Just Like Samuel Alito, ‘SNL’ Travels Back To 1235 For ‘Moral Clarity’ On Abortion Law

[Lakhota]

Just Like Samuel Alito, ‘SNL’ Travels Back To 1235 For ‘Moral Clarity’ On Abortion Law​

A classic masterpiece!

 

[fncceo]

No need to go back that far. Travel back to 1788 when The Constitution was ratified and realize it doesn't mention Abortion or Medical Privacy.

Take an especially close look at the 10th Amendment that says, "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."

Then you can fast forward to 1973 where the USSC created, out of thin air, a power not delegated to the United States by The Constitution.

 

[Lakhota]

So funny! So true! So sad!

 

[Ringtone]

So funny! So true! So sad!

See post #2. See how that works?

 

[mamooth]

No need to go back that far. Travel back to 1788 when The Constitution was ratified and realize it doesn't mention Abortion or Medical Privacy.

Since abortion was legal and common then, it's clear the Founders had no problems with it.

I'll go with the opinion of the Founders instead of modern religious whackjobs.

 

[Lakhota]

Since abortion was legal and common then, it's clear the Founders had no problems with it.

I'll go with the opinion of the Founders instead of modern religious whackjobs.

Amen! Other rights were also not enumerated or mentioned in the archaic Constitution.

 

[fncceo]

Since abortion was legal and common then, it's clear the Founders had no problems with it.

I'll go with the opinion of the Founders instead of modern religious whackjobs.

It doesn't matter where anyone sits on the issue of Abortion or Medical Privacy. Every American should be in favor of The Constitution and against the creation of Ad Hoc Law.

It's not about the right or wrong of the issue, it's about jurisdiction. The USSC never had the jurisdiction to amend The Constitution to create a right that wasn't enumerated in The Constitution.

The 10th Amendment was specifically written to prohibit precisely that.

There are three ways to achieve a new right in our system of government.

A) A state can legislate that right to the constituents of that state... OR ...

B) A state can hold a plebiscite where a majority of voters can give themselves that right ... OR ...

C) A 3/4 majority of state legislatures can ratify a new amendment to The Constitution.

Any legal system worthy of the name restricts the legislators as much as the legislated.

 

[mamooth]

It doesn't matter where anyone sits on the issue of Abortion or Medical Privacy. Every American should be in favor of The Constitution and against the creation of Ad Hoc Law.

You mean the Ad Hoc law like the conservative SC is now trying to hand down?

It's not about the right or wrong of the issue, it's about jurisdiction. The USSC never had the jurisdiction to amend The Constitution to create a right that wasn't enumerated in The Constitution.

True, but that's not what the SC did with RvW. They just clarified that the right to privacy was one unenumerated right, as described by the 10th.

The 10th Amendment was specifically written to prohibit precisely that.

"or to the people". The 10th says the right to privacy is reserved to the people, despite it being unenumerated.

If you're claiming there is no right to privacy ... well hello, big brother.

 

[fncceo]

If you're claiming there is no right to privacy ... well hello, big brother.

The people who have been chasing us around with needles and pushing for vaccine passports have pretty much said there is no right to medical privacy.

Whatever laws are passed in the wake of the new decision of Rowe v Wade, they will be made by accountable legislators who, if they go against the will of the people, be voted out of office and replaced by legislators more aligned to the majority of voters.

 

[fncceo]

You mean the Ad Hoc law like the conservative SC is now trying to hand down?

The USSC, with the reversal of Rowe v Wade, create no law. They are handing down a decision of the legality of existing law.

When they by-passed state and federal legislators in 1973 and created a right not enumerated in The Constitution, they created ad-hoc law.

 

[mamooth]

The USSC, with the reversal of Rowe v Wade, create no law. They are handing down a decision of the legality of existing law.

When they by-passed state and federal legislators in 1973 and created a right not enumerated in The Constitution, they created ad-hoc law.

So you _are_ claiming there is no right to privacy.

Scary.

 

[1srelluc]

Blah, SNL has not been funny since the early 80s.....It's no different that watching some screeching mean-spirited leftist in congress whining no-end.

 

[fncceo]

So you _are_ claiming there is no right to privacy.

Scary.

If you're going to claim that an unrestricted right to an abortion an issue of medical privacy, you have another thorny hurdle to overcome.

You have to prove, both legally and medically, that a fetus is not a human life. People have been going around with that one for thousands of years with no universal answer on the horizon.

If I (as a birth giver) terminate a pregnancy, no one can say, legally, that I have deprived another human of their right to life.

The majority of US states have feticide laws. These laws make the unsanctioned termination of an unborn fetus a capital crime. This means that, legally speaking, when it comes to life and death, a fetus, in most states, is legally a human being.

If you remove feticide laws, then any assault on a pregnant person that causes the termination of an unborn fetus becomes simple assault. I'm not sure how advocates of stronger domestic violence laws are going to take that.

 

[mamooth]

If you're going to claim that an unrestricted right to an abortion an issue of medical privacy,

It's not. It's personal privacy. Someone else's body is not the business of TheState.

You have to prove, both legally and medically, that a fetus is not a human life.

It doesn't matter what you call it. No one can use someone else's body without their permission.

The majority of US states have feticide laws. These laws make the unsanctioned termination of an unborn fetus a capital crime. This means that, legally speaking, when it comes to life and death, a fetus, in most states, is legally a human being.

There are laws against killing eagles. That doesn't make eagles human beings.

 

[Coyote]

Just Like Samuel Alito, ‘SNL’ Travels Back To 1235 For ‘Moral Clarity’ On Abortion Law​

A classic masterpiece!

Damn, that is a good one!

 

[fncceo]

It's not. It's personal privacy. Someone else's body is not the business of TheState.

Apparently, it is ...

 

[fncceo]

There are laws against killing eagles.

Capital offenses?

 

[Lakhota]

GOP OFFERS ‘HEART’ AS ABORTION RIGHTS ON THE BRINK

What, no thots and prayers?

 

[mamooth]

Apparently, it is ...

Who was forcibly vaccinated, or criminally punished specifically for not being vaccinated?

If you can't name anyone, the situations are not even remotely the same.

Capital offenses?

So if it's not specifically a death sentence, the fetus isn't a person? Seems like not such a good standard to use.

 

[Coyote]

Apparently, it is ...

View attachment 642200

Apparently it isn’t. The government can’t force people to get vaccinated. Employers can.