• 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!

Judge Reminds Anti-Abortion Attorneys That No Women Helped Draft Utah's Constitution in 1895

Credence

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
17,856
Reaction score
29,043
Location
Long Island NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Love this !!!!!! You go girl

Utah Supreme Court Judge Paige Petersen is a member of the court’s first female-majority.

Anti-abortion attorneys defending Utah’s abortion trigger ban, which is currently blocked, on Tuesday appealed to the state Supreme Court by calling on the justices to focus on the state Constitution in deciding whether to lift the injunction on the ban. They argued that Utah’s Constitution is clear that abortion should be prohibited: “There is an unbroken history and tradition … before 1973 [when Roe v. Wade was decided], of prohibiting abortion. And that unbroken history has to be part of this Court’s analysis, rather than present-day policy arguments about the benefits or the or lack thereof of abortion,” attorney Taylor Meehan argued.

In response, Judge Paige Petersen reminded Meehan of some state history that the attorneys defending the law seemed to be forgetting: “Women were in the audience, but they weren’t any of the delegates” who helped create the state Constitution in 1895, Petersen said, according to Axios. “How do we know … what they thought the meaning of their rights were? It seems important in this context because women are the ones that experience pregnancy and experience childbirth.”

 
"Unbroken history and tradition" has to be broken sometime. Appeal to antiquity is bullshit.
Agreed. If one wants to prohibit abortion, then provide a rational and logical argument as to why. I have yet to see such an argument. Tradition is a poor reason to do anything.
 
Love this !!!!!! You go girl

Utah Supreme Court Judge Paige Petersen is a member of the court’s first female-majority.

Anti-abortion attorneys defending Utah’s abortion trigger ban, which is currently blocked, on Tuesday appealed to the state Supreme Court by calling on the justices to focus on the state Constitution in deciding whether to lift the injunction on the ban. They argued that Utah’s Constitution is clear that abortion should be prohibited: “There is an unbroken history and tradition … before 1973 [when Roe v. Wade was decided], of prohibiting abortion. And that unbroken history has to be part of this Court’s analysis, rather than present-day policy arguments about the benefits or the or lack thereof of abortion,” attorney Taylor Meehan argued.

In response, Judge Paige Petersen reminded Meehan of some state history that the attorneys defending the law seemed to be forgetting: “Women were in the audience, but they weren’t any of the delegates” who helped create the state Constitution in 1895, Petersen said, according to Axios. “How do we know … what they thought the meaning of their rights were? It seems important in this context because women are the ones that experience pregnancy and experience childbirth.”

It’s irrelevant if any women were delegates
 
It’s irrelevant if any women were delegates
If you're going to look back at history and tradition, then it matters that women were literally second class citizens during that time, that is part of the history and tradition.
 
If you're going to look back at history and tradition, then it matters that women were literally second class citizens during that time, that is part of the history and tradition.
Some people seem to want to return to those days.
 
If you're going to look back at history and tradition, then it matters that women were literally second class citizens during that time, that is part of the history and tradition.
Irrelevant
 
Irrelevant

Not really. Any ruling from before women were allowed to vote, is suspect.

Education in the United States would be a whole lot better if children could vote. If they voted how their parents told them, or even if their parents voted for them, there would still be huge improvements. Childless adults voting for school board, is exactly like men voting for or against abortion rights.
 
If you're going to look back at history and tradition, then it matters that women were literally second class citizens during that time, that is part of the history and tradition.
In what part of human history wasnt that true?
 
Not really. Any ruling from before women were allowed to vote, is suspect.

Education in the United States would be a whole lot better if children could vote. If they voted how their parents told them, or even if their parents voted for them, there would still be huge improvements. Childless adults voting for school board, is exactly like men voting for or against abortion rights.
I see your point, but it's more like if ONLY childless adults could vote for the school board, and those parents with kids in school were prohibited by law from voting on school board.
 
In what part of human history wasnt that true?
Other than after women got the right to vote (1920), and we got the CRA and VRA that ended state sponsored discrimination against blacks (1964 and 1965)?
 
Other than after women got the right to vote (1920), and we got the CRA and VRA that ended state sponsored discrimination against blacks (1964 and 1965)?
So all of human history prior to that then.
 
So all of human history prior to that then.
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the U.S. and its history and what the courts should believe is relevant about OUR history as they review cases in 2023! My mistake!!!

Clearly the judicial standard in 2023 should be, I guess using your logic - "Hey women! You're damn lucky to have any right to decide anything on your own! The history and tradition of all of recorded history tells us you have NO rights at all. We will still consider you property of your man when interpreting the law in 2023! Sorry, not sorry!"
 
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the U.S. and its history and what the courts should believe is relevant about OUR history as they review cases in 2023! My mistake!!!

Clearly the judicial standard in 2023 should be, I guess using your logic - "Hey women! You're damn lucky to have any right to decide anything on your own! The history and tradition of all of recorded history tells us you have NO rights at all. We will still consider you property of your man when interpreting the law in 2023! Sorry, not sorry!"
No, our judicial standard should be interpreting the law not giving favor to one groups opinion over another. But I get that that throws your leftist ideology into a tizzy.
 
No, our judicial standard should be interpreting the law not giving favor to one groups opinion over another. But I get that that throws your leftist ideology into a tizzy.
Are you saying that a law that intimately affects women and was passed without any input from women doesn't need to be looked at for rescinding?
 
It’s irrelevant if any women were delegates

No, it's not.

Republicans say that because they believe women are chattel.

No female was consulted in the creation of that law. Women were not allowed to do anything but have babies and cook meals in those days.

It's time for the GOP to be reminded that women are not their personal property.
 
Are you saying that a law that intimately affects women and was passed without any input from women doesn't need to be looked at for rescinding?
Women have been able to vote for over 100 years and there are more women than men. They can change any law they want.
 
Women have been able to vote for over 100 years and there are more women than men. They can change any law they want.

You miss the point. When that law was created, women were not allowed to vote or have jobs outside the home except for being school marms.

Stop with the BS.
 
Absolutely relevant. A law that intimately affects women was passed with no input from women. The law needs to be rescinded, rewritten and voted on again.
no, it doesn’t
 
No, our judicial standard should be interpreting the law not giving favor to one groups opinion over another. But I get that that throws your leftist ideology into a tizzy.
I actually agree, so why would we look back to a history and tradition to interpret law in 2023, when at that relevant time women were quite literally second class citizens, which is a pretty powerful way to give favor to "one groups opinion" (i.e. only men's opinions) over another (the women who are in fact most impacted by abortion policy, since the forced birth laws don't actually restrict men's rights.

The policy effectively freezes the history and tradition that matter to a time when the ONLY opinions that mattered were men's opinions.
 
Back
Top Bottom