States rights and protecting unborn life

[manifold]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

 

[jwoodie]

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

 

[manifold]

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

In that case, allow me to put it another way. If we left abortion up to the states, how would the SC rule on a state law that allows them to prosecute someone for taking a fetus out of state to get it aborted? Do you think a state would retain the right to enforce such a law?

 

[Swagger]

What about [American] women who seek an abortion abroad? In Europe, for instance.

 

[Steelplate]

I understand what I'm about to say doesn't exactly jibe with the OP....but....

Don't you think that due to the very nature of the subject of abortion, that both sides come to a consensus? Like first trimester only or something......I mean, it's never going to satisfy the hard core on either side.....but, perhaps if a consensus could be reached on a National level as the minimum allowable timeframe, the States could adjust off of that.

States that don't want to allow the procedure, could find other ways to discourage the practice. Cost was already mentioned.....they could assign fees to the procedure to make it cost prohibitive, they could create red tape to make it more difficult....like mandatory counseling or something.

States that tend to fall into the "pro-choice" realm, could even expand upon the minimum.....offer the procedure free to people without means, etc....

 

[Grandma]

The argument is not up for the states' debate. The Supreme Court ruled that individual women were the only ones with the right to make the decision on whether or not to abort.

 

[earthmuffin]

I don't understand why it's any better for women's rights to be taken away at the state level than it is at the federal level.

There are just some things that have no place being voted on, a women's right to choose is among them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Because it isn’t about abortion, it never was. It’s about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Whether one has his civil liberties isn’t determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

Thus the fact that a ‘states’ rights’ solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.

 

[jwoodie]

Duh, the issue at hand is whether these ridiculous SCOTUS decisions should be overturned and the matter of abortion returned to the States as prescribed in the Constitution. Simply quoting them is a transparently circular argument.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

In that case, allow me to put it another way. If we left abortion up to the states, how would the SC rule on a state law that allows them to prosecute someone for taking a fetus out of state to get it aborted? Do you think a state would retain the right to enforce such a law?

The states wouldnt be able to, as their sovergenity is limited by territory, not by the person occupying it (or another state's territory). Plus any violation of law between states is handled at the federal level (as is proper in the constitution).

 

[martybegan]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Because it isn’t about abortion, it never was. It’s about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Whether one has his civil liberties isn’t determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

Thus the fact that a ‘states’ rights’ solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.

One's right to drink alcohol is a "liberty" that is regulated at the state/local level, by local legislatures, and this is implicit in the constitution.

The right to privacy is subject to due process, not blanket protection. Due process includes the right to trial, the right to petition a court, and also the right of the people collectively to impose restrictions via legislative action, except in situations barred by the consitution (either federal, or the states own constitution).

To me, we either have to let the states handle it, or amend the consitution to explicity state abortion cannot be regulated at the state level, and access to it is a fundemental right, up until a given time period.

 

[manifold]

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

In that case, allow me to put it another way. If we left abortion up to the states, how would the SC rule on a state law that allows them to prosecute someone for taking a fetus out of state to get it aborted? Do you think a state would retain the right to enforce such a law?

The states wouldnt be able to, as their sovergenity is limited by territory, not by the person occupying it (or another state's territory). Plus any violation of law between states is handled at the federal level (as is proper in the constitution).

I agree that the states wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be able to enforce such a law. And that brings me back to the original question. Exactly what problem is solved by leaving the matter up to the individual states?

 

[Swagger]

Seems like a perfect Catch 22. Much like most, if not all, western countries can't prevent male citizens from travelling abroad to have sex with minors.

 

[Grandma]

Seems like a perfect Catch 22. Much like most, if not all, western countries can't prevent male citizens from travelling abroad to have sex with minors.

Yeah, but if they get caught going across state lines for it, they get lots more jail time.

Back to abortion...

 

[PaulS1950]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

If we can simply agree that this is a decision best left to the individual the issue is gone.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Because it isn’t about abortion, it never was. It’s about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Whether one has his civil liberties isn’t determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

Thus the fact that a ‘states’ rights’ solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.

One's right to drink alcohol is a "liberty" that is regulated at the state/local level, by local legislatures, and this is implicit in the constitution.

The right to privacy is subject to due process, not blanket protection. Due process includes the right to trial, the right to petition a court, and also the right of the people collectively to impose restrictions via legislative action, except in situations barred by the consitution (either federal, or the states own constitution).

To me, we either have to let the states handle it, or amend the consitution to explicity state abortion cannot be regulated at the state level, and access to it is a fundemental right, up until a given time period.

Speaking of alcohol, ever notice how many beer/liquor stores are at the county line of dry counties?

 

[PaulS1950]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

If we can simply agree that this is a decision best left to the individual the issue is gone.

I believe the two of us have reached a meeting point on this issue. The only difference in my mind is semantics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Because it isn’t about abortion, it never was. It’s about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Whether one has his civil liberties isn’t determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

Thus the fact that a ‘states’ rights’ solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.

One's right to drink alcohol is a "liberty" that is regulated at the state/local level, by local legislatures, and this is implicit in the constitution.

The right to privacy is subject to due process, not blanket protection. Due process includes the right to trial, the right to petition a court, and also the right of the people collectively to impose restrictions via legislative action, except in situations barred by the consitution (either federal, or the states own constitution).

To me, we either have to let the states handle it, or amend the consitution to explicity state abortion cannot be regulated at the state level, and access to it is a fundemental right, up until a given time period.

Unlike privacy, there is no right to purchase or drink alcohol, states are free to regulate that activity accordingly.

The right to privacy concerns substantive, not procedural, due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments not only guarantee due process with regard to adverse action taken against a person’s life, freedom or property, but also mandate a higher level of judicial review and justification on the part of the state with regard to one’s personal life, freedoms, and individual liberty, regardless the merits of procedures involved.

This is why courts are invalidating so-called ‘personhood’ legislation, as such measures manifest an undue burden to a fundamental right; these acts fail to meet the higher standard of judicial review and fail to provide evidence justifying the restriction of that fundamental right.

States may regulate abortion to the extent they do not violate the undue burden standard; consequently there is no need to amend the Constitution with what is accepted and settled law. Such an amendment would also be impossible to construct because the issue isn’t abortion, but privacy rights, and such an amendment would clearly conflict with the basic tenets of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The right to privacy and the Constitution’s prohibition of the violation of that fundamental right place important restrictions on the state far beyond the issue of abortion.

 

[martybegan]

Because it isn’t about abortion, it never was. It’s about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Whether one has his civil liberties isn’t determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesn’t have a ‘right’ to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

Thus the fact that a ‘states’ rights’ solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.

One's right to drink alcohol is a "liberty" that is regulated at the state/local level, by local legislatures, and this is implicit in the constitution.

The right to privacy is subject to due process, not blanket protection. Due process includes the right to trial, the right to petition a court, and also the right of the people collectively to impose restrictions via legislative action, except in situations barred by the consitution (either federal, or the states own constitution).

To me, we either have to let the states handle it, or amend the consitution to explicity state abortion cannot be regulated at the state level, and access to it is a fundemental right, up until a given time period.

Unlike privacy, there is no right to purchase or drink alcohol, states are free to regulate that activity accordingly.

The right to privacy concerns substantive, not procedural, due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments not only guarantee due process with regard to adverse action taken against a person’s life, freedom or property, but also mandate a higher level of judicial review and justification on the part of the state with regard to one’s personal life, freedoms, and individual liberty, regardless the merits of procedures involved.

This is why courts are invalidating so-called ‘personhood’ legislation, as such measures manifest an undue burden to a fundamental right; these acts fail to meet the higher standard of judicial review and fail to provide evidence justifying the restriction of that fundamental right.

States may regulate abortion to the extent they do not violate the undue burden standard; consequently there is no need to amend the Constitution with what is accepted and settled law. Such an amendment would also be impossible to construct because the issue isn’t abortion, but privacy rights, and such an amendment would clearly conflict with the basic tenets of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The right to privacy and the Constitution’s prohibition of the violation of that fundamental right place important restrictions on the state far beyond the issue of abortion.

The only reason the courts are overturning the personhood amendments is DUE to Roe V. Wade, and the precedent of lower courts abiding by a Supreme Court decsion. ALL of the standards you mention flow from Roe, which like plessey v. Fergueson can be overturned. Thus you enter a circular argument, with Roe being the starting and ending point, not any actual words in the consitution.

This to me does not meet the standard of a consitutional right. For it to be considered consitutional it must be only reversable via the amendment process.