CDZ What is the real problem

[oldsoul]

Out of curiosity, I ran the numbers. Your example, assuming full time (40hrs/wk) employment, would be a minimum wage earner. That number is roughly 4%. So, are you suggesting that laws be written to accommodate just 4% of the population? Keeping in mind:
"Just 4 percent of minimum-wage workers are single parents working full-time, compared to 5.6 percent of all U.S. workers." Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

The sentence you quoted doesn't actually say what you are claiming. it doesn't say anything about what percentage of Americans (or even what percentage of workers) earn minimum wage. It tells you that 4% of minimum wage workers are single parents, and 5.6 percent of all US workers are single parents. But "single parents" is not the category I'm interested in.

I should note that I picked $15k as an example because it was about minimum wage, not because I think someone making any amount over that would have no problems with increased travel distance to various services. In any case, according to 2017 census data about 6.4% of all families had a total income below $15k/year, and a little over 9% had a total income less than $20k. Those are in fact significant numbers of people. I already said I didn't think it was necessarily the only consideration, but I do think it's an important one. It's especially relevant to abortion, because abortion patients are disproportionately poor.

(edit: I linked family income not household income, editing text to reflect that. In any case, the percentages for household income are 10.6% < 15k and 15.6% < 20k: data here. "Families" appear to be a subset of "households", i.e. because within a household a family group indicates only the occupants who are related to the head of household. This suggests that the difference between the two data sets reflects the fact that there's a lot of poor people living in households with non-family members.)

You are correct, I stand corrected.

The point I was attempting (poorly) to get to is that the real issue, as I see it, is that people simply do not accept, or apply, the same level of personal responsibility that was once generally practiced. What I mean, in this context is, if you do not wish to be a parent at this time, you really should take personal responsibility for it, and take steps to reduce the likelihood of getting pregnant (or getting someone else pregnant, if you're a guy). There are things one can do to dramatically reduce said likelihood. There is also, one thing a person can do that ELIMINATES the possibility. Now, I understand that there are times when a person is forced to engage in sexual activity (it's called rape), and in these cases the situation is very different, and should be addressed as such. For the vast majority of cases, those involved know (or should reasonably know) that their actions could result in a pregnancy. So, we come back to personal responsibility.

I am not opposed to abortion. I have my beliefs that prevent me from considering it a viable option in most cases. However, that is MY life, and I have NO RIGHT to decide what is a viable option for others. Likewise, the Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY on the matter of abortion. It can neither deem it legal nor illegal, it is a RIGHT (contained in the COTUS) that is reserved to the various states and/or the people. Therefore, if one state wishes to deem it illegal in said state, that is a STATE matter, and is constitutional, on a Federal level. It may well violate that state's constitution, that I cannot say as I am not familiar with all 50.

 

[oldsoul]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

A lot of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so because they cannot afford to raise another child. To someone living in central Texas, let's say, with three other children and a full-time job with no sick days or other benefits, traveling to, say, Colorado, for the termination would be loss of pay, someone to care for the children, as well as the travel expenses. Many people do not own a car. At least not one that runs. And most clinics require at least a one or two day waiting period from their initial appointment to the actual procedure, which would be paying for a motel, eats, etc. And of course that does not take into account the $600 average for the procedure itself, which is not covered by Medicaid and over half the states providing Obamacare.
It would in many cases make it realistically impossible for a woman to seek a termination of pregnancy if she had to find another state to travel to.

In which case she should take personal responsibility for herself, and take steps to ensure she is not faced with such a dilemma. We all have to make sacrifices in our lives, to pretend that is not true is delusional at best.

 

[oldsoul]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

It's important to maintain some common culture and unity for the country as a whole. The US, in particular, was founded on the notion that government is created to protect our rights. If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line.

What rights would be violated by a law forbidding abortion in a particular state? Please provide the location in the COTUS that addresses said right.

 

[dblack]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

It's important to maintain some common culture and unity for the country as a whole. The US, in particular, was founded on the notion that government is created to protect our rights. If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line.

What rights would be violated by a law forbidding abortion in a particular state? Please provide the location in the COTUS that addresses said right.

You misunderstand how the Constitution protects our rights. Are you one of those who thinks that the government grants us our rights from on high? Many of the founders were worried about people like you, and were opposed to the Bill of Rights for that reason. They feared that people would misconstrue it as an exclusive list of our rights - and try to argue that we have no others. So, no, I don't have to show you in the COTUS where sovereignty over one's own body is declared as a right. The onus is on you to show where the Constitution empowers government to violate that right. (hint: it doesn't)

 

[candycorn]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

It's important to maintain some common culture and unity for the country as a whole. The US, in particular, was founded on the notion that government is created to protect our rights. If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line.

What rights would be violated by a law forbidding abortion in a particular state? Please provide the location in the COTUS that addresses said right.

You misunderstand how the Constitution protects our rights. Are you one of those who thinks that the government grants us our rights from on high? Many of the founders were worried about people like you, and were opposed to the Bill of Rights for that reason. They feared that people would misconstrue it as an exclusive list of our rights - and try to argue that we have no others. So, no, I don't have to show you in the COTUS where sovereignty over one's own body is declared as a right. The onus is on you to show where the Constitution empowers government to violate that right. (hint: it doesn't)

Excellent point.

The ruling in ROE wasn’t about abortion, it was a personal privacy ruling. If you over turn the foundation, you overturn the largely assumed right that we all have to privacy.

 

[oldsoul]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

It's important to maintain some common culture and unity for the country as a whole. The US, in particular, was founded on the notion that government is created to protect our rights. If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line.

What rights would be violated by a law forbidding abortion in a particular state? Please provide the location in the COTUS that addresses said right.

You misunderstand how the Constitution protects our rights. Are you one of those who thinks that the government grants us our rights from on high? Many of the founders were worried about people like you, and were opposed to the Bill of Rights for that reason. They feared that people would misconstrue it as an exclusive list of our rights - and try to argue that we have no others. So, no, I don't have to show you in the COTUS where sovereignty over one's own body is declared as a right. The onus is on you to show where the Constitution empowers government to violate that right. (hint: it doesn't)

It is YOU who misunderstand. I have in no way said that the COTUS GRANTS ANYTHING. It is a document RESTRICTING governmental encroachment on our rights, as well as spelling out the outline for how our government is to function. Therefore, it is not people like me, that the founders were worried about. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by, "If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line." That sentence seems to imply that the federal government DOES have the ability to govern abortion. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.

It does seem as though we are here, so what are we arguing about?

 

[oldsoul]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

It's important to maintain some common culture and unity for the country as a whole. The US, in particular, was founded on the notion that government is created to protect our rights. If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line.

What rights would be violated by a law forbidding abortion in a particular state? Please provide the location in the COTUS that addresses said right.

You misunderstand how the Constitution protects our rights. Are you one of those who thinks that the government grants us our rights from on high? Many of the founders were worried about people like you, and were opposed to the Bill of Rights for that reason. They feared that people would misconstrue it as an exclusive list of our rights - and try to argue that we have no others. So, no, I don't have to show you in the COTUS where sovereignty over one's own body is declared as a right. The onus is on you to show where the Constitution empowers government to violate that right. (hint: it doesn't)

Excellent point.

The ruling in ROE wasn’t about abortion, it was a personal privacy ruling. If you over turn the foundation, you overturn the largely assumed right that we all have to privacy.

Actually, according to Wiki:
"The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general. In 1992, however, the plurality of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy made a subtle move away from the physician's-rights approach of Roe and toward a patient's-rights approach in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The plurality in Casey, explicitly confirming that women had a constitutional right to abortion and further upholding the "essential holding" of Roe, stated that women had a right to choose abortion before viability and that this right could not be unduly interfered with by the state. They asserted that this right was rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia
A minor correction. Your statement is, essentially, true, just a difference in what case to cite.