Abortion: What is wrong with letting the States decide?

[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.

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

If there is to be a government answer, either way, let it be at a level closest to the people involved.

 

[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?

If there is to be a government answer, either way, let it be at a level closest to the people involved.

The people involved should get to make the decision. Isn't our country more about individual rights than it is about the government legislating morality?

I honestly don't understand how any government at any level can pass laws that force someone to use their body in a manner they don't wish it to be used.

 

[martybegan]

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

If there is to be a government answer, either way, let it be at a level closest to the people involved.

The people involved should get to make the decision. Isn't our country more about individual rights than it is about the government legislating morality?

I honestly don't understand how any government at any level can pass laws that force someone to use their body in a manner they don't wish it to be used.

Its because it is not specifically banned by the consitution as a government action. As such it is open to legislative action, which meets the requirement for due process when restricticting the action of a person.

By your logic we shouldnt be able to imprison someone, even with due process, because we are "using" thier body by placing it in a 8 x 10 cell for x amount of years, making them get old, restricting thier movement. putting them in a possibly dangerous situation.

 

[Ravi]

If there is to be a government answer, either way, let it be at a level closest to the people involved.

The people involved should get to make the decision. Isn't our country more about individual rights than it is about the government legislating morality?

I honestly don't understand how any government at any level can pass laws that force someone to use their body in a manner they don't wish it to be used.

Its because it is not specifically banned by the consitution as a government action. As such it is open to legislative action, which meets the requirement for due process when restricticting the action of a person.

By your logic we shouldnt be able to imprison someone, even with due process, because we are "using" thier body by placing it in a 8 x 10 cell for x amount of years, making them get old, restricting thier movement. putting them in a possibly dangerous situation.

I don't see that as quite the same thing. A government must have a compelling reason to deny someone dominion over their body. There is no compelling reason to force a woman to bear a child.

 

[martybegan]

The people involved should get to make the decision. Isn't our country more about individual rights than it is about the government legislating morality?

I honestly don't understand how any government at any level can pass laws that force someone to use their body in a manner they don't wish it to be used.

Its because it is not specifically banned by the consitution as a government action. As such it is open to legislative action, which meets the requirement for due process when restricticting the action of a person.

By your logic we shouldnt be able to imprison someone, even with due process, because we are "using" thier body by placing it in a 8 x 10 cell for x amount of years, making them get old, restricting thier movement. putting them in a possibly dangerous situation.

I don't see that as quite the same thing. A government must have a compelling reason to deny someone dominion over their body. There is no compelling reason to force a woman to bear a child.

Not in your mind, however to those that see the developing fetus as a seperate independent life, there is compelling reason. Since we decide how to regulate others lives via legislation, if you get enough people who believe this, they will try to pass legislation.

Now the current status is that the supreme court decided the ability to have an abortion prior to a certain date is a consitutional right, something I disagree with. You have not removed, however, the desire of people to legislate abortion to make it more restrictive, or outright illegal. More telling, is that opinions on this have not really changed much in the past few decades, with both sides not being able to really sway the other.

I would think that by letting the states get the issue back, we might be able to solve the issue one way or another, or at least take it of the national stage, allowing us to concentrate on more solvable issues.

I would think giving it back to the states would actually help the abortion rights people, as once people start seeing how the restriction could impact thier owns lives, both directly, or indirectly if restrictive abortion laws become a reason for migration from a given state.

 

[Truthmatters]

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 some of the states would act like afganistan towards womens rights

 

[martybegan]

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 some of the states would act like afganistan towards womens rights

Then people who didnt like it could move out of those states. Good old voting with your feet.

If mississippi wants to ban abortions, why should people in New York or California give a rats ass?

 

[JWBooth]

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 some of the states would act like afganistan towards womens rights

Then people who didnt like it could move out of those states. Good old voting with your feet.

If mississippi wants to ban abortions, why should people in New York or California give a rats ass?

If the voters of California wanted to make them free and available to any adult, anytime, no questions asked, that should be up to them, just as if the voters of Mississippi wanted to end them for any reason.

 

[AmyNation]

Because some of the states would act like afganistan towards womens rights

Then people who didnt like it could move out of those states. Good old voting with your feet.

If mississippi wants to ban abortions, why should people in New York or California give a rats ass?

If the voters of California wanted to make them free and available to any adult, anytime, no questions asked, that should be up to them, just as if the voters of Mississippi wanted to end them for any reason.

Mississippi has already effectively ended abortion in their state. States may not be able to ban abortion, but they do still have the power to force women to give birth. Not only can they toss up crazy red tape laws that drive abortion providers to close, but they can and have made it illegal for minors to seek abortions outside of the state unless they travel with their parents.

 

[martybegan]

Then people who didnt like it could move out of those states. Good old voting with your feet.

If mississippi wants to ban abortions, why should people in New York or California give a rats ass?

If the voters of California wanted to make them free and available to any adult, anytime, no questions asked, that should be up to them, just as if the voters of Mississippi wanted to end them for any reason.

Mississippi has already effectively ended abortion in their state. States may not be able to ban abortion, but they do still have the power to force women to give birth. Not only can they toss up crazy red tape laws that drive abortion providers to close, but they can and have made it illegal for minors to seek abortions outside of the state unless they travel with their parents.

I would agree that any medical procedure done on a minor needs to be cleared with the parents, unless the child is properly emancipated.

My original point remains, why not just let the states decide so you know up front instead of having to resort to all these shennanigans.

 

[jwoodie]

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 some of the states would act like afganistan towards womens rights

Spoken like a true Democrat (not democrat).

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 right to ones own body is protected by the U.S. Constitution. States don't get to decide whether or not your Constitutional rights apply within their borders.

 

[AmyNation]

If the voters of California wanted to make them free and available to any adult, anytime, no questions asked, that should be up to them, just as if the voters of Mississippi wanted to end them for any reason.

Mississippi has already effectively ended abortion in their state. States may not be able to ban abortion, but they do still have the power to force women to give birth. Not only can they toss up crazy red tape laws that drive abortion providers to close, but they can and have made it illegal for minors to seek abortions outside of the state unless they travel with their parents.

I would agree that any medical procedure done on a minor needs to be cleared with the parents, unless the child is properly emancipated.

My original point remains, why not just let the states decide so you know up front instead of having to resort to all these shennanigans.

Well that question was answered, rather nicely I thought in one of the 1st posts on this topic.

However what other medical procedures would it be acceptable for the state to ban?

 

[martybegan]

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 right to ones own body is protected by the U.S. Constitution. States don't get to decide whether or not your Constitutional rights apply within their borders.

Show me that exact working in the consitution, you can't. The right to privacy as purported by the courts is made up, its not there.

If you are so sure about it, start a campaign to make it an amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Mississippi has already effectively ended abortion in their state. States may not be able to ban abortion, but they do still have the power to force women to give birth. Not only can they toss up crazy red tape laws that drive abortion providers to close, but they can and have made it illegal for minors to seek abortions outside of the state unless they travel with their parents.

I would agree that any medical procedure done on a minor needs to be cleared with the parents, unless the child is properly emancipated.

My original point remains, why not just let the states decide so you know up front instead of having to resort to all these shennanigans.

Well that question was answered, rather nicely I thought in one of the 1st posts on this topic.

However what other medical procedures would it be acceptable for the state to ban?

I would think whatever they could pass legislatively, however I doubt you would get the level of support for anything else . The crux of the whole abortion debate is the debate over the beginning of life, and if the government has a responsibility to protect that right.

You could make a law that makes tonsilectomies illegal, but I dont see anyone voting yes on that one.

On the other hand I could see a law making it mandatory for any woman smaller than a B-cup to get a boob job, but thats just me, I like my racks big.

All kidding aside, There is not a real explicit protection in the consitution preventing a legislature or a court from enacting some body controlling regulation, as both meet the requirement of due process.

 

[Polk]

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.

"Partial birth" abortions aren't actually births. It's a political slogan, like "death tax". I see no good reason to depart from the common law rule (born alive rule).

 

[Valerie]

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 right to ones own body is protected by the U.S. Constitution. States don't get to decide whether or not your Constitutional rights apply within their borders.

Show me that exact working in the consitution, you can't. The right to privacy as purported by the courts is made up, its not there.

If you are so sure about it, start a campaign to make it an amendment.

You think he can't...? The Supreme Court DID!

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

 

[martybegan]

Because the right to ones own body is protected by the U.S. Constitution. States don't get to decide whether or not your Constitutional rights apply within their borders.

Show me that exact working in the consitution, you can't. The right to privacy as purported by the courts is made up, its not there.

If you are so sure about it, start a campaign to make it an amendment.

You think he can't...? The Supreme Court DID!

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

They did no such thing. They extrapolated a "right" where none existed. Again show me the words in the consitution "Abortion is a right." You can't. All you get are weasely terms like "zone of privacy".

And why the did they go back to ancient greece to find a valid reason for a ban? The will of the people is enough, as long as the consitution does not specifically ban the action by the federal or state government.

Again, like the decison all you want, its still made up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Roe v Wade would have to be overturned. For the record, abortion is mostly left up to the states now.

 

[AmyNation]

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?

Roe v Wade would have to be overturned. For the record, abortion is mostly left up to the states now.

I get the impression that pro-life people think there's a carwash style abortion clinic on every corner.