Joe to make Roe vs Wade the law of the land

[ClaraD]

If RVW is deemed unconstitutional then a law made by democrats would be unconstitutional as well, and the court would overturn that.

Roe also allows a woman to make private decisions about her health care, like getting a tubaligation, using birth control, getting a pap smear without her spouse's or anyone else's permission....Why should a woman need someone else to be involved in their bodies?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And why is it stalled? Because the medical science is faulty (one key reason). It's merely pandering.

The legislation is stalled because of insufficient political support. Same as any other stalled legislation.

Pandering could be why the legislation was drafted/introduced, but that isn’t relevant to the point of my referencing the proposed legislation.

Providing an actual example of legislation, in response to your comment “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)” was.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Illegitimate court. Trump judges.

Thanks for the opinion input.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Thanks for the opinion input.

Its all any of us got, bud.

 

[uptower]

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

Isn't it already?

 

[Lursa]

The legislation is stalled because of insufficient political support. Same as any other stalled legislation.

Pandering could be why the legislation was drafted/introduced, but that isn’t relevant to the point of my referencing the proposed legislation.

Providing an actual example of legislation, in response to your comment “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)” was.

They propose stuff all the time...that doesnt mean it's constitutional. These types of laws get overturned all the time.

I already posted that in the last 2 yrs, several states PASSED laws that banned abortion after fetal heartbeat developed or criminalized abortion for women AND Drs. Not a single one has been enacted; all have been challenged. The ones that have been adjudicated in federal court were all overturned as unconstitutional, the others are still waiting. But not a single one has gone into effect.

I guess I just thought you had seen where I already wrote this out.

States can pass whatever laws they want. That doesnt mean they will be upheld.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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."

Biden Says if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned, He'll Make It 'Law of the Land'

The Democratic presidential candidate said he will protect abortion rights even if the Supreme Court strikes them down.

www.newsweek.com

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?

Joe can't do squat about Roe Vs. Wade.

He's gotta say something though..........right?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

They propose stuff all the time...that doesnt mean it's constitutional. These types of laws get overturned all the time.

I already posted that in the last 2 yrs, several states PASSED laws that banned abortion after fetal heartbeat developed or criminalized abortion for women AND Drs. Not a single one has been enacted; all have been challenged. The ones that have been adjudicated in federal court were all overturned as unconstitutional, the others are still waiting. But not a single one has gone into effect.

I guess I just thought you had seen where I already wrote this out.

States can pass whatever laws they want. That doesnt mean they will be upheld.

I understand and agree with you. My point was on the federal level, not state.

Just an example of how Congress could enact an abortion law with criminal liability.

 

[Lursa]

I understand and agree with you. My point was on the federal level, not state.

Just an example of how Congress could enact an abortion law with criminal liability.

Is it your opinion that after (if) they passed it, it would be upheld by a federal court? IMO, the same standards would be applied...there would be a challenge and it would be examined for Constitutionality. And fail.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Is it your opinion that after (if) they passed it, it would be upheld by a federal court? IMO, the same standards would be applied...there would be a challenge and it would be examined for Constitutionality. And fail.

If you’d asked the same question 4+ years ago, I’d likely have said “no, of course not. Don’t be ridiculous”, but now? Or after Justice Coney Barrett is confirmed? I honestly don’t know.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That's very possible. Those state-level restrictions would not stand if they were found unconstitutional. I explained it earlier. What is it that you are still questioning?

Never mind. You're obviously not getting it, and I can't tell if that's the real thing with you, or you're just trolling me.

 

[Drawdown]

That doesnt address what I asked. I gave you the specific questions I had hoped you'd answer, about women at the border.

I have debated this many times. I have answers. If you didnt want to discuss it, why are you involved?

I pointed out that your position was wrong as to the potential jurisdiction of US law. So far, you have no answers on that issue.

 

[ClaraD]

Joe can't do squat about Roe Vs. Wade.

He's gotta say something though..........right?

actually, maybe he could...only 20% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal.
If they could pass the Lacy and Conner Peterson Act, why could they not pass a law making abortion legal? After all if one is legal, the other would be too.

We know that Constitutionallly the Congress can regulate interstate commerce and this could be considered just that. The same as they pass requirements that a hospital in this country cannot turn away anyone seeking care, regardless of ability to pay and that the states cannot refuse education to any child under the age of 18, regardless of status, race, nationality, etc..

So, there are many decisions that show one can arguably say that a law protecting the choice of the mother in certain circumstances and up to the point of viability would be lawful and would pass constitutional muster.

I dare any show me what provision of the Constitution and standing they would have to rule it unconstitutional.

 

[Lursa]

Is it your opinion that after (if) they passed it, it would be upheld by a federal court? IMO, the same standards would be applied...there would be a challenge and it would be examined for Constitutionality. And fail.

If you’d asked the same question 4+ years ago, I’d likely have said “no, of course not. Don’t be ridiculous”, but now? Or after Justice Coney Barrett is confirmed? I honestly don’t know.

Barett's confirmation or not, I was describing a process. Do you agree that's what the process is or not?

 

[Lursa]

I pointed out that your position was wrong as to the potential jurisdiction of US law. So far, you have no answers on that issue.

That's right...because you were unable to provide any specifics...just random, 'but we do this!' You didnt provide the legal basis for it.

I was doing so re: abortion and you ignored it. I cant counter information I dont have and 'but we do it' is not an argument.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Barett's confirmation or not, I was describing a process. Do you agree that's what the process is or not?

You described the process and predicted the outcome.

It’s the second part that isn’t guaranteed.

 

[Lursa]

actually, maybe he could...only 20% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal.
If they could pass the Lacy and Conner Peterson Act, why could they not pass a law making abortion legal? After all if one is legal, the other would be too.

We know that Constitutionallly the Congress can regulate interstate commerce and this could be considered just that. The same as they pass requirements that a hospital in this country cannot turn away anyone seeking care, regardless of ability to pay and that the states cannot refuse education to any child under the age of 18, regardless of status, race, nationality, etc..

So, there are many decisions that show one can arguably say that a law protecting the choice of the mother in certain circumstances and up to the point of viability would be lawful and would pass constitutional muster.

I dare any show me what provision of the Constitution and standing they would have to rule it unconstitutional.

The cases are very different. The unborn have no rights and none are recognized for the unborn, not even in fetal homicide laws. In every one of those laws, they point out that abortion is excepted.

Those laws bring charges on behalf of the woman and/or the state. They treat the unborn similar to property and are charging based on the impacts on the woman and/or the state, not on the unborn. None recognize any rights for the unborn.

Think of charges for killing people's pets or livestock? Or for destroying someone's property? None of those things have rights and the charges are brought on behalf of the losses to/impacts on the owners. In each case, owners can destroy their own property. Parents cannot kill their kids....kids have rights.

And I dont understand what you want demonstrated in your last sentence, can you be more specific?

 

[Lursa]

You described the process and predicted the outcome.

It’s the second part that isn’t guaranteed.

The outcome is opinion, the process, which I just discussed, is not.
Please answer the question: do you agree that's the process or not?

 

[ClaraD]

The cases are very different. The unborn have no rights and none are recognized for the unborn, not even in fetal homicide laws. In every one of those laws, they point out that abortion is excepted.

Those laws bring charges on behalf of the woman and/or the state. They treat the unborn similar to property and are charging based on the impacts on the woman and/or the state, not on the unborn. None recognize any rights for the unborn.

Think of charges for killing people's pets or livestock? Or for destroying someone's property? None of those things have rights and the charges are brought on behalf of the losses to/impacts on the owners. In each case, owners can destroy their own property. Parents cannot kill their kids....kids have rights.

And I dont understand what you want demonstrated in your last sentence, can you be more specific?

if you kill livestock you are charged with animal cruelty..if you murder a woman that is pregnant and past viability in her pregnancy and kill the baby..you are charged with murder..

 

[Lursa]

if you kill livestock you are charged with animal cruelty..if you murder a woman that is pregnant and past viability in her pregnancy and kill the baby..you are charged with murder..

No you're not. You can just kill them, steal them and butcher, hit them with your car.

They are 2 separate things.

And only in about 2 states are fetal homicides charged as murder. Otherwise, it is fetal homicide, which is not the same as murder.

Show me in any state's fetal homicide legislation where the unborn are recognized has having rights? And again, the distinction remains that women can still abort. That means it's not a person with rights. Legally, the unborn is treated similarly to property. The charges are not brought on its behalf...they are brought on behalf of the woman and/or state.

If a person is murdered, the charges reflect the loss of their right to life, and are brought on their own behalf...if someone is murdered, there's no connection to their families.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The outcome is opinion, the process, which I just discussed, is not.
Please answer the question: do you agree that's the process or not?

I haven’t, at any point, disagreed with your comments regarding established processes.

If I wasn’t clear, I apologize.

 

[Individual]

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."

Biden Says if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned, He'll Make It 'Law of the Land'

The Democratic presidential candidate said he will protect abortion rights even if the Supreme Court strikes them down.

www.newsweek.com

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?

Why does anyone think Amy Coney Barrett would even try to overturn Roe V. Wade?

It's a non issue and she, IMO, would be an excellent choice to replace RBG.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why does anyone think Amy Coney Barrett would even try to overturn Roe V. Wade?

It's a non issue and she, IMO, would be an excellent choice to replace RBG.

I have no criticisms of Judge Coney Barrett. From everything I’ve heard and read about her, she is a fair and brilliant jurist, and I don’t know of any reason to label her an “activist jurist” either.

Still, given her deeply held religious views, I wonder how she would view challenges to Roe.

 

[Individual]

I have no criticisms of Judge Coney Barrett. From everything I’ve heard and read about her, she is a fair and brilliant jurist, and I don’t know of any reason to label her an “activist jurist” either.

Still, given her deeply held religious views, I wonder how she would view challenges to Roe.

It would depend on what the challenge is, but from comments she's made previously it would seem that she recognizes abortion to be a Womans unalienable Right.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It would depend on what the challenge is, but from comments she's made previously it would seem that she recognizes abortion to be a Womans unalienable Right.

Disagree that Judge Coney Barrett considers abortion a woman’s unalienable right. I haven’t found anything that remotely supports that notion.

When she has commented on Roe, her remarks have only gone as far saying that she doesn’t see the law being overturned, rather challenges by states on specific provisions in their states laws.