The Unenforceability of abortion bans

[Big Bend Texas]

The Bill of Rights does NOT protect any rights at all.
If it did, then slavery would have been abolished by it.
The only intent of the Bill of Rights was to limit the federal government.

Look at the first amendment as an example.
{...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...}
Clearly that does NOT protect any individual rights.
It only limits the federal government.
And in fact, at the time of the US Constitution being written and approved, there were states with their own religion, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Personhood is irrelevant. The point is you can NOT enslave a woman over a fetus.
No one has standing to override the woman's rights.

You are a flaming fool, those rights are enumerated and protected against actions of the federal gov't.

Each state constitution has a similar bill or declaration of protected rights.

Nature does not enslave women, a woman's natural role biologically is to bear children.

If she doesn't want to bear children, she has a duty to take measures to prevent getting pregnant in the first place.

Once she's pregnant, there's another human life to consider that is also entitled to the protections of the state.

 

[Blues Man]

Soooo, if a woman becomes pregnant, does that mean she can claim the fetus as a tax exemption?

If you give a fetus the rights of personhood why not?

 

[Blues Man]

Irrelevant? Yeah, because it destroys your bullshit.

Link us up to those laws being declared unconstitutional.

If those cases ever make it to the Supreme Court we'll find out

 

[Blues Man]

You're fabricating bullshit now. Hundreds of cases are handled in such a manner every year.

And how many of them have been appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court?

 

[Blues Man]

If those were unconstitutional laws how is it they haven't been declared as such and rendered moot by the courts?

Because no one has yet to appeal them all the way to the Supreme Court

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And how many of them have been appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court?

Damned few if any, none that I know of because it costs several million dollars to get all the way through the appeals process and to then get a case before the courts.

What matters is that it happens every day up and down our highways.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Because no one has yet to appeal them all the way to the Supreme Court

They don't have to go all the way to the SCOTUS to be deemed unconstitutional, that starts with a single finding in a district court.

 

[Blues Man]

Hey Blues Man still waiting for you to show us where the SC ruled these laws to be "unconstitutional".

How many times do I have to tell you that they haven't yet been heard by the SC because no one has appealed the cases all the way up.

My stance is no different than yours that abortion was not a right. Scotus decides that

 

[Big Bend Texas]

How many times do I have to tell you that they haven't yet been heard by the SC because no one has appealed the cases all the way up.

My stance is no different than yours that abortion was not a right. Scotus decides that

Which is irrelevant, they don't' have to be heard by the SCOTUS to be declared unconstitutional.

 

[Blues Man]

Damned few if any, none that I know of because it costs several million dollars to get all the way through the appeals process and to then get a case before the courts.

What matters is that it happens every day up and down our highways.

None. So my position that SCOTUS would have to find them unconstitutional cannot be proven until SCOTUS actually rules in it.

It is my opinion that they would have to find those laws unconstitutional because they are inconsistent

 

[Blues Man]

Which is irrelevant, they don't' have to be heard by the SCOTUS to be declared unconstitutional.

Who else decides the Constitutionality of laws in the US?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Huh? Banning abortion doesn’t end abortion?

'Banning' abortion was never about ‘saving babies’ – it was and is about the neo-fascist authoritarian right compelling conformity and punishing dissent in violation of the fundamental right to privacy.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Who else decides the Constitutionality of laws in the US?

Judges, starting at the district court level.

How do you think cases advance up the ladder through the state courts of appeals, federal courts, federal appeals courts, and finally arrive at the SCOTUS?

Most don't, case law is largely based on the cases that don't.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

'Banning' abortion was never about ‘saving babies’ – it was and is about the neo-fascist authoritarian right compelling conformity and punishing dissent in violation of the fundamental right to privacy.

Claptrap.

There's always at least one victim in an abortion, the baby or babies being killed.

The "Right to Life Movement" is about saving those lives.

Your right to privacy does not supersede a right to life.

The Constitution provides for only very limited protection of privacy to start with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The biggest problem I see with those on the anti-abortion side is that they never tell you how they are going to enforce a ban on abortion.

Everyone is anti-abortion and wants to see the practice end – that’s not the problem.

The problem is those who see more government excess and overreach as a ‘solution’ to the problem.

It’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to defend a woman’s right to privacy while opposing abortion and working toward its end.

And because abortion ‘bans’ are unenforceable, more government at the expense of individual liberty is clearly not the answer.

Moreover, attempting to ‘justify’ abortion ‘bans’ with arguments about human life beginning at conception or that abortion is ‘killing babies’ is clearly disingenuous given the fact that abortion ‘bans’ are unenforceable; such rhetoric is irrelevant with regard to Constitutional limits on government authority and prohibiting the state from interfering with personal, private decisions such as whether to have a child or not.

 

[Blues Man]

Judges, starting at the district court level.

How do you think cases advance up the ladder through the state courts of appeals, federal courts, federal appeals courts, and finally arrive at the SCOTUS?

Most don't, case law is largely based on the cases that don't.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter.

If these laws that are designed to be enforced in an unequal manner ever made it up the chain we would then get a definitive answer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Claptrap.

There's always at least one victim in an abortion, the baby or babies being killed.

The "Right to Life Movement" is about saving those lives.

Your right to privacy does not supersede a right to life.

The Constitution provides for only very limited protection of privacy to start with.

That ‘banning' abortion was never about ‘saving babies’ and solely about the neo-fascist authoritarian right compelling conformity and punishing dissent is a perfectly appropriate and logical extrapolation given the fact that ‘banning’ abortion won’t stop abortions – there’s no other reasonable conclusion, other than conservatives are so mind-numbingly stupid and ignorant as to believe such nonsense.

If you really want to stop abortion the last thing you’d do is ‘ban’ it.

In addition to advocating for a meaningless non-solution, conservatives also succeed in eroding our fundamental rights and empowering more interference from the state in private matters clearly not within the scope of government authority.

And the “states’ rights” canard doesn’t work either given the authoritarian right’s desire to enact Federal legislation ‘banning’ abortion, or a Constitutional amendment – that and conservatives’ inconsistent application of “states’ rights” dogma, where “states’ rights” goes out the window when it comes to state firearm regulatory measures.

Last, ridiculous demagoguery like the ‘killing babies’ lie results in only reinforcing opposition to ‘bans’ – when life begins is a question each individual is at liberty to decide for himself in accordance with his own good conscience, not something he’s forced and compelled to believe via an edict from the state.

 

[initforme]

It will be difficult to enforce. We had better build a whole lot of new prisons because while legally it will end there's going to be abortions still happening. Do we put those millions of women in prison? Unfortunately. Then we will need to hire people to track every pregnant lady. It's going to be something to watch. A real crap show. Unless of course we promote plan b and other non abortion pills.

 

[JoeB131]

ou keep making the most ridiculous arguments, even a child makes more senses.

A finger is an appendage it's not a human.

If a woman doesn't want kids the time to choose is before she gets pregnant. Once she's pregnant there's another life to consider and protect.

In your opinion. Since you don't have a uterus, your opinion counts for exactly nothing. The only opinion that counts is hers. And as I've pointed out, if dictatorships like the Philippines and Romania couldn't make abortion bans work, what make you think we can?

Rights that are not specifically enumerated are always up to majority rule, that's how it works in a constitutional republic.

That works on the assumption that rights are defined by law, and not natural rights. By that logic, there are no rights at all, just privileges society agrees you should have. I could point out where people have been denied even the enumerated rights throughout our history.

So it comes back to, as it always does, the pure practicality of outlawing abortion. Unless you are going to put pregnant women under house arrest for nine months, investigate every miscarriage as a homicide, and basically turn America into the LARP version of the Republic of Gilead, women are going to get abortions whether you like it or not.

Religion is irrelevant to this discussion, conception creates a human being and by definition they are the most innocent of all of us.

One has to be sick to their very soul not to recognize that and seek to protect that life.

Oh, BULLSHIT. You guys don't give a fuck about life. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to cut welfare to poor people, slash foreign aid, and deny asylum to people with children trying to flee third world countries. (And I mean your side, not you, because you don't take responsibility for ANYTHING!) More kids are going to shit themselves to death from diarrhea around the world today than will be eliminated by abortion in this country.

There are circumstances that justify abortion but they are very limited, the time of "abortion on demand" is over and has been for quite some time, the only argument is over how stringent we want protections for the unborn to be.

You are living in a fantasy world, buddy. The only people who won't be able to get abortions are the very, very poor. The people you actually don't really want replicating themselves.

You are the one on the wrong side of history and in your heart you probably know it hence all the ridiculous justifications and arguments you make.

What I know is that for 50 years, the Plutocrats have been using abortion to get stupid white people like you to vote against your own economic interests. Only because Trump was too stupid to know how to play the game and mix moderates in with his conservatives are we at the point where the balance that was struck 50 years ago is in danger.


Here's how it's going to play out.


Abortion will remain legal in the Blue states. The Red states will fumble around how to enforce their new bans, but people will find ways around it. Heck, 50% of abortions NOW are done chemically, not surgically. Some nitwit prosecutor will try to prosecute some lady for having an abortion, and the national media will have his ass for lunch. Women will get angry, they'll get organized, and they will throw a bunch of you nitwits out of office in 2024.


So you will enjoy maybe two years of slightly annoying women.

 

[Nostra]

Globby the Fetus isn't a person.

Just a bunch of cells, huh?