The Unenforceability of abortion bans

[martybegan]

It isn't a unique case.

It is an elective medical procedure.

A fetus does not have any Constitutional rights therefore it has no Constitutional protections and the state has no right to intervene in any woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy

You are harping on constitutional rights, and ignoring my point that a fetus is a separate living thing.

Your opinion otherwise is just that, an opinion.

 

[there4eyeM]

Insisting on more education would be more logical for those insisting on not allowing women the choice of bearing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you give Dems an inch they take a mile. We would not be discussing this issue today if the baby killing Dems had not kept pushing for later and later term abortions. FACT! This is true of any issue, gun control, taxes they are constantly scheming for MORE no matter how much we compromise. So now we need to bitch slap these scumbags.

Most of the “inches” that we've yielded, we never should have, even if we could trust the other side not to take the “miles”.

 

[Nostra]

There is no law federal or state that grants any fetus Constitutional rights.

PERIOD.

a charge of murder can be levied for causing a miscarriage is unconstitutional. If it was ever taken to the Supreme Court you might not like the ruling.

Never said there was a federal law, Dumbass.

State’s rights. Take it to the Supreme Court, Matlock.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is the same status that black people had early in our country's history. That was just as wrong.

The difference being the Black people were already born.

So what?

If we still regarded black people as less than human, the argument in defense of an unborn child conceived of white parents could just as validly be that he's the right race.

Either argument to deny one's humanity is equally bullshit.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Lest, we forget, the main reason why the Court (including 5 Republicans) voted to end abortion laws in the US is because they were being routinely ignored by women and their health care providers. The court was merely recognizing the reality the prudes failed to admit.

If anyone doubts this, we only need to look at the birth rates for the 1970's.

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

The following table shows the number of live births and the birth rate in the United States between 1910 and...

www.infoplease.com

1970​	3,731,386​	18.4​
1971​	3,555,970​	17.2​
1972​	3,258,411​	15.6​
1973​	3,136,965​	14.9​
1974​	3,159,958​	14.9​
1975​	3,144,198​	14.8​
1976​	3,167,788​	14.8​

There was no sudden drop in the live birth rate because abortions were now available. In fact, it leveled off in 1973.

Why? Because abortion laws were being routinely ignored. Despite all the horror stories told by the abortion rights side about coat hangers and Lysol, most women were ending unwanted pregnancies in the comfort of their OB/GYN's office. Women were never arrested for having abortions, and providers were rarely prosecuted unless some kind of negligence that injured the women was involved

So you get the laws on the books you want in half the country, what happens? Abortions will simply move from abortion clinics back to OB/GYN offices.

if anything, an abortion ban will be harder to enforce in 2022 than in 1973, because more states WILL keep it legal now, because it will be much easier to cross state lines, and because the option of pharmaceutical abortions will be available.

Laws only really work when you have universal agreement there should be a law. If you don't, police won't investigate, prosecutors won't file charges, and juries won't convict.

The first prosecution for a woman for having an abortion will be a lightening rod of unpopularity. The only time I remember Trump ever backing down from saying something really stupid ws when he said that women should be punished for having abortions, and then immediately reversing himself.

Donald Trump retracts call for women who have abortions to be 'punished'

Republican frontrunner tells MSNBC there needs to be ‘some form of punishment’ for women, though he later disavowed controversial remarks

www.theguardian.com

Democrats control both houses and the WH.
Pass a bill to allow abortions up to or after birth and stop bitching.

But you pro death cultists want to spew hyperbole and claim blacks are going to be put back in chains because all you have is hyperbole as an argument.

 

[Flash]

Except in no state is there a law granting a fetus the rights of personhood.
So legally a fetus is not a person and does not have Constitutional protection.

Yes there is. Most states say that if you murder a pregnant woman then you have committed two murders.

 

[Flash]

Insisting on more education would be more logical for those insisting on not allowing women the choice of bearing.

It is not "not allowing women the choice of bearing". She had that choice before she allowed the guy to stick it in her with birth control.

It is preventing a woman from murdering a child as a method of birth control.

 

[bendog]

Yes there is. Most states say that if you murder a pregnant woman then you have committed two murders.

Technically, the state power derived from Casey, in which the SC found states have power to protect "potential life" but that had to be balanced the soon defunct right of women to privacy and to control their own reproduction.

 

[Blues Man]

You are harping on constitutional rights, and ignoring my point that a fetus is a separate living thing.

Your opinion otherwise is just that, an opinion.

It really isn't since it can't live without being attached to the mother's body and no woman has any legal obligation to carry a fetus to term

 

[Blues Man]

Yes there is. Most states say that if you murder a pregnant woman then you have committed two murders.

I bet if those cases were ever brought to the Supreme Court the murder charge for killing a fetus would be found unconstitutional because a fetus isn't a person as far as the law and the Constitution are concerned

 

[martybegan]

It really isn't since it can't live without being attached to the mother's body and no woman has any legal obligation to carry a fetus to term

That doesn't make it non-living. Are you going with the parasite argument? That's gonna win converts.

In some States after Roe is gone, she will. Hell before the current situation and States like NY and Cali passed "abortion up until delivery" laws, women could be denied abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters unless in danger of death. That counts as a legal obligation to carry to term, doesn't it?

 

[Blues Man]

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution - Bill of Health

By John A. Robertson The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman...

blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

 

[Blues Man]

That doesn't make it non-living. Are you going with the parasite argument? That's gonna win converts.

In some States after Roe is gone, she will. Hell before the current situation and States like NY and Cali passed "abortion up until delivery" laws, women could be denied abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters unless in danger of death. That counts as a legal obligation to carry to term, doesn't it?

So what if it is living?

Lots of things are living that aren't granted constitutional rights. A fetus has no rights to protect because as far as the constitution is concerned it is not a person.

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution - Bill of Health

By John A. Robertson The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman...

blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

 

[Blues Man]

That doesn't make it non-living. Are you going with the parasite argument? That's gonna win converts.

In some States after Roe is gone, she will. Hell before the current situation and States like NY and Cali passed "abortion up until delivery" laws, women could be denied abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters unless in danger of death. That counts as a legal obligation to carry to term, doesn't it?

I never used the word parasite and I don;t have to since even the Supreme Court has never considered a fetus a person with constitutional rights.

 

[whitehall]

We aren't talking about a "ban" as such. What will happen is that the voters will have a chance to determine whether they want to terminate the lives of the unborn and the almost born not to mention the newly born. In addition the federal government will stop funding the clinics with taxpayer dollars. Why are lefties so afraid of democracy?

 

[martybegan]

So what if it is living?

Lots of things are living that aren't granted constitutional rights. A fetus has no rights to protect because as far as the constitution is concerned it is not a person.

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution - Bill of Health

By John A. Robertson The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman...

blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

Well then the laws being passed will give said fetuses protection, if not rights.

To the States in question the fetus is a separate being worthy of government protection.

 

[martybegan]

I never used the word parasite and I don;t have to since even the Supreme Court has never considered a fetus a person with constitutional rights.

But you allude to it being a parasite, like many abortion rights supporters to justify you desire to kill it.

 

[Blues Man]

Never said there was a federal law, Dumbass.

State’s rights. Take it to the Supreme Court, Matlock.

Why should I I'm not a murderer and have no dog in that fight. But the SC ruling is evident.

No SC justice has ever once conceded that a fetus is a person and the word person has always meant a born person

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution - Bill of Health

By John A. Robertson The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman...

blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

 

[Blues Man]

Well then the laws being passed will give said fetuses protection, if not rights.

To the States in question the fetus is a separate being worthy of government protection.

Giving a fetus protection still cannot violate the rights of the woman.