I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[NatMorton]

You're right, and soon we'll realize that States with different standards for what is considered legal personhood and what is considered murder is a recipe for disaster.

Maybe, maybe not. But if it is a disaster we can work that out democratically, too.

 

[Cordelier]

The argument is about the definition of human life, and that's the ultimately discussion.

I don't disagree with that... but if we take personal belief aside - if we disregard spirituality, morality, or any other -ity, and we leave ideology out of the equation - if we just look at the issue from a cold-eyed legal point of view, I think we all need to ask ourselves this question... is there anything, anywhere within the Constitution that could possibly acknowledge any recognition of fetal rights? The Constitution enshrines rights to persons... but it also clearly states that personhood begins at birth. Every age-related provision within the Constitution - whether it's pertaining to citizenship, voting, eligibility for office - you name it - they all are all measured from your date of birth.

So viewed from that perspective, aren't you forced to acknowledge that your point of view is a personal and not a legal one? And isn't ruling on the basis of personal opinion the very essence of judicial activism which conservatives constantly rail against?

 

[NatMorton]

You have noting

There are lines throughout the bill starting with parts 79 to 96 ?

And lines 111 through lines 141 ?

That is not a final draft.

Please post the final apporoved bill.

You have nothing !

The first sentence of that document reads "House Bill 481 (AS PASSED HOUSE AND SENATE)"

It would seem you're the one with nothing.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Maybe, maybe not.

There's no "maybe" in it.

But if it is a disaster we can work that out democratically, too.

Since when do states decide what other states laws must be?

 

[NatMorton]

I don't disagree with that... but if we take personal belief aside - if we disregard spirituality, morality, or any other -ity, and we leave ideology out of the equation - if we just look at the issue from a cold-eyed legal point of view, I think we all need to ask ourselves this question... is there anything, anywhere within the Constitution that could possibly acknowledge any recognition of fetal rights? The Constitution enshrines rights to persons... but it also clearly states that personhood begins at birth. Every age-related provision within the Constitution - whether it's pertaining to citizenship, voting, eligibility for office - you name it - they all are all measured from your date of birth.

So viewed from that perspective, aren't you forced to acknowledge that our point of view is a personal and not a legal one? And isn't ruling on the basis of personal opinion the very essence of judicial activism which conservatives constantly rail against?

I have said, repeatedly, there is nothing in the Constitution that establishes fetal rights of any kind. That fact does not prevent a state from establishing fetal rights within its jurisdiction.

 

[weaver2]

Yes, I agree there is no concept of fetal rights or fetal personhood in the US Constitution. ..... But the lack of such of provision does not stop a state from declaring such a right within its own jurisdiction. post #2134. The argument is about the definition of human life, and that's the ultimately(sic) discussion. post #2133

The states can not define human life. The federal government has already defined it.
1 U.S. Code paragraph 8 -"Person", "human being","child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant.
(c) Nothing this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section

According to Alec Walen in "The Constitutionality of States Extending Personhood to the Unborn" , University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository, 2005;( https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=concomm) states can restrict abortion when they have a compelling interest in the life of the fetus because there is no "firm ground" in Roe for prohibiting states from taking a compelling interest in the fetus.

Walen says that "if states were to treat unborn humans as persons in the whole sense (or close enough to the whole sense), then those states should be permitted to take a compelling interest in the lives of (pre-viable) unborn humans. And if they were to use that interest to shape and limit the right to an abortion, they would be acting just as states that prohibit abortion on post-viable fetuses already act under Roe.

But, says Walen, states can't just say they have a compelling interest, they must be demonstrated to show that the the life of unborn humans is a primary concern of the state or the laws restricting abortion are invalid.

In conclusion Walen says, "The problem for Roe is that the doctrinal footing rests on two feet. One foot is the claim that a woman has a fundamental liberty interest in choosing whether to bear a child. That foot is still strong. But the other foot is the claim that states do not have a compelling interest in the lives of unborn humans." ....... "Roe is vulnerable to a motion for reconsideration if and when states can demonstrate that they treat, or come sufficiently close to treating, the unborn, at some stage prior to viability, as persons more or less "in the whole sense. If Roe is reconsidered in this light, then any constitutional protection for abortion rights would have to be framed so that those rights are well grounded even if states do have, and do take, a compelling interest in the lives of unborn humans, even prior to viability."

My comment: Since the health of the fetus is inextricably linked to the health of the mother the only way a state could demonstrate their compelling interest in the health and welfare of the fetus would be to design, fund and implement pre and post natal nutritional, medical, financial and mental health support programs for women. Those states so desperate to punish women by banning women have never shown the slightest interest in spending any money to help women, especially not poor women live lives that support a healthy baby.

 

[NatMorton]

There's no "maybe" in it.

If you're that good at predicting the future you should consider playing Lotto more often.

Since when do states decide what other states laws must be?

Whenever they get together and codify their intent by a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

A super majority of states dictating laws to all states is literally what the Constitution is.

 

[NatMorton]

The states can not define human life. The federal government has already defined it.

Dead wrong. See post 2148.

 

[Cordelier]

I have said, repeatedly, there is nothing in the Constitution that establishes fetal rights of any kind. That fact does not prevent a state from establishing fetal rights within its jurisdiction.

Not if such laws trample the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of it's citizens, though... not since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. People have individual rights that States are not entitled to ignore, do they not? The 9th Amendment clearly states that we are possess rights which are not enumerated within the Constitution. If the right to have domain over one's own body - a right to privacy - isn't one of those rights, then I don't know what could be construed to be.

The 10th Amendment gives States the power to legislate on areas not enshrined within the Federal sphere, sure... but that power isn't an exclusive one - power over those areas are given to the States... or to the people. Shouldn't having the power to dictate what happens to your own body belong more to the latter than the former?

 

[Jredbaron96]

If you're that good at predicting the future you should consider playing Lotto more often.

It's not a prediction , it's already coming true. We already have state legislatures taking action to prevent people from crossing state lines for abortions.

I get why you're eager to avoid discussing it, but hiding from it won't change anything.

Whenever they get together and codify their intent by a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

And what happens in the meantime?

 

[Lursa]

PLease sourc

Perhaps you and @minnie616 might want to add this to your cache of abortion law info. It's Georgia's HB 481, a law that I believe has been found unconstitutional by a lower court (based on the Roe viability standard) and is now on appellate pause pending the Dobbs decision.

See if you think this is Georgia creating a fetal right to life within its jurisdiction:

View attachment 67392803

Source: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20192020/18701

This is one of the 'trigger laws." It is not current law...as you even wrote.

Since this is not current law, you are still wrong. I've stood firm all along that some states would attempt this (as they have in the past) if RvW is overturned.

Can you fail much harder in your own OP where you claimed 'victory' in the opening post?

 

[Cordelier]

For the first time in 50 years, the Roe-crowd is facing the prospect of having to make a cogent, well reasoned argument in favor of abortion rights and persuade others. That's new. Their arguments have not changed. For the most part these folks still can't get past thinking it's all about privacy and continue to blithely ignore the crux of the issue is a still-disputed legal definition of human life. But when these folks hit their inevitable, logical dead ends before this week, they always had the "Well, abortion is a Constitutional right so I win" mentality. Now, they no longer do, they're arguments have to stand on their own with no Roe crutch, and they're simply not up to the task.

It's all rather fascinating.

I love the hubris in this statement. Time and again, I've called you out on the fact that the Constitution gives no recognition of any rights to the unborn - and, to be fair, you have acknowledged that fact. But you still cling to the argument that the 9th Amendment doesn't give rise to an individual right of privacy, and you blithely ignore the basic fact that the 10th Amendment not only acknowledges the power of States, but also to the people. Time and again, I have made the cogent argument you seem to be waiting for, and time and again you have been proven immune from persuasion... or indeed, of any effective counter-argument.

It seems to me that there are two substantial legal arguments to any legitimate overturning of Roe - first, the argument must be made that there is no constitutional right to privacy, the 9th Amendment notwithstanding. It seems to me, given Roe's standing as settled law, that it should be incumbent on anyone seeking to overturn it to provide a basis of recognizing what is or is not a legitimate 9th Amendment unenumerated right and then making the argument why the right to privacy, as it is now interpreted, fails to meet that standard.

Secondly, on the 10th Amendment, I think it is incumbent on anyone seeking to overturn Roe to provide a legal formula for determining what unenumerated powers properly belong to the States and what ones belong to the people, and having put forward that formula, to demonstrate that the power to decide what happens to one's own body is properly within the purview of the States and not of the people, the last four words of the 10th Amendment notwithstanding.

I look forward to your cogent and persuasive presentation of those two arguments, Nat.

 

[weaver2]

....... Georgia's HB 481, a law that I believe has been found unconstitutional by a lower court (based on the Roe viability standard) and is now on appellate pause pending the Dobbs decision. See if you think this is Georgia creating a fetal right to life within its jurisdiction:

Yes, Georgia HB481 says a fetus is a person and it has a right to life. But it is not the law of Georgia, it is on judicial hold. It is not clear that overturning Roe will make all the state personhood laws legal or constitutional. There are other cases that restate the definition of person and the basic protections of Roe and Casey. The Constitution clearly indicates it is being addressed to already born people not to fetuses. US Code clearly states that "person" is someone already born.
But in the mean time HB481 is not the law in Georgia nor has it been analyzed post Roe for use in Georgia and I doubt that women will go quietly into the night of forced birth. There will be challenges to any SC decision that puts women back in the 19th century.

So you might want to hold your glee until after the smoke clears.

 

[NatMorton]

PLease sourc


This is one of the 'trigger laws." It is not current law...as you even wrote.

Since this is not current law, you are still wrong. I've stood firm all along that some states would attempt this (as they have in the past) if RvW is overturned.

Can you fail much harder in your own OP where you claimed 'victory' in the opening post?

We're discussing intent, Lursa. This law would be constitutional today if they declared personhood beginning at week 30.

 

[NatMorton]

I love the hubris in this statement. Time and again, I've called you out on the fact that the Constitution gives no recognition of any rights to the unborn

I can't say I feel the same way about your willful ignorance. I have told you multiple times I have never made any claim about the Constitution recognizing fetal rights, yet here you are -- one more time -- inferring that I did.

At this point would it be fair to say that your continued claims that I have made such a claim are a lie?

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, Georgia HB481 says a fetus is a person and it has a right to life. But it is not the law of Georgia, it is on judicial hold. It is not clear that overturning Roe will make all the state personhood laws legal or constitutional. There are other cases that restate the definition of person and the basic protections of Roe and Casey. The Constitution clearly indicates it is being addressed to already born people not to fetuses. US Code clearly states that "person" is someone already born.
But in the mean time HB481 is not the law in Georgia nor has it been analyzed post Roe for use in Georgia and I doubt that women will go quietly into the night of forced birth. There will be challenges to any SC decision that puts women back in the 19th century.

So you might want to hold your glee until after the smoke clears.

It is on judicial hold because it sets the personhood line before viability. If it set it at week 30 it could be operative law today.

 

[Cordelier]

I can't say I feel the same way about your willful ignorance. I have told you multiple times I have never made any claim about the Constitution recognizing fetal rights, yet here you are -- one more time -- inferring that I did.

At this point would it be fair to say that your continued claims that I have made such a claim are a lie?

I didn't infer anything of the kind - read of the second sentence of my post.

If you want to talk about willful ignorance, I'll cite this passage from your OP: "the still-disputed legal definition of human life". The legal definition isn't disputed at all - legally, life begins at birth, does it not?

 

[weaver2]

Those states so desperate to punish women by banning women have never shown the slightest interest in spending any money to help women, especially not poor women live lives that support a healthy baby.

Oops: That should read: Those states so desperate to punish women by banning abortion (banning women is going to be a real problem) have never shown the slightest interest in spending any money to help women, especially not poor women, live lives that support a healthy baby.

 

[Lursa]

We're discussing intent, Lursa.

More lies? You have claimed, for example, over and over that the part of RvW that allows states to take an interest in the unborn after viability means that the state recognizes rights for those fetuses. Wrong...explicitly and solidly sourced wrong.

And as another example, you keep posting fetal homicide/heartbeat laws and insisting that that means they recognize rights for the unborn. Again...you failed over and over to quote where any of them did.

This wasnt about intent, it was about current status.

This law would be constitutional today if they declared personhood beginning at week 30.

What part of " I've stood firm all along that some states would attempt this (as they have in the past) if RvW is overturned." from my last post wasnt clear? I even bolded it that time too.

That doesnt make you right. LOL it makes me right. Not happy, but right.

 

[weaver2]

It is on judicial hold because it sets the personhood line before viability. If it set it at week 30 it could be operative law today.

I think there were many things in HB481 that caused the court to declare it unconstitutional not just the personhood item.

 

[Lursa]

@NatMorton Again, you are wrong...explicitly and solidly sourced wrong...that the RvW statement where it allows states to take an interest in the fetus after viability means that the state recognizes rights for those fetuses.

From RvW:

"On 22 January 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court declared that an unborn child enjoys no constitutional protection before he or she emerges from the womb. Even after viability, the fetus in utero counts only as a "potentiality of human life.""​

​

--and--​

​

The Supreme Court’s abortion rulings include four principal elements: 1. The unborn child is a non-person and therefore has no constitutional rights; 2. The right of his mother to kill that non-person is a “ liberty Charles E. Rice 3 interest” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 3. The states may impose some marginal restrictions on abortion but are barred from effectively prohibiting abortion at any stage of pregnancy; 4. Efforts undertaken in the vicinity of an abortuary to dissuade women from abortion are subject to more stringent restrictions than are other forms of speech, assembly and association.​

​

http://www.uffl.org/vol%209/rice9.pdf

 

[Lursa]

Every third trimester abortion ban in the country proves that statement wrong.

Post 2171 proves you 100% wrong. Again.

When are you going to post anything that does show unborn fetal rights recognized? You've had days, weeks, months. And still...nada.

 

[Lursa]

The argument is about the definition of human life, and that's the ultimately discussion.

Human life = having Homo sapiens DNA, from fertilization/implantation.

Legal:​

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant​

​

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

You've seen all this before, so why would you lie about it? You can keep lying if you want, but that kind of dishonesty has no place in a debate. And so I'll call you out on it any time I see you post it. It's a gross discourtesy to those attempting to debate honestly.

 

[Lursa]

The states can not define human life. The federal government has already defined it.
1 U.S. Code paragraph 8 -"Person", "human being","child", and "individual" as including born-alive infant.
(c) Nothing this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section

According to Alec Walen in "The Constitutionality of States Extending Personhood to the Unborn" , University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository, 2005;( https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=concomm) states can restrict abortion when they have a compelling interest in the life of the fetus because there is no "firm ground" in Roe for prohibiting states from taking a compelling interest in the fetus.

Walen says that "if states were to treat unborn humans as persons in the whole sense (or close enough to the whole sense), then those states should be permitted to take a compelling interest in the lives of (pre-viable) unborn humans. And if they were to use that interest to shape and limit the right to an abortion, they would be acting just as states that prohibit abortion on post-viable fetuses already act under Roe.

But, says Walen, states can't just say they have a compelling interest, they must be demonstrated to show that the the life of unborn humans is a primary concern of the state or the laws restricting abortion are invalid.

In conclusion Walen says, "The problem for Roe is that the doctrinal footing rests on two feet. One foot is the claim that a woman has a fundamental liberty interest in choosing whether to bear a child. That foot is still strong. But the other foot is the claim that states do not have a compelling interest in the lives of unborn humans." ....... "Roe is vulnerable to a motion for reconsideration if and when states can demonstrate that they treat, or come sufficiently close to treating, the unborn, at some stage prior to viability, as persons more or less "in the whole sense. If Roe is reconsidered in this light, then any constitutional protection for abortion rights would have to be framed so that those rights are well grounded even if states do have, and do take, a compelling interest in the lives of unborn humans, even prior to viability."

My comment: Since the health of the fetus is inextricably linked to the health of the mother the only way a state could demonstrate their compelling interest in the health and welfare of the fetus would be to design, fund and implement pre and post natal nutritional, medical, financial and mental health support programs for women. Those states so desperate to punish women by banning women have never shown the slightest interest in spending any money to help women, especially not poor women live lives that support a healthy baby.

And the states would also be obligated to protect that fetal right to life, period...it would be entitled to intrude into every part of a pregnant's woman's life...and even when not, since that status must be first identified.

 

[Lursa]

I love the hubris in this statement. Time and again, I've called you out on the fact that the Constitution gives no recognition of any rights to the unborn - and, to be fair, you have acknowledged that fact. But you still cling to the argument that the 9th Amendment doesn't give rise to an individual right of privacy, and you blithely ignore the basic fact that the 10th Amendment not only acknowledges the power of States, but also to the people. Time and again, I have made the cogent argument you seem to be waiting for, and time and again you have been proven immune from persuasion... or indeed, of any effective counter-argument.

I can't say I feel the same way about your willful ignorance. I have told you multiple times I have never made any claim about the Constitution recognizing fetal rights, yet here you are -- one more time -- inferring that I did.

At this point would it be fair to say that your continued claims that I have made such a claim are a lie?

And yet you refuse to respond to our claims that that does matter, since if/when any states attempt to recognize fetal rights. they would be subject to the Supremacy Clause if a state, in attempting to enforce laws that protect the unborn violate women's Constitutional rights. There is no federal law or recognition of or obligation to protect fetal life. With or without RvW.

You refuse to address this specifically. Continually. Predictably.