Abortion: What is wrong with letting the States decide?

[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?

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

Yes it would. Having that happen would probably be one of the better things that could happen politically for the entire country.

 

[Valerie]

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.

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

 

[Valerie]

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

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.

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

Simply put, leaving Constitutional matters "up to the States" is UnConstitutional.

 

[Valerie]

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

I think its just STUNNING that so many people want to give away the civil rights of OTHER Americans.

What's wrong with letting the (nanny) state decide is simply that its none of the state's business what Americans do with their own bodies.

Repubs want more and more control over us but what we need is get government OUT of our private lives.

 

[martybegan]

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

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.

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

Again a court decsion does not amend the consitution, it interprets it. My original point still stands, that the consitituion is silent when it comes to the topic of abortion. The only reason it cannot be banned today is 7 justices "found" a right that was not really there.

Answer this, when Roe V Wade was decided did some magic pen write" abortion is allowed" in the original document.

You can keep copypasta-ing the same thing from wikipedia over and over, it doesnt mean its in the consititution. all it means is that court at that time THOUGHT it was in the consitution. To me, they were wrong.

 

[Ravi]

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

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.

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

Exactly. Which is why the issue can't be left up to the states. A state can no more violate a right than the federal government can.

 

[martybegan]

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You forgot about this:

"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"

So yes, if a law is given to the federal government, its interpretation is left to the federal system. But if it is not enumerated as a power of the feds, then it is given to the states, or the people themselves.

Show me in the consitituion that abortion, or any medical procedure is to be legislated by the feds alone, and we already know you cant find it in the consititution.

The solution to all this is simple. Amend the consitituion to make the right to an abortion before a given period (or whenever, again I dont care about the issue, I care about the process) an enumerated right. Then I will have no argument, and would agree it is a right.

 

[martybegan]

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.

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

Exactly. Which is why the issue can't be left up to the states. A state can no more violate a right than the federal government can.

A state can violate a right via due process. Your right to assembly can be taken away by criminal law, as other rights can be. The example of not being able to yelli "fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of the state and feds taking away your right to free speech.

And these are enumerated rights, listed by word in the consitituion, not the "right to privacy" which isnt even in there, except in the minds of the warren court.

 

[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.

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.

The 9th amendment makes it very clear that a right doesn't have to be specifically mentioned by the Constitution for the Constitution to protect it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

You think people don't have a natural right to privacy? Wow. Maybe America isn't the right country for you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Founders, BTW, apparently did NOT think abortion should be a crime. The first anti-abortion laws in the U.S. didn't show up until 1820's - and even those only prohibited it after the 4th month.

 

[martybegan]

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

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.

You think people don't have a natural right to privacy? Wow. Maybe America isn't the right country for you.

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action. Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

 

[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.

The 9th amendment makes it very clear that a right doesn't have to be specifically mentioned by the Constitution for the Constitution to protect it.

All the 9th says is that even if a right is not listed in the consitituion, it prevents the government from saying that the right is not there BECAUSE of the consitituion. Which means to me that it is left up to legislation at that point to say if the act is a permissible or not.

Its almost saying that the government cannot say there are "no other rights" just because it isnt listed in the consititution. By your logic everything would become a right.

 

[martybegan]

The Founders, BTW, apparently did NOT think abortion should be a crime. The first anti-abortion laws in the U.S. didn't show up until 1820's - and even those only prohibited it after the 4th month.

The founders also probably thought bleeding was a good way to cure certain illnesses.
It doesnt change the fact that currently we find the idea silly, nor does it take away from thier other ideas.

 

[Valerie]

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.

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

Again a court decsion does not amend the consitution, it interprets it. My original point still stands, that the consitituion is silent when it comes to the topic of abortion. The only reason it cannot be banned today is 7 justices "found" a right that was not really there.

Answer this, when Roe V Wade was decided did some magic pen write" abortion is allowed" in the original document.

You can keep copypasta-ing the same thing from wikipedia over and over, it doesnt mean its in the consititution. all it means is that court at that time THOUGHT it was in the consitution. To me, they were wrong.

You're thinking of it backward. The State of Texas was asserting an authority that was "not there" and when Roe's case was presented to the court, SCOTUS said no no no, sorry Texas, but you don't have the right to invade her privacy, as cited here, here and here in the Constitution...

 

[Ravi]

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...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...

Exactly. Which is why the issue can't be left up to the states. A state can no more violate a right than the federal government can.

A state can violate a right via due process. Your right to assembly can be taken away by criminal law, as other rights can be. The example of not being able to yelli "fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of the state and feds taking away your right to free speech.

And these are enumerated rights, listed by word in the consitituion, not the "right to privacy" which isnt even in there, except in the minds of the warren court.

You are describing things the state can do if they have a compelling reason to do so. Yelling fire in a theater is only a chargeable offense if you are inciting to riot or otherwise cause the theater goers harm.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You think people don't have a natural right to privacy? Wow. Maybe America isn't the right country for you.

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action. Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

LOL! Forcing someone to be an incubator against her will is certainly unwarranted government intervention.

 

[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?

I think its just STUNNING that so many people want to give away the civil rights of OTHER Americans.

What's wrong with letting the (nanny) state decide is simply that its none of the state's business what Americans do with their own bodies.

Repubs want more and more control over us but what we need is get government OUT of our private lives.

^ This is what really bothers me, these "anti-choice" people call themselves "Conservative" and are supposedly against "Big Government" intrusion into our lives.

They ironically go even further to claim the moral high-ground as they are willing to hand-over Citizens' reproductive privacy to the "Big Government" they otherwise hold in great disdain... A "pro-choice" stance has conveniently become political fodder for disgusting"pro-abortion" rhetoric as these sanctimonious twits demonize their fellow citizens as if they are all sluts and whores who don't care about babies...

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. Which is why the issue can't be left up to the states. A state can no more violate a right than the federal government can.

A state can violate a right via due process. Your right to assembly can be taken away by criminal law, as other rights can be. The example of not being able to yelli "fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of the state and feds taking away your right to free speech.

And these are enumerated rights, listed by word in the consitituion, not the "right to privacy" which isnt even in there, except in the minds of the warren court.

You are describing things the state can do if they have a compelling reason to do so. Yelling fire in a theater is only a chargeable offense if you are inciting to riot or otherwise cause the theater goers harm.

Does anyone doubt that an abortion causes harm to a fetus?