• 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!

Joe to make Roe vs Wade the law of the land

If RvW were overturned, it wouldn't criminalize all abortions, it would just be allowed for individual states to do so.
“Criminalization” of the act would be done via Congressional action (federal law) or state laws.

As for the effect of the possible overturn of Roe by SCOTUS on states, SCOTUS’ ruling supersedes any state laws that may continue to allow abortions in the same manner that all SCOTUS rulings have.

If there’s a hole in my thinking, feel free to explain what it is.
 
I think Joe is full of :poop:. Why else would one think he was never elected POTUS? Can I have a second from the crowd?

Roe v. Wade already is the law of the land... but I realize the anti-Trump control freaks and Bozo Biden (who is pretending to lick their boots) as to make it appear that Roe v. Wade is in danger of being overturned and in grave danger is doing so ONLY because it's a vapid, silly election talking point.
They're lying... Conservative nom justice Barrett bad, soooo-so bad. :laughs:
I don’t see this as an easily dismissed possibility.

“Laws of the land” have been repealed before, even after many years/generations.

And if being full of :poop: were a prerequisite to be president, that would be the only boxed Trump could mark as checked off.

* Am I the only one who see's the resemblance between the poop emoji and Trump?
 
In that country. Traveling across US borders for the purpose of committing what is a crime in the US in another country can itself be a crime.
Can you cite/link any laws/s supporting your belief?
 
Right. And I'm saying those would be the framework of anti-abortion laws, in stopping Americans from traveling abroad for that purpose. It will undoubtedly involve a lot of personal and invasive questioning of any apparently pregnant women, devices inspected for evidence of communications that show the purpose of the travel, and could lead to women being asked to take a pregnancy test before traveling. All things that could happen because we let a lot of our civil liberties lapse during the failed war on drugs and ongoing GWOT.
The extreme invasion of personal privacy you describe runs directly counter to our Constitution.
 
The extreme invasion of personal privacy you describe runs directly counter to our Constitution.
Yet it happens every day in the wars on drugs and terror. Those machinations that are used for that purpose today, could be used to enforce federal laws against abortions tomorrow.
 
Yet it happens every day in the wars on drugs and terror. Those machinations that are used for that purpose today, could be used to enforce federal laws against abortions tomorrow.
Anything is possible, but I sincerely doubt that American’s would stand for it or that our courts (including, and especially SCOTUS) would allow it either.
 
I was speaking strictly international travel. If the patchwork of laws in the states remain, then it would be much more difficult to enforce, but that just leads me to the conclusion they would be made examples of when they were caught, as a deterrent.
Wouldnt work. Women have always gotten abortions. Today, there would just be more sophisticated "underground railroads" available to get women to CA, MX, or the gambling ships in international waters that would have nice accomondations and decent medical facilities.

Sadly, some women would still end up getting dangerous back alley abortions...just shows how hateful and unChristian so many pro-lifers are.

If it couldnt be enforced at all, it wouldnt be banned...a SCOTUS decision would have to take into consideration women's Const. rights. That's why I asked you for details. What do you think they would base their decision on if they banned (criminalized) having an abortion?
 
How does anyone get caught? Behaviour and a big mouth most of the time. I'm sure they could figure it out if they wanted to.
??? women that didnt want to be pregnant wouldnt have to reveal a thing and more than 95% of all abortions now take place so early there's little 'showing.' If they didnt want to be pregnant, they wouldnt discuss it.

And again...what probable cause enables the govt to go into a woman's medical files to see her reproductive status? Do women just lose the right to Due Process?
 
As you already know, I 100% support a woman’s choice. I’m just not sure how abortions can be performed legally anywhere in America if SCOTUS overrules Roe.

The specific point I’m confused/uncertain about is that since SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all Constitutional disputes, and understanding that all laws are founded on the Constitution, how can any state legally allow abortions when/if SCOTUS reverses Roe?

What am I missing?
THey can still be performed....what would stop them? Only STATE-level legislation would ban medical facilities/Drs from performing the procedure. Those states would 'stop' it, as you put it.

But many states have already stated they would maintain legal elective abortion. How does overturning RvW prevent this? Can you be specific?
 
Wouldnt work. Women have always gotten abortions. Today, there would just be more sophisticated "underground railroads" available to get women to CA, MX, or the gambling ships in international waters that would have nice accomondations and decent medical facilities.

Sadly, some women would still end up getting dangerous back alley abortions...just shows how hateful and unChristian so many pro-lifers are.

If it couldnt be enforced at all, it wouldnt be banned...a SCOTUS decision would have to take into consideration women's Const. rights. That's why I asked you for details. What do you think they would base their decision on if they banned (criminalized) having an abortion?
They would base their decisions on the precedents that currently allow such things as warrantless wiretaps, and drawing blood/testing urine, and getting all up in people's business. Also pretty sure constitutional rights end at the border, that's why courts allow border agents to invasively inspect travelers' devices for evidence of purpose of travel, and asking personal questions, and denying the person access to leave the country if they suspect the person is being deceitful for why they're traveling. They can also confiscate devices if the traveler refuses to allow inspection. That is all happening now.
 
I don’t see this as an easily dismissed possibility.

“Laws of the land” have been repealed before, even after many years/generations.

And if being full of :poop: were a prerequisite to be president, that would be the only boxed Trump could mark as checked off.

* Am I the only one who see's the resemblance between the poop emoji and Trump?

See whatever you want... After almost fifty years, Roe vs. Wade is a done deal.
The overturning of R. v. W is deliberate fear mongering by the Democrats. It's simply a false narrative they're pushing in order to get votes. IOW, a load of donkey :poop: .
 
In that country. Traveling across US borders for the purpose of committing what is a crime in the US in another country can itself be a crime.
Again, would every woman leaving the country be subjected to a pregnancy test? And again on return?

How would SCOTUS justify violating women's medical privacy...while still upholding men's? What is the legal justification they'd use? This is supported by many precedents.
 
They would base their decisions on the precedents that currently allow such things as warrantless wiretaps, and drawing blood/testing urine, and getting all up in people's business. Also pretty sure constitutional rights end at the border, that's why courts allow border agents to invasively inspect travelers' devices for evidence of purpose of travel, and asking personal questions, and denying the person access to leave the country if they suspect the person is being deceitful for why they're traveling. They can also confiscate devices if the traveler refuses to allow inspection. That is all happening now.
You have to be more specific. You have to show the amendment and how/what they'd consider. It's not that simple.

To be clear, you believe that if RvW were overturned, all women over, say 13, would be required to pee on a stick to identify their reproductive status when leaving the country? And then that status would be re-checked upon their return? Is that what you believe?

And then investigation of the loss of that pregnancy in another country would be investigated? To see if it was a legitimate miscarriage? You realize of course, that any miscarriage in the US would also need to be investigated, right?

So you are saying that women would be completely denied Due Process with regards to medical privacy?
 
“Criminalization” of the act would be done via Congressional action (federal law) or state laws.

As for the effect of the possible overturn of Roe by SCOTUS on states, SCOTUS’ ruling supersedes any state laws that may continue to allow abortions in the same manner that all SCOTUS rulings have.

If there’s a hole in my thinking, feel free to explain what it is.
Laws cannot be unconstitutional. (Actually they can, there are many that are just not challenged but IF challenged, they must undergo Constitutional scrutiny.)

So Congress cannot just criminalize a woman having an abortion. Again, if you think they can in a Const. fashion, please explain...but you must address the Const. aspects. Because Congress would have to (or be challenged).
 
RvW says women have a right to abort, no matter what states want to say about it. Overturning RvW would let the states decide whether to permit or criminalize abortion. If RvW is overturned, I highly doubt conservatives would overplay their hand by attempting to impose border pregnancy inspections and the like -- I can't prove those fears are wrong, but they strike me as highly unrealistic.
 
You have to be more specific. You have to show the amendment and how/what they'd consider. It's not that simple.

To be clear, you believe that if RvW were overturned, all women over, say 13, would be required to pee on a stick to identify their reproductive status when leaving the country? And then that status would be re-checked upon their return? Is that what you believe?

And then investigation of the loss of that pregnancy in another country would be investigated? To see if it was a legitimate miscarriage? You realize of course, that any miscarriage in the US would also need to be investigated, right?

So you are saying that women would be completely denied Due Process with regards to medical privacy?
I haven't worked out the finer details for them, that is just what I could see happening based on current precedent. Ask the people who want to enforce such a law to defend how they'd enforce it.
 
It all depends on what party controls the Senate.

And by how many seats. Because this is a human rights and health issue, not about taxes, the minimum to pass a bill is 60. What is the chance we will have 60 Senators who support elective abortions of zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and nonviable fetuses?
 
I haven't worked out the finer details for them, that is just what I could see happening based on current precedent. Ask the people who want to enforce such a law to defend how they'd enforce it.
It's not much of an argument if you cant even describe how the legal aspects would be countered.

And what is 'current precedent?'
 
It's not much of an argument if you cant even describe how the legal aspects would be countered.

And what is 'current precedent?'
I feel you're moving the goalposts. My original comment was just pointing out that the wod and wot have been used to trample all over the constitution for decades, with blessings from the courts.
 
I feel you're moving the goalposts. My original comment was just pointing out that the wod and wot have been used to trample all over the constitution for decades, with blessings from the courts.
I dont really know what you are referring to but I am here to discuss substantive challenges, with legal foundation, to RvW...not general speculation.
 
Joe Biden Says if Amy Coney Barrett Overturns Roe v. Wade, He'll Make It 'The Law of the Land'


Former Vice President Joe Biden has said he'll move to protect abortion rights if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, the historic decision that protected a woman's right to have an abortion.

The Democratic presidential nominee told an NBC News town hall in Miami on Monday that if the historic ruling on abortion is overturned, his "only response to that is pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That's what I would do."



The republicans don't want this bill as it passes through the house and senate. It'll be them versus the women of America, something that will hurt them in elections for years to come.

Do you think Joe and the democrats will make Roe vs Wade the law of the land?

And if that federal legislation overrides state laws, the S.Ct. might declare it to be an unconstitutional overstep of federal power.
 
And if that federal legislation overrides state laws, the S.Ct. might declare it to be an unconstitutional overstep of federal power.
??? That's the opposite of how it works. If SCOTUS finds a state (or federal) law is not Constitutional, that law is over turned. It does not stand. And state laws cannot violate the rights recognized in the Const. (Well, as previously noted, some laws are unConst because they are not challenged in federal court.)

For ex. in the last 2 yrs, a handful of neanderthalic states passed laws that banned abortion at fetal heartbeat, others criminalized abortion, with prison terms for women and Drs. All have been challenged in federal court and none have been enacted. Of the cases that have been adjudicated, all were overturned as unconstitutional. Again, not a single one has been enacted.
 
It should have been made a law a long tim ago so the Courts can't just reinterpret it.
 
Back
Top Bottom