Montana becomes eighth state to put measure protecting abortion on ballot

[there4eyeM]

That states decide is what the consequences of "Roe" being overturned produced. No "rights" were affected, only the right way to do things Constitutionally. Let states, where women can vote directly (and not be victim of an excessive duopoly-controlled central government), decide. The women will decide, as they should.

 

[there4eyeM]

Because democracy is messy.

Perhaps, but it would be interesting to try it. As it is, we have highly paid people sitting in nice offices in Washington conveniently located for lobbyists to "convince" them to do as bid (pun intended).

 

[Frankeneinstein]

In almost every case, its the voters in that state who demanded the issue be considered.

which is the way it should have been all along, not some court deciding the issue for them

In Florida....fucking Florida, a proposed amendment restoring Roe era abortion access is leading by nearly 70%.

Not sure what "roe era abortion access" is as that was federal and this is state and local but since Florida will be paying for it all themselves no one outside the state has a right to deny or force them to accept this on anyone's terms but their own.

The people don't want these restrictions.

Which is why it should have been settled at the ballot box in the first place.

 

[Skylar]

which is the way it should have been all along, not some court deciding the issue for them

When it comes to issues of rights and bodily autonomy, the courts should absolutely be involved.

When rights can simply be voted away, you get some pretty horrendous outcomes.

Not sure what "roe era abortion access" is as that was federal and this is state and local but since Florida will be paying for it all themselves no one outside the state has a right to deny or force them to accept this on anyone's terms but their own.

Roe era abortion access is unrestricted abortion access through viability. Which was the standard established under Roe.

Which is why it should have been settled at the ballot box in the first place.

Which of your rights should be settled at a ballot box? Its very easy to be dismissive when its not your rights being stripped from you at the federal level so they can be turned into crimes by religious fundamentalists at the state level.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

When it comes to issues of rights and bodily autonomy, the courts should absolutely be involved.

including dobbs?

When rights can simply be voted away, you get some pretty horrendous outcomes.

which is the case pro-lifers make for the pre born...anyway, like it or not the court has spoken...and there is a difference between voting away constitutional rights and instituting controversial new ones.

Roe era abortion access is unrestricted abortion access through viability. Which was the standard established under Roe.

Which I agree with and prefer, but I don't speak for everyone.

Which of your rights should be settled at a ballot box?

all that are not in the constitution that the court forces on those who reject them.

Its very easy to be dismissive when its not your rights being stripped from you at the federal level so they can be turned into crimes by religious fundamentalists at the state level.

Why is this not a right of mine? if it isn't universal then it isn't a right but a privilege.

 

[Skylar]

including dobbs?

Dobbs was essentially the first time that a recognized right was taken away from people by the courts. The role of the courts, historically, has been to expand rights and protections of the people.

Not to take them away.

That's the legacy of the Roberts Court.

which is the case pro-lifers make for the pre born...anyway, like it or not the court has spoken...and there is a difference between voting away constitutional rights and instituting controversial new ones.

That wasn't Dobbs. They made zero mention of it. Instead, Dobbs was the rescinding of the constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Yeah, that won't come to bite us in the ass.

Which I agree with and prefer, but I don't speak for everyone.

all that are not in the constitution that the court forces on those who reject them.

Why is this not a right of mine? if it isn't universal then it isn't a right but a privilege.

The right to privacy was a right, until the court stripped it away from the people. A first.

What right of yours should stripped from you, turned into a privilege so it can be criminalized at the state level?

Again, its really easy to be dismissive of rights when its someone else's being stripped from them and turned into fodder for the ballot box.

 

[Zincwarrior]

That states decide is what the consequences of "Roe" being overturned produced. No "rights" were affected, only the right way to do things Constitutionally. Let states, where women can vote directly (and not be victim of an excessive duopoly-controlled central government), decide. The women will decide, as they should.

I imagine you feel differently about the Second Amendment.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Dobbs was essentially the first time that a recognized right was taken away from people by the courts.

but you did not say if the court was the right place for dobbs to be decided based the guideline(s) you laid out..what happens when you do not like the courts decision? everybody played by the rules you claim applied.

The role of the courts, historically, has been to expand rights and protections of the people.

Not to take them away.
That's the legacy of the Roberts Court.

and in this case they decided it was the right of the people to decide, not have it taken away by the courts.

That wasn't Dobbs. They made zero mention of it. Instead, Dobbs was the rescinding of the constitutionally protected right to privacy.

That was intended for the court battles currently, in the states, not dobbs...and even in that point it was merely attributed as the reason for taking any legal action not the actual legal argument.

Yeah, that won't come to bite us in the ass.

not sure how or why or what it even means

The right to privacy was a right, until the court stripped it away from the people. A first.

well only in much the same way our right to vote on this was stripped away.

What right of yours should stripped from you, turned into a privilege so it can be criminalized at the state level?

The right to choose.

Again, its really easy to be dismissive of rights when its someone else's being stripped from them

roe made that crystal clear to a lot of people

and turned into fodder for the ballot box.

votes equal fodder now? lol...trust the people, they know better than you, me and the courts when it concerns what it is they want, how could that not be the case?

 

[Skylar]

but you did not say if the court was the right place for dobbs to be decided based the guideline(s) you laid out..what happens when you do not like the courts decision? everybody played by the rules claim applied.

In terms of extending rights and protections of the people, the court is exactly the correct forum.

As for rescinding and eliminating and protections of the people.......that was unprecedented. Dobbs was the first time the American people have been stripped of an explicitly recognized right.

That's the legacy of the Robert's court. And frankly, conservatism in general.

and in this case they decided it was the right of the people to decide, not have it taken away by the courts.

You're confused about what rights are. Rights are freedom from government interference. You're thinking of POWERS, like the power to make what was once a right into a crime.

Conservatives frequently get them mixed up. The entire concept of 'States Rights' is based on this profound misunderstanding. There are no such thing as States Rights. There are, however, State Powers.

The Dobbs court stripped the people of a explicitly recognized right. And the States are using their power to turn that right into a crime.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

In terms of extending rights and protections of the people, the court is exactly the correct forum.

I tend to agree personally but...

As for rescinding and eliminating and protections of the people.......that was unprecedented. Dobbs was the first time the American people have been stripped of an explicitly recognized right.

recognized by who? the court? outside the constitution itself there is nothing that cannot be undone by a court and even that is under attack where 2a is concerned.

That's the legacy of the Robert's court. And frankly, conservatism in general.

So? its the most diverse court in our history...does ^that^ infer/imply that you think I'm a conservative on the matter?

 

[there4eyeM]

I imagine you feel differently about the Second Amendment.

The connection is uniquely in your mind.

 

[Skylar]

I tend to agree personally but...

recognized by who? the court? outside the constitution itself there is nothing that cannot be undone by a court and even that is under attack where 2a is concerned.'

Read the 10th amendment. The Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. The rights we possess aren't simply those in the constitution.

There were entire debates on this topic, with the opponents of the Bill of Rights fearing the exact 'outside the constitution' perspective you're referring to now. They argued against the Bill of Rights on concerns that folks would assume that the constitution itself was the source of rights, and if it wasn't inside the constitution it wasn't a right.

The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy......and then stripped that right away in Dobbs. That was unprecedented.

Thomas has already telegraphed that this stripping of rights take out all sorts of other rights. The right to contraception. Prohibitions on the criminalization of homosexuality. Gay marriage. Using Thomas' logic, even stripping away the right to interracial marriage.

So? its the most diverse court in our history...does ^that^ infer/imply that you think I'm a conservative on the matter?

So, the conservative wing of the court is literally arguing that they have a duty to 'correct the errors' that recognized rights of Americans, so those rights can be stripped away.

Do you not see how dangerous this is? How startling and worthy of opposition?

And with no right to privacy, there are expansive violations of your personal life that the courts and the states can perform for which there is no constitutional protection.

This, historically, has not been the role of the courts, who have instead expanded the rights and protections of the people. Under a hard right conservative majority, the court has begun to strip rights from Americans, so those rights can be turned into crimes.

With the conservative movement believing that the State should have control over the most intimate decisions in a persons life, like who they can marry, how many kids they will have, what adult they are going to have sex with.

I disagree. And I'll oppose y'all at every step as you try to take away rights and liberties from American citizens.