Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law

[Dittohead not!]

I was talking about the stated goal.

Clearly, if that was actually the stated goal, they would have implemented different requirements.

It's not a stated goal. That would be unconstitutional. It's merely an actual goal.

 

[The Mark]

It's not a stated goal. That would be unconstitutional. It's merely an actual goal.

Right, which is why they SAID they were doing it to improve health care.

 

[AGENT J]

I'll repeat it for ya slow

Facts have been presented. Now please comprehend, we are waiting..........................................

:cuckoo:

Facts> than your posted lies
Now please support your claims, we are waiting........
opcorn2:

 

[ChezC3]

So, you can't prove it. I understand and accept your surrender.

So, you can't understand the simplest of instruction. I accept your limitations.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Right, which is why they SAID they were doing it to improve health care.

Exactly.

There is often a large gap between what someone says they want to do and what they actually want to do.

 

[danarhea]

Where can I find this business about undue burden in the constitution? Does the constitution go over how you determine such a thing?

Where does it say in the Constitution that government is allowed to stop a woman from getting an abortion, if she chooses to get one?

 

[danarhea]

You should care. He's the one who's going to hold court at the Judgment, and not only for the abortionists, but for those who support them.

 

[TheGoverness]

View attachment 67203667

That's ****ing hilarious, D.

 

[SDET]

Where does it say in the Constitution that government is allowed to stop a woman from getting an abortion, if she chooses to get one?

See underlined: The child is being deprived of it's life.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[minnie616]

See underlined: The child is being deprived of it's life.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Did you miss the word person?

The unborn are not persons under the US code.

The unborn were never counted in US census.

Roe v Wade rejected the fetal right to life argument.

 

[SDET]

Did you miss the word person?

The unborn are not persons under the US code.

The unborn were never counted in US census.

Roe v Wade rejected the fetal right to life argument.

Roe v Wade was policy cut from whole cloth: legislation from the bench.

 

[Deuce]

See underlined: The child is being deprived of it's life.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The state isn't depriving a person anything in an abortion. It's not a state action.

 

[Logicman]

View attachment 67203667

Looks like it was Satan who flipped you off, LOL.

https://www.gty.org/resources/bible...tan-called-the-prince-of-the-power-of-the-air

 

[Dittohead not!]

See underlined: The child is being deprived of it's life.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A fetus is not born or naturalized anywhere.

 

[minnie616]

Roe v Wade was policy cut from whole cloth: legislation from the bench.

And you are mistaken.

There were several cases regarding the right to privacy which set the precedence for the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v Wade.

Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

 

[ajn678]

Did you miss the word person?

The unborn are not persons under the US code.

The unborn were never counted in US census.

Roe v Wade rejected the fetal right to life argument.

He also missed the word born or naturalized.

 

[JumpinJack]

Read more @: Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law
:applaud:applaudA huge win for women's healthcare! These laws were nothing but a sham that were passed to shut down many of the states abortion clinics. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Good. This was just a ploy to get rid of one's legal right to obtain an abortion. Louisiana official even said the S.Ct. decision won't affect Louisiana's laws because "our pro-life laws are different from Texas'." He admitted the purpose of the laws was for the pro-life political position and against a person's legal abortion rights.