Abortion: What is wrong with letting the States decide?

[Vidi]

Roe v Wade is a bad decision and everyone knows it.

Based on what facts of law?

Just because some corrupt judges made a stupid decision doesnt mean it's a civil liberty. Nor does it justify abortion.

What evidence do you have any of the justices on the Roe Court’s majority were ‘corrupt’?

And the issue didn’t concern abortion comprehensively, the issue was the right to privacy, as acknowledge in Griswold and reaffirmed in Casey. The right to privacy as codified by the 4th Amendment is indeed a civil liberty, it’s been subject to exhaustive judicial review by both Federal courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, it is acknowledged by jurists as settled and accepted law.

Certainly any judicial ‘errors’ or ‘corruption’ would be discovered by now.

Cmon Clay, dont you know? Any decision that doesnt fit fully into his worldview was obviously a bad one and anyone who disagrees is obviously corrupt.

If she doesnt float, she isnt a witch, see?

 

[Vidi]

It would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. One’s civil liberties are not determined by his state of residence; one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.

Yes they are. How do you think prohibition happened?

And why do you think a Constitutional Amendment was needed to justify Prohibition?
Because regulating the consumption of alcohol, wasn't a power granted by the Constitution. The 18th amendment gave it that power. Until then, that power laid with the states.

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.

It seems to me that without an amendment banning abortion, the Federal government cannot legislate for or against abortion. It is not an "enumerated power", thus all standing to regulate it falls to the states

Hence, the Republicans support of the Personhood Amendments.

 

[Noomi]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

What right does someone have to decide whether another person can have an abortion or not?

 

[manifold]

It would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. One’s civil liberties are not determined by his state of residence; one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.

Yes they are. How do you think prohibition happened?

And why do you think a Constitutional Amendment was needed to justify Prohibition?
Because regulating the consumption of alcohol, wasn't a power granted by the Constitution. The 18th amendment gave it that power. Until then, that power laid with the states.

And why do you think a constitutional amendment was not needed to justify prohibition of many drugs? Consumption of drugs isn't a power granted by the Constitution either.

 

[manifold]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

What right does someone have to decide whether another person can have an abortion or not?

I don't believe anyone does, however, the reasoning used by pro-lifers really isn't that difficult to understand. They believe that 'abortion' is a euphemism for premeditated murder of the innocent, and certainly you wouldn't argue that anybody possesses that right. We might disagree with them, but if enough people truly felt that way then banning abortion is no more draconian or authoritarian than criminalizing drugs or mandating health insurance.

 

[Paulie]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

While not specifically enumerated, it is covered by the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. If left to the states, it would also open up a big can of worms. What would happen if a woman in a no abortion state left to get an abortion in another state. Would she be allowed to leave the state to get an abortion? If yes, would she be charged with a crime if she returned? Would a miscarriage be investigated as a possible homicide? Would women be put under house arrest if pregnant? Would smoking or drinking while pregnant be a crime?

None of those are any different in nature whether abortion is legal anywhere or not.

 

[Ravi]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

Because the state, like the federal government, must show a compelling reason to deny someone a civil right (in this case, dominion over one's body). There is no compelling reason for the state to force a woman to be an incubator for a fetus she does not want.

 

[Paulie]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

Because the state, like the federal government, must show a compelling reason to deny someone a civil right (in this case, dominion over one's body). There is no compelling reason for the state to force a woman to be an incubator for a fetus she does not want.

Rav we obviously haven't had the civil right of dominion over our own bodies for a long time, or we wouldn't be prohibited from putting certain things into them.

 

[Valerie]

The law does not judge whether life begins when, but draws a reasonable line at "viability" after the first trimester while prioritizing Citizen interest of personal privacy from overbearing Government intrusion.

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.


However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.






Roe v. Wade, controversial when released in January 1973, remains one of the most intensely debated Supreme Court decision today. In no other case has the Court entertained so many disputes around ethics, religion, and biology, and then so definitively ruled on them all. To the political Right, critics accuse the Court in Roe of legalizing the murder of human life with flimsy constitutional justifications. To the Left, critics maintain that Roe was poorly reasoned and caused an unnecessary political backlash against abortion rights. Defenders of the decision, however, argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

 

[Ravi]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

Because the state, like the federal government, must show a compelling reason to deny someone a civil right (in this case, dominion over one's body). There is no compelling reason for the state to force a woman to be an incubator for a fetus she does not want.

Rav we obviously haven't had the civil right of dominion over our own bodies for a long time, or we wouldn't be prohibited from putting certain things into them.

True enough, but that is unconstitutional as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Polk]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

The really interesting part is how many states there are that are abortion friendly, yet consider fetal homicide to be murder if one murders a pregnant woman. See CA for a perfect example.

One could point out how that's interesting in the other direction: most people who are opposed to abortion do so on Biblical grounds, but the punishment in the Bible for causing a woman to have a miscarriage is not death. Since so many things are punishable by death, that's a pretty strong clue the author did not consider a fetus to be (fully) human.

 

[Polk]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

It would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. One’s civil liberties are not determined by his state of residence; one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.

Lofty language, but quite irrelevant. As previously mentioned, state laws vary widely regarding a host of related issues. Why is abortion different, other than one of the worst reasoned SCOTUS decisions since "separate but equal?" Since when is infanticide a "civil liberty?" (Read the Hippocratic Oath.)

That assumes he accepts your premise that abortion is "infanticide".

 

[jwoodie]

It would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. One’s civil liberties are not determined by his state of residence; one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.

Lofty language, but quite irrelevant. As previously mentioned, state laws vary widely regarding a host of related issues. Why is abortion different, other than one of the worst reasoned SCOTUS decisions since "separate but equal?" Since when is infanticide a "civil liberty?" (Read the Hippocratic Oath.)

That assumes he accepts your premise that abortion is "infanticide".

OK, let's start with "partial birth" abortions. Do you consider that infanticide? Please explain EXACTLY where you draw the line (e.g., if the umbilical cord is still attached or not yet breathing?). You cannot and will not, because it exposes the illegitimacy of your position. Your defense of Roe v. Wade (universally acknowledged to be a political opinion rather than sound legal reasoning) as Constitutional Law is as preposterous as defending the Separate But Equal Doctrine. Constitutional Amendments are to be approved by 3/4 of the States, not nine political hacks.

 

[martybegan]

No it wouldn't. Abortion isnt a civil liberty.

Roe vs Wade says that a womans right to privacy is violated by States prohibitions on abortion.

Until SCOTUS overrules Roe vs Wade ( which it could very soon ) it IS protected under the 14th amendment. Period.

Roe v Wade is a bad decision and everyone knows it. Just because some corrupt judges made a stupid decision doesnt mean it's a civil liberty. Nor does it justify abortion.

While I personally would not vote to outlaw abortion in my state (I live in NY so it wont happen anyway) I agree 100% with the above statement. Roe v. Wade was a terrible decsion, which basically froze the abortion debate to the current status we have today.

 

[martybegan]

Yes they are. How do you think prohibition happened?

And why do you think a Constitutional Amendment was needed to justify Prohibition?
Because regulating the consumption of alcohol, wasn't a power granted by the Constitution. The 18th amendment gave it that power. Until then, that power laid with the states.

And why do you think a constitutional amendment was not needed to justify prohibition of many drugs? Consumption of drugs isn't a power granted by the Constitution either.

and yet there is no language saying that states cannot regulate/ban medical procedures like abortion, yet somehow the SC "found" some way to prevent legistatures from doing just that.

Think about a court decsion that, using the same logic as Roe v. Wade, stated that the government cannot regulate or ban people from using drugs due to a right to privacy. It wouldnt make any sense.

 

[Noomi]

Lofty language, but quite irrelevant. As previously mentioned, state laws vary widely regarding a host of related issues. Why is abortion different, other than one of the worst reasoned SCOTUS decisions since "separate but equal?" Since when is infanticide a "civil liberty?" (Read the Hippocratic Oath.)

That assumes he accepts your premise that abortion is "infanticide".

OK, let's start with "partial birth" abortions. Do you consider that infanticide? Please explain EXACTLY where you draw the line (e.g., if the umbilical cord is still attached or not yet breathing?). You cannot and will not, because it exposes the illegitimacy of your position. Your defense of Roe v. Wade (universally acknowledged to be a political opinion rather than sound legal reasoning) as Constitutional Law is as preposterous as defending the Separate But Equal Doctrine. Constitutional Amendments are to be approved by 3/4 of the States, not nine political hacks.

PBA's are banned in the US, so why the fuck do you lot keep bringing them up?

 

[manifold]

And why do you think a Constitutional Amendment was needed to justify Prohibition?
Because regulating the consumption of alcohol, wasn't a power granted by the Constitution. The 18th amendment gave it that power. Until then, that power laid with the states.

And why do you think a constitutional amendment was not needed to justify prohibition of many drugs? Consumption of drugs isn't a power granted by the Constitution either.

and yet there is no language saying that states cannot regulate/ban medical procedures like abortion, yet somehow the SC "found" some way to prevent legistatures from doing just that.

Think about a court decsion that, using the same logic as Roe v. Wade, stated that the government cannot regulate or ban people from using drugs due to a right to privacy. It wouldnt make any sense.

Actually, such a decision would make perfect sense, given what is currently written in The US Constitution. And it would then behoove us a nation to decide if we need to remedy that with an Amendment, just like prohibition. Same goes for abortion, if we really want to follow the procedures laid out by the Founding Fathers. But of course that ship sailed eons ago so now we're stuck trying to whip up a batch of lemonade.

 

[JWBooth]

The left hates the notion because it does not set a statist, nationwide standard imposed from D.C.
The right hates the notion because it does not set a statist, nationwide standard imposed from D.C.

 

[martybegan]

And why do you think a constitutional amendment was not needed to justify prohibition of many drugs? Consumption of drugs isn't a power granted by the Constitution either.

and yet there is no language saying that states cannot regulate/ban medical procedures like abortion, yet somehow the SC "found" some way to prevent legistatures from doing just that.

Think about a court decsion that, using the same logic as Roe v. Wade, stated that the government cannot regulate or ban people from using drugs due to a right to privacy. It wouldnt make any sense.

Actually, such a decision would make perfect sense, given what is currently written in The US Constitution. And it would then behoove us a nation to decide if we need to remedy that with an Amendment, just like prohibition. Same goes for abortion, if we really want to follow the procedures laid out by the Founding Fathers. But of course that ship sailed eons ago so now we're stuck trying to whip up a batch of lemonade.

Yes, the lack of political will to push through amendments does put a crimp in the system the consitution set up. I guess there is such polarization on so many issues that getting an amendment through would be next to impossible.

On the other hand, if we let these issues be decided by state, then each state could decided what they want, and the issues would probably be solved to the point that a national amendment could be seen as a possibility.

You know what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned, most of the south would place tough restrictions on abortion, and most of the coasts would pass laws protecting it.

One thing I would want clarified though would be a restriction on laws punishing people for doing something in another state that was banned in your own state. I think the federal regulation on interstate commerce would preclude states from doing that.

 

[Ravi]

The left hates the notion because it does not set a statist, nationwide standard imposed from D.C.
The right hates the notion because it does not set a statist, nationwide standard imposed from D.C.

Why would you support a government forcing a woman to incubate a fetus against her will?