Abortion as a States Rights Issue

A very interesting point, although I have not seen it referred to in court decisions on this subject. Reliance on Roe v. Wade is less convincing since it was based on faulty logic and is, in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor, "on a collision course with itself" (i.e., the safety of having an abortion is overlapping the point of fetal viability). I wonder how the erstwhile defenders of SCOTUS decisions will feel if this case is overturned?

On a practical level, it is not desirable for a large portion of the population to feel that it has been muzzled by a small group of unelected ideologues. Such feelings of injustice can lead to irredeemable divisions in our society and give credibility to the use of force. A little "undue burden" may be a bargain price for avoiding this potentiality.

Casey, not Roe, reflects current jurisprudence concerning privacy rights with regard to abortion; Griswold/Roe/Casey is considered settled law, and the right to privacy fundamental.

Attempts to overturn Griswold/Roe/Casey, therefore, are not an attack on abortion or an effort to outlaw the practice, it’s an attack upon, and effort to destroy, our fundamental rights and liberties.

On any level, with regard to the fundamental workings of our Republic, we are subject to the rule of law, not men. Those who feel they are being ‘muzzled’ or somehow subjected to an ‘injustice’ must understand that government restriction is paramount to a free society, and threatening mob rule no remedy for their frustration.

When the standard of undue burden is applied to the state it places an important, appropriate, and necessary limit to a state’s authority, designed to protect individual liberty from the tyranny of the majority.

What doesn't count and under what circumstances?
As I recall the 10th amendment is still in effect.
You don't have to agree with me or even respect my opinion but the legalities still count.

The 10th Amendment is still in effect, but your understanding of it is incorrect; it doesn’t mean what you indicate, as some sort of ‘authorization’ of the states to ‘nullify’ Federal law, ignore the Federal Constitution, or otherwise ignore rulings made by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., US v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

The 14th Amendment applies due process to the states, both procedural and substantive, establishing a higher standard of judicial review with regard to a given state wishing to limit fundamental rights, such as speech, voting, privacy, and one’s individual liberty overall.
 
I do NOT grant the STATE or the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT thew right to determine what ANY CITIZEN can do with or to his or her own body.

Anybody who does is a freaking tool and a closet facist/

It doesn't get any more obvious than this: if a government thinks it OWNS the right to your body, you live in a fucking POLICE STATE.

Yeah that's right, citizens, THIS nation is, and long has been, a police state.

YOu have to be brain dead not to notice it, too.
 
A very interesting point, although I have not seen it referred to in court decisions on this subject. Reliance on Roe v. Wade is less convincing since it was based on faulty logic and is, in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor, "on a collision course with itself" (i.e., the safety of having an abortion is overlapping the point of fetal viability). I wonder how the erstwhile defenders of SCOTUS decisions will feel if this case is overturned?

On a practical level, it is not desirable for a large portion of the population to feel that it has been muzzled by a small group of unelected ideologues. Such feelings of injustice can lead to irredeemable divisions in our society and give credibility to the use of force. A little "undue burden" may be a bargain price for avoiding this potentiality.

Casey, not Roe, reflects current jurisprudence concerning privacy rights with regard to abortion; Griswold/Roe/Casey is considered settled law, and the right to privacy fundamental.

Attempts to overturn Griswold/Roe/Casey, therefore, are not an attack on abortion or an effort to outlaw the practice, it’s an attack upon, and effort to destroy, our fundamental rights and liberties.

On any level, with regard to the fundamental workings of our Republic, we are subject to the rule of law, not men. Those who feel they are being ‘muzzled’ or somehow subjected to an ‘injustice’ must understand that government restriction is paramount to a free society, and threatening mob rule no remedy for their frustration.

When the standard of undue burden is applied to the state it places an important, appropriate, and necessary limit to a state’s authority, designed to protect individual liberty from the tyranny of the majority.

What doesn't count and under what circumstances?
As I recall the 10th amendment is still in effect.
You don't have to agree with me or even respect my opinion but the legalities still count.

The 10th Amendment is still in effect, but your understanding of it is incorrect; it doesn’t mean what you indicate, as some sort of ‘authorization’ of the states to ‘nullify’ Federal law, ignore the Federal Constitution, or otherwise ignore rulings made by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., US v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

The 14th Amendment applies due process to the states, both procedural and substantive, establishing a higher standard of judicial review with regard to a given state wishing to limit fundamental rights, such as speech, voting, privacy, and one’s individual liberty overall.

But there is still no wording in the document to make abortion a consitutional individual liberty. I wish people were this interpretive when it came to 2nd amendment rights, and hell, the word "arms" is actually in the damn document.
 
I do NOT grant the STATE or the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT thew right to determine what ANY CITIZEN can do with or to his or her own body.

Anybody who does is a freaking tool and a closet facist/

It doesn't get any more obvious than this: if a government thinks it OWNS the right to your body, you live in a fucking POLICE STATE.

Yeah that's right, citizens, THIS nation is, and long has been, a police state.

YOu have to be brain dead not to notice it, too.

Clean debate zone. Name calling is a no-no.

If you feel so strongly about certain medical procedures being consitutional rights, then work to get a "keep off my body" amendment. That would probably also legalize all drug use, mutilating oneself even if you were found to be incompetent, legalize suicide, outlaw any decency statues (if two consenting adults wanted to have sex in a daycare center, this could legalize it, as it is doing something with thier "bodies" after all. ) Of course the points made are exaggerated, but it is the logical extension of a "keep off my body" amendment.

The fact is the states can legislate around medical procedures, unless banned by thier own law, or consitutions, and unless an amendment is made, I see no reason why the feds cannot as well, crappy supreme court decisons not withstanding.
 
A very interesting point, although I have not seen it referred to in court decisions on this subject. Reliance on Roe v. Wade is less convincing since it was based on faulty logic and is, in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor, "on a collision course with itself" (i.e., the safety of having an abortion is overlapping the point of fetal viability). I wonder how the erstwhile defenders of SCOTUS decisions will feel if this case is overturned?

On a practical level, it is not desirable for a large portion of the population to feel that it has been muzzled by a small group of unelected ideologues. Such feelings of injustice can lead to irredeemable divisions in our society and give credibility to the use of force. A little "undue burden" may be a bargain price for avoiding this potentiality.

Casey, not Roe, reflects current jurisprudence concerning privacy rights with regard to abortion; Griswold/Roe/Casey is considered settled law, and the right to privacy fundamental.

Attempts to overturn Griswold/Roe/Casey, therefore, are not an attack on abortion or an effort to outlaw the practice, it’s an attack upon, and effort to destroy, our fundamental rights and liberties.

_______________________________________________________

LOL, I guess we had no "fundamental rights and liberties" prior to 1972. Tell that to the Framers! According to your argument, any attempt to overturn a SCOTUS decision is an attack on the Constitution. What about overturning "Separate But Equal?" Your drivel may provide a pretext for those who would like to rewrite the Constitution as they would like it, but it is sadly deficient to any unbiased observer.
 
The ninth amendment insures the rights not listed in the bill of rights.
The fourth amendment grants rights to privacy and the notion that a persons body is there own.

The 10th amendment states very clearly that if a power is not granted to the feds by the constitution then that power remains with the states and/or to the people.

Where does the constitution give the feds the power over what medical treatment the people can seek?
 
That would make third trimester and partial birth abortions completely illegal. Such a thing as post birth abortion would be unthinkable.

So what's the excuse for legalizing these?

Third trimester abortions ARE illegal. The ONLY time they are legal is when the health of the mother or child is an issue.

Post birth abortion? Infanticide, you mean? Who's advocating for the legalization of that?

No one.
 
The ninth amendment insures the rights not listed in the bill of rights.
The fourth amendment grants rights to privacy and the notion that a persons body is there own.

The 10th amendment states very clearly that if a power is not granted to the feds by the constitution then that power remains with the states and/or to the people.

Where does the constitution give the feds the power over what medical treatment the people can seek?

The bolded makes no sense, as there is no Federal legislation dictating to the people what medial treatment they may or may not seek.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from violating the civil liberties of the citizens of each state; with regard to abortion that would be the right to privacy. State laws placing an undue burden on a woman’s effort to obtain an abortion are consequently un-Constitutional.
 
The ninth amendment insures the rights not listed in the bill of rights.
The fourth amendment grants rights to privacy and the notion that a persons body is there own.

The 10th amendment states very clearly that if a power is not granted to the feds by the constitution then that power remains with the states and/or to the people.

Where does the constitution give the feds the power over what medical treatment the people can seek?

The bolded makes no sense, as there is no Federal legislation dictating to the people what medial treatment they may or may not seek.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from violating the civil liberties of the citizens of each state; with regard to abortion that would be the right to privacy. State laws placing an undue burden on a woman’s effort to obtain an abortion are consequently un-Constitutional.

Abortion is a medical treatment. It should be and is most often performed by a doctor.
The fourteenth amendment only protects the rights already listed in amendments. It doesn't specify anything new. The fourth amendment guarantees personal privacy. The fifth amendment says you can't be made incriminate yourself. The first amendment gives you the right to choose your own morality (religious beliefs) as long as you don't break the law or infringe on the rights of another.

That last line is where the root of this debate always ends up:
"When does an egg and a sperm become a HUMAN life?"
 
That would make third trimester and partial birth abortions completely illegal. Such a thing as post birth abortion would be unthinkable.

So what's the excuse for legalizing these?

Third trimester abortions ARE illegal. The ONLY time they are legal is when the health of the mother or child is an issue.

Post birth abortion? Infanticide, you mean? Who's advocating for the legalization of that?

No one.

Why should third trimester abortions be illegal? Doesn't that violate a woman's "fundamental rights and liberties?" Please explain.
 
REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

Why the fuck would a state have a right to own a woman's uterus?

That makes no sense.

Clean debate zone, Ooh Poo, at least TRY to follow the rules.
 
The question isn't about the woman's body parts - it is about when the parasite inside her becomes a person. People have rights. When the life growing inside the woman become a human it is then protected by the same constitutional rights that we all share.
It then has a right to life.
So the question becomes when does a fetus become a human, a citizen with rights?
 
REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

Why stop at the state level? By the same logic would it not be better to devolve to a county level? Then in Texas the cities like Houston and Dallas can have abortion and Jeff Davis County can outlaw it. Yes in Atlanta, no in the rest of Georgia, and so on. Transportation would be easier. If the purpose is to made abortion a local issue, this would be far superior. But if the purpose is to trap large populous states into an all or nothing choice, we might just as well fight it out on a national level.

The 10th amendment says nothing about counties. That would be dependent upon the state constitutions.
 
REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

Why the fuck would a state have a right to own a woman's uterus?

That makes no sense.

First, it's not the uterus but the fetus contained within. If you give that entity rights, then she can't abort it. That is the discussion.

Second, states were denying women access to abortion for two hundred years until Harry Blackmunn and his wife decided they knew better.
 
The question isn't about the woman's body parts - it is about when the parasite inside her becomes a person. People have rights. When the life growing inside the woman become a human it is then protected by the same constitutional rights that we all share.
It then has a right to life.
So the question becomes when does a fetus become a human, a citizen with rights?

Exactly.

And this was the issue Blackmunn did such a pathetic job of trying to address in Roe.

It really scares me when someone thinks they can play god.
 
REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

federal law trumps state law...

it's not a states' rights issue because the supreme court has set a constitutional standard.

but you and the other righties keep posting this same nonsense.
 
REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

federal law trumps state law...

it's not a states' rights issue because the supreme court has set a constitutional standard.

but you and the other righties keep posting this same nonsense.

Your claim about federal law is the nonsense. That only applies where the federal government has clear juristiction. That is not the case in the abortion argument.

You keep pushing a constitutional standard. You are wrong. They allowed a case. States have been quietly dismantling Roe ever since.

Just like Citizen's United, Roe could go on the scrap heap if the right judges are appointed (pardon the pun). Otherwise the puny little NOW crowd that marches every year to applaud Harry Blackmunn and call for vigilance in "maintaining" their "rights" is huge waste of time and effort...what are they worried about ?
 
Except, kiddo, abortion is not murder.

A more apropos analogy would be that liberals want women to be able to hire assassins to murder their unborn children and have you and I pay for the hit.

murder is a legal term. We as a nation decide what is and what is not murder. And yes, you are right. Our nation has decided that abortion is not murder.

But people could change their mind about that. I don't want to see people brow-beaten, insulted, or tormented. And I don't want to see an end-run around the law. I would like for folks to acknowledge our unborn as human beings who deserve protection under our legal system.

I think abortion is murder everyone deserves to live including the fetus in the womb
 
Except, kiddo, abortion is not murder.

murder is a legal term. We as a nation decide what is and what is not murder. And yes, you are right. Our nation has decided that abortion is not murder.

But people could change their mind about that. I don't want to see people brow-beaten, insulted, or tormented. And I don't want to see an end-run around the law. I would like for folks to acknowledge our unborn as human beings who deserve protection under our legal system.

I think abortion is murder everyone deserves to live including the fetus in the womb
I do not speak on law side, I do not understand law I speak from the humanity side
 
No, actually you speak from a personal side. The personal side acknowledges only that individual, it has no concern or understanding of other persons that are directly involved in the matter. The personal side has a right to choose, it chooses no, then forces its limited-range view on the parties actually involved, removing their right to choice.
 

Forum List

Back
Top