Let's get one thing straight about Roe

[choiceone]

The left keeps making claims that the Republican Justices are destroying democracy. "They took the right of abortion away from women." The Constitution doesn't ever mention abortion as a right. The only point they have is the claim by interpretation of right to privacy. They claim is was already settled law.
Historically there was a time abortion was illegal, when slavery and segregation were legal and settled law. Where is the difference? You wanted those changes, because you wanted them. Were those changes proper and necessary? Yes, I believe all Americans would agree they were.
One hundred and fifty plus years ago slavery ended in this country and yet you cling to it and hang it around the neck of your opponents as if they participated in it. You seem to forget the Republican party spearheaded the abolitionist movement and provided the troops to bring slavery to an end. The Republican party provided a larger percentage of votes by their members for the Civil Rights Act than did the democrats. The democrats were the oppressors and today continue to hold black Americans enslaved economically by destroying black families and business communities with "financial aid" that strip the fathers out of the home and allow big business to move into black communities putting small privately owned business out of business. You fail to condemn the cultural aspects of "gangsta rap" which glorify violence society, against women and police officers. You make criminals out to be victims as they loot, rape, murder across our country and particularly black communities. You promise prosperity but you supply dependence through handouts with devastating guidelines.
The Constitution specifically grants the right to bear arms, and yet liberals claim it's not a right at all and/or that is should be rescinded. Guns cannot do harm without someone on the end of the trigger than intends to do harm. Yet you want to turn those people free onto the streets of America. Law only seems to be settled when it's settled the way you want it.

No one ever said "abortion" per se was a right. Rather, what is at stake is the right to decide when to have kids and doctor-patient confidentiality, stressed in Roe, and the right to control your own body and to protect your rights to life and liberty, to see health care and, for doctors, to provide it.

In about 1948, legal abortion became safer than continuing a pregnancy into late pregnancy and childbirth, in relation to both life and health. Before that, and with illegal abortion, abortion was more dangerous than late pregnancy and childbirth. By 1973, legal abortion had proved over 10 times safer than childbirth in terms of mortality, and some unknown amount safer in terms of health.

Today, for every death of a woman in childbirth, nearly 70 more women almost die. Legal abortion is now 14 times safer than childbirth overall, and abortion in the first 10 weeks is 22-24 times safer than childbirth as regards mortality. It is known that, in late pregnancy as well as childbirth, women can have strokes, heart attacks, and many other pregnancy-caused health problems. They can prove that there are deaths from pregnancy-related causes for up to a year after childbirth.

So any woman who does not want to continue a pregnancy could in fact argue that abortion is simply health care. Even if you have a "healthy pregnancy," it's not as healthy as stopping the pregnancy would be.

The Roe v Wade ruling didn't deal with this issue, even though it certainly lurked there as an underpinning. There was no justification for making a woman continue any pregnancy because of the risks, however low.

In Dobbs, Alito argued that the 14th A protections of the rights to life, liberty, and property of a person did not apply to pregnant women on two main grounds:

1) The 14th A was not intended to apply for pregnant women. It was only written to secure personal rights of ex-slaves. Common law had been applied at the state level, and then in the 19th c, state anti-abortion statutes proliferated and many states had them by the time of the 14th A.

2) This was a reasonable interpretation because it concerned a (potential) human life, of the embryo/fetus.

But the fact is that a woman was a person from the time of the Constitution, because women were always counted in the Census, and at no time, even in the 19th c, did Congress stop including them. Because of the numbers, we know that married women were included. Meanwhile, Congress made various Census Acts, adding information at various junctures, but never considered fetuses constitutional persons.

The way Dobbs is written suggests that there are no protections of pregnant women's personal rights, not even the right to life, let alone the health aspect of liberty. It's an absolutely terrible SC opinion.

 

[Antiwar]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes ...

Abortion rights via Roe v Wade aren't just about privacy, so your summation is insufficient. The trimester framework was used to differentiate regulations, and it looks like there really is no full right to privacy (I think it's much more about autonomy), nor absurd right-libertarian pipe dream of no regulations. I strongly suspect that you couldn't care less about women's reproductive rights; that this thread is just another way for you to complain about taxation.

Quote:

To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[120][121] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[yankintx]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

Yup

A false equivalinciency

You reap what you sow in November

 

[aociswundumho]

Abortion rights via Roe v Wade aren't just about privacy, so your summation is insufficient.

From your wikipedia link:

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion.

The trimester framework was used to differentiate regulations, and it looks like there really is no full right to privacy (I think it's much more about autonomy),

I just checked, and neither bodily nor autonomy was mentioned even one time in Roe. The word privacy is mentioned 26 times.

nor absurd right-libertarian pipe dream of no regulations. I strongly suspect that you couldn't care less about women's reproductive rights; that this thread is just another way for you to complain about taxation.

Yes, it's "absurd" for politicians to not have at least some control over a woman's vagina.

Quote:

To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[120][121] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7]

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deuce]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

hahahahaahahah "the left doesn't believe in privacy because they believe in taxes" ahhahahahahahahahha

 

[Fearandloathing]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

Thank you for your legal opinion.

Where did you get your law degree? The Mickey Mouse club?

 

[Antiwar]

I just checked, and neither bodily nor autonomy was mentioned even one time in Roe. The word privacy is mentioned 26 times.

That's very likely because they're often considered synonymous, but there are differences, especially since the differences depend on the trimester framework. The pregnant woman's right to privacy is absolute for all three trimesters, as long as she doesn't seek a legal abortion. The government isn't monitoring pregnancies, they're regulating and restricting abortion. If she seeks a legal abortion, then regulations and restrictions are in effect. So, the right to privacy is very limited when it comes to abortion rights. The right to autonomy is also limited when it comes to abortion rights. I stand by the statement that it's much more about autonomy than privacy.

Quote:

What is the difference between privacy and autonomy?

These examples make it clear that there is a difference between autonomy, which is about control, and privacy, which is about knowledge and access to information. The most natural way to connect the two concepts is to consider privacy as a tool that fosters and encourages autonomy.

Yes, it's "absurd" for politicians to not have at least some control over a woman's vagina.

I'm very pro-choice, and I fully acknowledge that abortion is a balance between the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of the developing baby. Many conservatives seem to be trying to control women, and maintain their tenuous grip on political power.

For me, I suppose the issue boils down to: How would women be forced to have unwanted babies? Should there be no restrictions on abortion, like in Canada? Maybe. Should women be able to have elective abortions at any time during the pregnancy? That doesn't seem right.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, but Roe had everything to do with it. The contradiction comes from the left screaming about Roe being overturned, while at the same time they do not agree with the legal reasoning behind the decision.

Yes, that was the language in Roe, but it was highly deceptive language. There cannot be any abortion law without at least implicitly defining a standard for human life. Thus Roe had to create a national standard for defining human life without declaring that fact openly. That lie is still believed by many today who will cling to "privacy" as the core issue beyond all reason.

 

[NatMorton]

Another?
Where in seven hells did you dig that up?

Yes, another human. How can you be that out of touch with this debate? It's the entire point.

Nearly everyone agrees a mother doesn't have the right to terminate the life of her three-week old baby because we all agree that baby is a human with rights. That opinion shifts as the point in time of development moves closer to conception.

The privacy debate is a side-show. It's not the issue. A legal definition of when we acquire human rights is.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes. You can't even know if a woman is pregnant unless she tells you - unless she's so pregnant no doctor would do an abortion even if they were pro-choice.

How can you even speak of "another" under those circumstances? Until the body is separate from an encompassing body, it SHOULD be considered part of that encompassing body.

You're welcome to your opinion, but it's only that, your opinion. Many disagree with you, and you're implied statement that there should be unlimited third-term abortion rights is best described as a fringe opinion. Very few people support that.

 

[weaver2]

But there was a time with no federal income taxes. Here's a pic of NYC in 1912, prior to the ratification of the 16th amendment. It seems to me society was doing just fine when people were allowed to keep more of what they earned:


View attachment 67412253
.

Yeah, these NewYorkers got to keep everything they earned also

 

[Scrabaholic]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

I am not on the left, but income taxes are needed.

Medical choices are none of the govt's business unless others are at risk. Personally, though, I like Canada's SC decision better. It ruled that banning abortion violates a woman's right to security of the person. The govt tried to bring in a new law but it failed to pass.

 

[aociswundumho]

I am not on the left, but income taxes are needed.

Whether they are "needed" or not is irrelevant here. The fact is that they violate our privacy.

 

[Airyaman]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

You should google that shit.

Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes - Facts | Internal Revenue Service

Anti-Tax Law Evasion Schemes - Facts

www.irs.gov

Fourth and Fifth Amendments
These arguments claim that filing an income tax return violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy or the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the courts have consistently held that disclosure of routine financial information required on a tax return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.

 

[Scrabaholic]

LMAO

i stopped reading right there because as soon as someone dishonestly tries to make it a "left thing" the wheels totally fall off that retarded tinfoil hat, false narrative, triggered claim and it instantly fails
nobody right left or center who is honest educated and objective will take your factually wrong claim seriously.

 

[aociswundumho]

You should google that shit.

I'm aware that government-run courts filled with government employees who live off of taxpayer dollars have ruled that tax returns are not privacy violations, even though they clearly are.

 

[Questerr]

I'm pro choice -- on every issue.



The state has zero resources of its own. Anything it gives you was taken from somebody else.

Unless that issue is workers choosing who their managers are or how a company should be run. Then you favor dictatorships.

Similarly the rich have no resources of their own. Anything they have they took from labor.

 

[AGENT J]

View attachment 67412317

Isabella probably is a beautiful person but she has nothing to do with my post

 

[aociswundumho]

Unless that issue is workers choosing who their managers are or how a company should be run. Then you favor dictatorships.

On the contrary, I have no problem with a group of people running their business any way they want.

 

[Questerr]

On the contrary, I have no problem with a group of people running their business any way they want.

Unless one person at the top who has words on a piece of paper than supposedly give him more rights says they can’t.

Then you favor his dictatorship because he has a piece of paper.

 

[Donatello]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

Not even close. Your zeal to be right has led you to "bunch" types of privacy. Your premise requires a leap of faith belief that medical privacy is the same as financial privacy? It ain't. HIPPA and millions of Americans disagree.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Umm ... because it's literally a form of extortion?



While I am against all taxation, in this thread I only mentioned the income tax, because in order to collect it the state must violate your privacy.



I like clean drinking water just as much as the people of Flint, Michigan do.

I like as low as taxes as possible. Yet, the nation must have money to run on and to provide for the many services and protections necessary. Therefore, taxation is an evil necessity. Our only hope is that those charged with determining taxation amount and purpose will consider the will of the people and not their personal agendas when levying taxes and spending the peoples hard earned money.
By any standard there is far too much waste in government and there doesn't seem to be any remorse by our politicians when they participate in gorging themselves at the trough.

 

[aociswundumho]

Not even close. Your zeal to be right has led you to "bunch" types of privacy. Your premise requires a leap of faith belief that medical privacy is the same as financial privacy? It ain't. HIPPA and millions of Americans disagree.

Do you agree that it's rude to ask someone how much money they make, or how much money they have? How is that any different from asking someone why they went to the doctor, or why they were in the hospital? Both are personal, private issues.

 

[Rickeroo]

The legal reasoning of Roe was predicated on the existence of a right to privacy from the government's prying eyes, however the political left does not believe a right to privacy exists. If the right to privacy exists, then such a right would certainly apply to our financial lives, as we all know it is considered rude to even ask people how much money they have or how much they earn, or how they earn it. Financial privacy would make income taxes impossible, and no leftist on the planet wants that.

It is glaringly inconsistent to claim a right to privacy exists, while at the same time supporting the intrusive, privacy-violating income tax extortion racket run by the federal government. If leftists had to choose between a right to privacy or the income tax, they will pick the income tax every single time, hence the political left implicitly agrees with overturning Roe.

Absolutely correct. From wiki:

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion

The relevant clause in the 14th:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The 'right to privacy' is a stretch here. One could consider that a woman has the "liberty" to have an abortion, but the 14th provides that "due process of law" can take that away. Indeed, one might have the "liberty" to make more money than someone else, but "due process" could easily take that liberty away.

 

[aociswundumho]

I like as low as taxes as possible. Yet, the nation must have money to run on and to provide for the many services and protections necessary. Therefore, taxation is an evil necessity. Our only hope is that those charged with determining taxation amount and purpose will consider the will of the people and not their personal agendas when levying taxes and spending the peoples hard earned money.

There is no such thing as a necessary evil. If something is evil, it is not only not necessary, but it should be destroyed as quickly as possible.

If you disagree, name some other things that are both evil and necessary.

By any standard there is far too much waste in government and there doesn't seem to be any remorse by our politicians when they participate in gorging themselves at the trough.