CDZ Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[martybegan]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.

What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.

The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.

What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.

Correct.

The right to privacy is also clearly codified in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

No, it isn't. The 4th is about criminal searches. The 3rd is about troops during wartime, and the 5th is about due process, none of which have anything to do with "privacy" as stretched out by Roe.

 

[badger2]

Yes, going out of state for abortion and then getting punished for it. Terrorist.

 

[Leo123]

Yup. And that's how it should work.

When men have to deal with all the medical consequences of pregnancy, then they get more of a say.

You completely missed the point of my post. Men have no rights only consequences.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Can you say the same for segregation in that case?

Governmental segregation would violate equal protection under the law.

Pretty explicitly actually.

So you have no right to privacy? Can I publish your SSN? If not, why not?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.

Can you say the same for segregation in that case?

Governmental segregation would violate equal protection under the law.

Pretty explicitly actually.

So you have no right to privacy? Can I publish your SSN? If not, why not?

That isn't the vague concept of "privacy". And is just posting a SS# is a crime?

Using an SS# illegally is a crime against the government, in particular the Social Security Administration, and falls under a more specific crime, i.e. fraud.

And if you search for "publishing a SS number illegal", even lawyers can't answer it with 100% certainty. Most of them imply the method of GETTING the SS# could be illegal, i.e. hacking.

And that is more akin to trespass than any concept of privacy.

 

[JoeB131]

The Federal Constitution is moot on the point. if NY wants the law they passed, they can have it.

The only restriction I would have is a State can't punish someone for going out of State for an Abortion.

So you are advocating an exception for rich white people.

Color me shocked.

Check your privilege, buddy.

 

[JoeB131]

Then you don't support true equality.

I'm a realist... I support pragmatism.

Once a man has shot his load, he's done.

I mean, pretty much he could be like the Male Praying Mantis and get eaten afterwards by the female, he's about that level of useless at that point.

A woman has to deal with the pregnancy for the next nine months, and if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can find a way to not be pregnant.

In another brilliant thread, I pointed out that the Philippines has the kinds of laws you guys want. They also have 800,000 illegal abortions every year and 4000 women are maimed or killed in the process.

 

[JoeB131]

The purpose was to stop the States from messing with the Freedmen. You think they really assumed it would be used for Abortion?

Plenty of States had restrictions, and plenty of people weren't happy about it, or happy about the States without restrictions.

By making it a federal issue, it got turned into a fight. One we are still fighting over 40 years later. If left to the States, places where people wanted it would protect it, and it would not have become the issue it is now.

I think you are confused about the history.

Plenty of states had restrictions, but they were more like the prostitution laws than the murder laws. Women went to their OB/GYN and got abortions, no one was ever arrested for having one, no one was ever prosecuted for performing one unless they messed up and maimed the woman. If someone got charged, they didn't get charged with "Murder" of the fetus, because fetuses as people... that's just silly.

SCOTUS, including FIVE Republican justices at that time, decided that these laws were silly, and figured that overturning them would be no more controversial when they overturned contraception laws a decade earlier in Griswald v. Connecticut. (Fun Fact, if you argue that Abortion should be a "State" issue, why not contraception?)

Then a funny thing happened. The Evangelicals needed an issue to keep their congregations upset now that Segregation was essentially a settled issue. Before that, they called Abortion a "Catholic" thing they didn't care about.

That's why it's a fight now, not that anyone really missed these silly laws that no one was obeying.

 

[JoeB131]

You completely missed the point of my post. Men have no rights only consequences.

Yup. Which is how it should be.

When they have to put up with all the medical consequences, then they can have more of a say in the legal ones.

 

[martybegan]

The Federal Constitution is moot on the point. if NY wants the law they passed, they can have it.

The only restriction I would have is a State can't punish someone for going out of State for an Abortion.

So you are advocating an exception for rich white people.

Color me shocked.

Check your privilege, buddy.

Abortion advocacy groups can form charities to help anyone. if so many people support this, it shouldn't be hard to fund.

I would also forbid a State from helping a person to cross state lines for an abortion. Freedom of movement still applies.

The idea of this with minors is more tricky.

And this is the CDZ so try to not be your usual self.

 

[martybegan]

Then you don't support true equality.

I'm a realist... I support pragmatism.

Once a man has shot his load, he's done.

I mean, pretty much he could be like the Male Praying Mantis and get eaten afterwards by the female, he's about that level of useless at that point.

A woman has to deal with the pregnancy for the next nine months, and if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can find a way to not be pregnant.

In another brilliant thread, I pointed out that the Philippines has the kinds of laws you guys want. They also have 800,000 illegal abortions every year and 4000 women are maimed or killed in the process.

No, you support government vindictiveness, and always side against people you despise.

If Mormons like it, you hate it. If evangelicals like it, you hate it.

And any #'s from the Philippines have to be taken with a grain of salt. Hell even here PP said 5000 people died from abortions each year before Roe, and that number has been debunked.

Planned Parenthood President Wrong on Illegal Abortion Deaths Pre-Roe

 

[martybegan]

The purpose was to stop the States from messing with the Freedmen. You think they really assumed it would be used for Abortion?

Plenty of States had restrictions, and plenty of people weren't happy about it, or happy about the States without restrictions.

By making it a federal issue, it got turned into a fight. One we are still fighting over 40 years later. If left to the States, places where people wanted it would protect it, and it would not have become the issue it is now.

I think you are confused about the history.

Plenty of states had restrictions, but they were more like the prostitution laws than the murder laws. Women went to their OB/GYN and got abortions, no one was ever arrested for having one, no one was ever prosecuted for performing one unless they messed up and maimed the woman. If someone got charged, they didn't get charged with "Murder" of the fetus, because fetuses as people... that's just silly.

SCOTUS, including FIVE Republican justices at that time, decided that these laws were silly, and figured that overturning them would be no more controversial when they overturned contraception laws a decade earlier in Griswald v. Connecticut. (Fun Fact, if you argue that Abortion should be a "State" issue, why not contraception?)

Then a funny thing happened. The Evangelicals needed an issue to keep their congregations upset now that Segregation was essentially a settled issue. Before that, they called Abortion a "Catholic" thing they didn't care about.

That's why it's a fight now, not that anyone really missed these silly laws that no one was obeying.

If Alabama wants to ban the pill, let them at it. I would rather fight this at the State level than have our Federal Government paralyzed.

It doesn't matter how the fight happened. The country is divided on the issue, and not 90%-10% like some would want us to believe. Plenty of women in these States want restrictions on Abortion as well.

 

[sartre play]

Its my opinion( informed) that its no where like 90/10 its more like 60/40. any one else agree with that estimate.

 

[martybegan]

Its my opinion( informed) that its no where like 90/10 its more like 60/40. any one else agree with that estimate.

It's a very region dependent question.

 

[badger2]

Louisiana has just voted abortion legislation 'before the mother knows.'

 

[playtime]

that would be a solid N-O.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I say ban abortion and preserve the Right to Life.

The moment a woman agrees to have sexual relations, she has made her choice. Now they want government to save them from the consequences.

The better approach would have been to simply say, if it's your body and it's your baby, it's your problem. Aside from being a sperm donor and financial generating resource, the man has no rights insofar as the child is concerned. If the woman cannot afford a baby, then take it from her and put it up for adoption.

Problem solved. Next issue.

 

[jwoodie]

SCOTUS, including FIVE Republican justices at that time, decided that these laws were silly, and figured that overturning them would be no more controversial when they overturned contraception laws a decade earlier in Griswald v. Connecticut.

And you think this is a proper basis for a SCOTUS decision?

 

[jwoodie]

Its my opinion( informed) that its no where like 90/10 its more like 60/40. any one else agree with that estimate.

I estimate 20% opposed to any abortions and 20% in favor of late term abortions. The rest favor some restrictions but don't necessarily agree on the specific restrictions.

 

[JoeB131]

Abortion advocacy groups can form charities to help anyone. if so many people support this, it shouldn't be hard to fund.
.

Really? How are you going to enforce this? Again, I find it amusing that you want to create a law to make life more difficult for poor people, but then, trust us, we'll start charities to help poor people....

You know, because it's not like we have to fight in Congress every year to get simple basic health care for poor people... oh, wait, no, we totally are already doing that.

I would also forbid a State from helping a person to cross state lines for an abortion. Freedom of movement still applies.

The idea of this with minors is more tricky.

I'm hearing echoes of the Fugitive Slave Act here...

And this is the CDZ so try to not be your usual self.

I'm totally CDZ compliant... I was just pointing out the ramifications of your position that we'd have one law for the rich and one law for the poor. If you are uncomfortable with that.... then you should ask yourself why.

The reality is, of course, that rich people will travel to other states, and poor people will get butchered by back-ally hacks.