My problem with Roe v Wade

[itstony]

First off let me be clear on my political leaning as it comes up here often as righties can't believe a conservative won't support the Orangeman. I am a never-Trump Republican, I identify more as a Romney Republican and lean a little closer to center than trumpists. Having said that, I am and always have been pro life although I honestly struggle with this issue. I have never been exposed to a situation in my life where abortion has ever been an issue or a necessity so like many Americans that are pounding their chests over this issue I have no real life reference to go on. Many who have my same life experience should be thoughtful about that as well.

Having said all that, my issue is with how some on the right, even a handful here, are spiking the football over such an emotional issue. Many, including some here are taunting and laughing at those that are pro-choice which to me is just an ugly representation of themselves. For God's sake, don't tell me to get a vaccination or wear a mask, my body my choice! I guess that's only important if it affects them. To those of you that think you've won a great battle and feel a need to rub it in to those that are hurting over this decision, show some compassion or grow up, either will be fine.

You won't but that's how I feel.

 

[Bear5131]

First off let me be clear on my political leaning as it comes up here often as righties can't believe a conservative won't support the Orangeman. I am a never-Trump Republican, I identify more as a Romney Republican and lean a little closer to center that trumpists. Having said that, I am and always have been pro life although I honestly struggle with this issue. I have never been exposed to a situation in my life where abortion has ever been an issue or a necessity so like many Americans that are pounding their chests over this issue I have no real life reference to go on.

Having said all that, my issue is with how some on the right, even a handful here, are spiking the football over such an emotional issue. Many, including some here are taunting and laughing at those that are pro-choice which to me is just an ugly representation of themselves. For God's sake, don't tell me to get a vaccination or wear a mask, my body my choice! I guess that's only important if it affects them. To those of you that think you've won a great battle and feel a need to rub it in to those that are hurting over this decision, show some compassion or grow up, either will be fine.

You won't but that's how I feel.

We did win a 49 year battle and we deserve to rub it in. To say other wise you never witnessed in your face politics by the left, especially when they attack the average Joe citizen and cost him his job or thousands of dollars in legal fees.

 

[Mr Person]

I mean they did spend several years gleefully saying "**** your feelings" before they were ordered to switch over to being victims of having backed an election loser. I'm not sure how much can be expected.

We did win a 49 year battle and we deserve to rub it in. To say other wise you never witnessed in your face politics by the left, especially when they attack the average Joe citizen and cost him his job or thousands of dollars in legal fees.

"Look at what you made me do"

 

[itstony]

We did win a 49 year battle and we deserve to rub it in. To say other wise you never witnessed in your face politics by the left, especially when they attack the average Joe citizen and cost him his job or thousands of dollars in legal fees.

So you're still of the two wrongs make a right thought process. Unbelievable but you are one of the members I was talking about so I'm not surprised. Also, who's attacking Joe Citizen?

 

[iguanaman]

We did win a 49 year battle and we deserve to rub it in. To say other wise you never witnessed in your face politics by the left, especially when they attack the average Joe citizen and cost him his job or thousands of dollars in legal fees.

LOL Your "win" won't stop even one abortion while we still have the freedom to cross State lines. The pro-choicers are mobilizing to provide funds for every women seeking an abortion to travel to a State where it is legal. We are mailing abortion pills to women too. This is a wake up call that will make more money than ever available to fund abortions for those that cannot afford it. It's a hollow "victory" that will also cost Republicans many votes in November. So just keep celebrating while the rest of us keep making damn sure that no more unwanted children are born and women are not made into slaves to a clump of cells.

 

[itstony]

We did win a 49 year battle and we deserve to rub it in. To say other wise you never witnessed in your face politics by the left, especially when they attack the average Joe citizen and cost him his job or thousands of dollars in legal fees.

LOL Your "win" won't stop even one abortion. The pro-choicers are mobilizing to provide funds for every women seeking an abortion to travel to a State where it is legal. We are mailing abortion pills to women too. This is a wake up call that will make more money than ever available to fund abortions for those that cannot afford it. It's a hollow "victory" that will also cost Republicans many votes in November. So just keep celebrating while the rest of us keep making damn sure that no more unwanted children are born.

You are exactly correct, nothing has been done to stop abortions, they've just made it more expense in less convenient. Companies can either pay maternity benefits or cover travel out of state which would be far cheaper and that will become the norm. Even insurance companies will get involved as an abortion is far cheaper than the expense of well child care over the years. People like Bear5131 think they've won this great battle but NOTHING has really been accomplished from a pro-life perspective and the left has been energized along with many voters on the right. The red wave may have been stalled.

 

[Mr Person]

LOL Your "win" won't stop even one abortion while we still have the freedom to cross State lines. The pro-choicers are mobilizing to provide funds for every women seeking an abortion to travel to a State where it is legal. We are mailing abortion pills to women too. This is a wake up call that will make more money than ever available to fund abortions for those that cannot afford it. It's a hollow "victory" that will also cost Republicans many votes in November. So just keep celebrating while the rest of us keep making damn sure that no more unwanted children are born and women are not made into slaves to a clump of cells.

They're working on that crossing state lines thing with laws to punish people who travel out of state, as you say.

Maybe it'll renew interest in the "freedom of movement" line of cases, but those went cold a while ago and if memory serves at all were about rather different things (ie, using taxation to try to stop people from leaving the state). But it was tied to privileges & immunities, which the slaughterhouse cases butchered. Of the many things they did, they ruled that the P&I clause is not a basis for striking down state laws. Which is probably why it's fine to have a law saying you can't go out of state, buy a gun, and come back.


And now I'm just riffing, but from a very abstract perspective fighting laws to stop people crossing state lines to obtain abortions could also flip the switch on laws barring people from going out of state to buy a gun they couldn't buy in-state. That is, if you slip the portion of the slaughterhouse cases I mentioned, you probably flip it for both.

That is, yes, buying a gun and having an abortion are completely different things. The differences between them provide many bases for distinction. But to the extent someone might want to rely on privileges & immunities in fighting one of them, that person should consider the effect on the other because who knows ahead of time whether said distinctions will carry weight with this anti-abortion pro-gun court. This, even though the slaughterhouse cases had little to do with the freedom of movement; it's that, again, freedom of movement was pegged to P&I and P&I is not a basis for overturning state law.




I think there might also be some play in the Interstate Commerce Clause. Something to do with a right not to be discriminated against in one state because you're a resident of another state. But those memories are way too fuzzy for me to say more.

 

[iguanaman]

They're working on that crossing state lines thing with laws to punish people who travel out of state, as you say.

Maybe it'll renew interest in the "freedom of movement" line of cases, but those went cold a while ago and if memory serves at all were about rather different things (ie, using taxation to try to stop people from leaving the state). But it was tied to privileges & immunities, which the slaughterhouse cases butchered. Of the many things they did, they ruled that the P&I clause is not a basis for striking down state laws. Which is probably why it's fine to have a law saying you can't go out of state, buy a gun, and come back.


And now I'm just riffing, but from a very abstract perspective fighting laws to stop people crossing state lines to obtain abortions could also flip the switch on laws barring people from going out of state to buy a gun they couldn't buy in-state. That is, if you slip the portion of the slaughterhouse cases I mentioned, you probably flip it for both.

That is, yes, buying a gun and having an abortion are completely different things. The differences between them provide many bases for distinction. But to the extent someone might want to rely on privileges & immunities in fighting one of them, that person should consider the effect on the other because who knows ahead of time whether said distinctions will carry weight with this anti-abortion pro-gun court. This, even though the slaughterhouse cases had little to do with the freedom of movement; it's that, again, freedom of movement was pegged to P&I and P&I is not a basis for overturning state law.




I think there might also be some play in the Interstate Commerce Clause. Something to do with a right not to be discriminated against in one state because you're a resident of another state. But those memories are way too fuzzy for me to say more.

Any laws banning travel to another State must be found unConstitutional by even this reactionary Supreme court. I am not worried about that in the least. What worries me is that they will seek to ban all abortions nationwide next. That is their goal without a doubt. They are our very own Taliban and who do we have to find their own Religion based rulings unconstitutional?

 

[multivita-man]

Any laws banning travel to another State must be found unConstitutional by even this reactionary Supreme court. I am not worried about that in the least. What worries me is that they will seek to ban all abortions nationwide next. That is their goal without a doubt. They are our very own Taliban and who do we have to find their own Religion based rulings unconstitutional?

The crime wouldn't be traveling to another state; it would be conspiring to commit an act that is legal in one state but not in their home state. Someone brought up the analogy of gambling earlier and though that's definitely a good example, I think the legal and political reality on the ground is that the law and the constitution are whatever the ideologues on the Court say it is.

That is why stare decisis is such an important component in deciding which laws are constitutionally valid, and indeed the rule of law itself. If judges can just decide for themselves what the laws are irrespective of earlier court decisions then we move away from the rule of law and closer to the rule of men. The former is objective; the latter, subjective. It weakens the credibility of the Court to the point where people stop viewing it as a credible counterweight to other powers and branches of government.

I'm sure some will point out, as Sen Cornyn did, that the Court has reversed itself in previous cases such as in Brown v Board of education, but in reversing Plessy v Ferguson, the plaintiffs led by Thurgood Marshall could show that the assumptions made in the original Plessy opinion were wrong: separate was not equal, which was contrary to what the justices in Plessy believed. The Court reversed an incorrect assumption about racial politics that had not only led to inequality but had also deprived people the rights that were promised to them in the initial post-Civil War era.

The Thomas/Alito Court, however, have made it clear what their view of Constitutional law is: whoever has the political power, has the power to declare what the law is. Alpha and Omega. Power is their ideology, just as it is for the people who handpicked them to serve in their current capacity.

 

[iguanaman]

The crime wouldn't be traveling to another state; it would be conspiring to commit an act that is legal in one state but not in their home state. Someone brought up the analogy of gambling earlier and though that's definitely a good example, I think the legal and political reality on the ground is that the law and the constitution are whatever the ideologues on the Court say it is.

That is why stare decisis is such an important component in deciding which laws are constitutionally valid, and indeed the rule of law itself. If judges can just decide for themselves what the laws are irrespective of earlier court decisions then we move away from the rule of law and closer to the rule of men. The former is objective; the latter, subjective. It weakens the credibility of the Court to the point where people stop viewing it as a credible counterweight to other powers and branches of government.

I'm sure some will point out, as Sen Cornyn did, that the Court has reversed itself in previous cases such as in Brown v Board of education, but in reversing Plessy v Ferguson, the plaintiffs led by Thurgood Marshall could show that the assumptions made in the original Plessy opinion were wrong: separate was not equal, which was contrary to what the justices in Plessy believed. The Court reversed an incorrect assumption about racial politics that had not only led to inequality but had also deprived people the rights that were promised to them in the initial post-Civil War era.

The Thomas/Alito Court, however, have made it clear what their view of Constitutional law is: whoever has the political power, has the power to declare what the law is. Alpha and Omega. Power is their ideology, just as it is for the people who handpicked them to serve in their current capacity.

Yes it is true that the Supreme Court has extraordinary powers but they are not unlimited. There are remedies for a SC that has gotten out of hand and it may be the time to pursue them. I think that is what Roberts is now very concerned about.

 

[multivita-man]

Yes it is true that the Supreme Court has extraordinary powers but they are not unlimited. There are remedies for a SC that has gotten out of hand and it may be the time to pursue them. I think that is what Roberts is now very concerned about.

I think the remedy is to win a supermajority in both houses. Easier said than done, though.

 

[iguanaman]

I think the remedy is to win a supermajority in both houses. Easier said than done, though.

We only need a supermajority in the Senate but yes it is not easy.

 

[Bear5131]

Any laws banning travel to another State must be found unConstitutional by even this reactionary Supreme court. I am not worried about that in the least. What worries me is that they will seek to ban all abortions nationwide next. That is their goal without a doubt. They are our very own Taliban and who do we have to find their own Religion based rulings unconstitutional?

They are trying to flee from the law, it's constitutional

 

[iguanaman]

They are trying to flee from the law, it's constitutional

Like all those tourists in Las Vegas....lock em all up.

 

[noonereal]

First off let me be clear on my political leaning as it comes up here often as righties can't believe a conservative won't support the Orangeman. I am a never-Trump Republican, I identify more as a Romney Republican and lean a little closer to center than trumpists. Having said that, I am and always have been pro life although I honestly struggle with this issue. I have never been exposed to a situation in my life where abortion has ever been an issue or a necessity so like many Americans that are pounding their chests over this issue I have no real life reference to go on. Many who have my same life experience should be thoughtful about that as well.

Having said all that, my issue is with how some on the right, even a handful here, are spiking the football over such an emotional issue. Many, including some here are taunting and laughing at those that are pro-choice which to me is just an ugly representation of themselves. For God's sake, don't tell me to get a vaccination or wear a mask, my body my choice! I guess that's only important if it affects them. To those of you that think you've won a great battle and feel a need to rub it in to those that are hurting over this decision, show some compassion or grow up, either will be fine.

You won't but that's how I feel.

What Trump did to try to stay in power and who helped him is far more important. But not one post since Friday about all the I fo that came out on Thursday by the committee. You playing right into the GOP, GOP court corruption alliance.

BTW, I too am a old school republican, never Trumper, not a liberal.

 

[Jay59]

LOL Your "win" won't stop even one abortion while we still have the freedom to cross State lines. The pro-choicers are mobilizing to provide funds for every women seeking an abortion to travel to a State where it is legal. We are mailing abortion pills to women too. This is a wake up call that will make more money than ever available to fund abortions for those that cannot afford it. It's a hollow "victory" that will also cost Republicans many votes in November. So just keep celebrating while the rest of us keep making damn sure that no more unwanted children are born and women are not made into slaves to a clump of cells.

This is delusional. Convenience matters a great deal.

The crime wouldn't be traveling to another state; it would be conspiring to commit an act that is legal in one state but not in their home state. Someone brought up the analogy of gambling earlier and though that's definitely a good example, I think the legal and political reality on the ground is that the law and the constitution are whatever the ideologues on the Court say it is.

I would not worry about that. The majority of people have always supported access to abortion just like the majority of people have thought abortion was too easy.

That is why stare decisis is such an important component in deciding which laws are constitutionally valid, and indeed the rule of law itself. If judges can just decide for themselves what the laws are irrespective of earlier court decisions then we move away from the rule of law and closer to the rule of men. The former is objective; the latter, subjective. It weakens the credibility of the Court to the point where people stop viewing it as a credible counterweight to other powers and branches of government.

I'm sure some will point out, as Sen Cornyn did, that the Court has reversed itself in previous cases such as in Brown v Board of education, but in reversing Plessy v Ferguson, the plaintiffs led by Thurgood Marshall could show that the assumptions made in the original Plessy opinion were wrong: separate was not equal, which was contrary to what the justices in Plessy believed. The Court reversed an incorrect assumption about racial politics that had not only led to inequality but had also deprived people the rights that were promised to them in the initial post-Civil War era.

The Thomas/Alito Court, however, have made it clear what their view of Constitutional law is: whoever has the political power, has the power to declare what the law is. Alpha and Omega. Power is their ideology, just as it is for the people who handpicked them to serve in their current capacity.

I give you the stare decisis point. That said, if it was coming, why not do it quickly and be done?

What is easy to overlook in the furor is that the decision is textual. There are no words in the Constitution supporting the right of privacy, in contrast to the right of gun ownership, for example. This does not mean that it is not a recognized legal principle, simply that it does not have the power to negate state and local law.

We only need a supermajority in the Senate but yes it is not easy.

You need and the Republicans get. Ouch.

 

[Blue Dog]

I lean conservative and pregnancy termination did not EVER belong in the realm of politics.

It should have been a medical issue between doctor and patient.

 

[j brown's body]

They are trying to flee from the law, it's constitutional

Like the Fugitive Slave Act.

 

[BlueTex]

They're working on that crossing state lines thing with laws to punish people who travel out of state, as you say.

Maybe it'll renew interest in the "freedom of movement" line of cases, but those went cold a while ago and if memory serves at all were about rather different things (ie, using taxation to try to stop people from leaving the state). But it was tied to privileges & immunities, which the slaughterhouse cases butchered. Of the many things they did, they ruled that the P&I clause is not a basis for striking down state laws. Which is probably why it's fine to have a law saying you can't go out of state, buy a gun, and come back.


And now I'm just riffing, but from a very abstract perspective fighting laws to stop people crossing state lines to obtain abortions could also flip the switch on laws barring people from going out of state to buy a gun they couldn't buy in-state. That is, if you slip the portion of the slaughterhouse cases I mentioned, you probably flip it for both.

That is, yes, buying a gun and having an abortion are completely different things. The differences between them provide many bases for distinction. But to the extent someone might want to rely on privileges & immunities in fighting one of them, that person should consider the effect on the other because who knows ahead of time whether said distinctions will carry weight with this anti-abortion pro-gun court. This, even though the slaughterhouse cases had little to do with the freedom of movement; it's that, again, freedom of movement was pegged to P&I and P&I is not a basis for overturning state law.




I think there might also be some play in the Interstate Commerce Clause. Something to do with a right not to be discriminated against in one state because you're a resident of another state. But those memories are way too fuzzy for me to say more.

The prohibition against buying a gun in another state is FEDERAL law, not state law. I see no chance of federal legislation passing with Biden in office to make it a federal crime to cross state lines for an abortion...

 

[j brown's body]

This is delusional. Convenience matters a great deal.


I would not worry about that. The majority of people have always supported access to abortion just like the majority of people have thought abortion was too easy.


I give you the stare decisis point. That said, if it was coming, why not do it quickly and be done?

What is easy to overlook in the furor is that the decision is textual. There are no words in the Constitution supporting the right of privacy, in contrast to the right of gun ownership, for example. This does not mean that it is not a recognized legal principle, simply that it does not have the power to negate state and local law.



You need and the Republicans get. Ouch.

There is nothing in the Constitution about individual gun ownership and no court said their was until recently.

It's all politics dressed up as '"constitutional."

If our freedom only exists on paper -"oh no, women do not have the basic human right to control their own bodies because this piece of paper doesn't explicitly say so", and not in our hearts, our freedom is dead.

 

[BlueTex]

They are trying to flee from the law, it's constitutional

Not even Kavanaugh buys that bullshit...

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).


Page 133

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

[gbg3]

First off let me be clear on my political leaning as it comes up here often as righties can't believe a conservative won't support the Orangeman. I am a never-Trump Republican, I identify more as a Romney Republican and lean a little closer to center than trumpists. Having said that, I am and always have been pro life although I honestly struggle with this issue. I have never been exposed to a situation in my life where abortion has ever been an issue or a necessity so like many Americans that are pounding their chests over this issue I have no real life reference to go on. Many who have my same life experience should be thoughtful about that as well.

Having said all that, my issue is with how some on the right, even a handful here, are spiking the football over such an emotional issue. Many, including some here are taunting and laughing at those that are pro-choice which to me is just an ugly representation of themselves. For God's sake, don't tell me to get a vaccination or wear a mask, my body my choice! I guess that's only important if it affects them. To those of you that think you've won a great battle and feel a need to rub it in to those that are hurting over this decision, show some compassion or grow up, either will be fine.

You won't but that's how I feel.

I am a conservative (pro-choice but on the conservative end of that spectrum in terms of limits) and I very much understand there are different points of view on this extremely important and often emotional issue. Hopefully, you haven't seen me spiking any football.
In honesty, I did wake up the morning after the decision feeling this country was a bit softer, lighter, and better - but that was only due to my own perspective. While feeling that way in my soul, I also witnessed passionate protests throughout the country - and people feeling anger and dismay while others were feeling joy and relief. It's a BIG deal for people on both sides. I get that and I think it's okay that different people hold different perspectives.

 

[gbg3]

LOL Your "win" won't stop even one abortion while we still have the freedom to cross State lines. The pro-choicers are mobilizing to provide funds for every women seeking an abortion to travel to a State where it is legal. We are mailing abortion pills to women too. This is a wake up call that will make more money than ever available to fund abortions for those that cannot afford it. It's a hollow "victory" that will also cost Republicans many votes in November. So just keep celebrating while the rest of us keep making damn sure that no more unwanted children are born and women are not made into slaves to a clump of cells.

I disagree. While it may not stop many, I think it will stop some. I think the decision is extremely difficult for many a woman and sometimes, a bit of time, hearing the heartbeat, more talks with loved ones, learning more about adoption and other options, etc. - just that short pause - might very well save some lives.

 

[Bear5131]

Not even Kavanaugh buys that bullshit...

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).


Page 133

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Why are you quoting me random stuff when no one can flee from the long arm of the law?

 

[gbg3]

This is delusional. Convenience matters a great deal.

I completely agree. A lot can happen in a difficult decision making process, just in the course of a day or two!

I would not worry about that. The majority of people have always supported access to abortion just like the majority of people have thought abortion was too easy.

Yep!