The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.

[Lursa]

No need. Any honest and informed person knows that the SCOTUS has many times established unenumerated rights that states cannot violate.

Well yes they have but if you look at this list, obviously other SCOTUS benches can overturn them Esp. the justices that lied about respecting settled law and precedent just so they could clinch the nomination.

• right to an abortion based on right to privacy[ii].​

• right to choose and follow a profession[iii];​

• right to attend and report on criminal trials[iv];​

• right to receive equal protection not only from the states but also from the federal government[v];​

• right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime[vi];​

• right to associate with others[vii];​

• right to privacy[viii];​

• right to travel within the United States[ix];​

• right to marry or not to marry[x];​

• right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]​

• right to educate one’s children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state[xii];​

• right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii];​

• right to use the federal courts and other governmental institutions and to urge others to use these processes to protect their interests[xiv];​

• right to retain American citizenship, despite even criminal activities, until explicitly and voluntarily renouncing it[xv];​

link​

OTOH, even as implied here, a right to abortion can be settled on other Const rights, rather than 'privacy'...as RGB supported. But the justices wont address it...RvW ignored it too. That was RGB's complaint, or one of them. And that's why no state has made having an abortion a criminal act...they dont want that to undergo Const. scrutiny, even with this ****ed up bench.

 

[Individual]

Absolutely correct. It's a state issue, not a federal issue, and that state can certainly choose that.

It's a Rights issue, which IMO makes it a Federal issue, pretty much the same as slavery was.
Government, at no level should have any voice in a Woman's decision relative to an unborn within HER body, and ONLY post birth of a healthy newborn does/should government begin to share a protective responsibility of a new citizen.

 

[Lursa]

So you are wrong that the federal government does not have the power to keep states from restrictiing abortion. Or from deciding "when life begins".

Read posts 2304 and 2306. RvW was about states denying women safer healthcare, a safer procedure. The unborn have no federal legal status nor did SCOTUS (then or now) recognize any for them. They just refused a case last week about that (cowardly IMO but God knows what travesty this bench would come up with.)

The federal govt is obligated to protect women and our rights...it has no such obligation to the unborn and any state laws that try to protect the unborn life that violate women's Const rights or federal law would be overruled in federal court. Hence...no states have made having an abortion a crime.

 

[Individual]

Choice until the third trimester then health of the mother.

Choice until birth of a confirmed healthy child has been recorded as a new governed member of our society.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Choice until the third trimester then health of the mother.

Or no abortions after a heartbeat unless rape, incest or verified health of the mother. I like the life choice much better and so do most Americans. Really it's just that simple.

 

[Gordy327]

Or no abortions after a heartbeat unless rape, incest or verified health of the mother. I like the life choice much better and so do most Americans. Really it's just that simple.

What is the legal or rational justification to prohibit abortion after a heartbeat?

 

[Individual]

Or no abortions after a heartbeat unless rape, incest or verified health of the mother. I like the life choice much better and so do most Americans. Really it's just that simple.

Being a male, you will never be in a position of needing to make a choice, and were you a Woman you would retain your Right to make the "life" choice.
Childbirth, IMO, is a sovereign Right of each individual Woman to choose, based on reasons unquestionable by government, other individuals or groups of individuals, and least of all.... men.

 

[NatMorton]

Oops, wrong again. That's exactly what it makes it. Read your constitution that you like to cite.

And there are many others that have not been overturned.

Yes, the SCOTUS is endowed, by the constitution, with the power to interpret the constitution. Yes, this can include enshrining rights and restricting the States' ability to impinge upon them by any process.

You just aren't going to talk your way around that, sorry.

And correct interpretation means that SCOTUS can’t act on matters where they lack authority. That’s is why Dobbs is legitimate case law where Roe never was.

 

[NatMorton]

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Seems pretty unequivocal to me.

IMO, it seems that way because, like so many on the left, you care more about your preferred political outcomes than you do the legitimate process of making the law as prescribed by the Constitution or even by basic democratic standards.

The words you keep ignoring in that passage are "under this Constitution." It begs the question "what is not under this Constitution." Your argument equates to nothing, which is nonsense. If that were the case, no one would have bothered to write or ratify the 10th and the above statement would have a period after the word "Equity."

I suggest you read up on the framework of checks and balances those who ratified the original Constitution sought to create. Here's a start, emphasis added:

TENTH AMENDMENT
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

ANNOTATIONS

“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”1 “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”

Source: https://law.justia.com/constitution...mendment was intended,States or to the people.

 

[NatMorton]

I never claimed you said a state was obligated to adopt your preferred definition. What I said was; using the word "other" doesn't fool anyone into thinking you are not talking about the fetus and abortion.

It wasn't an attempt to fool, and the fetus was exactly whom I meant when I said "other." In some states, a fetus is an "other." In other states, not. I have not said which I prefer.

""I have a right to liberty and as well as do you. Neither of us can, in the process of exercising that liberty, harm another. Your problem is that you have an intolerant view toward how others define “another.”post #1666 by NatMorton on this thread.

Translating that sentence: You and a female poster have a right to liberty but neither of you can use that liberty to abort a fetus in states where the fetus has rights. Since you are male you are speaking only of how the female poster may use her liberty and she may not use it to abort a fetus. Then you blame her for being intolerant of your definition of another for fetus. If you believe you are not saying women cannot abort then explain what you do mean rather stating "You're wrong, but I'l leave you to figure out why"

Fixed it for you by adding the full (and correct) intent. I am making that statement as a matter of fact, not as a matter of policy advocacy.

Per my earlier post, have you yet rationalized why I'm not supporting a national ban on abortion?

 

[NatMorton]

It's a Rights issue, which IMO makes it a Federal issue, pretty much the same as slavery was.
Government, at no level should have any voice in a Woman's decision relative to an unborn within HER body, and ONLY post birth of a healthy newborn does/should government begin to share a protective responsibility of a new citizen.

No, your criterion is wrong. Simply declaring something "a right" doesn't make it a federal issue.

By way of example, healthcare is not a Constitutionally enumerated right. That doesn't mean a state cannot create a right to healthcare within its jurisdiction. But it also means the federal government, including SCOTUS, cannot compel a state to defend healthcare as a right. The same is true for abortion. Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to establish a national right to abortion, as Roe attempted to do. Yet states are free to enact abortion rights within their own borders.

 

[Josie]

If a human gives nothing to society, should they be able to be legally killed?

You said it did, though. You value people who provide something to society.

We're not talking about all killing -- murder. Should murder sentences be on a sliding scale based on how "valuable" the human being was to society?

@Irredentist ?

 

[Cordelier]

IMO, it seems that way because, like so many on the left, you care more about your preferred political outcomes than you do the legitimate process of making the law as prescribed by the Constitution or even by basic democratic standards.

The words you keep ignoring in that passage are "under this Constitution." It begs the question "what is not under this Constitution." Your argument equates to nothing, which is nonsense. If that were the case, no one would have bothered to write or ratify the 10th and the above statement would have a period after the word "Equity."

I suggest you read up on the framework of checks and balances those who ratified the original Constitution sought to create. Here's a start, emphasis added:



Source: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-10/01-reserved-powers.html#:~:text=“The Tenth Amendment was intended,States or to the people.

Are you freaking kidding me?!? Have you even read Dobbs? Alito's whole opinion is about putting forward his preferred political outcome.

Putting forward your preferred political outcome is what causes you to ignore what is blatantly obvious to everyone else here - the plain text meaning of Article III §2. It's perfectly clear and unequivocal that ALL cases arising under the Constitution are to be decided by the judiciary. The text of the Constitution is the same for all of us, whether we're left, right, or somewhere in between. It's about as unbiased a source as you're ever likely to find in today's world. You don't get to have your own separate interpretation of it just because it doesn't adhere to your preferred political outcome.

You ask what doesn't arise from under the Constitution. Well, plenty of things. Some of them are listed in the remainder of Article III §2:

• the Laws of the United States
• Treaties made, or which shall be made
• all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls
• all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction
• Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party
• Controversies between two or more States
• Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State
• Controversies between Citizens of different States
• Controversies between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States
• Controversies between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

And those are just the purview of the Federal judiciary. There is a wide field of State judicial jurisdiction that has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional Law. Open your eyes and acknowledge reality for a change.

 

[Individual]

No, your criterion is wrong. Simply declaring something "a right" doesn't make it a federal issue.

By way of example, healthcare is not a Constitutionally enumerated right. That doesn't mean a state cannot create a right to healthcare within its jurisdiction. But it also means the federal government, including SCOTUS, cannot compel a state to defend healthcare as a right. The same is true for abortion. Nothing in the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to establish a national right to abortion, as Roe attempted to do. Yet states are free to enact abortion rights within their own borders.

So you feel State governments have Rights greater than an individual Woman over the what is within HER body? And from where is that Right derived by a State government?

 

[NatMorton]

So you feel State governments have Rights greater than an individual Woman over the what is within HER body? And from where is that Right derived by a State government?

It depends on what right the state government has defined. Generally speaking, where states define harm to another, yes, a state law can and often does superseded even a federally protected right. To repeat an example I used earlier, if a federally protected right always trumped a state law, then state-level libel and slander laws would be null and void since anyone accused of either would simply make a First Amendment defense.

It is well understood that you can be legally prevented from harming another even if the harm stems from you exercising a federally protected right. In states where a fetus is defined as a person, or at least enough of a person to be in possession of a right to life, a woman exercising her Constitutional right to privacy (i.e. the privacy of her person) to the point of having an abortion is harming another person.

 

[Individual]

It depends on what right the state government has defined. Generally speaking, where states define harm to another, yes, a state law can and often does superseded even a federally protected right. To repeat an example I used earlier, if a federally protected right always trumped a state law, then state-level libel and slander laws would be null and void since anyone accused of either would simply make a First Amendment defense.

It is well understood that you can be legally prevented from harming another even if the harm stems from you exercising a federally protected right. In states where a fetus is defined as a person, or at least enough of a person to be in possession of a right to life, a woman exercising her Constitutional right to privacy (i.e. the privacy of her person) to the point of having an abortion is harming another person.

And that is why abortion need to be recognized as a Woman's Right by Federal government, not a State defined privilege differing between States.

 

[weaver2]

It wasn't an attempt to fool, and the fetus was exactly whom I meant when I said "other." In some states, a fetus is an "other." In other states, not. I have not said which I prefer.

"Other" is not used in some states to mean fetus.

Fixed it for you by adding the full (and correct) intent. I am making that statement as a matter of fact, not as a matter of policy advocacy.

You and a female poster have a right to liberty but neither of you can use that liberty to abort a fetus in states where the fetus has rights.
No state gives the fetus personhood "rights". States ban abortion but they have not conferred rights.

Bans Abortion by Establishing Fetal Personhood
State Legislation

Introduced	2
Passed One Chamber	0
Passed Legislature	0
Enacted	0
Vetoed	0

State legislation tracker

www.guttmacher.org

Per my earlier post, have you yet rationalized why I'm not supporting a national ban on abortion?

What ever it is I'm sure it is deeply buried in clever semantics.

 

[Lursa]

Who says? What authority claims that, that Americans are obligated to follow?

@Josie?

 

[Lursa]

Link to source or actual copyright info is required.

@Josie?

 

[Lursa]

Correct, they do not have a right to bodily autonomy or any other rights per the federal govt.

@Josie? Agree or disagree?

 

[Galactic Spin]

And correct interpretation means that SCOTUS can’t act on matters where they lack authority.

You are wrong about where they lack authority. As the entire history of the court shows.

 

[Cordelier]

And that is why abortion need to be recognized as a Woman's Right by Federal government, not a State defined privilege differing between States.

All due respect, the rights game with all it's nuances and variations, is over. Dobbs swept that board clean. Now it's a new game - it's not about rights anymore. Now it's about power - specifically reserved power conferred by the 10th Amendment. I'm fine with that. Whether we're playing chess or checkers, it's the same board either way. It's just a more basic game now.

 

[NatMorton]

"Other" is not used in some states to mean fetus.

Correct. "Other" is a term I used in this conversation. Those states use the term "person."

No state gives the fetus personhood "rights". States ban abortion but they have not conferred rights.

That is complete an utter nonsense. Why do you suppose AL's abortion ban law, called the "Human Life Protection Act" no less, literally defined an unborn human as a "person?"

You're only gaslighting yourself at this point.

 

[NatMorton]

Left-wing logic: An abortion ban law titled "The Human Life Protection Act" and that literally defines a fetus as a "person" does not convey a right to life on the fetus.

 

[Lursa]

Left-wing logic: An abortion ban law titled "The Human Life Protection Act" and that literally defines a fetus as a "person" does not convey a right to life on the fetus.

It may in AL...however if that law, when enacted or enforced, violates federal law or a woman's Constitutional rights, it can be challenged in federal court and overturned. But you already know that.

Why doesnt AL make having an abortion...murdering the unborn with its 'right to life'...a crime?

I'm expecting "crickets".