• 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!

Can Congress now act to codify the Roe standard in federal law?

ttwtt78640 said:
They have already done so, but used the term “unborn child”.



en.wikipedia.org

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

And specifically excluded abortion just like Texas' statute....

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
 
Bear5131 said:
Then we go back to Obama care and gay marriage are you suggesting those two rulings was bizarre and wrong?
Click to expand...

No. I would however cite the dissents in Obgerfell as an example of this conservative courts lunacy.
 
BlueTex said:
And specifically excluded abortion just like Texas' statute....

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Click to expand...

Yep, because that was written when RvW was in effect.
 
NatMorton said:
Yet they have legal reasoning from a court that upheld Roe. See post 18.
Click to expand...
They haven't really bothered with legal reasoning so far, why would they start now?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, because that was written when RvW was in effect.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that portion of the statute is now invalid and abortion is now illegal nationwide?
 
BlueTex said:
Are you saying that portion of the statute is now invalid and abortion is now illegal nationwide?
Click to expand...

Nope, there is absolutely nothing making that (bolded above) so.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They have already done so, but used the term “unborn child”.



en.wikipedia.org

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
So instead of properly defining "murder" and "human being" within the existing federal law, they created a new definition "unborn child" and a new law related to killing such an "unborn child" with only limited jurisdiction.

If I wrote code like that it wouldn't even compile.
 
Exquisitor said:
Yes, it's true, especially for the Left.

I would go with a Constitutional Amendment, but not what either Party wants. Instead a compromise, because let's face it, allowing Mothers to kill their unborn children is not so good.

The problem I find, is that no-one is interested in addressing the issues, or what will work for the Country, they all want to win, so that can ride the bandwagon. Otherwise, there's no bandwagon to ride and we all have to face our crappy lives.
Click to expand...
Most of the conservatives I know and those whom I read are not absolutists. They’re not looking for a national ban on abortion. They see states making their own decision as a reasonable compromise.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
A national ban would be antithetical to SCOTUS’ decision. The high court just said the issue belongs with the states.
Click to expand...
I know, but whether that stops these efforts remains to be seen. Again, I suspect Pence made the comments he did with that in mind. A national ban in the form of every state passing that kind of law is highly unlikely.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
More projection.

I can cite exactly why I conclude this Court would have no issue endorsing a Federal a option ban. You seem entirely reluctant to even entertain such a discussion, and it's pretty obvious why.
Click to expand...
You can cite anything. Whether your cite make any sense is another matter, and that claim makes no sense.

Again, if that’s what the court wants, why didn’t they impose stricter abortions bans than Roe did when they had the chance with Dobbs?
 
Binary_Digit said:
I think if Congress has the Constitutional authority to make murder illegal (18 USC 1111) then they have both the authority and obligation to properly define what a "human being" actually is.
Click to expand...
What passage of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to define what is and what is not human life?
 
Binary_Digit said:
So instead of properly defining "murder" and "human being" within the existing federal law, they created a new definition "unborn child" and a new law related to killing such an "unborn child" with only limited jurisdiction.

If I wrote code like that it wouldn't even compile.
Click to expand...

Laws are often written by and for lawyers. If they were simple then lawyers would make less money. ;)
 
I reckon for the same reason they cant sanction abortion and it was turned back to the states, they also couldnt ban it.
 
Even if Congress codified law there is nothing stopping five justices from ruling it unconstitutional.
 
NatMorton said:
What passage of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to define what is and what is not human life?
Click to expand...
I assume the same one(s) that gave them the Constitutional authority to have passed the federal murder laws in the first place. Is there any chance that 18 USC 1111 is Unconstitutional? Should the legality of murder be left up to the States, or does the Fed actually have that kind of Constitutional authority?

If the Fed has the Constitutional authority to make murder illegal at the Federal level, then it must have both the Constitutional authority and the ethical obligation to properly define what "murder" actually means in an unambiguous way. Otherwise it's an irresponsible law.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No. I would however cite the dissents in Obgerfell as an example of this conservative courts lunacy.
Click to expand...
It was 49 years in the making, my Generation X was never going to let this go, when we became of voting age and could get two of ours in the Supreme Court.
 
NatMorton said:
Yet they have legal reasoning from a court that upheld Roe. See post 18.
Click to expand...
They haven't really bothered with legal reasoning so far, why would they start now?
NatMorton said:
No, what they haven’t bothered with is a commitment to specific political outcomes.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely all they've bothered with. They decide how they want it to go then look for even the flimsiest legal "reasoning" to justify it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom