• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

By Whose Authority:

weaver2

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
14,980
Reaction score
12,364
Location
Oregon's High Desert
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In May of 2022 the Supreme Court will judge the constitutionality of Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. They have to give their reasons for their judgement. If they decide Mississippi has a right to ignore Roe and ban abortions after 15 weeks who or what will they give as the authority that allows Mississippi to do this?
 
weaver2 said:
In May of 2022 the Supreme Court will judge the constitutionality of Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. They have to give their reasons for their judgement. If they decide Mississippi has a right to ignore Roe and ban abortions after 15 weeks who or what will they give as the authority that allows Mississippi to do this?
Click to expand...
An activist right wing court.
 
weaver2 said:
In May of 2022 the Supreme Court will judge the constitutionality of Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. They have to give their reasons for their judgement. If they decide Mississippi has a right to ignore Roe and ban abortions after 15 weeks who or what will they give as the authority that allows Mississippi to do this?
Click to expand...

Not quite a valid question, I get the political angle on this but that is not what is being argued.

(And note for the record that I am not arguing for Mississippi in this case nor arguing for anti-abortion groups, just stating what this is about and why your question is not valid.)

The actual filing before the Supreme Court is by Mississippi against a women's health organization in Mississippi (basically a lone abortion provider with a single doctor listed as a respondent.)

The argument Mississippi is filing states that there is no Constitutional authority granted to the Federal Government to regulate this matter (in other words dismiss the viability barrier,) but moreover that there is no Constitutional right granted to the individual to obtain an abortion nor any limit to the State to restrict it. The details for each section of the argument is far more rooted in various case law related to what an individual has the right to obtain and what rights are inherently left to the States via the 10th Amendment. Their argument also includes various case law related to conditions and alterations to Roe v Wade since the original ruling calling the present condition of these rulings as "unworkable."

The concept is based on the nature of the laws being passed largely in southern Republican ran states where the intention was to challenge Roe v Wade on the reasoning for that decision in the first place. They have a 6-3 ideological lean in their favor and this effort suggests taking that for a spin.

The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.

On the surface the argument was strong enough for the Supreme Court to grant hearing it, however it is yet to be seen if it will actually work to the point of the ruling that Mississippi is after.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not quite a valid question, I get the political angle on this but that is not what is being argued.

(And note for the record that I am not arguing for Mississippi in this case nor arguing for anti-abortion groups, just stating what this is about and why your question is not valid.)

The actual filing before the Supreme Court is by Mississippi against a women's health organization in Mississippi (basically a lone abortion provider with a single doctor listed as a respondent.)

The argument Mississippi is filing states that there is no Constitutional authority granted to the Federal Government to regulate this matter (in other words dismiss the viability barrier,) but moreover that there is no Constitutional right granted to the individual to obtain an abortion nor any limit to the State to restrict it. The details for each section of the argument is far more rooted in various case law related to what an individual has the right to obtain and what rights are inherently left to the States via the 10th Amendment. Their argument also includes various case law related to conditions and alterations to Roe v Wade since the original ruling calling the present condition of these rulings as "unworkable."

The concept is based on the nature of the laws being passed largely in southern Republican ran states where the intention was to challenge Roe v Wade on the reasoning for that decision in the first place. They have a 6-3 ideological lean in their favor and this effort suggests taking that for a spin.

The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.

On the surface the argument was strong enough for the Supreme Court to grant hearing it, however it is yet to be seen if it will actually work to the point of the ruling that Mississippi is after.
Click to expand...
Good info. Thanks.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not quite a valid question, I get the political angle on this but that is not what is being argued.

(And note for the record that I am not arguing for Mississippi in this case nor arguing for anti-abortion groups, just stating what this is about and why your question is not valid.)

The actual filing before the Supreme Court is by Mississippi against a women's health organization in Mississippi (basically a lone abortion provider with a single doctor listed as a respondent.)

The argument Mississippi is filing states that there is no Constitutional authority granted to the Federal Government to regulate this matter (in other words dismiss the viability barrier,) but moreover that there is no Constitutional right granted to the individual to obtain an abortion nor any limit to the State to restrict it. The details for each section of the argument is far more rooted in various case law related to what an individual has the right to obtain and what rights are inherently left to the States via the 10th Amendment. Their argument also includes various case law related to conditions and alterations to Roe v Wade since the original ruling calling the present condition of these rulings as "unworkable."

The concept is based on the nature of the laws being passed largely in southern Republican ran states where the intention was to challenge Roe v Wade on the reasoning for that decision in the first place. They have a 6-3 ideological lean in their favor and this effort suggests taking that for a spin.

The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.

On the surface the argument was strong enough for the Supreme Court to grant hearing it, however it is yet to be seen if it will actually work to the point of the ruling that Mississippi is after.
Click to expand...
I regret to say I have not read the actual filing and should probably not have started this thread until I had. In my defense, weak as it is at this point, I think if the Supreme Court does decide that Roe ruling is wrong, that the federal government is not granted the power to make abortion legal and women do not have a right to abortion it does raise the question about the authority to control women's very private (mostly sexual) lives. What is the locus of this authority and how was it granted to those who want to manage women's ability to make personal decisions about their private lives.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.
Click to expand...

As I understand it this is part of what brought the privacy based decision. Abortion can be a life saving procedure, needed at any point during the pregnancy. Due to medical privacy, a state can't pry into the reasons why a woman gets an abortion, and can't deny a life saving procedure.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.
Click to expand...
Great response.

Here's the saving grace tho:

Besides the fact that many states will keep abortion accessible for women, the other states cannot violate women's Constitutional rights in order to enforce their ban. State laws cannot supersede Federal law and the Const.

States will need to establish women's reproductive status in order to prevent them having abortions. Whether it's ordering abortion pills online or popping across the state line (as many have to do now anyway since clinics may be closer) or taking a weekend on a gambling ship just outside the international line...they're already set up with rooms and medical facilities...new market for them!....the state has few means to take any action at all against women who have abortions.

I mean, what can they do? Women dont even have to go to a Dr to confirm a pregnancy anymore, over-the-counter tests are very accurate.

There are federally protected rights to medical and reproductive privacy. Women have a right to due process...where's the probable cause? Will they be investigating miscarriages? Will they be stopping women at state borders and requiring proof of reproductive status and then checking them on the way back? The states cannot criminalize having an abortion because they cant enforce it. I mean, possibly they can try but they'd end up like The Handmaid's Tale.

Re: bodily autonomy (the 4th Amendment) there is also another precedent that can be applied besides the ones that already stand (@minnie616 who has that list). In McPhail vs Shimp, where SC agreed that Shimp could not be compelled to donate bone marrow to save another specific individual's life. The state could not invade his bodily autonomy in order to save the life of another person.

For starters, the unborn are not even persons legally, and also per SCOTUS rulings and the 14th Amendment...have no rights. So any ban can also be challenged on this basis, where the govt would demand that a woman donate or contribute her bodily functions to save the life of another. Esp not even a 'person.' What's the justification to supersede a woman's rights for something with no rights?
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Not quite a valid question, I get the political angle on this but that is not what is being argued.

(And note for the record that I am not arguing for Mississippi in this case nor arguing for anti-abortion groups, just stating what this is about and why your question is not valid.)

The actual filing before the Supreme Court is by Mississippi against a women's health organization in Mississippi (basically a lone abortion provider with a single doctor listed as a respondent.)

The argument Mississippi is filing states that there is no Constitutional authority granted to the Federal Government to regulate this matter (in other words dismiss the viability barrier,) but moreover that there is no Constitutional right granted to the individual to obtain an abortion nor any limit to the State to restrict it. The details for each section of the argument is far more rooted in various case law related to what an individual has the right to obtain and what rights are inherently left to the States via the 10th Amendment. Their argument also includes various case law related to conditions and alterations to Roe v Wade since the original ruling calling the present condition of these rulings as "unworkable."

The concept is based on the nature of the laws being passed largely in southern Republican ran states where the intention was to challenge Roe v Wade on the reasoning for that decision in the first place. They have a 6-3 ideological lean in their favor and this effort suggests taking that for a spin.

The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.

On the surface the argument was strong enough for the Supreme Court to grant hearing it, however it is yet to be seen if it will actually work to the point of the ruling that Mississippi is after.
Click to expand...
Article 1's authority is granted by the "Necessary and Proper' Clause.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not quite a valid question, I get the political angle on this but that is not what is being argued.

(And note for the record that I am not arguing for Mississippi in this case nor arguing for anti-abortion groups, just stating what this is about and why your question is not valid.)

The actual filing before the Supreme Court is by Mississippi against a women's health organization in Mississippi (basically a lone abortion provider with a single doctor listed as a respondent.)

The argument Mississippi is filing states that there is no Constitutional authority granted to the Federal Government to regulate this matter (in other words dismiss the viability barrier,) but moreover that there is no Constitutional right granted to the individual to obtain an abortion nor any limit to the State to restrict it. The details for each section of the argument is far more rooted in various case law related to what an individual has the right to obtain and what rights are inherently left to the States via the 10th Amendment. Their argument also includes various case law related to conditions and alterations to Roe v Wade since the original ruling calling the present condition of these rulings as "unworkable."

The concept is based on the nature of the laws being passed largely in southern Republican ran states where the intention was to challenge Roe v Wade on the reasoning for that decision in the first place. They have a 6-3 ideological lean in their favor and this effort suggests taking that for a spin.

The reason your question is not valid is the "authority" in this case has three parts. Removing the Federal government from being involved, declaring the individual has no right to the procedure, and the State has every right to restrict it.

On the surface the argument was strong enough for the Supreme Court to grant hearing it, however it is yet to be seen if it will actually work to the point of the ruling that Mississippi is after.
Click to expand...
Thanks for presenting the Mississippi argument. I would have to say that it is right in parts, and not so right in parts.

First, their argument that the federal government has no authority to regulate the matter is a valid one, and factually accurate.

However, the second part of their argument that the States, and not the people, have all the power is not exactly accurate. Because the Tenth Amendment does just allocate all powers not granted to the federal government, or prohibited to the States by the US Constitution, to the States. The Tenth Amendment also acknowledges the people have that power as well, as in those powers "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Combined with the rights "retained by the people" reference from the Ninth Amendment and it is pretty clear that the founders wished to include individual sovereignty (self-ownership), along with both State and federal sovereignty.

So that part of Mississippi's argument doesn't fly.

I do agree that it is within the authority of each State to regulate abortion, not the federal government, providing they do not infringe on the sovereign rights of the individual to make their own choices with regard to their body. FYI, I'm very much pro-life, but I am also very pro-individual rights.
 
weaver2 said:
In May of 2022 the Supreme Court will judge the constitutionality of Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. They have to give their reasons for their judgement. If they decide Mississippi has a right to ignore Roe and ban abortions after 15 weeks who or what will they give as the authority that allows Mississippi to do this?
Click to expand...
They could declare a fetus a person entitled to all rights of personhood
 
vegas giants said:
They could declare a fetus a person entitled to all rights of personhood
Click to expand...
Such wouldn't matter. That would put it even more so that the person in question, the fetus, does not have a right to the bodily resources of another without that other's permission. The woman would still have the right to end that use by whatever means necessary. All my rights of personhood in no way entitle me to any of your bodily resources, even after your death. I can just take organs I need to live from your dead body, unless you make an allowance prior to death (sign up as an organ donor) or someone who can speak in your deceased behalf provides permission. So why would a fetus be any different, especially if it gets personhood.
 
maquiscat said:
Such wouldn't matter. That would put it even more so that the person in question, the fetus, does not have a right to the bodily resources of another without that other's permission. The woman would still have the right to end that use by whatever means necessary. All my rights of personhood in no way entitle me to any of your bodily resources, even after your death. I can just take organs I need to live from your dead body, unless you make an allowance prior to death (sign up as an organ donor) or someone who can speak in your deceased behalf provides permission. So why would a fetus be any different, especially if it gets personhood.
Click to expand...
Scotus ruled the state CAN force the mother to use her bodily resources to protect the fetus after viability.


That argument has already been settled
 
weaver2 said:
I hadn't thought of that angle. That would make it impossible for any state to have legal abortion.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, for the reason I stated in the prior post. Plus, they would be hard presses to force a woman to die by not being allowed an abortion, and by HIPPA and other privacy regulations, no one can inquire as to whether or not the abortion was needed as a life saving procedure, especially not LEO's.
 
maquiscat said:
Incorrect, for the reason I stated in the prior post. Plus, they would be hard presses to force a woman to die by not being allowed an abortion, and by HIPPA and other privacy regulations, no one can inquire as to whether or not the abortion was needed as a life saving procedure, especially not LEO's.
Click to expand...
No. You cant have an abortion after viability now unless conditions are met and cops have every right to subpoena those records
 
vegas giants said:
Scotus ruled the state CAN force the mother to use her bodily resources to protect the fetus after viability.


That argument has already been settled
Click to expand...
That's never actually been challenged in the courts. The woman who carries a child to viability is so unlikely to want to abort it, I'd have better odds of winning both Mega Millions and Powerball in the same week. Abortions after viability are about saving the mother's life, not her wanting rid of the offspring. It would be interesting to see a case come before the court on the claims of such, especially after artificial wombs become viable tech.
 
maquiscat said:
That's never actually been challenged in the courts. The woman who carries a child to viability is so unlikely to want to abort it, I'd have better odds of winning both Mega Millions and Powerball in the same week. Abortions after viability are about saving the mother's life, not her wanting rid of the offspring. It would be interesting to see a case come before the court on the claims of such, especially after artificial wombs become viable tech.
Click to expand...
The ruling is ROE which sets the standard as viability.

My point stands. Scotus gets to make the standard
 
maquiscat said:
Incorrect, for the reason I stated in the prior post. Plus, they would be hard presses to force a woman to die by not being allowed an abortion, and by HIPPA and other privacy regulations, no one can inquire as to whether or not the abortion was needed as a life saving procedure, especially not LEO's.
Click to expand...
Currently they cant criminalize having an abortion after viability...some states have no such limits. And in the states where they do have a limit at viability...there's no law that can criminalize having an abortion (they can have one somewhere else, for ex)...they can just ban providing the procedure.

But this is an area where probable cause and due process are a girl's best friend. As is the 4th Amendment and precdents based on bodily autonomy. RvW barely, if at all, touched on the latter.
 
HikerGuy83 said:
My guess is that you'll get a better decision, one way or the other, than what was handed down from Roe.

Many have agreed that it was some of the poorest judicial reasoning ever.
Click to expand...
Many agree that Hellar was one of the poorest judicial decisions ever.

Maybe if and when dem appointees have majority in SCOTUS, they will decide that and overturn it.

But if not? No big deal. States can just pass laws that dictate anyone who sees or knows someone with a gun in public can sue that individual.

The hypocracy, not necessarily from you specifically, from the right is staggering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom