Class action lawsuit against Christian religion to pay for unwanted children?

[Kidsaretryingtodestroyme]

I’m not in America but I was wondering if rich American women could band together to fund a class action lawsuit. It would be against evangelical Christian churches to force them to pay for the upkeep of all children up to 18 in states which have banned abortion. They should also be sued to pay for medical bills for the mothers including mental health bills.

The Supreme Court is deliberately and overwhelmingly loaded with Catholics. Massively out of proportion to the American population. This has been a looooong and premeditated plan.

@BritWifeInUSA Don't even go there with Afghanistan . The US withdrew, let the Taliban take over and is now sanctioning Afghanistan causing thousands of children to starve to death. Those children don't count I guess to anti abortion USA

But under Jewish law the foetus is not a baby. In some teaching it is considered water until 40 days and then becomes a potential human, not yet human.

But they've not actually made a Catholic argument, they've made a legal argument. You can't just assume that a legal decision has no basis because you don't like the religion of the justices, not unless you address their argument and say it doesn't make sense. I've not actually seen anyone on MN do that. And the fact is that the majority legal scholars in the US who write on constitutional law think it was a bad ruling. It's not like that is some bizarre left field legal opinion, it's mainstream, and i's unlikely those people all have a religious agenda to undermine the law.

But this highlights how the whole approach of dealing with this through the courts has been terrible all along. The idea that political leaders would stack the courts with judges who would support a particular ideological position is a serious undermining of the political process. Laws are meant to be proposed by legislators and passed into law by the congress, in the US either at the federal or state level.

Using the courts as a back-door method of making law is a bad idea and I'm not sure why people don't see why normalizing that is problematic. It probably could not happen in the UK in the same way because the system protects better against that kind of abuse.

Surely with dna testing the father can pay for the child's upbringing.
I think this is quite well enforced in Canada as the men can have their passports removed.

The people who have banned abortion are the legislatures in the states such as Texas etc. Go and bang on their doors.

The Supreme Court of the US didn't ban abortion. All it said was that state laws banning abortion weren't unconstitutional.

Any state legislature in the US is free to legalise abortion or (as most have) keep it legal, just the same as Parliament in the UK. Therefore it's really up the the voters in places like Texas to elect representives who will legalise abortion instead of looking for a bunch of crusty old legal gerontocrats to save them.

It couldn't happen in the UK because there is no written Constitution. There is only the principle that Parliament can make whatever law it likes. This is much more democratic.

as long as you don't elect a bunch of charlatans and idiots

@MangyInseam so right. The Democrats had 50 years to pass a federal law on abortion. Obama had control of all of Congress for the first two years and could've passed federally mandated maternity leave, subsidized childcare and all sorts of family and women friendly legislation. This isn't just about the Supreme Court.

Catholics make up 20% of the US population to date, there have only been 15 Catholic justices — out of 115 justices total — in the history of the Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor, a justice on the Supreme Court, is also Catholic and voted to keep Roe in place.

Other Catholics in the US government include the President Joe Biden and the Speaker of the House (considered the second most powerful position after the President) Nancy Pelosi.

"According to an analysis released on Jan. 3 by the Pew Research Center, about 88 percent of Congress identifies as Christian, compared with just 71 percent of all U.S. adults. Catholics now make up 30.5 percent of Congress; 21 percent of U.S. adults identify as Catholic."

This is from 2018. As you can see, more Democrats in Congress are Catholic than Republicans and Catholics are pretty much split right down the middle when it comes to voting Democrat or Republican.

A lot more people identify as religious in the US than the UK. Most Catholics in the US are also not of European descent so I would be careful for anyone tempted to launch into stereotypes

Imv if you can't afford your healthcare or whatever in the US you can turn to charity from your church. This may be the reason that churches/religion are so strong. Churches are very rich.

@SaintHelena I think you are somewhat mislead there! If you are very poor in the USA your healthctea and that of your children is covered by Medicaid. If you are 65+ you get government funded Medicare. Its the working poor that struggle.

Congregations do give to many local and national causes of need: food banks, social services, prison ministry, trafficking victims, refugees etc etc. Churches are generally on a tight budget and mostly run by volunteer labor of the Congregation and small paid staff. Its definitely true that you can turn to the Church in an emergency (such as unable to pay your rent) but then case management is taken over by social services if its a more chronic issue.

Yeah, in the sense that Croydon Borough Council is rich, ie, assets and income, and obligations.

Not in the sense of Bishop Brennan in his bath.

www.therichest.com/world/the-10-richest-religions-in-the-world/

The religions are loaded. And will spend it on evangelism.

And yes, it's the working poor I was thinking of regarding help with health care. I've lived in the US and remember collections for health care for workers of other expats.

This is a great example of I Am An Expert in <insert X> Because Google. You expect people to take that link seriously?

Op, usually people expect parents to care for the children they create, unless they give them to the state for adoption. HTH.

“I’m not in America but I was wondering if rich American women could band together to fund a class action lawsuit. It would be against evangelical Christian churches”

its rich women that are voting for this shit !
currently only the wrong type of babies are available for purchase, this new law might bring more suitable and profitable ones onto the market

No they haven't. They've abolished it due to legal grounds.

I'm not religious or right wing and I am pro life but I wouldn't ever stop someone making a decision that effects their own body. Same with assisted dying, it should be up to the individual and no one else.

How many American men dont have passports ?

take their driver’s license and they cant work and therefore cant pay anyway. The jails are full I believe.
How does PAYE work over there ? Take child support at source ? Still its only 20% of the salary …. Who’s paying the rest ? The poor woman

They'll argue that they haven't forced anyone into getting pregnant though

@TomPinch
I'm stunned that you don't think religions are rich and powerful - look at the Latter Day Saints or Scientology

I think some of these US states should continue this theme by criminalising people who leave their children (i.e. mainly men) or who don't pay maintenance! Lets see how long the opposition to abortion lasts then

You do realise that it already is? Also sanctions such as forfeit of driving license

I don't know if it's the case in every state, but that wouldn't be either a new or a startling development.

It's nowhere near as wishy washy as UK

That's not what I said. See above for what I did say. And if you think the Scientologists are a standard example of "a religion" then, frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

You have reminded me of something that happened in the C of E parish where I grew up. The C of E has a lot of assets. It also has a lot of church roofs to fix. That's why it has been closing and selling off church buildings right left and centre for the last two decades: it can't afford them any more.

In said parish, the diocese decided to close the church. Up popped a local worthy who said this must be wrong because the C of E was very rich. Eventually the daft radge accused the vicar of embezzling the money that Must Be There, and the police got involved.

I appreciate that the C of E is not American but the story is illustrating.

This.

It will become a breeding program to increase their congregation.

Link?

It is not completely wrong as you suggest as government is political and the Presidential administration is referred to as government by shorthand by the people commonly. Similar to how people say "America" rather than the official name of "United States".

The Supreme Court is independent of the administration (Executive). That is correct.

From uscourt.gov:

"....independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government."

This is what I'm talking about which explains the reference to Biden.

Congress has some discretion in relation to the Supreme Court. For example, Congress (Legislative) set the number of Justices which isn't in the constitution itself. It's been nine since 1869, but has been as low as six.

At the end of the day, the decision was made by the USSC and the OPs statement is a non-starter. The USSC is the final arbiter of the interpretation of law in the United States of America.

From supremecourt.gov:

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

Only the Supreme Court judges are responsible for the ruling of the Supreme Court.

The UK does have a written constitution. What the UK doesn't have is a codified constitution - it's not written down in one place.

Lord Norton of Louth is regarded as a leading expert on the UK constitution and he confirms we have a written constitution. And, of course, the constitution not being codified has to be qualified against our membership of the EU as well as the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland. Effectively, the UK has SOME codified constitutional law in writing, but most of it remains uncodified all the same.