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

[Lursa]

Why does what Roe states mean anything ?

The fact (you can spend a whole lot of time looking it up) is that states have been quietly hemming in Roe since it was decided.

They don't need Roe.

I've cut and pasted the sourced text in those 3 posts for years. I havent searched for it, it's saved in my OneNote.

Now...Roe v Wade meant that states could no longer deny women a safer medical procedure. Did you know that? Yes or no? It seems no since you asked the question.

Now, "who" doesnt need Roe? Please explain.

And why have none of those efforts been challenged ? Because people feared the outcome they potentially face.

What are you talking about? Which efforts? And you must have some examples in mind since you believe people are afraid of the outcomes.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Hiker... let me state this plainly. A State doesn't have the power to grant or remove rights. Like the Declaration of Independence said, we are endowed by our Creator with rights. That simple fact should be self-evident to you as an American.

Now, that being said, a State does have the power - in certain rare and specific instances - to preempt rights. It should never take this power lightly, and it should be done exceedingly sparingly... and with the attitude that sometimes - like in a wartime situation - the needs of society outweigh the freedom of the individual. But we've established criteria for doing so - as long as the laws of the State meet the standards of strict scrutiny, then they can pre-empt the freedom of the individual.

And I'll state just as plainly, that you need to catch up on what is being discussed.

If you want to discuss the sun rising in the east and setting in the west you are on the right track.

 

[Cordelier]

And I'll state just as plainly, that you need to catch up on what is being discussed.

If you want to discuss the sun rising in the east and setting in the west you are on the right track.

You were the one who suggested that States had the power to grant or remove rights.

I'm simply clarifying that fallacy. Under the terms of the 10th Amendment, the people possess power that is equivalent to that of the State. That power may exist in different areas than State law, but it so no less legitimate, and it must be taken into account when judging the constitutional legitimacy of State law.

If and when a State undertakes to preempt an individual right, it's statute must pass the test of strict scrutiny... and that is entirely consistent with the wording of the 10th Amendment.

 

[Lursa]

You are the one who is lecturing me about not being prepared.

I simply stated that if the SCOTUS says the right to privacy doesn't exist or they modify it to overturn Roe.....it (however you want to describe it) either changes (as in lessens) or goes away altogether.

You really dont understand how this works, do you? Yeah, you are unprepared. SCOTUS wont make the 4th Amendment 'go away'. They also wont 'modify' it. They may change some interpretations of it however...again, you dont seem to understand how this works...the decision is based on many precedents which are the foundations for those rights to privacy and are the underpinning for many other unrelated decisions and laws.

Please, this is high school civics stuff.

We were talking about states realizing rights.

What about it? And rights are 'recognized.'

First, they can realize them when the fed gets out of that business in particular area (not covered in S1A8....which is a huge point of contention too).

Why do I have to repeat this? I dont feel like spoon-feeding you. They can pass laws to protect fetal life, however if they violate women's Constitutional rights, they can be challenged in court and over turned. Federal rights supersede states rights. Please google Supremacy Clause, I'm not your teacher.

If it is up in the air and the fed isn't doing something, the states can.

See above.

From what I recall, 5 states had legalized abortion (at different levels) prior to Roe.

And?

 

[Mr Person]

Left-wing logic: Roe allows a state to infringe on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy in the third trimester by codifying a “compelling interest” and so long as that compelling interest isn’t a fetal right to life.

And this make sense to some of them.

Roe balances a state's interest in potential life against a woman's right to bodily autonomy. There are no "fetal rights" involved within existing framework.

The reason is simple. The constitution grants rights to persons. But there is no objective definition of a person. The Supreme Court knew it could not legitimately define when a fetus crossing a line into personhood, so again, it balanced a state's interest in potential life against a woman's right to bodily autonomy. But it would seem they wish to throw out existing framework.




You're not the first to try using different words to reframe it, but that's what it is. Or will have been, once they throw it all out in servitude to their Federalist Society groomers.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I've cut and pasted the sourced text in those 3 posts for years. I havent searched for it, it's saved in my OneNote.

Now...Roe v Wade meant that states could no longer deny women a safer medical procedure. Did you know that? Yes or no? It seems no since you asked the question.

Now, "who" doesnt need Roe? Please explain.



What are you talking about? Which efforts? And you must have some examples in mind since you believe people are afraid of the outcomes.

I don't know what sourced texts you need. Roe does not have to say anything. Or it could say a bunch.

Please tell me how that matters if it is reversed.

Are you saying medical procedures in general or just those related to abortion ? Don't guess at my responses. It makes this conversation much less inviting.

As to who doesn't need it.....poor wording on my part.

States have been pushing against it for years.

Recent examples:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/01/14-states-have-passed-laws-making-it-harder-to-get-an-abortion-already-this-year/

I pulled this from another site....apparently someone tracks this stuff.



Those efforts.

And they don't get challenged because people were afraid Roe might get dumped.

And yes, they've always known it could....that is why some women march on the SCOTUS every year on the anniversary of Roe. It isn't to say thank you.

 

[Lursa]

Roe balances a state's interest in potential life against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

RvW doesnt hardly mention bodily autonomy, if at all. (4th Amendment 'security of the person")

It was highly deficient in that IMO.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You really dont understand how this works, do you? Yeah, you are unprepared. SCOTUS wont make the 4th Amendment 'go away'. They also wont 'modify' it. They may change some interpretations of it however...again, you dont seem to understand how this works...the decision is based on many precedents which are the foundations for those rights to privacy and are the underpinning for many other unrelated decisions and laws.

Please, this is high school civics stuff.



What about it? And rights are 'recognized.'



Why do I have to repeat this? I dont feel like spoon-feeding you. They can pass laws to protect fetal life, however if they violate women's Constitutional rights, they can be challenged in court and over turned. Federal rights supersede states rights. Please google Supremacy Clause, I'm not your teacher.



See above.



And?

1. I understand it pretty well....unlike you I do know my limitations.
2. I agree it is High School stuff which is why your responses are so baffling.
3. The right to privacy was said to emenate:

Writing for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case unrelated to abortion, Justice William O. Douglas understandably found he was unable to cite a generalized right to privacy in the Constitution itself. Undeterred, he went on to discover a "penumbra" (from the Latin paene umbra, meaning "almost a shadow") formed, he said, by unspecified "emanations" from the Bill of Rights. Justice Douglas then placed within this extra-constitutional near-shadow a hitherto unknown "zone of privacy," which was transformed into a "right of privacy" by the simple device of the court's substitution of the term "right" for "zone" in its later decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/20/privacy-penumbra-and-emanations/9a60c07c-4e98-4ffe-8b53-95fba222012a/

Which says he pulled it out of his ass.

So the Supremacy Clause means nothing if the SCOTUS shoves it back up his ass where it belongs.

Your last comment is just being petulant. States were allowing abortions in some cases.....before the Blackmunn waded in and screwed things up.

Wyoming granted women the "right" (or privelege, if you will) to vote in local elections long before the 19th.

I get you'll come back with some response that says that doesn't apply......so you get the last word.

This is getting boring and we've been through it before.

 

[Lursa]

1. I understand it pretty well....unlike you I do know my limitations.
2. I agree it is High School stuff which is why your responses are so baffling.
3. The right to privacy was said to emenate:

Writing for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case unrelated to abortion, Justice William O. Douglas understandably found he was unable to cite a generalized right to privacy in the Constitution itself. Undeterred, he went on to discover a "penumbra" (from the Latin paene umbra, meaning "almost a shadow") formed, he said, by unspecified "emanations" from the Bill of Rights. Justice Douglas then placed within this extra-constitutional near-shadow a hitherto unknown "zone of privacy," which was transformed into a "right of privacy" by the simple device of the court's substitution of the term "right" for "zone" in its later decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/20/privacy-penumbra-and-emanations/9a60c07c-4e98-4ffe-8b53-95fba222012a/

Which says he pulled it out of his ass.

So the Supremacy Clause means nothing if the SCOTUS shoves it back up his ass where it belongs.

Your last comment is just being petulant. States were allowing abortions in some cases.....before the Blackmunn waded in and screwed things up.

Wyoming granted women the "right" (or privelege, if you will) to vote in local elections long before the 19th.

I get you'll come back with some response that says that doesn't apply......so you get the last word.

This is getting boring and we've been through it before.

Little bit triggered there eh? And one justice is not a majority. Again that right to privacy is the foundation for many many laws, unrelated to abortion.

Do you not realize that states can pass laws, pretty much any law, and if they arent challenged in court...they stand? Do you see any federal challenges to the states that legalized pot?

Did you miss that several states, since about 2018 have "passed" laws that severely restricted abortion? And more have done so since the Dobbs case? All these laws however, were challenged in court and almost all were either overturned at the federal level or are awaiting hearing.

So...I answered your question.

It's sad that my layperson explanation for you on a right to privacy didnt make sense to you. Nothing you've written so far indicates it did.

 

[Cordelier]

1. I understand it pretty well....unlike you I do know my limitations.
2. I agree it is High School stuff which is why your responses are so baffling.
3. The right to privacy was said to emenate:

Writing for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case unrelated to abortion, Justice William O. Douglas understandably found he was unable to cite a generalized right to privacy in the Constitution itself. Undeterred, he went on to discover a "penumbra" (from the Latin paene umbra, meaning "almost a shadow") formed, he said, by unspecified "emanations" from the Bill of Rights. Justice Douglas then placed within this extra-constitutional near-shadow a hitherto unknown "zone of privacy," which was transformed into a "right of privacy" by the simple device of the court's substitution of the term "right" for "zone" in its later decisions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/20/privacy-penumbra-and-emanations/9a60c07c-4e98-4ffe-8b53-95fba222012a/

Which says he pulled it out of his ass.

So the Supremacy Clause means nothing if the SCOTUS shoves it back up his ass where it belongs.

Your last comment is just being petulant. States were allowing abortions in some cases.....before the Blackmunn waded in and screwed things up.

Wyoming granted women the "right" (or privelege, if you will) to vote in local elections long before the 19th.

I get you'll come back with some response that says that doesn't apply......so you get the last word.

This is getting boring and we've been through it before.

Suggest you read Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold to get a better picture of how penumbras and eminations give rise to unenumerated rights vis à vis the 9th Amendment.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Suggest you read Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold to get a better picture of how penumbras and eminations give rise to unenumerated rights vis à vis the 9th Amendment.

I've read parts of it. And it is a start.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's sad that my layperson explanation for you on a right to privacy didnt make sense to you. Nothing you've written so far indicates it did.

What's sad is that you think your explanations are actually meaningful.

 

[Cordelier]

I've read parts of it. And it is a start.

Well, be that as it may, it still beats anything I've ever seen come out of the strict constructionist camp as far as any criteria for recognition of a 9th Amendment unenumerated right.

 

[Lursa]

What's sad is that you think your explanations are actually meaningful.

You havent demonstrated that you understood them

 

[quip]

I don't know, but it doesn't matter. The law is what the law is, and the authority to decide whether a fetus is a human or when it becomes a human (with rights) will shortly be in the hands of states and their voters. The fight will be there, and not at SCOTUS..

Issues should always matter....especially when you feel smug and complacent.

Actually, it was you, among others.

View attachment 67396178

How did that go...?
"That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head."
indeed....
That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head.

 

[Mr Person]

RvW doesnt hardly mention bodily autonomy, if at all. (4th Amendment 'security of the person")

It was highly deficient in that IMO.

Oh, it was definitely a paraphrase. The decision does not even include the term "bodily autonomy," but it's ultimately a fair description imo. The fulcrum of the decision is a "right to privacy", not specified in the Bill of Rights but emanating from its "penumbras" (this being the main point where legal objectors object). That is tied to a concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the 14th Amd's due process clause. And in that regard it is framed around decisions affecting a woman's health.

It could have been written better. I'd have authored in a whopping dose of the equal protection clause. Exactly when do we tell men they can't do something to their bodies? That has to play a major role. But even then I think the central conundrum - inability to objectively define personhood - would still ultimately rule the decision. But that would be adding new scaffolding. Griwsold, etc., already built one around reproductive rights (necessarily invoking general concepts of privacy).

To me, viability seems the fairest line; the least worse one. And now they appear to be ready to throw it all right the hell out.

 

[Lursa]

Oh, it was definitely a paraphrase. The decision does not even include the term "bodily autonomy," but it's ultimately a fair description imo. The fulcrum of the decision is a "right to privacy", not specified in the Bill of Rights but emanating from its "penumbras" (this being the main point where legal objectors object). That is tied to a concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the 14th Amd's due process clause. And in that regard it is framed around decisions affecting a woman's health.

It could have been written better. I'd have authored in a whopping dose of the equal protection clause. Exactly when do we tell men they can't do something to their bodies? That has to play a major role. But even then I think the central conundrum - inability to objectively define personhood - would still ultimately rule the decision. But that would be adding new scaffolding. Griwsold, etc., already built one around reproductive rights (necessarily invoking general concepts of privacy).

To me, viability seems the fairest line; the least worse one. And now they appear to be ready to throw it all right the hell out.

If they had focused on that...we might not be here today, with RvW about to be overturned, most likely.

 

[weaver2]

Can’t say I agree with them, but you’re in no position to say their interest is in something other than the life of the fetus.

The quotes available show interest in the fetus only. When the fact that a woman has been, against her will, violently sexually assaulted is simply not even recognized except by Rep Schmidt who thought the trauma of rape was irrelevant, I think it is safe to say that these laws are based on a disrespect of women and a dismissal of the raping of women as a serious problem.

........(form Ohio)"This bill would require this 13-year-old to carry this felon's fetus to term regardless of any emotional or psychological damage or trauma that may be inflicted upon this 13-year-old girl. Is that right?" Brown asked Schmidt during a Wednesday hearing. Rep. Jean Schmidt's answer was:"Rape is a difficult issue and it emotionally scars the individual, all or in part, for the rest of their life, just as child abuse does. But if a baby is created, it is a human life, and whether that mother ends that pregnancy or not, the scars will not go away, period ......... Just because you have emotional scars doesn't give you the right to take the life."

Pregnancy after rape 'an opportunity'? Ohio GOP lawmaker sparks outrage in abortion debate

State Rep. Jean Schmidt said a teenager who became pregnant after rape would have the "opportunity" to help the child be a "productive human being."

www.cincinnati.com

........(from Missouri)“Let’s just say someone goes out and they’re raped or they’re sexually assaulted one night after a college party ...... most of them were date rapes or consensual rapes, which were all terrible.”
Rep. Barry Hovis, Missouri, 30-year veteran of the police force

..........(from Indiana 10/23/20012)Richard Mourdock, Indiana candidate for Senate "“I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that’s something God intended to happen.”

.......(from Texas) Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defended a new state law banning most abortions that also does not provide exceptions for cases of rape or incest, saying it does not force victims to give birth even though it prohibits abortions before some women know they’re pregnant. He added that Texas would strive to “eliminate all rapists from the streets."

........(quoted from the Atlantic)"If abortion is murder, why would murder be acceptable in any instance? We don’t issue birth certificates in the United States with a ratings system based on how someone was conceived. Clearly crimes must be fully prosecuted, and women [must be] helped. But we mourn as well for the preborn, who also suffer.” Kristi Hamrick; spokesperson for Students for Life“

The GOP’s Strange Turn Against Rape Exceptions

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, 22 states have abortion bans that would quickly become law. Many of those bans contain no exemptions for rape or incest.

www.theatlantic.com

.........(from Oklahoma) "Is our goal to defend the right to life or isn't it?" Rep. Wendi Stearman, Oklahoma

 

[Gordy327]

mere figure of speech. Nothing that anyone should hang their hat on.

Cherry picking the Constitution now, to suit your own narrative?

 

[Mr Person]

If they had focused on that...we might not be here today, with RvW about to be overturned, most likely.

I would have hoped so, at least back when I thought it (appellate jurisprudence) was all about finding the best or least worse answer; if it was about pure logic applied to factual scenarios. I.... don't think I really believe that anymore.

The look is too ugly. Create a rule to can Garland to seat Gorsuch, fight the mere concept of having a Kavanaugh hearing, then make up a new rule to justify ignoring the previous new rule and seat Barrett with weeks left. Worse, these are Federalist Society people. And because of this, I would bet that they'd still be poised to throw out Roe. It's been a major if not the focus of the Federalist Society.

 

[NatMorton]

I enjoy other perspectives.

But reality can't be altered just because someone is to hard headed to accept it.

And they go after Trump for the same thing....

I don't have a problem with differing views, either (heck, look at where I live). I do have a problem with people who lie about the facts and lie about what others have said.

 

[Dayton3]

Cherry picking the Constitution now, to suit your own narrative?

I've taught American Government. My knowledge of the subject and my teaching methodologies was never questioned.

What about you?

 

[NatMorton]

I'd say that they do in matters arising under the Constitution, wouldn't you?

Yes, and legally defining what is and what is not human life is not among the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Gordy327]

Perhaps if you will agree that there are things done behind closed doors between consenting adults are immoral.

If it's between consenting adults, then who cares? It's certain not the government's or anyone else's business. Morality is subjective anyway.

I've taught American Government. My knowledge of the subject and my teaching methodologies was never questioned.

Given how you "interpret" the Constitution, I call BS on that claim and I certainly question your so called "methodologies."

 

[NatMorton]

Issues should always matter....especially when you feel smug and complacent.

No one is saying the issues on either side of the debate don't matter. The question is who or what gets to decide how those differences are settled.

How did that go...?
"That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head."
indeed....
That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head.

Then be clear. Under current law, do you believe a state can establish a fetal right to life during the third trimester that supersedes a woman's Constitutional right to privacy, yes or no?