NATO member state, the situation could quickly deteriorate, triggering a response following NATO’s Article 5 policy. What is Article 5, and how does it pertain to Ukraine’s continuing conflict? What you need to know is as follows: What is the purpose of Article 5? Article 5 states that an assault on one NATO member constitutes an attack on all NATO members. The idea serves as a deterrent to prospective enemies targeting NATO countries.


Given that the US is NATO’s most prominent and most powerful member, every state inside the alliance is essentially protected by the US. Article 5: How does Russia’s aggression on Ukraine apply? Because Ukraine is not a NATO member, the US is not obligated to defend it in the same manner that it would if a NATO member nation were attacked. However, many of Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members, and if a Russian invasion extends into one of them, Article 5 may spark direct US and NATO member intervention. What is the definition of an attack against a NATO member state? Article 5 wording stipulates that collective action is triggered by an “armed assault” against a member country. NATO members choose what constitutes an “armed assault,” and Russia’s hostile stance has already raised concerns about the country’s propensity to provoke a NATO reaction. Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, recently warned The Washington Post that a Russian assault on Ukraine might have ramifications that extend beyond the intended “geographical limits” and threaten NATO nations. While local officials have said that “no change in radiation levels” has occurred in the region, what if there had been a radioactive leak that spread to a NATO member nation? “That is a decision for the alliance to make,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby previously told CNN.

Reference

Here’s what NATO’s Article 5 is and how it applies to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/politics/what-is-nato-article-5/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2CUknKMmHVQETQBp7MYQq4R9J35wrqITe7ucIGEziOCL3HJARqZx_VI88
CNN – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos. https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_a8182a2f063abf4ce60b6d5f03b8a897

United States Supreme Court will hear arguments

Amy and David Carson desired that their daughter Olivia attend Bangor Christian Schools, a private religious elementary through secondary school. Maine has said that it would not subsidize religious education. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the state violated the Carsons’ constitutional rights. Carson v. Makin is the most recent in a series of lawsuits petitioning the Supreme Court for a ruling on religious liberty. If the court decides widely, it might have a profound effect on the ability of religious organizations to receive public financing.

Getty Images (2); TIME


It has the potential to “eviscerate” rules prohibiting public sponsorship of religious education. Maine parents have filed a lawsuit against the state for failing to include their favorite schools in a tuition aid program. Plaintiffs and supporters contend that the state discriminates against religious individuals. The case follows a series of previous judgments on public support for religious organizations. The case sets the free exercise provision of the First Amendment against the establishment clause.
According to some legal experts, Carson v. Makin is likely to become an extension of Espinoza. Officials in Maine assert that religious schools do not give an education “equivalent to a public education.” Carson v. Maine calls into question the relationship between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. Maine contends that Bangor Christian and Temple Academy in Maine discriminate against members of other faiths and instructors and students who identify as LGBTQ. Advocates fear that government money may flow to discriminatory schools if the plaintiffs win.
Maine is just a few states that give this kind of tuition assistance to pupils who live in areas without public school choice. However, experts are concerned that other states may experience similar pressure from religious groups to implement similar schemes. This possibility concerns Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Reference

This Supreme Court Case Could Take a ‘Wrecking Ball’ to Separation of Church and State.https://time.com/6125676/maine-religion-schools-supreme-court-carson-makin/?fbclid=IwAR2y4KzyfGY6NuggKM8mZIgYpKYuhD_YqmKoiKzgnDJ7WUKGTBkFzCmgyW8