Planned Parenthood

[Lakryte]

The premise is that Planned Parenthood has lost a layer of insulation from official inquiry, making it the same as other medical practitioners. In particular, primary jurisdiction has moved from federal to state because Dobbs eliminated the Constitutional law justification to put cases in federal court.


Since you have the premise incorrect, your question is off-base. I am still not sure where you came by the idea that Dobbs is not about state vs federal. That is expressly stated in the decision.

An article posted above speaks of a seismic shift in the law. This thread seeks to inquire into one of the tremors.

That is the exact premise I am challenging. Planned Parenthood has not lost any "layer of insulation from official inquiry" as a result of Dobbs. The holding in Dobbs relates to whether an individual has a right to an abortion, and the right to abortion did not itself create any layers of insulation from official inquiry. What specific "layer of insulation" are you referring to that you believe has been lost? And what is the source of law of that "layer of insulation"?

Dobbs is plainly not about state vs. federal power. It was about whether there is an individual right to an abortion protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Court answered "no" to that question, but that does not mean the federal government cannot create a federal statutory right to abortion (or, on the flipside, a federal statutory ban). If you think the decision expressly states whether the federal government has the power to regulate abortion, go ahead and quote that language.

 

[Lursa]

Federal court is not a given. This is a change. That's it.

I never said it was, altho I definitely believe that it will be challenged at the federal level.

What federal law? We just removed the Constitution from the mix.

Not at all. See: the Supremacy Clause. This is why I keep mentioning federal court challenges. If the state enforcement/charging of women having abortions violates our Const rights, then the Supremacy Clause maintains that federal supersedes state law.

Another subject for another day.

It's completely relevant to this topic as we're discussing the implications of forcing women to remain pregnant. Or you can take this and start an OP, but it seems you just want to ignore the realities of justifying, morally and legally, forcing women to remain pregnant.

"Well it's kind of disturbing if you think the unborn has any desires. Certainly the woman is the only one that suffers...pain, awareness, minimization in society, her right to consent over her individual liberty and self-determination over-ridden by the govt. The unborn suffers nothing. So while I understand people's sympathy for the unborn, the suffering, pain, and minimization in society is by far worse for women and IMO the it's immoral to intentionally impose that greater pain and suffering and loss of self-determination and equal status with men."​

Let's see them.

How many children are available for adoption in the United States?​

There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.​

​

What is the average age of an adopted child?​

The average child waits for an adoptive family for more than three years. 11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children). The average age of children waiting for an adoptive family is 8.​

​

US Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network

US Adoption Statistics may surprise you as nearly 100 million Americans have adoption in their immediate family. Learn more here.

adoptionnetwork.com

So 10's of thousands are infants/toddlers. Are you going to claim they all have birth defects/special needs? If so, prove it.

You have not been thinking through things properly, so that goes with some salt.

You have not pointed out a single instance where I havent thought things thru. OTOH, I have done so with your comments.

Special needs infants you will find. You have still not shown that there is a backlog of healthy infants.

Yes and you ignored the point I made...that if you force women to remain pregnant, who dont want to be, who dont give a shit, they are less likely to stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs..and there will be higher rates of such special needs kids dumped into that adoption pool. Now...please address this, because it certainly is a solid reason not to force women to remain pregnant.

As Lursa keeps pointing out, Constitutional rights are federal? That is now gone.

Where did they go? They still protect people...and supersede state law.

 

[Ren]

I've always gotten a laugh over "Planned Parenthood" given that abortion is such a driving force behind this outfit.

 

[Jay59]

That is the exact premise I am challenging. Planned Parenthood has not lost any "layer of insulation from official inquiry" as a result of Dobbs. The holding in Dobbs relates to whether an individual has a right to an abortion, and the right to abortion did not itself create any layers of insulation from official inquiry. What specific "layer of insulation" are you referring to that you believe has been lost? And what is the source of law of that "layer of insulation"?

Dobbs is plainly not about state vs. federal power. It was about whether there is an individual right to an abortion protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Court answered "no" to that question, but that does not mean the federal government cannot create a federal statutory right to abortion (or, on the flipside, a federal statutory ban). If you think the decision expressly states whether the federal government has the power to regulate abortion, go ahead and quote that language.

If you cannot be bothered to read the thread, then you will stay uninformed. The Constitutional right was a federal issue, hence an easy removal to federal court. That is no longer true.

I never said it was, altho I definitely believe that it will be challenged at the federal level.

Dobbs is already at the highest level. Another federal issue must be found and none are obvious.

Not at all. See: the Supremacy Clause. This is why I keep mentioning federal court challenges. If the state enforcement/charging of women having abortions violates our Const rights, then the Supremacy Clause maintains that federal supersedes state law.

When I agree with you and you say not all it means you are not reading for content.

How many children are available for adoption in the United States?

There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.​

What is the average age of an adopted child?​

The average child waits for an adoptive family for more than three years. 11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children). The average age of children waiting for an adoptive family is 8.​

US Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network

US Adoption Statistics may surprise you as nearly 100 million Americans have adoption in their immediate family. Learn more here.

adoptionnetwork.com

Not good enough. You posed the average at adoption and they gave the average age of the unadopted. It's a completely different number.

So 10's of thousands are infants/toddlers. Are you going to claim they all have birth defects/special needs? If so, prove it.

You still have not done your part. You need the average wait for infants and toddlers or adoptions broken down by age groups.

That said, your own numbers shoot down the tens of thousands of infants. There are only 43 thousand in all and their average is over seven years

You have not pointed out a single instance where I havent thought things thru.

Just did it again.

OTOH, I have done so with your comments.

You may have tried, but you did not think through what was actually posted.

Where did they go? They still protect people...and supersede state law.

According to the Supreme Court, the right to an abortion never existed. We have 49 years of legal fiction to unravel.

 

[Lursa]

Dobbs is already at the highest level. Another federal issue must be found and none are obvious.

Nope all the Dobbs decision did was remove RvW. All of women's Const rights remain in place.

Again...if a state level law, during the protection of the unborn or enforcing of some criminal abortion statute, violates a woman's Const rights...it can be challenged in federal court to examine that violation...because the Const supersedes state law and that's why I keep referring you to the Supremacy Clause.

You really dont get this at all, do you?

When I agree with you and you say not all it means you are not reading for content.

That sentence doesnt make any sense. Please clarify what you mean.

Not good enough. You posed the average at adoption and they gave the average age of the unadopted. It's a completely different number.

So what? It still shows 10's of thousands of infants and toddlers. I realize you dont want to admit it, but your 'na huh' is a failure.

If you disagree with those numbers, you have to produce your own to prove mine wrong. Otherwise...again...you just dont like what you found.

You still have not done your part. You need the average wait for infants and toddlers or adoptions broken down by age groups.

That said, your own numbers shoot down the tens of thousands of infants. There are only 43 thousand in all and their average is over seven years

No I dont, because even the averages prove 10's of thousands. If you are going to just pretend otherwise, I'll note that for posterity and continue to post your failure.

If you disagree, post your own numbers to support YOUR claims. You state mine are wrong? Prove otherwise.

Just did it again.


You may have tried, but you did not think through what was actually posted.

Just writing that doesnt really mean anything besides you cannot refute the statements. I get it, I didnt think you could.

According to the Supreme Court, the right to an abortion never existed. We have 49 years of legal fiction to unravel.

That doesnt erase women's Const rights. The RvW bench didnt even use some of the arguments I've seen based on other amendments or their specifics, like "security of the person" in the 4th. And there are other foundations in for support in due process. Even the 13th. So we'll see. The 'unravelling' has already started and it's going to be fascinating.

 

[Lakryte]

If you cannot be bothered to read the thread, then you will stay uninformed. The Constitutional right was a federal issue, hence an easy removal to federal court. That is no longer true.

I've read the thread, and you are clearly missing the point. As I've said before, Planned Parenthood has not lost any "layer of insulation from official inquiry" as a result of Dobbs. What specific "layer of insulation" are you referring to that you believe has been lost? And what is the source of law of that "layer of insulation"? If you can't answer that basic premise, this thread is pointless.

You also claimed that Dobbs was about "state vs. federal" power, and ignored my response to that incorrect characterization. Dobbs was plainly not about state vs. federal power. It was about whether there is an individual right to an abortion protected by the U.S. Constitution. Those are two entirely different questions. Dobbs does not prevent Congress from passing a law banning or allowing abortion nationwide. If you think otherwise, quote the language from Dobbs supporting your thinking. I'll wait.

 

[Jay59]

Nope all the Dobbs decision did was remove RvW. All of women's Const rights remain in place.

The privacy right that equated to a right to abortion returned to the pre-1973 state. You tell me if no right to an abortion is the same as before Dobbs.

Let me put it this way. After Dobbs women have exactly the same Constitutional rights as men, no less but no more. No Constitutional right specific to women's health ever existed.

Again...if a state level law, during the protection of the unborn or enforcing of some criminal abortion statute, violates a woman's Const rights...it can be challenged in federal court to examine that violation...because the Const supersedes state law and that's why I keep referring you to the Supremacy Clause.

No one has ever said otherwise. However, you have not thought through what overturning Roe v Wade implies. Women do not have a right to an abortion. That is now a priviledge granted by the state.

You really dont get this at all, do you?

I do. You are the one who is sketchy.

That sentence doesnt make any sense. Please clarify what you mean.

I agree with you that Constitutional rights have the supremacy. The problem is that you persist in saying that abortion is a Constitutional right. It's not. As of Dobbs, it never was.

So what? It still shows 10's of thousands of infants and toddlers. I realize you dont want to admit it, but your 'na huh' is a failure.

The so-what is that your own numbers show that there is not 10s of thousands of infants and toddlers. Think it through.

If you disagree with those numbers, you have to produce your own to prove mine wrong. Otherwise...again...you just dont like what you found.

I could but you stand refuted by your own numbers.

The backlog for infants is of prospective parents not of children.

No I dont, because even the averages prove 10's of thousands.

This is just a math deficiency. You cannot divide 43K by 7 and get more than 20K yet, that is your claim. Do the math.

That doesnt erase women's Const rights.

It's worse than that. Dobbs means the right to abortion never existed at all. It kills all the case law as well.

The RvW bench didnt even use some of the arguments I've seen based on other amendments or their specifics, like "security of the person" in the 4th. And there are other foundations in for support in due process. Even the 13th. So we'll see. The 'unravelling' has already started and it's going to be fascinating.

It will indeed be fascinating. This thread was inquiring as to what might happen in one small corner of the legal landscape.

 

[Lursa]

The privacy right that equated to a right to abortion returned to the pre-1973 state. You tell me if no right to an abortion is the same as before Dobbs.

DId you miss where I've written there are other Constitutional amendments and sections of those amendments to base the right on?

And currently it's not about 'basing' the right on something in an amendment, it's about not violating already recognized Const rights. Like "security of the person" and due process. Why do I have to keep writing this stuff?

For example, the state cannot compel a woman to take a pregnancy test. Just like they cant compel someone to give blood for a DUI.

No one has ever said otherwise. However, you have not thought through what overturning Roe v Wade implies. Women do not have a right to an abortion. That is now a priviledge granted by the state.

Of course I have. I've been posting 'what if's' for years. That 'privilege', in its enforcement, cannot violate women's Const rights. This is not a hard concept. That's where the court challenges will happen...when a state brings criminal charges for having an abortion. It depends on a specific charge but how can it be murder? The state may consider the unborn a legal person, but the federal govt does not.

Like I wrote, it's going to be interesting.

Also, the state cant compel another state to hand over her medical records. How do they prove she was pregnant and how do they prove she had an abortion? Criminal charges require proof.

I do. You are the one who is sketchy.


I agree with you that Constitutional rights have the supremacy. The problem is that you persist in saying that abortion is a Constitutional right. It's not. As of Dobbs, it never was.

PLease quote where I ever wrote that abortion is a Const right. I have not done so. It was a right recognized under the 9th A. That's not the same thing.

So, if that's been your 'thing' so far, forget it. I never wrote it and never implied it. I have consistently written that the states cannot create laws that violate women's COnst rights and never once wrote that abortion was one of them.

The so-what is that your own numbers show that there is not 10s of thousands of infants and toddlers. Think it through.

Yes it does. Do you understand what averages mean?

I could but you stand refuted by your own numbers.

Look, you cant. You would have by now and now you're stuck...you refuse to accept mine and you cant prove otherwise. We can go on like this forever but I produced numbers, sourced. You didnt.

Put up or....?

The backlog for infants is of prospective parents not of children.

That has nothing to do with the number of infants and toddlers available. You have not made that connection...you need numbers to do that, numbers that show there arent enough infants and toddlers for them to adopt. Let's see it.

This is just a math deficiency. You cannot divide 43K by 7 and get more than 20K yet, that is your claim. Do the math.

OK, how many do you get? And here are the numbers (refer back to the post/links)

There are 108,000 kids waiting to be adopted and the average age of a child awaiting adoption is 8. Go!

It's worse than that. Dobbs means the right to abortion never existed at all. It kills all the case law as well.

How does that matter? Please explain? And what case law? Examples?

 

[Jay59]

DId you miss where I've written there are other Constitutional amendments and sections of those amendments to base the right on?

And currently it's not about 'basing' the right on something in an amendment, it's about not violating already recognized Const rights. Like "security of the person" and due process. Why do I have to keep writing this stuff?

For example, the state cannot compel a woman to take a pregnancy test. Just like they cant compel someone to give blood for a DUI.



Of course I have. I've been posting 'what if's' for years. That 'privilege', in its enforcement, cannot violate women's Const rights. This is not a hard concept. That's where the court challenges will happen...when a state brings criminal charges for having an abortion. It depends on a specific charge but how can it be murder? The state may consider the unborn a legal person, but the federal govt does not.

Like I wrote, it's going to be interesting.

Also, the state cant compel another state to hand over her medical records. How do they prove she was pregnant and how do they prove she had an abortion? Criminal charges require proof.



PLease quote where I ever wrote that abortion is a Const right. I have not done so. It was a right recognized under the 9th A. That's not the same thing.

So, if that's been your 'thing' so far, forget it. I never wrote it and never implied it. I have consistently written that the states cannot create laws that violate women's COnst rights and never once wrote that abortion was one of them.




Yes it does. Do you understand what averages mean?



Look, you cant. You would have by now and now you're stuck...you refuse to accept mine and you cant prove otherwise. We can go on like this forever but I produced numbers, sourced. You didnt.

Put up or....?


That has nothing to do with the number of infants and toddlers available. You have not made that connection...you need numbers to do that, numbers that show there arent enough infants and toddlers for them to adopt. Let's see it.



OK, how many do you get? And here are the numbers (refer back to the post/links)

There are 108,000 kids waiting to be adopted and the average age of a child awaiting adoption is 8. Go!


How does that matter? Please explain? And what case law? Examples?

Now you are punching at the wind. No one has ever claimed that a woman's 4th amendment rights were affected, or any other right written in the Constitution.

Why do you continue to make a point when everyone agrees?

 

[Bear5131]

Acorn and baby parts. You are a broken record.

Do you have anything to disprove it, or your only defense is, no defense?

 

[US&THEM]

Do you have anything to disprove it, or your only defense is, no defense?

It has been disproven over and over, yet here you are pretending it was real.

 

[Bear5131]

It has been disproven over and over, yet here you are pretending it was real.

It's never been disproven they got caught red handed selling baby parts and the video to prove it


On Tuesday, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released an explosive video that appears to show Planned Parenthood executives admitting that they charged a fee to medical companies for aborted baby body parts directly, despite the taxpayer-funded organization claiming their only “fees” were for transportation and other legal services.

David Daleiden, project lead for CMP, alleged in a press release that the video (which can be viewed below) is more confirmation that Planned Parenthood lied to the public and Congress about aborted baby trafficking.



“The time has come for federal consequences for Planned Parenthood,” Daleiden said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood lied to the public and to Congress, but now there is no longer any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood sold fetal body parts, commodifying living children in the womb and treating pregnant women like a cash crop.”

 

[US&THEM]

It's never been disproven they got caught red handed selling baby parts and the video to prove it


On Tuesday, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released an explosive video that appears to show Planned Parenthood executives admitting that they charged a fee to medical companies for aborted baby body parts directly, despite the taxpayer-funded organization claiming their only “fees” were for transportation and other legal services.

David Daleiden, project lead for CMP, alleged in a press release that the video (which can be viewed below) is more confirmation that Planned Parenthood lied to the public and Congress about aborted baby trafficking.



“The time has come for federal consequences for Planned Parenthood,” Daleiden said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood lied to the public and to Congress, but now there is no longer any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood sold fetal body parts, commodifying living children in the womb and treating pregnant women like a cash crop.”

Nice try

Planned Parenthood: Fact v. Fiction

Claim: The undercover videos show Planned Parenthood trafficking in fetal tissue for profit in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood engages in the “illegal sale of aborted baby parts.”[1] Planned Parenthood engages in “selling baby parts.”[2] Facts: The videos include no credible...

oversight.house.gov

 

[Lursa]

Now you are punching at the wind. No one has ever claimed that a woman's 4th amendment rights were affected, or any other right written in the Constitution.

Why do you continue to make a point when everyone agrees?

Wow, you STILL dont get it. How embarrassing for you. I cant write it any simpler and I'm not responsible for your functional education level. And I'm not writing this as an attack but as an observation that I can only write the proper, basic words and cant help you understand them.

RvW (or overturning it) didnt affect ANY of anyone's Const. rights. I certainly never wrote that. Here it is again:

If any state makes a law (regarding abortion or anything else) that, in it's enforcement or charging, violated a person's Const or federally recognized rights, then the federal laws supersede the state laws...the state law will be overturned. I see you have not once actually googled Supremacy Clause...that's obvious from your lack of overall understanding here. Note that for the state law to be overturned, an actual case must be challenged and taken to federal court. Some such laws stand because they're not challenged, like state pot laws.​

​

I gave you an example. If a state law requires confirming a woman's reproductive status, it cannot force her to take a pregnancy test. Similar to laws where suspects cannot be compelled to give blood after a possible DUI. Rights that would be violated: due process and medical privacy and security of the person. (14th and 4th Amendments).​

Now do you get it? Good lord. Please just confirm that you understand this. That's all I ask. It means that that 'privilege' that you wrote is now up to the state is only viable if it does not violate women's COnst rights as it is enforced or charged. ANd this will be the interesting part and states are already scrambling to deal with. Some are already backpedaling on their trigger laws.

 

[Jay59]

Wow, you STILL dont get it. How embarrassing for you. I cant write it any simpler and I'm not responsible for your functional education level. And I'm not writing this as an attack but as an observation that I can only write the proper, basic words and cant help you understand them.

RvW (or overturning it) didnt affect ANY of anyone's Const. rights. I certainly never wrote that. Here it is again:

If any state makes a law (regarding abortion or anything else) that, in it's enforcement or charging, violated a person's Const or federally recognized rights, then the federal laws supersede the state laws...the state law will be overturned. I see you have not once actually googled Supremacy Clause...that's obvious from your lack of overall understanding here. Note that for the state law to be overturned, an actual case must be challenged and taken to federal court. Some such laws stand because they're not challenged, like state pot laws.

I gave you an example. If a state law requires confirming a woman's reproductive status, it cannot force her to take a pregnancy test. Similar to laws where suspects cannot be compelled to give blood after a possible DUI. Rights that would be violated: due process and medical privacy and security of the person. (14th and 4th Amendments).

Now do you get it? Good lord. Please just confirm that you understand this. That's all I ask. It means that that 'privilege' that you wrote is now up to the state is only viable if it does not violate women's COnst rights as it is enforced or charged. ANd this will be the interesting part and states are already scrambling to deal with. Some are already backpedaling on their trigger laws.

What do you mean don't get it? I agreed with you.

For about the 10th time, no one is claiming any rights are reduced except the former right to abortion. What will happen is that Planned Parenthood will no longer have easy access to federal courts.

That's it. That's all of it. The rest is in your head.

 

[Lursa]

What do you mean don't get it? I agreed with you.

For about the 10th time, no one is claiming any rights are reduced except the former right to abortion. What will happen is that Planned Parenthood will no longer have easy access to federal courts.

That's it. That's all of it. The rest is in your head.

LOL OK, I'm not one to not accept 'yes' for an answer. The entire conversation is here if anyone's interested.

Some of it may become mostly moot anyway, since after more examination, it seems the states are going for the low-hanging fruit and focusing, like TX, on providers and those that help women. None have proposed criminal charges for having an abortion...and that's pretty much because of what I've been writing (not just here.)...They really cant and not come in conflict with federal law and the Const.

 

[Jay59]

LOL OK, I'm not one to not accept 'yes' for an answer. The entire conversation is here if anyone's interested.

Some of it may become mostly moot anyway, since after more examination, it seems the states are going for the low-hanging fruit and focusing, like TX, on providers and those that help women. None have proposed criminal charges for having an abortion...and that's pretty much because of what I've been writing (not just here.)...They really cant and not come in conflict with federal law and the Const.

This thread was always about providers and never about individual women.

 

[Lakryte]

What do you mean don't get it? I agreed with you.

For about the 10th time, no one is claiming any rights are reduced except the former right to abortion. What will happen is that Planned Parenthood will no longer have easy access to federal courts.

That's it. That's all of it. The rest is in your head.

Access to federal courts for what? Planned Parenthood still has the same access to federal courts it had as before, because the question to ask to determine if a federal court has jurisdiction is not "is abortion a constitutional right."

 

[Jay59]

Access to federal courts for what? Planned Parenthood still has the same access to federal courts it had as before, because the question to ask to determine if a federal court has jurisdiction is not "is abortion a constitutional right."

No, they don't have the same access and yes that is the question.

This was covered in detail.

 

[Lakryte]

No, they don't have the same access and yes that is the question.

This was covered in detail.

Yes, they do. You are the one claiming they don’t - so the burden is on you to explain exactly in what scenarios you think access was lost. If you are so sure you are right, that should be easy.

 

[Jay59]

Yes, they do. You are the one claiming they don’t - so the burden is on you to explain exactly in what scenarios you think access was lost. If you are so sure you are right, that should be easy.

It was already covered in detail. If you want to pick at anything specific, cite it.

 

[Lakryte]

It was already covered in detail. If you want to pick at anything specific, cite it.

I already have, you just keep going in circles. See post 76. Your claim is that "Planned Parenthood has lost a layer of insulation from official inquiry" because of Dobbs. And you then say that layer of insulation is "access to federal courts." But not once do you explain in what scenarios you think access was lost.

Explain in what scenarios you think access to federal courts was lost, and cite the portion of Dobbs that supports that claim. Otherwise you aren't even articulating an argument, let alone defending one.