Women's Health Protection Act

[Patriotic Voter]

I'm reading that the far left is looking to revive the Women's Health Protection Act as a first hope to restore a federally protected right to abortion.

Can anyone explain why, if Roe is repealed and this bill is somehow passed, it will not be found unconstitutional?

Abortion rights are in the Constitution.

 

[Nickyjo]

If this the case, is there any justification for the left's hair on fire now?
Not seeing that there is, beyond a life ring for them for the midterms, so AKA emotionally manipulating the electorate rather than reason, as they always they always do.

Yes. Certainly the right never emotionally manipulated the electorate.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Look like that won't be happening under this court.

They actually follow the constitution.

As if.

 

[Jredbaron96]

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.

The fact that Douglas and Blackmun didn't know this isn't our problem.

The fact is that you apparently don't actually know what Roe v Wade said.

Roe's majority opinion was grounded in the right to privacy, not the authority of the Federal Government to enact medical standards or dictate federal oversight to state authority. Roe deliberately side-stepped the issue of personhood by pointing out that there remained (and remains to this day) no scientific or philosophical consensus on when life begins, and rather than try to play scientist or philosopher, the Court opted to instead argue that any interjection of the State into the private medical affairs belonging to a woman and her physician was an overreach of government authority.

 

[NatMorton]

The Act did away with state rules on voting. Wasn’t the point being discussed whether the federal government has the authority to overrule state laws?

State voting laws are not uniform even today. If you doubt this, how do you explain why only some states have voter ID requirements?

 

[NatMorton]

Nope, I'm no tRumpling.

Actually, you are.

 

[NatMorton]

Legal arguments aren't emotional arguments.*

* For adults.

There, fixed it for ya.

 

[NatMorton]

Abortion rights are in the Constitution.

No, they are not, and never have been.

 

[phoenix2020]

LMAO... Afraid to answer the question? Who determines the number of justices on the supreme court?

Since it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, perhaps California now has the right to pass a law that allows it to supply 21 justices to the Supreme Court of the United States? Cool.

 

[NatMorton]

Don't think Congress can pass a law that is beyond the scope of the Judiciary to interpret. Allowing for their separate duties, the Constitution enumerates what is inbounds (and thus out of bounds); it's a single playing field for all three branches of the federal government. Any other arrangement would make absolutely no sense.

 

[Nickyjo]

State voting laws are not uniform even today. If you doubt this, how do you explain why only some states have voter ID requirements?

I was talking about the Voting Rights Act.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The fact is that you apparently don't actually know what Roe v Wade said.

Roe's majority opinion was grounded in the right to privacy, not the authority of the Federal Government to enact medical standards or dictate federal oversight to state authority. Roe deliberately side-stepped the issue of personhood by pointing out that there remained (and remains to this day) no scientific or philosophical consensus on when life begins, and rather than try to play scientist or philosopher, the Court opted to instead argue that any interjection of the State into the private medical affairs belonging to a woman and her physician was an overreach of government authority.

Grounded in a manufactured construct that WO Douglas pulled out of his penubratic ass.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Abortion rights are in the Constitution.

That's funny.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That's funny.

There is nothing funny about repeatedly proven, extremely obvious, totally objective legal facts.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Grounded in a manufactured construct that WO Douglas pulled out of his penubratic ass.

The right to privacy is something that has been understood by American jurisprudence for decades.

 

[j brown's body]

The federal government (yes, the clownshow in Washington D.C. with head clowns Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Pelosi at center ring) are constantly overstepping their bounds. And the courts are constantly putting them in their place (or were).

That was certainly the case in the early 1930's.

Now that we have justices who will follow the constitution, you can expect to see some of that set back in order.

Who among us doesn't pine to return to a century ago.

Kids working in coal mines is a great way to get ahead in life.

 

[j brown's body]

Have you ever read Roe ????

Talk about stupid, moronic, twisted, disjointed and nonsensical......

The Supreme Court reaffirmed it, twice.

If judges can overturn legal decisions simply because they don't like them, the really has no meaning anymore.

 

[HangLow]

The federal government (yes, the clownshow in Washington D.C. with head clowns Biden, Harris, Schumer, and Pelosi at center ring) are constantly overstepping their bounds. And the courts are constantly putting them in their place (or were).

That was certainly the case in the early 1930's.

Now that we have justices who will follow the constitution, you can expect to see some of that set back in order.

​

 

[reinaert]

Just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean the federal government lacks the authority to overrule state laws regarding that thing. It does this all the time.

Well, the atavistic zealots of the Court are very much gunning for anything administrative. Gorsuch has a special hatred for the currently legal foundations of the EPA or OSHA's rulemaking powers.

 

[NatMorton]

View attachment 67389080​

Senator Charles Schumer "infuriated" by politicians who are not honest? You don't say.