Happy Fourth, Chap

We are now into our July 4 holiday on the weekend following our Supreme Court’s uprooting of many of the rights that this holiday once celebrated. It was on July 4 in 1776, of course, that we declared our separation from those tyrannical rulers of England. Given the confluence of this holiday with the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in three key areas, it is interesting to examine what our laws are now as compared to those in place in that tyrannical nation that we rejoice no longer being a part of.

So, let’s take a look at the law as it suddenly is here in the areas of gun ownership, environmental control, and abortion, and compare that to the same laws in England.

First, gun ownership. The “wise men and woman” of our Supreme Court have now told us that restrictions on owning and carrying guns both inside and outside the home are, for the most part, constitutional rights that can’t be infringed.

In England, that ain’t the case.

In England, gun ownership is very tightly controlled and regulated. That control comes from the Firearms Act. That Act, in its most relevant parts says that: (1) fully automatic and submachine guns are “prohibited weapons” and require explicit permission from the government with such permission generally not available to private citizens; (2) Semi-automatic weapons are similarly prohibited except for the humane dispatch of animals or for the preservation of historic weapons; (3) Rifles and their ammunition sizes are permitted but only for limited purposes such as target shooting and hunting; and (4) possession of live ammunition without an appropriate license, or failure to store ammunition securely, can lead to severe penalties.

Oh, it’s a good thing we aren’t governed by those people anymore.

Next, there is environmental control. This week, our Supremes told us that the “Environmental Protection Agency” has only limited authority to protect the environment from carbon emissions. Given that carbon emissions are one of the biggest threats to the environment, this is an awfully interesting reading of the agency’s very name.

On the other hand, England is governed by the Climate Change Act of 2008. That law gives delegates to the British version of Cabinet officers – the Ministers – extensive powers. These powers include measures necessary to achieve a range of greenhouse gas reduction targets, exactly what our Supremes said that our law doesn’t do. Of course, the Supreme Court decision doesn’t prevent our Congress from changing our law to satisfy the Supremes need for further specificity. But, unless you believe in reality as described by Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know that Congress is not about to do any such thing. This Congress literally can’t pass gas.

Oh, it’s a good thing we aren’t governed by those people anymore.

And finally, there is abortion. Everyone, even those educated in Alabama public schools, knows that the Supreme Court has declared that there is no constitutional right to abortion and that each individual state can set its own rules. How is it in England? By now, I’m sure you’ve guessed that their law is much better than ours.

In England, Scotland, and Wales, under the Abortion Act of 1967, abortion is permitted for four separate reasons:

1. If the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother;
2. In order to prevent grave permanent injury to the mother’s physical or mental health;
3. If there is a risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother or of any existing children of her family (up to a term of 24 weeks);
4. If there is a substantial risk that, if the child is born, it would “suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

It is important to realize that the third ground is typically interpreted liberally and creates, as a practical matter, abortion on demand. Nearly all abortions, 98% in 2019 and 2020, are performed to protect the woman’s mental health.

Oh, how terrible it would be if we were governed by those people.

Happy Fourth!