Federal abortion rights are probably reduced if not gone in months

[Craig234]

I generally don't discuss abortion in forums, but I sometimes discuss peripheral issues or arguments people make; such an issue is that it's likely the five most radical right-wingers on the court (not because of abortion, radical as plutocrats) will reverse Roe v. Wade freeing states to ban more if not all abortions.

It's very likely because of one of the many cases states keep passing to get struck down, the court previously only struck it down on a 5-4 vote, with four justices arguing it should be overturned, and since that vote the court has lost Ginsburg and gained the extremely anti-abortion Barrett. So it looks like a done deal.

This is an article on how the court is changing with Barrett's appointment, how Clarence Thomas was not allowed to write important rulings before, but now he's likely to get to decide who writes many important opinions if Roberts votes with the minority in 5-4 rulings.

Opinion: Clarence Thomas Is the new Chief Justice

Jeffrey Toobin writes that Clarence Thomas, the longest serving justice, will frequently be able to wield the crucial power to decide who writes the majority opinion when the conservative bloc doesn't include Chief Justice John Roberts.

www.cnn.com

 

[Craig234]

I don't think most Americans are even familiar with the legal issues on Roe v. Wade; they only know that it prevents laws against abortion, and are either for or against it for that reason, not the law.

 

[Lursa]

I don't think most Americans are even familiar with the legal issues on Roe v. Wade; they only know that it prevents laws against abortion, and are either for or against it for that reason, not the law.

What legal precedents or arguments do you think will be used to overturn the rights of women protected in RvW?

 

[Craig234]

What legal precedents or arguments do you think will be used to overturn the rights of women protected in RvW?

The same ones that were used in four votes to overturn it that will now be five, arguing that it was wrongly decided before.

 

[Lursa]

The same ones that were used in four votes to overturn it that will now be five, arguing that it was wrongly decided before.

What were those?

The original vote in '73 was 7-2 with a mostly conservative bench, btw.

 

[AGENT J]

I generally don't discuss abortion in forums, but I sometimes discuss peripheral issues or arguments people make; such an issue is that it's likely the five most radical right-wingers on the court (not because of abortion, radical as plutocrats) will reverse Roe v. Wade freeing states to ban more if not all abortions.

It's very likely because of one of the many cases states keep passing to get struck down, the court previously only struck it down on a 5-4 vote, with four justices arguing it should be overturned, and since that vote the court has lost Ginsburg and gained the extremely anti-abortion Barrett. So it looks like a done deal.

This is an article on how the court is changing with Barrett's appointment, how Clarence Thomas was not allowed to write important rulings before, but now he's likely to get to decide who writes many important opinions if Roberts votes with the minority in 5-4 rulings.

Opinion: Clarence Thomas Is the new Chief Justice

Jeffrey Toobin writes that Clarence Thomas, the longest serving justice, will frequently be able to wield the crucial power to decide who writes the majority opinion when the conservative bloc doesn't include Chief Justice John Roberts.

www.cnn.com

I don't see RvW going anywhere. Its been upheld and referred to in so much precedence its very unlikely. What would be the legal reason to overturn all that precedence? We are a first world country, I dont see America going backwards on women's rights, makes no sense.

 

[Craig234]

What were those?

The original vote in '73 was 7-2 with a mostly conservative bench, btw.

Justice Samuel Alito: Supreme Court's Louisiana abortion ruling 'twists the law'

"It is deeply offensive... to permit [abortionists] to sue in the name of their patients when they challenge laws enacted to protect patients' safety."

www.liveaction.org

 

[Lursa]

Justice Samuel Alito: Supreme Court's Louisiana abortion ruling 'twists the law'

"It is deeply offensive... to permit [abortionists] to sue in the name of their patients when they challenge laws enacted to protect patients' safety."

www.liveaction.org

That's about abortion providers.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Why should abortion be a federal issue? Where is it mentioned in the US Constitution? The US Constitution has a list of “enumerated powers” Everything else is supposed to be in the hands of the states.

 

[Lursa]

Why should abortion be a federal issue? Where is it mentioned in the US Constitution? The US Constitution has a list of “enumerated powers” Everything else is supposed to be in the hands of the states.

Where is the right for adults to have consensual sex in the Const? Where is the right for people to choose to have offspring?

There are lots of such 'rights' recognized even tho not enumerated in the Const; See: the 9th Amendment.

"The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment was introduced during the drafting of the Bill of Rights when some of the American founders became concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist."​

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

 

[Tahuyaman]

Where is the right for adults to have consensual sex in the Const? Where is the right for people to choose to have offspring?

There are lots of such 'rights' recognized even tho not enumerated in the Const; See: the 9th Amendment.

"The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment was introduced during the drafting of the Bill of Rights when some of the American founders became concerned that future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist."​

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

did the ​

Did the federal government make it a federally protected right to have sex? I must have missed that.

Now, why should abortion be a federal issue? Why can’t it be left to the states?

 

[Lursa]

Did the federal government make it a federally protected right to have sex? I must have missed that.

No. Guess why not?

Now, why should abortion be a federal issue? Why can’t it be left to the states?

Because it affects women's Constitutional rights. Those are federal. For more, see: the 10th Amendment.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I don't think most Americans are even familiar with the legal issues on Roe v. Wade; they only know that it prevents laws against abortion, and are either for or against it for that reason, not the law.

The ruling did not prevent abortion bans from being passed. It gave the states, not the federal government, the power to ban third trimester abortions. The problem for red states (which helps women, of course) is they are not allowed to ban early abortions.

It does allow any state to pass laws for late term abortions, but nobody would wait that long to want one; if it happens, she has a medical emergency.

 

[Napoleon]

No. Guess why not?

Because it affects women's Constitutional rights. Those are federal. For more, see: the 10th Amendment.

That’s not an answer. The Constitution does not provide for such a right or give the Federal government the authority to regulate it. So it does fall to the 10th. If you want to argue “the people” side of the 10th then it could be put to the ballot.

 

[Tahuyaman]

No. Guess why not?

Because it affects women's Constitutional rights. Those are federal. For more, see: the 10th Amendment.

Having sex is not a federally protected right because it’s none of their business.

There’s no constitutional right to having an abortion. It’s none of the feds business. There’s no valid reason to take this issue awaybfrom the states.

 

[Lursa]

Having sex is not a federally protected right because it’s none of their business.

Crude but correct. The same applies to abortion. If you disagree, please explain your distinction.

Of course imagine what rights would be violated if the govt DID decide to ban or restrict adults from having sex? Those laws would need to be enforced, correct? Due process, privacy, bodily autonomy, etc?

There’s no constitutional right to having an abortion. It’s none of the feds business.

We agree.

There’s no valid reason to take this issue awaybfrom the states.

Please see my comments above about the need to actually enforce such laws. The rights I listed are all Const.

 

[Roger Duke]

We are a first world country,

Barbarian countries chop up to death the most vulnerable and innocent of their citizens, not first world countries.

 

[Lursa]

That’s not an answer. The Constitution does not provide for such a right or give the Federal government the authority to regulate it. So it does fall to the 10th. If you want to argue “the people” side of the 10th then it could be put to the ballot.

And now read posts 10 and 16 for more context. Then if you want to contest it, please explain specifics.

 

[Napoleon]

And now read posts 10 and 16 for more context. Then if you want to contest it, please explain specifics.

1) There is no Constitutional right to have sex.

2) The Ninth only makes sense in the context of the 10th. Unenumerated rights are for the States or the people to decide upon.

 

[Lursa]

Barbarian countries chop up to death the most vulnerable and innocent of their citizens, not first world countries.

And barbarian countries tend to have poorly informed residents.

In the US however, the correct information is readily available. 97.5% of all abortions consist of the bean-sized or smaller unborn being flushed painlessly from the womb.

The rest, much rarer, are later term medically necessary procedures and by law, lethal/anesthetic injection is given so again, there is no pain or awareness. Or would you prefer that a grieving mother, losing a wanted fetus...women who need abortions dont wait til late term...suffer more pain and internal damage by not dismembering an already dead fetus? Would you prefer that, yes or no?

 

[Lursa]

1) There is no Constitutional right to have sex.

Correct, did you miss the explanations re: the 9th A?

2) The Ninth only makes sense in the context of the 10th.

Who says?

Unenumerated rights are for the States or the people to decide upon.

Sure, as long as the recognizing/restricting of those rights does not violate any Constitutional rights, as the Const takes precedence over any state-level legislation.

 

[maxparrish]

I generally don't discuss abortion in forums, but I sometimes discuss peripheral issues or arguments people make; such an issue is that it's likely the five most radical right-wingers on the court (not because of abortion, radical as plutocrats) will reverse Roe v. Wade freeing states to ban more if not all abortions.

It's very likely because of one of the many cases states keep passing to get struck down, the court previously only struck it down on a 5-4 vote, with four justices arguing it should be overturned, and since that vote the court has lost Ginsburg and gained the extremely anti-abortion Barrett. So it looks like a done deal.

This is an article on how the court is changing with Barrett's appointment, how Clarence Thomas was not allowed to write important rulings before, but now he's likely to get to decide who writes many important opinions if Roberts votes with the minority in 5-4 rulings.

Opinion: Clarence Thomas Is the new Chief Justice

Jeffrey Toobin writes that Clarence Thomas, the longest serving justice, will frequently be able to wield the crucial power to decide who writes the majority opinion when the conservative bloc doesn't include Chief Justice John Roberts.

www.cnn.com

If it was a matter of their previously avowed legal theory, there isn't any doubt RvW would be overturned. But Roberts has shown himself to be more concerned about image than legal substance and Kavanaugh is a worm. At best I see 4 votes to overturn RvW. As has been typical for decades, there are always one or two "conservatives" terrified of public backlash if they show the courage of their convictions...them just wishing it would go away.

And like in FDR's time, the mere threat of stacking the court has shifted the wieners to the left or center. ..

 

[Napoleon]

Correct, did you miss the explanations re: the 9th A?

Who says?

Sure, as long as the recognizing/restricting of those rights does not violate any Constitutional rights, as the Const takes precedence over any state-level legislation.

The Constitution says. Someone hast to define what those rights are and aren’t and since it doesn’t grant that power to the Federal government the 10th is triggered. The Constitution does not enumerate abortion as a right so it’s up to the States or the people to decide if it is or isn’t.

 

[AGENT J]

Barbarian countries chop up to death the most vulnerable and innocent of their citizens, not first world countries.

I dont know what country chops up its citizens but that has nothing to do with abortion and woman rights LMAO

The vast majority of first-world countries with governments based on rights and freedom have laws that are prochoice, they support the legal, human, civil and equal rights of women.
The countries that have laws that are not prochoice typically are dictatorships, theocracies and countries with governments not based on rights and freedoms

America wont be going backward and treating women as lessers

 

[Lursa]

The Constitution says. Someone hast to define what those rights are and aren’t and since it doesn’t grant that power to the Federal government the 10th is triggered.

Triggered? Please explain that. Not familiar with that legal term.

The Constitution does not enumerate abortion as a right so it’s up to the States or the people to decide if it is or isn’t.

Again please go back to the posts where I clearly explained this. I cant really explain it more simply.