• 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!

I dont agree with the Supreme Court, but they have a point...

Cordelier said:
It's not about abortion, per se.... it's about deciding who has the power to decide this issue under the terms of the 10th Amendment? The States or the people? As a matter arising out of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on this matter, under Article III §2 cl. 1 - "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."
Click to expand...

RvW was about states denying women a much safer medical procedure. Period. It had little to nothing to do with the unborn, since they have no rights at the federal level. It was about the state demanding women risk their lives and self-determination without their consent.

There is no govt obligation to impose any protections on the unborn while violating a woman's right to protecting her own life and health. The federal govt IS obligated to protect a woman's rights, such as due process, bodily autonomy (4th A right to security of the person), medical privacy (HIPAA has not been overturned and this could be seen as an Equal Protection issue), etc.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm not saying Roe wasn't a flawed decision either. No matter how you cut it and no matter how much it offends some people, the State has no compelling interest within any woman's uterus.
Click to expand...

It doesnt/shouldnt. But the Casey update to Roe did establish that. (Altho no one has ever been able to explain to me any legitimate state's interest in the unborn.)
 
Mungo Jerry said:
I have no doubt.

Guess again...

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163-164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163-164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164—165.

That is, under Roe, the state can ban abortions and thus force women to submit their bodies the needs of another.

How dd you not know this?
Click to expand...
The state can proscribe abortion but only in subsequent to viability. Only .11% (that's .11% not 11%) happen after viability. Conservative states since Dobbs are banning abortions starting at the 6 the week
 
Lursa said:
His point still stands tho.
Click to expand...
I was correcting his broad claim that: " under Roe, the states -can- ban abortions and thus force women to submit their bodies the needs of another. How dd you not know this?"

Roe doesn't actually say that nor is it the tenor of Roe. Yes, the state is requiring women to give birth after viability because the state now has a vested interest in the potential child but Roe never conveys the feeling of punishment or force.

I have to agree that I'm belaboring a somewhat picky point 😡
 
weaver2 said:
I was correcting his broad claim that: " under Roe, the states -can- ban abortions and thus force women to submit their bodies the needs of another. How dd you not know this?"

Roe doesn't actually say that nor is it the tenor of Roe. Yes, the state is requiring women to give birth after viability because the state now has a vested interest in the potential child but Roe never conveys the feeling of punishment or force.

I have to agree that I'm belaboring a somewhat picky point 😡
Click to expand...

But the wording regarding after viability enables it. It enables the state to use force. I didnt see anything about punishment but didnt see the entire conversation.

Roe didnt do the job. They werent brave enough and hoped their decision would be enough. It wasnt. RBG knew that and there are other Constitutional rights that another decision could be based on. IMO this is a solid reason why no states are criminalizing "having" abortions. At some point, that would be challenged in federal court and such other Const arguments could be...should be...used.

Kill your kid in another state? There will be charges. Kill your unborn in another state...*crickets*.
 
weaver2 said:
The state can proscribe abortion but only in subsequent to viability.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Roe v Wade allows the states to prohibit abortions.
In doing so, Row v Wade allows states to force women to submit their bodies the needs of another.
Just like I said.


 
Mungo Jerry said:
Correct.
Roe v Wade allows the states to prohibit abortions.
In doing so, Row v Wade allows states to force women to submit their bodies the needs of another.
Just like I said.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is one way to understand Roe v Wade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom