Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Does Roe Vs Wade mean that States can not set appropriate times for when elective abortion is no longer allowed?
As a further question is 20 weeks an acceptable time limit for elective abortions?
Does Roe Vs Wade mean that States can not set appropriate times for when elective abortion is no longer allowed?
As a further question is 20 weeks an acceptable time limit for elective abortions?
it means the states could set longer periods... but not shorter because the states cannot extend lesser rights than the federal law guarantees.
Does Roe Vs Wade mean that States can not set appropriate times for when elective abortion is no longer allowed?
As a further question is 20 weeks an acceptable time limit for elective abortions?
it means the states could set longer periods... but not shorter because the states cannot extend lesser rights than the federal law guarantees.
Did the Supreme Court set a date? And is 20 weeks within that time frame?
it means the states could set longer periods... but not shorter because the states cannot extend lesser rights than the federal law guarantees.
Did the Supreme Court set a date? And is 20 weeks within that time frame?
that was much clearer after roe itself than it is since later decisions which modified it.
the answer is ... maybe.
Roe is no longer the legal standard, the relevant case law now is Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court abandoned the time-limit standard and replaced it with the doctrine of undue burden.
The Casey Court upheld and reaffirmed the Constitutional right to privacy, allowing states to establish their own time limits, provided the restrictions do not violate privacy rights. But the states always go too far, as in this case. We saw the same thing this year when the Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated that states personhood law on undue burden grounds.
Did the Supreme Court set a date? And is 20 weeks within that time frame?
that was much clearer after roe itself than it is since later decisions which modified it.
the answer is ... maybe.
Cite the Federal Statue that establishes the end date for when Abortion is no longer voluntary.
As a further question do you as a woman believe that 20 weeks is to soon to say abortion should not be voluntary?
( we are NOT discussing medical needs or threats to the mother)
that was much clearer after roe itself than it is since later decisions which modified it.
the answer is ... maybe.
Cite the Federal Statue that establishes the end date for when Abortion is no longer voluntary.
As a further question do you as a woman believe that 20 weeks is to soon to say abortion should not be voluntary?
( we are NOT discussing medical needs or threats to the mother)
i don't understand the first part of your question. why do you think a federal statute is required when we're talking about a constitutional right?
when you say voluntary, do you mean permissive?
my opinion isn't really relevant. what is relevant is the question asked in roe... which is when does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life outweigh the interest of a woman in being able to exercise dominion over her own body.
what i do know... is i don't want a bunch of uber religious old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...
like what happened today in michigan.
and the u.s. house of representatives...
and virginia...
and
and
and
that was much clearer after roe itself than it is since later decisions which modified it.
the answer is ... maybe.
Cite the Federal Statue that establishes the end date for when Abortion is no longer voluntary.
As a further question do you as a woman believe that 20 weeks is to soon to say abortion should not be voluntary?
( we are NOT discussing medical needs or threats to the mother)
i don't understand the first part of your question. why do you think a federal statute is required when we're talking about a constitutional right?
when you say voluntary, do you mean permissive?
my opinion isn't really relevant. what is relevant is the question asked in roe... which is when does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life outweigh the interest of a woman in being able to exercise dominion over her own body.
what i do know... is i don't want a bunch of uber religious old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...
like what happened today in michigan.
and the u.s. house of representatives...
and virginia...
and
and
and
Cite the Federal Statue that establishes the end date for when Abortion is no longer voluntary.
As a further question do you as a woman believe that 20 weeks is to soon to say abortion should not be voluntary?
( we are NOT discussing medical needs or threats to the mother)
i don't understand the first part of your question. why do you think a federal statute is required when we're talking about a constitutional right?
when you say voluntary, do you mean permissive?
my opinion isn't really relevant. what is relevant is the question asked in roe... which is when does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life outweigh the interest of a woman in being able to exercise dominion over her own body.
what i do know... is i don't want a bunch of uber religious old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...
like what happened today in michigan.
and the u.s. house of representatives...
and virginia...
and
and
and
Exactly. It is NONE of their business.
None.
If that is none of their business, then women shouldn't have any say in combat operations?Cite the Federal Statue that establishes the end date for when Abortion is no longer voluntary.
As a further question do you as a woman believe that 20 weeks is to soon to say abortion should not be voluntary?
( we are NOT discussing medical needs or threats to the mother)
i don't understand the first part of your question. why do you think a federal statute is required when we're talking about a constitutional right?
when you say voluntary, do you mean permissive?
my opinion isn't really relevant. what is relevant is the question asked in roe... which is when does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life outweigh the interest of a woman in being able to exercise dominion over her own body.
what i do know... is i don't want a bunch of uber religious old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...
like what happened today in michigan.
and the u.s. house of representatives...
and virginia...
and
and
and
Exactly. It is NONE of their business.
None.
Roe is no longer the legal standard, the relevant case law now is Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court abandoned the time-limit standard and replaced it with the doctrine of undue burden.
The Casey Court upheld and reaffirmed the Constitutional right to privacy, allowing states to establish their own time limits, provided the restrictions do not violate privacy rights. But the states always go too far, as in this case. We saw the same thing this year when the Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated that states personhood law on undue burden grounds.
Ok answer the question, is 20 weeks an UNDUE burden? If so exactly when is it ok for a State to say one can not CHOSE to abort?
Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman or in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly. It would require health centers that provide abortions to have surgery rooms, even when they don't provide surgical abortions. It would require doctors to be present for medication abortions and to screen women for "coercion" before providing an abortion, and it would create new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.
The bill would also ban "telemedicine" abortions, or the use of technology to prescribe medication for abortion services and the morning-after pill.
Well, then I guess the woman should make a decision to abort BEFORE 20 weeks.Roe is no longer the legal standard, the relevant case law now is Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court abandoned the time-limit standard and replaced it with the doctrine of undue burden.
The Casey Court upheld and reaffirmed the Constitutional right to privacy, allowing states to establish their own time limits, provided the restrictions do not violate privacy rights. But the states always go too far, as in this case. We saw the same thing this year when the Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated that states personhood law on undue burden grounds.
Ok answer the question, is 20 weeks an UNDUE burden? If so exactly when is it ok for a State to say one can not CHOSE to abort?
The issue isnt the time limit, the issue is the many obstacles, hurtles, and like demeaning, invasive requirements a woman must negotiate and endure which constitutes an undue burden and a violation of privacy rights.
For example, with regard to the Michigan legislation youre referring to:
Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman or in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly. It would require health centers that provide abortions to have surgery rooms, even when they don't provide surgical abortions. It would require doctors to be present for medication abortions and to screen women for "coercion" before providing an abortion, and it would create new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.
The bill would also ban "telemedicine" abortions, or the use of technology to prescribe medication for abortion services and the morning-after pill.
The bolded items likely constitute an undue burden, which would result in the law being un-Constitutional.
If a woman could access an abortion prior to 20 weeks, unmolested and not harassed by the state, the time-limit may pass Constitutional muster, as the only question remaining being is 20 weeks a reasonable amount of time.
If that is none of their business, then women shouldn't have any say in combat operations?i don't understand the first part of your question. why do you think a federal statute is required when we're talking about a constitutional right?
when you say voluntary, do you mean permissive?
my opinion isn't really relevant. what is relevant is the question asked in roe... which is when does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life outweigh the interest of a woman in being able to exercise dominion over her own body.
what i do know... is i don't want a bunch of uber religious old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...
like what happened today in michigan.
and the u.s. house of representatives...
and virginia...
and
and
and
Exactly. It is NONE of their business.
None.
As I said before, I am pro-Choice, but I don't believe in disallowing men any say in the debate.
Because, that would open up way too much of a door for disallowing women any part in other debates.
Equal rights are equal.
Well, then I guess the woman should make a decision to abort BEFORE 20 weeks.Ok answer the question, is 20 weeks an UNDUE burden? If so exactly when is it ok for a State to say one can not CHOSE to abort?
The issue isnt the time limit, the issue is the many obstacles, hurtles, and like demeaning, invasive requirements a woman must negotiate and endure which constitutes an undue burden and a violation of privacy rights.
For example, with regard to the Michigan legislation youre referring to:
Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman or in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly. It would require health centers that provide abortions to have surgery rooms, even when they don't provide surgical abortions. It would require doctors to be present for medication abortions and to screen women for "coercion" before providing an abortion, and it would create new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.
The bill would also ban "telemedicine" abortions, or the use of technology to prescribe medication for abortion services and the morning-after pill.
The bolded items likely constitute an undue burden, which would result in the law being un-Constitutional.
If a woman could access an abortion prior to 20 weeks, unmolested and not harassed by the state, the time-limit may pass Constitutional muster, as the only question remaining being is 20 weeks a reasonable amount of time.
Oh, the burden!
i don't understand the first part of your question. why do you think a federal statute is required when we're talking about a constitutional right?
when you say voluntary, do you mean permissive?
my opinion isn't really relevant. what is relevant is the question asked in roe... which is when does the governmental interest in protecting a potential life outweigh the interest of a woman in being able to exercise dominion over her own body.
what i do know... is i don't want a bunch of uber religious old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...
like what happened today in michigan.
and the u.s. house of representatives...
and virginia...
and
and
and
Exactly. It is NONE of their business.
None.
So you are on record as saying NO STATE has a compelling interest to EVER establish a date for when Abortion is no longer a choice.
The law is definitely the law.If that is none of their business, then women shouldn't have any say in combat operations?Exactly. It is NONE of their business.
None.
As I said before, I am pro-Choice, but I don't believe in disallowing men any say in the debate.
Because, that would open up way too much of a door for disallowing women any part in other debates.
Equal rights are equal.
There shouldn't be any debate, in my opinion. The law is the law.
What is happening is that they are making every effort to circumnavigate (?) said law.
I wouldn't care if everybody in the chambers were female. It is nobody else's business what a woman chooses to do with her reproductive rights.
Exactly. It is NONE of their business.
None.
So you are on record as saying NO STATE has a compelling interest to EVER establish a date for when Abortion is no longer a choice.
Thats the problem, conservative lawmakers arent satisfied with enacting a reasonable time limit; instead they seek to junk up legislation with irrelevant nonsense in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy in an effort to realize a de facto ban on abortion.
You should read the bill.Well, then I guess the woman should make a decision to abort BEFORE 20 weeks.The issue isn’t the time limit, the issue is the many obstacles, hurtles, and like demeaning, invasive requirements a woman must negotiate and endure which constitutes an undue burden and a violation of privacy rights.
For example, with regard to the Michigan legislation you’re referring to:
The bolded items likely constitute an undue burden, which would result in the law being un-Constitutional.
If a woman could access an abortion prior to 20 weeks, unmolested and not harassed by the state, the time-limit may pass Constitutional muster, as the only question remaining being is 20 weeks a reasonable amount of time.
Oh, the burden!
Much of what he bolded has nothing to do with 20 weeks, and everything to do with making it as difficult as possible for an abortion to happen. Ever.
