10 Legal Problems with Roe-v-Wade

[Felicity]

Since the 14th. IS a part of the constitution ....the problem you are claiming here is in expanding the 14th. beyond what is in the 14th.

Pretty much...really the 1st problem is just a defining issue as to what the SCOTUS is supposed to do NAMELY--interpret what is IN the Constitution--the 2nd problem really gets to the meat...the specific wording that they interpret and then broaden to arrive at their conclusion.

You might make the argument that there is no Constitutional basis for the 14th., and you would be correct, as the origins of the 14th. come from the DoI and a common understanding of the Natural Law premise, but that's another thread.

Well....maybe Pro-choicers should hook-up with bigots and try to cut the 14th right out! Not something I'll likely be doing.

I disagree that RvW makes an error here because the right to be secure in ones person (= body) and papers (=medical records) is established in the 14th.

Actually, it's the 4th that says that...Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...but RvW combines interpretations from the 4th and the 14th...

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To arrive at the conclusion that "secure" means something other than a PASSIVE protection of rights already established in the letter of the Constitution to an ACTIVE right that allows a person to not simply exist in safety, but also to act in secrecy. That (in bold) is the crux of Problem #2. It is too broad a definition in that this "right" to action is not in the Constitution.

RvW did not create any "right to abortion".
This is a common PC misunderstanding, which has been forwarded as a truth, which has in turn has lead to the abuse or RvW, which I oppose.

It does, in that it broadens the 4th/14th to include the private activities of a person. And they further did this without identifying if the result of the private activity infringed upon the rights of another "person"--specifically, the personhood of the fetus--or not.

...SCOTUS had the authority to declare that the states can regulate abortion.

The problem is that they ALSO defined the perameters--which is part of the role of the lesgislative branch.

 

[Jerry]

Actually, it's the 4th that says that...

:doh
Typ-o...my bad.

To arrive at the conclusion that "secure" means something other than a PASSIVE protection of rights already established in the letter of the Constitution to an ACTIVE right that allows a person to not simply exist in safety, but also to act in secrecy. That (in bold) is the crux of Problem #2. It is too broad a definition in that this "right" to action is not in the Constitution.

I am aware of the categories of civil, basic and fundamental (the right to breath, for example, has no constitutional base, but it is a basic/fundamental right non the less), but I have never heard of "active" or "passive" rights.

I simply fail completely to see an illustration any problem in what you just posted.

It does, in that it broadens the 4th/14th to include the private activities of a person.

If by "private activities" you mean "medical procedures", then those are already covered and RvW expanded nothing.

And they further did this without identifying if the result of the private activity infringed upon the rights of another "person"--specifically, the personhood of the fetus--or not.

Please don't make me pull out my list of Standard Issue Responses and quote RvW section 9a at you.

SCOTUS did, in fact, identify exactly what you say they did not, in that section.

Legally speaking, in 1973 abortion did not infringe upon another "person's" rights because "personhood" did not apply prenataly.

The problem is that they ALSO defined the perameters--which is part of the role of the lesgislative branch.

Go one premise back.....SCOTUS defined no parameters which could constitute law, they determined that the parameters were to be defined by each state, not on the federal level.

RvW did not create any such "right to abortion". It struck down specific pieces legislation of one state, told all states that they still had the power to regulate abortion, and gave parameters for how those regulations would be constitutional.

 

[rathi]

To put things simply. The government by default does NOT get access to your medical records. Bush cannot say "show me Rathi's dental history." The exceptions occur when the state has "compelling interest" to do so. For example, Medical records can be used in a court case if they are useful as evidence. Filing income taxes also fits under "compelling interest" because of the need for federal revenues. The roe v wade case stated by that because a fetus is not a person, the state has no compelling interest to intervene into private affairs. Essentially, they stated that the death of fetus is not important enough to require the viewing of private medical records.

The "right to privacy" normally protects the house, medical history, and anything else in the 4th. The supreme court was well within their rights when they made that determination. Its their job to interpret the constitution.

 

[Stinger]

To put things simply. The government by default does NOT get access to your medical records.

When I filed for medical tax deductions on my income tax from when my wife had surgery last year we had to supply the private information as to what doctor, where it was, what it was, what they did, etc etc etc. When I claim prescriptions I have to list what drugs I take.

Filing income taxes also fits under "compelling interest" because of the need for federal revenues.

No it does not and if that is the best defense you have then there is no right to privacy at all.

So list for me the things that right to privacy covers.

The "right to privacy" normally protects the house, medical history, and anything else in the 4th.

Yet without court order they can demand those personal private records, in my house, be turned over to them on a regular annual basis. I even have to tell them how many TV's I have, did I go on vacation, how much I spend at the grocery store each week (every filled out the long form census?).

The supreme court was well within their rights when they made that determination. Its their job to interpret the constitution.

Fine then point out where in the constitution it says that I have a right to privacy that the government at it's whim can violate except when it comes to abortion.

 

[rathi]

No it does not and if that is the best defense you have then there is no right to privacy at all.

You don't think that the state has a compelling interest in collecting revenue? I'd love to see you try and argue that point.

So list for me the things that right to privacy covers.

A right to privacy covers things that you can legally keep private or hidden. For example, anything that you can keep hidden until subpoenaed or a warrant is issued. The right to privacy also covers you bank information.

Yet without court order they can demand those personal private records, in my house, be turned over to them on a regular annual basis. I even have to tell them how many TV's I have, did I go on vacation, how much I spend at the grocery store each week (every filled out the long form census?).

The IRS has the legal authority to collect income tax from a constitutional amendment. They can therefor ask for such information in the process of collecting income tax.

Fine then point out where in the constitution it says that I have a right to privacy that the government at it's whim can violate except when it comes to abortion.

Jerry has pointed it out numerous times. What it boils down to is this.

The 4th amendment protects all private data except for when the states has "clear need" for the information. The supreme court decided in the case of abortion that state does not have a "clear need."

There is nothing wrong with you stating that abortion should be a compelling state interest and disagreeing with the court. However, the roe v wade decision was legally valid. If the current supreme court decided that the state had "compelling state interest" in abortion, that decision would also be valid.

 

[Stinger]

You don't think that the state has a compelling interest in collecting revenue? I'd love to see you try and argue that point.

Sure, but they don't have a compelling reason to do it through an income tax which requires me to report all my private data.

A right to privacy covers things that you can legally keep private or hidden.

Like my most private personal financial data.

For example, anything that you can keep hidden until subpoenaed or a warrant is issued. The right to privacy also covers you bank information.

Sorry but lots of that is required on my income tax and census forms.

The IRS has the legal authority to collect income tax from a constitutional amendment.

Which proves there is no right to privacy.

They can therefor ask for such information in the process of collecting income tax.

Because I have no right to privacy.

The 4th amendment protects all private data except for when the states has "clear need" for the information.

The state has no clear need for my most private financial date, it just chooses to us an income tax system which requires I report it.

The supreme court decided in the case of abortion that state does not have a "clear need."

Declaring a right to privacy which doesn't exist.

Tell me do you think the state has a compelling interest in stopping terrorism and terrorist attacks on this country?

 

[rathi]

The right to privacy exists as the general default on the government gathering private data. However, that right has several exceptions to it.

Here is a list of two exceptions:

Income tax forms

Court ordered warrants and subpoenas

Abortion is not on the list of exceptions. The supreme court decided that abortion does not belong on the list of exceptions.

You have the right to privacy except when the supreme courts decides that state has a compelling interest to violate your privacy.

 

[Stinger]

The right to privacy exists as the general default on the government gathering private data. However, that right has several exceptions to it.

And the constitution specifies those exceptions where?

Abortion is not on the list of exceptions.

What else isn't?
The supreme court decided that abortion does not belong on the list of exceptions.

Abortion is not data. What else is on the privacy list that government can't intrude upon?

You have the right to privacy except when the supreme courts decides that state has a compelling interest to violate your privacy.

There is no compelling interest in the current tax system. They just decided to tax our incomes, which ONLY required that your employer take it out and send it to the government. It does not compel anything else. The tax system and the reporting it entangles has just evolved that way.

So again does the state have a compelling interest to stop terrorism and terrorist acts?

 

[rathi]

And the constitution specifies those exceptions where?

"without due process of law" Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of the law, as when we put people in prison.

Abortion is not data. What else is on the privacy list that government can't intrude upon?

Abortions are performed by doctors and recorded in your private medical records. Private Medical records are protected. Bank records is another thing that the government cannot normally intrude upon. The contents on your basement is yet another. Use an internet search if you want to find them all.

There is no compelling interest in the current tax system. They just decided to tax our incomes, which ONLY required that your employer take it out and send it to the government. It does not compel anything else. The tax system and the reporting it entangles has just evolved that way.

I'd agree that all the deductions and nonsense we put on our taxes right now is pretty stupid. I certainly wouldn't mind getting rid of most of the stupid loopholes.

So again does the state have a compelling interest to stop terrorism and terrorist acts?

Indeed it does. That is why our courts have the ability to use warrants and subpoenas to find and prosecute terrorists. In fact we even let warrants be issued after the fact when needed.

 

[Stinger]

"without due process of law" Constitutional rights can be removed with due process of the law, as when we put people in prison.

I have no due process with my tax form or the cencus.

Abortions are performed by doctors and recorded in your private medical records. Private Medical records are protected.

Not when I have to file taxes. I have to report what I spend with what doctor to do what and what I pay for prescriptions and what they are.

Bank records is another thing that the government cannot normally intrude upon.

They normally do it every April 15th and if I withdraw over $10,000 the government is told. Not much privacy there is there.

I'd agree that all the deductions and nonsense we put on our taxes right now is pretty stupid.

If there were a right to privacy it would be a fundamental violation of it. But since there isn't one they can require, without due process or warrant, that we report this most private data.

Quote:
So again does the state have a compelling interest to stop terrorism and terrorist acts?

Indeed it does. That is why our courts have the ability to use warrants and subpoenas to find and prosecute terrorists. In fact we even let warrants be issued after the fact when needed.

A "compelling interest" would not require a warrant, that is the argument you make with the tax system.

 

[rathi]

I have no due process with my tax form or the cencus.

You have an entire amendment that authorizes the collection of income taxes. Thats the most "due process" you can ever have.

Not when I have to file taxes. I have to report what I spend with what doctor to do what and what I pay for prescriptions and what they are.

As I have repeated countless times before, taxes are one of the exceptions to the rule. If your local police officer went to your doctor and asked for you medical records, the doctor would not have to give them.

They normally do it every April 15th and if I withdraw over $10,000 the government is told. Not much privacy there is there.

Sure there is. Only the IRS gets to look at your data.

If there were a right to privacy it would be a fundamental violation of it. But since there isn't one they can require, without due process or warrant, that we report this most private data.

Again we have an amendment for the collection of income tax. All of the information that the IRS request is authorized because it is part of collecting income tax.

A "compelling interest" would not require a warrant, that is the argument you make with the tax system.

Warrants exist to allow law enforcement to perform their duties. Allowing officers to make searches without warrants would not improve their ability to fight terrorists. Therefor no compelling state interest exists to allow warrantless searches. The IRS however, needs personal information in order to collect taxes. Thus the compelling state interest exists.

 

[Stinger]

You have an entire amendment that authorizes the collection of income taxes. Thats the most "due process" you can ever have.

That's not due process, and warrants have to have specificity which this doesn't. The amendment only says my income CAN be taxed, it doesn't require it. The fact it is allowable because there is no right to privacy.

As I have repeated countless times before, taxes are one of the exceptions to the rule.

I want to know what is covered?

If your local police officer went to your doctor and asked for you medical records, the doctor would not have to give them.

But the IRS can require me to turn over medical records. From a criminal investigation it requires specificity as ALL search warrants require. EXACTLY what they are looking for and from whom. No such requirement are made for my financial data or when I have to fill out the long form census.


Quote:
They normally do it every April 15th and if I withdraw over $10,000 the government is told. Not much privacy there is there.

Sure there is. Only the IRS gets to look at your data.

If I withdraw $10,000 it gets reported to the Treasury Department. You have no privacy right.

Again we have an amendment for the collection of income tax. All of the information that the IRS request is authorized because it is part of collecting income tax.

So much for an inherent right to privacy.

Warrants exist to allow law enforcement to perform their duties.

They exist so they can't barge into your home without cause.

Allowing officers to make searches without warrants would not improve their ability to fight terrorists.

Data mining international phone calls does, but the left says it violates privacy. Well there is a compelling interest to do so. I can use the "compelling interest", which use of for routine government functions is debatable, to violate every right we have.

Therefor no compelling state interest exists to allow warrantless searches.

Oh yes there are.

The IRS however, needs personal information in order to collect taxes.

No they don't, all they need is to have the employer send int x% off the top of your paycheck.

Thus the compelling state interest exists.

Well we have a compelling interest to stop terrorism so is the NSA wire tapping legal?

And again just because the government decides it wants to do something one way does not give it a compelling interest in something. We could have a NST and get rid of the income tax altogether. The government is not "compelled" to do as it does.

Heck the government has a compelling interest in the public saftey, do you think your argument would hold up if they tried to seize all guns under this "compelling interest". No. We have a right to bear arms. But they can require me to report my private financial data, and for a bank to inform them if I move a large sum of money because there is no such right to "privacy".

But again what IS covered under a right to privacy, not a right from search an seizure regarding a government criminal investigation. Everyday stuff.

 

[rathi]

That's not due process, and warrants have to have specificity which this doesn't. The amendment only says my income CAN be taxed, it doesn't require it. The fact it is allowable because there is no right to privacy.

A constitutional amendment is the height of "due process." Anything that can make it through the process clearly has the full support of both state and federal government. And the stuff relating to income taxes is very specific. They only ask for information that they need to collect their taxes. And if their is no right to privacy, why can't I go to your doctor and ask for your medical information?

I want to know what is covered?

How many times have I told you? Medi
cal Records, Bank information, the contents inside your house. There is probably even more.

But the IRS can require me to turn over medical records. From a criminal investigation it requires specificity as ALL search warrants require. EXACTLY what they are looking for and from whom. No such requirement are made for my financial data or when I have to fill out the long form census.

They standards for criminal warrants are higher than for the IRS. For example, your house is better protected from searches than your car. Not everything is covered equally.

If I withdraw $10,000 it gets reported to the Treasury Department. You have no privacy right.

Thats because withdrawing that much money puts you under suspicion for criminal activities.

So much for an inherent right to privacy.

Thats not an argument. Just because the IRS can get such data doesn't mean that anyone else can.

Data mining international phone calls does, but the left says it violates privacy. Well there is a compelling interest to do so. I can use the "compelling interest", which use of for routine government functions is debatable, to violate every right we have.

Thats why the supreme court case makes the call not you. If you want to argue that the supreme court was incorrect in deciding whether or not fetus's were a "compelling state interest", so be it. We can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. However, declaring that we don't have a right to privacy is not.

Well we have a compelling interest to stop terrorism so is the NSA wire tapping legal?

If they get a warrant, sure.

 

[Alex]

I'm sorry I'm missing the connection between conducting a search of the woman, right to privacy and whether killing an unborn child is legal or not. Do only women have a right to privacy?

Against abortion, Stinger? Then you are for raising taxes. Do you honestly believe that women who do not want children will all of a sudden stop getting pregnant? Someone has to care and pay for all these unwanted children, and guess who that will be? The taxpayers, including you. Also, the Republican party and the neoconservative movement will collapse even further than they have if abortion were outlawed. First, women will not stop seeking abortions just because they are illegal. They will get them done in back-alley clinics that are not regulated. These women will undoubtabley be seriously harmed or killed. The media will report this endlessly and the public will look to someone to blame. Who will they blame? The people that could not mind their own business and made abortion illegal.... neoconservatives. Also, Republicans stand for lower taxes and that is not possible when abortion is illegal for reasons already stated. Neoconservatives are shooting themselves in the foot.

Maybe we should register all pro-lifers and raise their taxes.

 

[Jerry]

Against abortion, Stinger? Then you are for raising taxes. Do you honestly believe that women who do not want children will all of a sudden stop getting pregnant? Someone has to care and pay for all these unwanted children, and guess who that will be? The taxpayers, including you. Also, the Republican party and the neoconservative movement will collapse even further than they have if abortion were outlawed. First, women will not stop seeking abortions just because they are illegal. They will get them done in back-alley clinics that are not regulated. These women will undoubtabley be seriously harmed or killed. The media will report this endlessly and the public will look to someone to blame. Who will they blame? The people that could not mind their own business and made abortion illegal.... neoconservatives. Also, Republicans stand for lower taxes and that is not possible when abortion is illegal for reasons already stated. Neoconservatives are shooting themselves in the foot.

Maybe we should register all pro-lifers and raise their taxes.

Heh, any woman who seeks a back ally abortion and suffers for it shot herself in the foot.

Anyway, got some numbers showing how taxes went down in 1973 and continued to fall as abortion rates went up?

 

[Stinger]

A constitutional amendment is the height of "due process."

No it is not, the amendment ONLY authorizes the government to directly tax income which can be done without the reporting which is an invasion of privacy that the current system entails.

They only ask for information that they need to collect their taxes. And if their is no right to privacy, why can't I go to your doctor and ask for your medical information?

Your rights have to do with the government not me, if there was a right to privacy over medical records then how come I have to tell the government which doctors I see, what I paid them, what drugs I take, how much I pay for them...........

How many times have I told you? Medi
cal Records, Bank information,

Not covered, government can access those and I have to report them yearly without due process or appeal.

They standards for criminal warrants are higher than for the IRS.

There are no warrants or court orders required for the IRS to audit me. Nor are there any warrants necessary for the government to require me to fill out the long form census.

Thats because withdrawing that much money puts you under suspicion for criminal activities.

Thats not an argument. Just because the IRS can get such data doesn't mean that anyone else can.

OH so this right to privacy only applies to other people getting my data not the government. Some "right" there.


Quote:
Well we have a compelling interest to stop terrorism so is the NSA wire tapping legal?

If they get a warrant, sure.

They don't need one to get my private financial data because you claim there is a compelling interest. Your position is that a compelling state interest trumps rights. Well doesn't the state have a compelling interest to stop terrorism which would by your premise make any warrants unnecessary.

 

[Felicity]

Okay...so do we have all that "taxes/census et al violate my right to privacy" stuff out of our system and can we get back to Roe-v-Wade and its flaws?:2wave:

 

[Stinger]

Okay...so do we have all that "taxes/census et al violate my right to privacy" stuff out of our system and can we get back to Roe-v-Wade and its flaws?:2wave:

Don't ask such questions, they invade my right to privacy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Onward.

 

[Jerry]

Problems 4-10 are....

 

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Felicity
To arrive at the conclusion that "secure" means something other than a PASSIVE protection of rights already established in the letter of the Constitution to an ACTIVE right that allows a person to not simply exist in safety, but also to act in secrecy. That (in bold) is the crux of Problem #2. It is too broad a definition in that this "right" to action is not in the Constitution.
I have never heard of "active" or "passive" rights.

I simply fail completely to see an illustration any problem in what you just posted.

If you think grammatically, active voice means that the subject of the sentence is DOING something, and passive voice is when the subject of the sentence is having something DONE TO it. EX: ACTIVE~ Jane had an abortion. (Jane ACTIVELY goes out and gets an abortion—Jane is doing the action). PASSIVE~ An abortion was performed on Jane. (Jane PASSIVELY receives the abortion—the DOER of the action, performing the abortion, is unknown).

As the grammatical terms, active and passive can be used to describe individual actions and their intent.I am using the term as in the difference between “active euthanasia” and “passive euthanasia” – “active resistance” and “passive resistance” -- it is the difference between taking ACTION to promote an outcome and NOT taking action.

When the constitution promotes “security” in the amendment, it is ensuring the individual is free FROM bodily insecurity. It is a PASSIVE assurance—to be free FROM does not state any right to an individual’s particular action, it addresses things wont happen TO the individual—the individual RECEIVES the right to security. It is not an ACTIVE right for the individual to go out and DO something that will be constitutionally protected. Hence, the 4th amendment is a PASSIVE right and the RvW ruling transforms that to an ACTIVE right by the way the justices applied it.

If by "private activities" you mean "medical procedures", then those are already covered and RvW expanded nothing.

Private activities are an individual ACTING. Medical procedures are RECEIVED by the individual. That is the difference I am pointing out.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity
And they further did this without identifying if the result of the private activity infringed upon the rights of another "person"--specifically, the personhood of the fetus--or not.

Please don't make me pull out my list of Standard Issue Responses and quote RvW section 9a at you.

SCOTUS did, in fact, identify exactly what you say they did not, in that section.

Legally speaking, in 1973 abortion did not infringe upon another "person's" rights because "personhood" did not apply prenataly.

Only as RvW itself decided. Again, an expansion of judicial privilege. Yes—they went on to explain what they considered “person” but they did so without case law or constitutional authority. They made it up.

SCOTUS defined no parameters which could constitute law, they determined that the parameters were to be defined by each state, not on the federal level.

As long as it was within their determined parameter of the trimesters. 1st trimester abortions HAD TO BE legal. That is the role of the legislature to determine—not SCOTUS.

 

[Felicity]

RvW....makes a claim of an un specified right and calls it a "fundamental right" (That's legal problem #4) ...... And then does NOTHING to actually defend the claim that the Constitution specifically address such issues as abortion.

Problems with Roe


Problem #1: SCOTUS overstepped its authority by acting beyond interpreting the Constitution. The issue is expanding the power of the Court to defining and interpreting what is NOT in the Constitution.

Problem #2: SCOTUS failed to provide Constitutional context as to the “new right” to abortion created in the RvW ruling. The issue is expanding the 4th and the 14th to what is NOT ALREADY EXPLICITLY STATED in the Constitution.

Problem #3: SCOTUS acted as a legislative body by imposing the “trimester framework.” The issue is defining the "framework" at all--which is the state's legislative right--NOT A JUDICIAL right at all.




Problem #4 SCOTUS claimed a unspecified right to be a "fundamental right." This goes against the meaning of “fundamental” as it applies to constitutional law. The issue is fundamental rights, which are supposed to be “deeply rooted in history and traditions,” are determined by means of “strict scrutiny.”

Legal Definition of Strict Judicial Scrutiny In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive. ...It must further an overriding state interest yet be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid any unnecessary intrusion on First Amendment rights.

First—the right to destroy one’s offspring is simply NOT “deeply rooted” in our nation’s history. In fact, protection of the unborn is more deeply rooted than any implied right to terminate pregnancy.

Second—RvW is vague in its application of this “strict scrutiny” in that it merely claims “This right of privacy, ..... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” ROE v. WADE

and...as I said before...the reasoning that asserts the individual or state interest in this supposed fundamental right is NEVER explained in Roe:

The liberty interest is never explained in Roe--and never specifically the hardship presented in pregnancy--just some stuff about how tough it is to be a mom and how ACTUAL (as opposed to potential) motherhood can cause psychological and financial distress. By that reasoning, what state interest could stop a woman from killing her toddler? That toddler is more of an imminent threat to the mother's psychological and financial well-being than a two month fetus. Furthermore--this motherhood "burden" doesn't even actually exist because there is already a non-lethal means to resolving the "problem": adoption.

 

[Jerry]

If you think grammatically, active voice means that the subject of the sentence is DOING something, and passive voice is when the subject of the sentence is having something DONE TO it. EX: ACTIVE~ Jane had an abortion. (Jane ACTIVELY goes out and gets an abortion—Jane is doing the action). PASSIVE~ An abortion was performed on Jane. (Jane PASSIVELY receives the abortion—the DOER of the action, performing the abortion, is unknown).

[........]

Before I continue let me be sure I'm clear:

A passive right exists in the background and operates without you needing to do anything, like the right to bear arms. An active right exists in the foreground and must be invoked in order to operate, like the 5th amendment.

Am I write or am I right?

 

[Felicity]

Before I continue let me be sure I'm clear:

A passive right exists in the background and operates without you needing to do anything, like the right to bear arms. An active right exists in the foreground and must be invoked in order to operate, like the 5th amendment.

Am I write or am I right?

Write and right. (of course the term passive/active in these cases is my own way of describing it as far as I know)

 

[Felicity]

right?

C'mon Jerry...let's get on with real debate stuff...

Shall I go on to problem #5?

How come no pro-choicer wants to argue the validity of Roe? Is it that the only answer is--"Abortion is legal and it always will be!" ?

 

[Jerry]

Private activities are an individual ACTING. Medical procedures are RECEIVED by the individual. That is the difference I am pointing out.

I understand what your saying regarding the diference between an active and a passive right, but I don't think wer'e going to see eye to eye on this point, because the way I understand it the 4th. protects your medical privacy rather you get a procedure or receve a procedure.

Only as RvW itself decided. Again, an expansion of judicial privilege. Yes—they went on to explain what they considered “person” but they did so without case law or constitutional authority. They made it up.

Their sources in their decision in section 9a are:

[ Footnote 53 ] We are not aware that in the taking of any census under this clause, a fetus has ever been counted.

[ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?


[ Footnote 55 ] Cf. the Wisconsin abortion statute, defining "unborn child" to mean "a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive," Wis. Stat. 940.04 (6) (1969), and the new Connecticut Statute, Pub. Act No. 1 (May 1972 special session), declaring it to be the public policy of the State and the legislative intent "to protect and preserve human life from the moment of conception."

This, of course, is where all those PC arguments going off on how PL wants to put women who have an abortion in prison.

If a fetus is a person then it can not ever be aborted for any reason other than the mother's life being in *immediate* danger. Now, that may be the core PL premise, but imo outlawing nearly all abortions like that is not an attainable goal.

We may have room to establish "personhood" prenataly when the Humanist criteria is met, that being when the fetus has a thalamus connected to a functioning cortex, but for the most part the "personhood" issue is lost before it began.

The argument must be "a compelling state interest in the potential life of the fetus" in order to win anything, but even that argument can only get you so far, and it won't outlaw first term abortions unless you can make a really great case showing the state's compelling interest in first term fetuses.

As long as it was within their determined parameter of the trimesters. 1st trimester abortions HAD TO BE legal. That is the role of the legislature to determine—not SCOTUS.

I'll sign onto this because it is for each state to decide what is in it's own interests and SCOTUS gave no reasoning why a state would never have a compelling interest in early pregnancy.

In fact what you bring up here is why SD is bringing the issue back to SCOTUS with HB1293.