• 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!

Could this be true about the Roe decision?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
12,941
Reaction score
7,450
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I heard a talking head on one of the talking head shows state that this was the first time in the modern era that the Supreme Court had taken away a right from a group, rather then held to a right or increased the scope of a right. I do not know enough bout the history of the court to know if the talking head knew what he was saying or just blabbing. Anyone out there able to let me know
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
21,750
Reaction score
7,710
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would say that isn’t accurate. One thing that comes to mind is that SCOTUS has been needling at public accommodation law for years.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,253
Reaction score
49,610
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would say that isn’t accurate. One thing that comes to mind is that SCOTUS has been needling at public accommodation law for years.

You missed the boat.

The subject of the thread is complete removal of a substantive constitutional right. That hasn't happened before.
 

ProgressPlease

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
735
Reaction score
423
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And this is only the start. I'm thinking that marriage equality is next.
I'm not so sure about that. Abortion is the hill to die on for so many people. It is a very common single issue priority for the RW - they will literally vote for anyone who centers an anti-choice message in their platform. I don't think anything else compares.
 

dorsai

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
447
Reaction score
263
Location
Austin, Tx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First, the decision would not ban abortion. It would simply put it back in the hands of the state. Yes, you may not be able to get one in Oklahoma or have to leave Texas but states like California and New York will probably continue to expand access. This decision does not take away rights.

Secondly, the draft is not about abortion as much as it is about how the case was made. Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed her own concerns about the unsolid foundation upon which Roe vs Wade was built. Her concern was without legislative action, Roe could and would eventually be overturned. She advocated for abortion but did not support the court ruling and felt it should have been more narrow and struck down only the Texas law. Is it a surprise that other Supreme Court jurists agree with her?

Thirdly, a right to abortion has not been codified. It is not recognized as inalienable in the Constitution and the United States has passed no laws recognizing it as a right even though it is permitted. There are no "facts" of when life begins and not even a consensus among biologists. That debate needs to be settled to actually determine if there is a third party in the private matter (a child with all inalienable rights recognized by the United States) or if it is just a private matter between patient and doctor. Roe vs Wade prevented the settlement of that debate and it applies to the way the legal ruling based on privacy was structured.

Lastly, states can still enact their own pro-choice policies and can allow or restrict as their citizens call for.

The best remedy for this today is the same as it has been for 50 years. Legislation. Write a bill, get it signed, get it affirmed, and then move forward. State legislators are doing that work for the pro-life side. The pro-choice side needs to do the same.
 

SkyChief

US Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
1,993
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You missed the boat.

The subject of the thread is complete removal of a substantive constitutional right. That hasn't happened before.
Not true.

In 2001, the PATRIOT Act (signed into Law by G.W.Bush) was in direct violation of Amendment IV. The Act gave government the power to conduct searches and seizures without due process.

There definitely is precedent.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
11,821
Reaction score
3,744
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And what is it that makes you think that?
progressive hysteria mongering lol.

I could try to take away my conservative wife's rights and make her less than me in the marriage,

but I am not quite ready to die a horrible painful death yet.
 

Excast

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
4,219
Reaction score
7,327
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
First, the decision would not ban abortion. It would simply put it back in the hands of the state. Yes, you may not be able to get one in Oklahoma or have to leave Texas but states like California and New York will probably continue to expand access. This decision does not take away rights.

I guess you have missed the states that are also seeking to criminalize women visiting other locales to seek access to abortion? That is certainly taking away someone's rights.
 

Excast

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
4,219
Reaction score
7,327
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
And what is it that makes you think that?

Why would we not think that? Most of the same people who have spent decades salivating about the chance to make women second class citizens have also made it clear that they do not support marriage equality. And considering the latter is a relatively new "right" compared to abortion, why wouldn't the same justification be used?
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
17,651
Reaction score
9,637
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm not so sure about that. Abortion is the hill to die on for so many people. It is a very common single issue priority for the RW - they will literally vote for anyone who centers an anti-choice message in their platform. I don't think anything else compares.
The LW refusal to support anyone who hints at a pro life position, democrats are salivating at making this the single iss of midterms to help negate the historically predictable losses they are looking at.
 

Atreus21

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,488
Reaction score
792
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I heard a talking head on one of the talking head shows state that this was the first time in the modern era that the Supreme Court had taken away a right from a group, rather then held to a right or increased the scope of a right. I do not know enough bout the history of the court to know if the talking head knew what he was saying or just blabbing. Anyone out there able to let me know

This doesn't take any thing from anyone. It restores the issue to the states.
 

gbg3

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
7,222
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why would we not think that? Most of the same people who have spent decades salivating about the chance to make women second class citizens have also made it clear that they do not support marriage equality. And considering the latter is a relatively new "right" compared to abortion, why wouldn't the same justification be used?
I'm a woman and I'm not a "second class citizen".
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,812
Reaction score
14,963
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I heard a talking head on one of the talking head shows state that this was the first time in the modern era that the Supreme Court had taken away a right from a group, rather then held to a right or increased the scope of a right. I do not know enough bout the history of the court to know if the talking head knew what he was saying or just blabbing. Anyone out there able to let me know
Not true - it doesn't "take a right away" it still exists dependent on state laws. So the talking head you listened to is either ignorant or lying.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,387
Reaction score
22,269
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm a woman and I'm not a "second class citizen".
That now depends on where you live. Women in red States are about to become just that. When your freedom of choice is removed by default you become a second class citizen. Freedom of choice should not be driven by zip code.
 

j brown's body

CHRISTIAN-ish
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
36,470
Reaction score
28,695
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I heard a talking head on one of the talking head shows state that this was the first time in the modern era that the Supreme Court had taken away a right from a group, rather then held to a right or increased the scope of a right. I do not know enough bout the history of the court to know if the talking head knew what he was saying or just blabbing. Anyone out there able to let me know

I believe it is the first time that it has rescinded a right that it earlier affirmed, and re-affirmed.
 

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
8,246
Reaction score
6,951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Not true - it doesn't "take a right away" it still exists dependent on state laws. So the talking head you listened to is either ignorant or lying.
Removing constitutional protection is in effect taking the right away in that any state could legislate an outright ban. Same would be true if the court were for instance to reverse itself and rule that the right to bear arms is for militia's only and not an individual right. Not going to happen, just making an example.
 

Buckeyes85

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
8,246
Reaction score
6,951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I believe it is the first time that it has rescinded a right that it earlier affirmed, and re-affirmed.
I have read a few hundred years of supreme court opinions and am not aware of ruling like this either that removes constitutional protection once recognized.
 
Top Bottom