Deliberating The 'Right' To Kill

[PoliticalChic]

8. It's not in the Constitution: don't make it up.


"'Mississippi compellingly argues that contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, nothing in the Constitution’s text, structure, history, or tradition supports a constitutional right to abortion. As a result, Mississippi has just as much authority to legislate on abortion policy as other subjects, and the prohibition of abortion after 15 weeks ought to stand.

In addition to being unmoored from the Constitution, the viability standard is fundamentally subjective, vague, and unworkable. In 1973, viability was considered to be approximately 28 weeks’ gestation. Today, 24 weeks is widely accepted, and babies are surviving even earlier—some as early as 21 weeks, such as Micah Pickering.

The “viability standard” imposed by the Supreme Court is ultimately an arbitrary line made without scientific analysis or justification and has prevented much state policymaking on abortion to bring the law in line with the science.


Should the Supreme Court change course on Roe v. Wade, abortion policy would return to the states and the American people, through the democratic process, could further address outdated and extreme abortion laws with policies that are not subject to the arbitrary and unworkable viability standard.

Rather, policymakers could craft laws that acknowledge the humanity of children in the womb and reflect public sentiment that supports protecting unborn children before and after viability."

A Major Abortion Case Goes Before the Supreme Court. Here’s What You Need to Know.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will answer the question: Are all pre-viability bans on elective abortion unconstitutional?

www.dailysignal.com

Just imagine......adults would have to make careful considerations about having children.

I'm not sure Democrats can handle that responsibility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"NBC NEWS: It looks like the Mississippi pro-life law will STAND​

NBC News is reporting that after oral arguments today that it appears the Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks will be upheld by the Supreme Court:

NBC NEWS – The Supreme Court appeared prepared Wednesday to uphold a Mississippi law that would ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which would represent a dramatic break from 50 years of rulings.

The justices heard 90 minutes of oral arguments in the most direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in nearly three decades over a Mississippi abortion law.
A majority of the court’s conservative justices suggested they were prepared to discard the court’s previous standard that prevented states from banning abortion before the age of fetal viability, which is generally considered to be at about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

At least four of the court’s conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neal Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, suggested they were prepared to overturn Roe on the grounds that it was wrongly decided, despite the public’s decades of reliance on it.
“Can’t a decision be overruled because it was wrong when it was decided?” Alito asked.
Kavanaugh listed several past decisions, on segregation and gay marriage, that resulted from the court overruling longstanding precedents.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested he would be willing to uphold the Mississippi law without overturning Roe, but it was unclear whether any other members of the court would be with him."

NBC NEWS: It looks like the Mississippi pro-life law will STAND – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. "We wrote about this in “The Failure of Roe v. Wade,” quoting Judge James Ho, one of the riders of the 5th circuit, the appeals court that upheld Mississippi’s 2018 abortion law. “Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution establishes a right to an abortion,” Judge Ho wrote. What has happened is that abortion, unlike all other health care questions in the country, has been removed “from the democratic process established by our Founders.”


So questions on abortion are decided not in the legislatures of the 50 states, nor in the Congress, but in the realm of the courts. That’s why, Judge Ho said, the arguments in abortion cases, including the one before the Supreme Court today, “draw our attention not to what the Constitution says, but to what the Supreme Court has held.” This suggests the opportunity the Mississippi case presents to the Supreme Court today.


As Judge Ho foresaw, the Mississippi abortion clinic relies on precedent, not the Constitution itself, in its argument against the state law. "

A ‘Political Explosion’ on Abortion Might Be What We Need

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

www.nysun.com

Precedent, case law, is simply a method designed by the Democrats/Left/ Progressives, to ignore the law of the land....the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "THE COURTS

Roe v. Wade In Serious Danger As Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Mississippi Abortion Ban​

Overturning Roe would scramble politics at the state and federal levels

The Supreme Court signaled on Wednesday that Roe v. Wade is in serious jeopardy as it heard oral arguments over a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks.

Mississippi is defending its law by pressing the High Court to overturn Roe altogether. The tenor of questioning indicated that outcome is quite possible and perhaps likely.


.... the scope of abortion policy has been dictated by Supreme Court precedent. If abortion regulation returned to the states or to Congress, voters would have a direct say on regulations for the first time in decades, touching everything from outright bans to informed consent laws and political speech outside clinics.


A dozen states have so-called trigger laws on the books that would immediately ban or restrict abortion in the event Roe is overturned, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute. Nine have pre-1973 bans on abortion that would be enforceable for the first time in decades. Another 14 have codified abortion rights in their state laws, ensuring access in the event Roe is scuttled."

Roe v. Wade In Serious Danger As Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Mississippi Abortion Ban

The Supreme Court signaled on Wednesday that Roe v. Wade is in serious jeopardy as it heard oral arguments over a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks.

freebeacon.com

"A decision in Wednesday's case is expected by summer 2022."


Not fer nuttin'.....but I ain't gettin' my hopes up yet.
Democrat America hasn't been a home to rectitude for a long, long time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats lie about everything......as in the lie that Trump organized some sort of revolution Jan6.....while Democrats officials called for exactly that.


Wait......here's another one now!!

Democrat senator threatens Supreme Court with ‘revolution’ if Roe v. Wade is overturned​

---

Jeanne Shaheen also invoked the myth of pre-Roe 'back alley' abortions.






Well.....it is the party of death.....and revolution.





Did you know the Democrats authorized 12 thousand riots and revolutions during Trump's years????

True story.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Prior to 1880 there were no laws against abortion before the quickening, if you can find any the post them.

Nice try.

You can't show anything in American jurisprudence that mentions "quickening". What you are doing is taking cult talking points that are used to try and counter religious arguments due to 13th century ramblings of some pope (Innocent III) about quickening.

But being lazy, stupid, and dishonest, you pretended it had something to do with American law.

Look, 90% of the shit you spew is just idiocy you made up because you think you can get away with it. This is just more of the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Show us the law in the Constitution banning abortion.

Show us the law in the Constitution banning rape? Or Murder? Or Kidnapping?

You're such a pathetic moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For one most Americans support abortion for rape and incest or medical emergency reasons. And America is not a theocracy. So I do not see it happening.

Well, that covers 0.00000000000000000001% of abortions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrats lie about everything......as in the lie that Trump organized some sort of revolution Jan6.....while Democrats officials called for exactly that.


Wait......here's another one now!!

Democrat senator threatens Supreme Court with ‘revolution’ if Roe v. Wade is overturned​

---

Jeanne Shaheen also invoked the myth of pre-Roe 'back alley' abortions.






Well.....it is the party of death.....and revolution.





Did you know the Democrats authorized 12 thousand riots and revolutions during Trump's years????

True story.

Nazi democrats are violent traitors. Insurrectionist Shaheen is just being true to her filthy Reich.

 

[Muhammed]

Nice try.

You can't show anything in American jurisprudence that mentions "quickening". What you are doing is taking cult talking points that are used to try and counter religious arguments due to 13th century ramblings of some pope (Innocent III) about quickening.

The religious superstitious belief of a medieval pope that a fetus doesn't get a soul until quickening is exactly what SCOTUS cited to justify the Roe vs. Wade decision.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The religious superstitious belief of a medieval pope that a fetus doesn't get a soul until quickening is exactly what SCOTUS cited to justify the Roe vs. Wade decision.

Yes, but the argument of the moron Moony is this was law in America prior to 1870.

It is in fact never mentioned.

He is confusing his pro-abort mantras.

 

[SavannahMann]

A man is drowning in the ocean. What about his right to life? Two men are stranded on a lifeboat. They have no choice but to resort to cannibalism. If they do not both will die. Whose right to life takes precedence?

A woman is paralyzed. What Liberty does she enjoy? Trapped by her infirmity she is unable to to enjoy her right to liberty isn’t she?

Are we not committing an unforgivable sin in denying a criminal his liberty by sending him to prison? Does he not have a right to Liberty?

And the pursuit of happiness? Force it upon someone. Some people. Like yourself, are only happy inflicting pain and sorrow on others. Are you saying the Founders intended to allow you such freedoms? Others feel happiness no matter how much people like you strive to deny them that happiness.

If you had read the Declaration of Independence. You would know that the founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and Sacred Honor to purchase those freedoms.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A man is drowning in the ocean. What about his right to life? Two men are stranded on a lifeboat. They have no choice but to resort to cannibalism. If they do not both will die. Whose right to life takes precedence?

A woman is paralyzed. What Liberty does she enjoy? Trapped by her infirmity she is unable to to enjoy her right to liberty isn’t she?

Are we not committing an unforgivable sin in denying a criminal his liberty by sending him to prison? Does he not have a right to Liberty?

And the pursuit of happiness? Force it upon someone. Some people. Like yourself, are only happy inflicting pain and sorrow on others. Are you saying the Founders intended to allow you such freedoms? Others feel happiness no matter how much people like you strive to deny them that happiness.

If you had read the Declaration of Independence. You would know that the founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and Sacred Honor to purchase those freedoms.

Sophism is the substitute for wisdom among fascists.

{A man is drowning in the ocean. What about his right to life?}

What about it? If you come along and hit him with a paddle until he drowns, then you are an abortionist.

{And the pursuit of happiness? Force it upon someone. Some people}

Pursuit cannot be forced, moron.

 

[SavannahMann]

Sophism is the substitute for wisdom among fascists.

{A man is drowning in the ocean. What about his right to life?}

What about it? If you come along and hit him with a paddle until he drowns, then you are an abortionist.

{And the pursuit of happiness? Force it upon someone. Some people}

Pursuit cannot be forced, moron.

My point was that those rights lauded by a bit are impossible to guarantee. It’s probably why the Founders did not include them in the Constitution.

I point out these things are not mentioned in the Constitution. No right to life, liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. But that doesn’t stop the fools from waving the banner as if it proves their point.

The right to Privacy is implied. It is why Phone Calls and Electronic Communication is protected from Government Surveillance. Even though it is not directly mentioned.

The Right to Privacy is the foundation of the right to Abortion. It isn’t directly mentioned. But since we are eradicating rights not directly mentioned. We should go all the way shouldn’t we?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A man is drowning in the ocean. What about his right to life? Two men are stranded on a lifeboat. They have no choice but to resort to cannibalism. If they do not both will die. Whose right to life takes precedence?

A woman is paralyzed. What Liberty does she enjoy? Trapped by her infirmity she is unable to to enjoy her right to liberty isn’t she?

Are we not committing an unforgivable sin in denying a criminal his liberty by sending him to prison? Does he not have a right to Liberty?

And the pursuit of happiness? Force it upon someone. Some people. Like yourself, are only happy inflicting pain and sorrow on others. Are you saying the Founders intended to allow you such freedoms? Others feel happiness no matter how much people like you strive to deny them that happiness.

If you had read the Declaration of Independence. You would know that the founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and Sacred Honor to purchase those freedoms.

I simply love your autobiographical posts....
'

....but try to be more articulate.


Any point is hidden in garbled verbiage.

I expect a better job.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My point was that those rights lauded by a bit are impossible to guarantee. It’s probably why the Founders did not include them in the Constitution.

I point out these things are not mentioned in the Constitution. No right to life, liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. But that doesn’t stop the fools from waving the banner as if it proves their point.

The right to Privacy is implied. It is why Phone Calls and Electronic Communication is protected from Government Surveillance. Even though it is not directly mentioned.

The Right to Privacy is the foundation of the right to Abortion. It isn’t directly mentioned. But since we are eradicating rights not directly mentioned. We should go all the way shouldn’t we?

"I point out these things are not mentioned in the Constitution. No right to life, liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. But that doesn’t stop the fools from waving the banner as if it proves their point."


Nonsense.


You certainly don't understand the principles behind banning murder.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My point was that those rights lauded by a bit are impossible to guarantee. It’s probably why the Founders did not include them in the Constitution.

I point out these things are not mentioned in the Constitution. No right to life, liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. But that doesn’t stop the fools from waving the banner as if it proves their point.

The right to Privacy is implied. It is why Phone Calls and Electronic Communication is protected from Government Surveillance. Even though it is not directly mentioned.

The Right to Privacy is the foundation of the right to Abortion. It isn’t directly mentioned. But since we are eradicating rights not directly mentioned. We should go all the way shouldn’t we?

"It isn’t directly mentioned."

It isn't mentioned at all.


The only job any judge or justice has is to tie their decision to the words of the Constitution, you dunce.



Here is your lesson, from the great Rehnquist, about any decision by a judge not based on the text of the Constitution.

"The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[fncceo]

Deliberating The 'Right' To Kill​

No deliberation required ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

No deliberation required ...

View attachment 571249

I don't have a license to kill......

...but I do have a learner's permit.


My specialty is bad comedy.