• 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
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom