Seeing as how support for abortion varies greatly from one state to another, it seems like precisely the kind of issue that should be left up to them.
Yes, they are. Arguably only more so.Neither of these conditions are applicable when the matter is one of life and death.
Yes, that is what the debate is about in some respects. It certainly was when it came to Roe, i.e. whether one group's preferred policies on abortion can be imposed on all 50 states via extra-Constitutional means.Which is ultimately what the debate about abortion is, especially from the prolife side, which is why we've already seen plenty of noise about punishing cross state abortion efforts.
Ah, but we do have the death penalty in some states but not others.No, it wouldn't be. The same reason we shouldn't allow state's to say "it's okay to shoot people with a shotgun on fridays" and defens it because of "state's rights" or "federalism".
The very idea that the left needs to take back control of the Constitution implies they don't like the Constitution. For instance, they want to ban personal ownership of firearms even though the Constitution specifically gives that right to the people. The left doesn't agree, so therefore they need to take control. In other words impose their crazy left wing socialist, marxist views on the country. They want abortion on demand and without any restriction. How do we know this? They say so every time the debate of come restrictions comes up. A woman's right to determine for herself. In other words if they choose to end the life of a baby in the womb, that's OK. It's not OK but they have been told it's not even a human being so no problem. When offered compromise to set a date limiting the time period in which an abortion may take place, even when the compromise is including rape, incest, mothers health and fetal abnormality they balk at these because they don't want any restrictions. Yet, nowhere, not ever, does the Constitution mention abortion or the right of anyone to take the life of a baby in the womb. But, they want to take control of the Constitution because the court isn't ruling correctly. Well, the job is to determine what the Constitution actually says and not what a bunch of left wing radicals wish it meant because of some fictitious notion of what American history is .
Rights are either explicitly spelled out or they belong to the states and the people to determine. Abortion isn't mentioned leaving it to be determined by the states, which is what Dobbs does. That wasn't what they wanted and they scream that rights were taken away. Problem is the right was never given in the Constitution but by a Supreme Court that misinterpreted the Constitution by saying is said or meant something it simply doesn't say.
Now the states, which clearly have differing views on abortion, have the clear authority to determine in their state what the law with be governing abortion. That too is not good enough, the states shouldn't get to decide. Of course when it comes to gun rights the left is willing to ignore the Constitution which clearly gives that as a right of the people.
Yes, they are. Arguably only more so.
Ah, but we do have the death penalty in some states but not others.
We'll deal with criminal behavior when and where it happens. I'm not willing to suspend the Constitution because some people are afraid of what might happen if we maintain a state's limited authority to govern itself through a democratic process.Not in any sensible manner.
Letting states, especially when they neighbor one another and are so deeply intertwined, have such radical differences in perceptions of life and death is asking for a legal and social nightmare.
How long before the first Planned Parenthood located on the border between a blue and red states gets firebombed?
Which is why a fetus, alive or not, has no right to life. The growth of a fetus is harmful, painful, and potentially deadly to a woman. Therefore she has every right to defend herself from it by using violent force if necessary regardless of whether it is alive or not.Each individual can only exercise their right to decide -- or any other right -- so long as they do not harm another while exercising that right.
This is because during the third trimester a woman's pregnancy is very overtly obvious. You don't need her or her doctor to tell you she is pregnant you can see it very clearly.Which, as I say and you folks on the left simply cannot process, is why the abortion debate has little to do with privacy. Even under Roe a woman lost her right to privacy (i.e. to abortion) during the third trimester.
I'm not willing to suspend the Constitution because some people are afraid of what might happen if we maintain a state's limited authority to govern itself through a democratic process.
Simply put, that is your opinion. There are those who have a very different opinion. Our system of government calls on us to settle these differences through a democratic process where majority (sometimes a supermajority) rules. Legally speaking, you're in no position to make the declaration you have made here.Which is why a fetus, alive or not, has no right to life.
This makes absolutely no sense. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy until she's showing?This is because during the third trimester a woman's pregnancy is very overtly obvious. You don't need her or her doctor to tell you she is pregnant you can see it very clearly.
Furthermore, after viability, abortion is usually not significantly more dangerous to the mother than inducing an early pregnancy.
Yes, it does. That's exactly what Roe did.It has nothing to do with suspending the constitution.
Yes, it does. That's exactly what Roe did.
You think that if it gives you comfort.No it didn't. This is a lie propagated by conservatives for any ruling they disagree with
You think that if it gives you comfort.
Why not?That's not really equivalent.
The States are not a political subdivision of the federal government. The States are sovereign, just like the federal government. The US has a dual sovereignty doctrine. The federal government is further restricted to only the specific powers granted to them by the US Constitution. Whereas the States are only prohibited from exercising certain powers by the US Constitution. All other powers that the US Constitution does not specifically prohibit to the States belong to the States, or the people.The same purpose that every administrative subdivision has served since the inception of the concept: ease of administration.
That's not also not entirely relevant. The reason abortion shouldn't be left to the states is letting the constituent states of a Federation have such stark differences in laws is grounds for a political and social nightmare.
You seem to prefer to only observe this issue thought an isolated legal lens rather than the much deeper social matter that it presents.
The States are not a political subdivision of the federal government.
Why not?
No, they are not. The States are sovereign, as I previously posted.The States are an administrative subdivision of the United States. This is the case in every federation.
No, they are not.
Of course it does. If you knew anything about the dual sovereignty doctrine of the US you would know that both the federal and State can charge someone over the exact same crime, and sentence them differently without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, the dual sovereignty doctrine has also been applied to permit successive prosecutions by two States for the same conduct, and to permit a federal prosecution after a conviction in an Indian tribal court for an offense stemming from the same conduct.Yes they are. Sovereignty does not change that.
If States were a political subdivision of the federal government then the federal government can require States to enforce federal law.
They can't, and they never could, because the States are sovereign and not slaves of the federal government as much as you might desire it.
Incorrect on both count. The jurisdiction of the federal government is everything within the borders of the US. However, they are prohibited from interfering with States, including intra-State commerce, elections (except with regard to Congress critters), and they cannot require any State to enforce federal law.They are an administrative subdivision, which is why you are still held to federal law no matter what state you reside it (with uncommon exceptions).
Your inane beliefs of what you think I believe in are irrelevant.
Incorrect on both count.
Your civic illiteracy is showing once again. That's the price you pay for your leftist indoctrination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?