Protests In Response To Roe v Wade Being Overturned

[Lursa]

… and this.




Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/healt...week-abortion-ban-can-take-effect-court-rules

And yet, it doesnt specify that it's recognizing any rights for the unborn. If it had, you would have quoted it.

There's plenty of legislation protecting endangered species and forests and coral reefs where the state also has a legitimate interest in “respecting and preserving life.” I dont know of any case where they recognize rights for coral, trees, bald eagles, fish, etc. Do you?

 

[weaver2]

What do you then believe is the state’s expressed compelling interest in superseding a woman’s right to privacy in these cases?

I believe that the state has a vested interest after viability in protecting the health of the mother and the fetus so that a healthy child is born. However, I don't believe that the state has a right to interfere, even after viability, in decisions about the pregnancy between the doctor and the mother.

 

[Lursa]

What do you then believe is the state’s expressed compelling interest in superseding a woman’s right to privacy in these cases?

You know, you find the 'state's compelling interest' in the unborn a major focus of your abortion arguments.

Here's some other food for thought. Please read it carefully and consider the words as written.

13th Amendment:​

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."​

"Compelling state's interest?" compelling the woman without her consent, to serve the state's interest.​

​

Look at the wording...if you are forcing women to comply with a state's interest...what else is that? To risk their lives, their health without their consent, for the state?​

Also, if a state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn, why doesn’t it have to do the same when people refuse life-saving surgery/treatment?

Hospitals/doctors cannot compel people to have those procedures or treatments.

 

[NatMorton]

I believe that the state has a vested interest after viability in protecting the health of the mother and the fetus so that a healthy child is born. However, I don't believe that the state has a right to interfere, even after viability, in decisions about the pregnancy between the doctor and the mother.

I’m not asking you what you think their compelling interest should be. I asking you what they — the state — thinks is their compelling interest when they enact abortion restrictions.

 

[weaver2]

I’m not asking you what you think their compelling interest should be. I asking you what they — the state — thinks is their compelling interest when they enact abortion restrictions.

You asked me, "What do you then believe is the state’s expressed compelling interest in superseding a woman’s right to privacy in these cases?"

I believe the state's compelling interest is in making sure the child is healthy.

I cannot tell you what the state thinks is its compelling interest. Each state has a different answer.

 

[NatMorton]

I cannot tell you what the state thinks is its compelling interest.

Yet you tried to do just that in post 173 when you said "None of the states that have banned abortion have laws stating that the fetus is a legal person with a right to life. Their new anti-abortion laws may imply that but they have no laws stating that."

Make up your mind.

 

[choiceone]

No, it only said when states could violate that right and when they could not by establishing a de facto legal definition for when a fetus can acquire a right to life. That is an entirely different statement.

I stand corrected. They indicated that a state had sufficient interest when a fetus has a 50/50 chance of continuing to live if removed from the woman's body. That's a way of saying that, if a fetus doesn't have such a chance, the state might argue that there is an unborn life separate from the woman's, but it can't prove it because they die. It stands short of saying the fetus actually has a right to that life.

Lursa's post that says Roe wasn't about fetuses, but about women and pregnancy is true. Even if you could assert that the embryo/fetus was a person with a right to life and part of her body, you couldn't assert that any person other than the woman had a right to implant into her body without her express consent.

The idea that a non-person has such a right is an insult to every law against rape in all the states and federal law, too.

 

[weaver2]

Yet you tried to do just that in post 173 when you said "None of the states that have banned abortion have laws stating that the fetus is a legal person with a right to life. Their new anti-abortion laws may imply that but they have no laws stating that." Make up your mind.

Having no law stating that the fetus is a legal person is a compelling interest?

 

[Gordy327]

What do you then believe is the state’s expressed compelling interest in superseding a woman’s right to privacy in these cases?

I can't fathom it or why a state should have any interest. I think "state interest" is nothing more than a buzz word to appease anti-abortionists and otherwise BS! "State interest" has not been defined, or why it's an actual interest.

Now operative law in several states completely refutes that assertion.

Cite the specific laws then!

 

[NatMorton]

I stand corrected. They indicated that a state had sufficient interest when a fetus has a 50/50 chance of continuing to live if removed from the woman's body. That's a way of saying that, if a fetus doesn't have such a chance, the state might argue that there is an unborn life separate from the woman's, but it can't prove it because they die. It stands short of saying the fetus actually has a right to that life.

I would word it differently, but that is essentially correct. The problem his, the court had no right to impose that "50/50" standard on any state.

Lursa's post that says Roe wasn't about fetuses, but about women and pregnancy is true. Even if you could assert that the embryo/fetus was a person with a right to life and part of her body, you couldn't assert that any person other than the woman had a right to implant into her body without her express consent.

No, despite the spin, Roe is more about the fetus than the woman. Roe hinges entirely on its implied rule that a fetus can never have a right to live before the third trimester. During the third trimester a state is free to assert the fetus's right to live, which is another way of saying the woman's right to privacy can become secondary in the third trimester. Roe is all about the age of the fetus.

The idea that a non-person has such a right is an insult to every law against rape in all the states and federal law, too.

Again, even Roe said a fetus could have that right in the third trimester. You review a fetus can never have such a right at any time is, frankly, a fringe, minority view.

 

[quip]

I am saying any Constitutional right can be taken away with a large enough majority. You're saying "not without evidence," which taken literally is not true.

No. I'm saying, "not without context". But that's an unimportant side-bar.

I'm not advocating for this. I'm not saying it's likely. I am saying that's how Constitutional rights are both established and repealed, and back to the point, the courts have no business engaging in either activity.

You're moving the goal-post once again. First you claim Roe was overreaching by assigning a right to life (which is a fabrication by you) then you imply Roe invented a constitutional right to abortion, which is false because state anti-abortion laws were interpreted a breach of rights via privacy rights.
It appears your grasping at straws.

No, that makes absolutely no sense. What would have been autocratic is if the Dobbs decision had instead created a federal, fetal right to life. It didn't. Again, Dobbs left the decision to the voting public, and that is what's antithetical to autocracy.

That's disingenuous as we both know that Dobbs' political goal is to ban abortion rights in all of the red states and beyond if possible. There's even non-abortion "originalist" implications threatening established rights indicating it's an obvious political maneuver for far right-wing politics.
However you want to spin it, Dobbs took rights away from the American people and has its aim at more.

 

[NatMorton]

Having no law stating that the fetus is a legal person is a compelling interest?

You're moving the goalposts. I have asserted that states can, and have, establish a fetal right to life. I have not claimed they are "legal persons." (Though that said, there's absolutely no reason why a state could not declare a fetus a legal person with the jurisdiction of state law.)

 

[NatMorton]

I can't fathom it or why a state should have any interest. I think "state interest" is nothing more than a buzz word to appease anti-abortionists and otherwise BS! "State interest" has not been defined, or why it's an actual interest.

Cite the specific laws then!

You can't because you can't get out of your own head. It is possible for you to recognize that there are many who consider a fetus a human life with the same right to live that you possess, and you can still do that without agreeing with them on the point. You just have to move beyond the idea that people are bad or stupid if they disagree with your views.

 

[Irredentist]

You're moving the goalposts. I have asserted that states can, and have, establish a fetal right to life. I have not claimed they are "legal persons." (Though that said, there's absolutely no reason why a state could not declare a fetus a legal person with the jurisdiction of state law.)

Aside from complete impracticality, of course.

 

[NatMorton]

Roe established abortion as constitutionally permissable within the purview and scope of privacy rights.

That is an incomplete summary of Roe to the point of being inaccurate. It wasn't just about making abortion "permissible."

No. I'm saying, "not without context". But that's an unimportant side-bar.

No, no "context" needed. Only the required votes from Congress and the states are needed, independent of context or the motivation for casting those votes.

You're moving the goal-post once again. First you claim Roe was overreaching by assigning a right to life (which is a fabrication by you) then you imply Roe invented a constitutional right to abortion, which is false because state anti-abortion laws were interpreted a breach of rights via privacy rights.
It appears your grasping at straws.

No, the goalposts are where they are and I have fabricated nothing. The Roe decision rests entirely on its implied legal framework for fetal rights, a set of rights the court has no authority to establish.

That's disingenuous as we both know that Dobbs' political goal is to ban abortion rights in all of the red states and beyond if possible. There's even non-abortion "originalist" implications threatening established rights indicating it's an obvious political maneuver for far right-wing politics.
However you want to spin it, Dobbs took rights away from the American people and has its aim at more.

That is nonsense. If the goal of Dobbs majority had been to "ban abortion rights" then they would have done what the Roe majority did: engage in judicial activism by defining a different legal framework for fetal rights, one that established a right to life at conception. They didn't do that; fact, not opinion.

 

[NatMorton]

Aside from complete impracticality, of course.

It would certainly create some problems, but it's entirely do-able, which is my point.

 

[quip]

No, no "context" needed. Only the required votes from Congress and the states are needed, independent of context or the motivation for casting those votes.

Yes, political context is important and inevitable, needed or not.

No, the goalposts are where they are and I have fabricated nothing. The Roe decision rests entirely on its implied legal framework for fetal rights, a set of rights the court has no authority to establish.

In expressing and enforcing the state's constitutional violation of privacy they had complete authority to demonstrate such.

That is nonsense. If the goal of Dobbs majority had been to "ban abortion rights" then they would have done what the Roe majority did: engage in judicial activism by defining a different legal framework for fetal rights, one that established a right to life at conception. They didn't do that; fact, not opinion.

They couldn't justify such a radical move. Plus, Dobbs is a political maneuver, it's broader in scope. Abortion's not the originalist's sole concern.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, political context is important and inevitable, needed or not.

In expressing and enforcing the state's constitutional violation of privacy they had complete authority to demonstrate such.

Nope, they absolutely did not since their ruling was based entirely on the legal framework that asserted a fetus cannot have a right to live before the third trimester. They had no authority to set that standard, period.

They couldn't justify such a radical move. Plus, Dobbs is a political maneuver, it's broader in scope. Abortion's not the originalist's sole concern.

A lack of value Constitutional reasoning certainly didn't stop the Roe majority.

Regardless, Dobbs did not do what you claimed it did; now you're just rationalizing as to why.

 

[quip]

Nope, they absolutely did not since their ruling was based entirely on the legal framework that asserted a fetus cannot have a right to live before the third trimester. They had no authority to set that standard, period.

Again, we've been over and over this. There was no prior right to life for the unborn. No breach of authority to be had...beyond your conjecture.

A lack of value Constitutional reasoning certainly didn't stop the Roe majority.

(In your view.) The classic: Two wrongs make a right fallacy. What an amazing rationale!

Regardless, Dobbs did not do what you claimed it did; now you're just rationalizing as to why.

Did women lose the US Constitutional right to abort their pregnancy or not? Rhetorical....Dobbs was the culprit!

 

[NatMorton]

Again, we've been over and over this. There was no prior right to life for the unborn. No breach of authority to be had...beyond your conjecture.

Yes, we've been over it, and you're just not willing to understand it.

Correct, there is no prior, federally protected fetal right to life, but that is not the point. The point is the court decided on a legal framework for fetal rights and imposed it on all fifty states. What Roe said, in so many words, is that a state was prohibited from declaring a fetal right to life in the first or second trimesters and may declare such a right in the third trimester. The court lacks the authority to impose that standard. And that is why Roe has rightly been tossed on the ash heap.

(In your view.) The classic: Two wrongs make a right fallacy. What an amazing rationale!

This is progress. You're now acknowledging at least Roe was wrongly decided.

Did women lose the US Constitutional right to abort their pregnancy or not? Rhetorical....Dobbs was the culprit!

They never had that right. They did lose the de facto right created by Roe, but as the right was never legitimately codified, then losing it is exactly what should have happened.

Courts don't create Constitutional rights. Congress and states do.

 

[Gordy327]

You can't because you can't get out of your own head. It is possible for you to recognize that there are many who consider a fetus a human life with the same right to live that you possess, and you can still do that without agreeing with them on the point. You just have to move beyond the idea that people are bad or stupid if they disagree with your views.

What people consider is subjective and emotionally driven. It's also irrelevant. A fetus has no rights and none which are recognized by either the states or federal government. It's that simple.

 

[NatMorton]

A fetus has no rights and none which are recognized by either the states or federal government. It's that simple.

That is your opinion, but how do we know it's not irrelevant, subjective, emotional drivel?

You need to let go of your intolerance. Not everyone defines human life as you do.

And your assertions that no state recognizes a right to fetal life is simply (and utterly) false. Most states did even under Roe for fetuses in the third trimester, and now many states are moving that back into the second and first trimesters. It's that simple.

 

[Gordy327]

That is your opinion, but how do we know it's not irrelevant, subjective, emotional drivel?

Because it's a fact. By all means, cited any state or federal law which recognizes and specifies rights for the unborn!

You need to let go of your intolerance. Not everyone defines human life as you do.

I am going by legal definitions.

And your assertions that no state recognizes a right to fetal life is simply (and utterly) false. Most states did even under Roe for fetuses in the third trimester, and now many states are moving that back into the second and first trimesters. It's that simple.

Still waiting for you to cite the laws stating a fetus has rights!

 

[quip]

. The court lacks the authority to impose that standard.

By what precedent, rule or law?

This is progress. You're now acknowledging at least Roe was wrongly decided.

Well, progress of a sort. Check the parentheses and/or learn to read.

They never had that right. They did lose the de facto right created by Roe, but as the right was never legitimately codified, then losing it is exactly what should have happened.

Courts don't create Constitutional rights. Congress and states do.

Opinion/Conjecture

 

[NatMorton]

Because it's a fact. By all means, cited any state or federal law which recognizes and specifies rights for the unborn!

Every state law that prohibits a woman from exercising an abortion-on-demand is a state asserting a fetal right to life (there is no other compelling interest for denying the woman her Constitutional right to privacy).

Here you go: https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/

I am going by legal definitions.

No, you're not. You going by your defintion.

Still waiting for you to cite the laws stating a fetus has rights!

See above.