“Understanding and Deepening” Dobbs’ ruling of the US Supreme Court on the subject of “the right to abortion” issued last June 24 “far from the chaos of political correctness”: This is promoted by the Symposium of Associations Network of the Public Agenda “Say it on the Roofs” (Mt 10, 27 )” with the Levatino Center for Studies and the Italian Catholic Jurists Union (Roman Federation) held in Rome on July 13. The work was presented by Alfredo Mantofano, a member of the Supreme Court Council and Vice President of the Levatino Center for Studies, who said that “the uproar that accompanied the Supreme Court ruling last June 24 is not justified in itself, because it is part of a proper physiological relationship to the American legal system, which has continued for more of two centuries, between the Supreme Court, the individual federal states and the federal state.” “We are not afraid to share sincere indignation at the superficiality and instrumentality with which Dobbs’ sentence accompanied – as noted by Agenda ‘On the Roofs’ coordinator Domenico Minorello on his part – and intend to treat with the utmost seriousness the meticulously basic social issues posed by this fact in relation to abortion and the relationship between Judges and legislators, aware that in this we are keeping awake not only our freedom, but also the democratic fabric of Italy.”
Giovanna Razzano, Professor of Public Law at the University of La Sapienza, described the contents of the American judgment, which noted that “notably, for the first time in history, a sentence was stolen and predicted before its publication, causing a “criticism” to be activated close to it, without knowing its official text.” Moallem then explained that “to understand the meaning of the June 24, 2022 judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is necessary to bear in mind the 1973 preceding sentence in Roe v.. Wade (410 US 113, 1973), in which the right was recognized in the termination of pregnancy even in the absence of health problems for the pregnant woman and fetus and for any other circumstance not attributable to the woman’s freedom of choice.” For Razzano, the ruling of June 24, 2022 “represents a pause in judicial innovation, centralizing popular representation, because judges have realized that they are not legislators, believing that the power to regulate abortion should return to the people through their representatives: that there is a possibility of a civilization now dependent on states individual”.
Alberto Gambino, Vice-Chancellor of European University and Head of Science and Life, also spoke at the symposium, noting that “starting with the most dramatic moment, that is, when a woman is faced with the choice between having an abortion or not having an abortion. . . From the women’s free zone about this circumstance, supported by the principles of privacy legislation, from which the 1973 sentence is derived. That is to say, it is so broad that it in itself includes the elimination of another human universe.” Faced with the question ‘whether there is a right to require the state to terminate a pregnancy’, the Head of Science and Life replied that ‘there is no such constitutional right. It is derived by some from the constitutional right to health, but in this case the art is overlooked.’ 32 of our Basic Charter has an individual and collective meaning for this right, but the individual individual increasingly prevails.Such a cultural and interpretive process leads to the need to recognize that the welfare society ends with “faithful subjects”, like the unborn child, who, on the other hand, , cannot be considered a simple decision.More than that: we can only note that in all issues that have a life subject, such as problems of the beginning of life as well as those of the same connection with the end of life, a common thread emerges, and a unified anthropological matrix, represented by By considering human beings as beings in the availability of others, and thus represented by the “embodiment” of weak subjects. We must reveal this unreasonable hypothesis by the power of reason.”
For Gambino, it is necessary to “find counter-proposals that highlight the contradictions found in 194 and envision a different reconciliation between the two personal positions. A counter-proposal could be legislative recognition of adoption at birth, allowing adoptive parents from biological parents who reject the child at the moment of birth However, – and he concludes – also in light of the scientific evidence of prenatal life, it is now necessary to strike a new balance between fetus and woman, since it is the same properly assumed constitutional perspective which should lead us to think in a way that New, equal people who come in relief.” The next appointments for the public agenda “Say It to the Roofs (Mount 1027)” will be on August 9-10 in Lydonia (AV) and on August 22, 2022 at 6pm at the Rimini meeting.
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
