Roe is just the beginning.... Griswold will be next

[Lursa]

No it won’t. Both decisions relied on an enumerated right to equal protection unlike the Roe decision which invented a right to abortion out of whole cloth.

It did no such thing. The decision was that states could not deny women a safer medical procedure. It's much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.

What did they invent? The medical technology? What justification is there that the govt would force women to take a much greater risk when a safer procedure is available? The govt is obligated to protect women and our Constitutional rights. There is no obligation to protect the unborn anywhere.

So women have a right to a safer procedure which happens to be abortion. Would it be ok to deny women the right to have chemotherapy and only offer surgery with a higher risk to health? Why or why not? If you believe there's a distinction, please clarify it.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Part II applies Fourth Amendment doctrine to mandatory ultrasounds as an exemplar of physically intrusive abortion restrictions. This Part argues that, as physical intrusions into a constitutionally protected space, mandatory ultrasounds constitute searches. And because the public interest in these procedures does not outweigh women’s expectation of privacy, they are unreasonable and thus unconstitutional. Additionally, as government-imposed physical contact, mandatory ultrasounds constitute seizures.

In case anyone forgot the Fourth Amendment itself, here it is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by path or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can any anti-choicers name a"probable cause" for requiring a search and seizure of the pregnant woman's body that would be totally reasonable no matter what?

 

[Ug make hammer]

In case anyone forgot the Fourth Amendment itself, here it is:



Can any anti-choicers name a"probable cause" for requiring a search and seizure of the pregnant woman's body that would be totally reasonable no matter what?

I'm getting confused from being in three different abortion threads at the same time. But your question seems to be rhetorical.

The vast majority of abortions are so early that there is no external sign the woman is pregnant, so no I'm not seeing the probable cause to search.

 

[dncc]

That is correct, however, they cannot be created nilly willy, but, rather, have to be deeply rooted in American tradition.

American tradition...

You mean like slavery?

 

[Lursa]

American tradition...

You mean like slavery?

And women as 2nd class citizens, even chattel. The resentment is still clear in some white male rhetoric...complaints about 'feminazis' and still not receiving equal pay for equal work, etc.

 

[HangLow]

I'm sure the 5 justices who signed off on the draft are willing to strike down any law that they are not happy with. Whether anyone cares or follows their rulings because they are clearly a political body at this point is another matter.

​

 

[dncc]

View attachment 67391981​

In my experience, those who quote the "founding fathers" seem to only want to quote the "founding fathers" who agreed with them.

As for the Supreme Court, they are cutting laws to fit now. I hope their tailors can do a good job making their kangaroo suits.... They are still the supreme law of the land and all that...good for them. But their credibility is gone forever. In truth, it really began hemorrhaging for me with Roberts taking the ACA and calling the fine you incur for not buying insurance a tax and--therefore--making it constitutional. If the Congress had called it a "tax", that would have been fine. But...Roberts did. That ain't supposed to happen. Now, of course, had it been called a "tax", it likely would have never passed since that would mean that people who voted for it voted for a new tax.

And, as I've said for a long time on this board, Americans today are not adult enough to bring ourselves to admitting that the costs of goods and services have gone up over the last 30 years or so since we've formally raised taxes. So anything that is called a "tax" is dead on arrival.

 

[Ug make hammer]

In my experience, those who quote the "founding fathers" seem to only want to quote the "founding fathers" who agreed with them.

As for the Supreme Court, they are cutting laws to fit now. I hope their tailors can do a good job making their kangaroo suits....

I wish you would stop playing with that term. Kangaroo courts favor the prosecutor, which isn't relevant at the SC level. The problem with the SC now (and I agree for quite a while now) is that the court favors the party which appointed most of their members (and whether they are the complainant or the defendant.) Perhaps you could use the concept of "capture" to describe the breakdown of the separation of powers.

They are still the supreme law of the land and all that...good for them. But their credibility is gone forever. In truth, it really began hemorrhaging for me with Roberts taking the ACA and calling the fine you incur for not buying insurance a tax and--therefore--making it constitutional. If the Congress had called it a "tax", that would have been fine. But...Roberts did. That ain't supposed to happen. Now, of course, had it been called a "tax", it likely would have never passed since that would mean that people who voted for it voted for a new tax.

It was a fine AND a tax, imo. It recoups losses to the Federal government of citizens who could afford insurance but chose instead to lay back on medicaid if they got seriously sick.

I supported the fine/tax btw. Sometimes citizens need a kick in the pants to do what's good for them. Insurance IS good for them, and the need for it is often not apparent until it's too late.

And, as I've said for a long time on this board, Americans today are not adult enough to bring ourselves to admitting that the costs of goods and services have gone up over the last 30 years or so since we've formally raised taxes. So anything that is called a "tax" is dead on arrival.

So let me get this straight. You supported the fine, but only so long as it's called a fine for not consuming government-mandated services. If it's called a tax you don't support it?

 

[cpwill]

American tradition...

You mean like slavery?

No we amended the constitution explicitly to get rid of that one

 

[Ug make hammer]

No we amended the constitution explicitly to get rid of that one

Don't sugar coat it. The US couldn't amend the constitution that way, because the slaver states would have blocked that in the Senate (and doubly blocked it in the ratification stage.) The US had to fight and beat the slaver states before it was possible to amend.

The war would arguably have been avoided, if only the US constitution was easier to amend. It might have taken more time, but on the other hand it might not have left the scar on the United States which is the South.