More abortion insanity

[ding]

Ohio bill would allow pregnant people to sue over unintended pregnancies - WOUB Public Media

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Statehouse News Bureau) — With Ohio’s new six-week abortion ban in place, a Democratic state lawmaker says it’s time for the Ohio Legislature to give consideration to her... Read More

woub.org

Sen. Tina Maharath (D-Canal Winchester) said her bill would allow anyone who becomes pregnant to file a civil suit against the person who impregnated them — even if it happened as a result of consensual sex.
“Regardless of the circumstances. I felt it was important to have that vague language due to the fact that abortion is now banned here in the state of Ohio,” Maharath said.

So much reactionary bullshit going on, NO ONE is thinking.
So does this mean males can sue birth control providers for not stopping the pregnancy?
WTF is wrong with people SMH

Weren't men already responsible in that state?

 

[TNHarley]

Child labor was a reversal. After a couple decades of precedent.
Stare decisis got fucked on that one. Bigly!
Or the right for states to discriminate against blacks? That was almost 60 years of precedence! Did that SC not ever hear of stare decisis?

 

[TNHarley]

Weren't men already responsible in that state?

Child support and stuff. Not for impregnating, i reckon.

 

[Toro]

Never before have they violated Stare Decisis in this manner. In fact, they destroyed it,possibly forever.

I would suggest you let an expert explain it, go read up. It's not as if you would take my word for it anyway, and I am not asking anyone to do so.

Stare decisis is a Latin term that means “to stand by things decided.” As an ABA Legal Fact Check posted June 10 points out, for the Supreme Court to overturn a prior decision is neither commonplace nor rare. A 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the court has reversed itself 141 times, or on average less than once a year since the first in 1851. Since the CRS report was issued, the court has overturned a handful of its prior decisions.​

With Roe overturned, legal precedent moves to centerstage

With the June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns the landmark 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, the doctrine of stare decisis has fueled debate over the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court is bound by

www.americanbar.org

 

[ding]

Child support and stuff. Not for impregnating, i reckon.

Oh... so extra money. Lawyers must be doing back flips.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Obergefell ruling made sense under the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause. What kind of mess would there be if a gay couple got married in New York and then moved to Mississippi who wouldn't recognize it, but that logic doesn't work with abortion. However, if you want to argue that banning abortion in some states violates equal protection of women in those states that might be a valid argument, which begs the question, why didn't the Berger court state that in the first place instead of pulling some invisible right to privacy out of their ass?

The Obergfell ruling went much further than that, and you only touched on its minor component.

It REQUIRED all States to issue same sex marriage licenses, going forward.

And this opinion was based on the same constitutional right to privacy as was roe. This is why Thomas mentioned it by name. Thomas doesn't give a shit about which statesrecognize marriage. He wants States to be able to stop issuing same sex marriage licenses. In this light, your post amounts to a fat red herring.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Stare decisis is a Latin term that means “to stand by things decided.” As an ABA Legal Fact Check posted June 10 points out, for the Supreme Court to overturn a prior decision is neither commonplace nor rare. A 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the court has reversed itself 141 times, or on average less than once a year since the first in 1851. Since the CRS report was issued, the court has overturned a handful of its prior decisions.​

With Roe overturned, legal precedent moves to centerstage

With the June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns the landmark 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, the doctrine of stare decisis has fueled debate over the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court is bound by

www.americanbar.org

There is more to it than that. Hopefully you don't think you just graduated law school and gained 20 years of experience by spending 5 seconds on Google.

I implore you, go read some of the analysis by experts.

 

[ding]

Stare decisis is a Latin term that means “to stand by things decided.” As an ABA Legal Fact Check posted June 10 points out, for the Supreme Court to overturn a prior decision is neither commonplace nor rare. A 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the court has reversed itself 141 times, or on average less than once a year since the first in 1851. Since the CRS report was issued, the court has overturned a handful of its prior decisions.​

With Roe overturned, legal precedent moves to centerstage

With the June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns the landmark 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, the doctrine of stare decisis has fueled debate over the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court is bound by

www.americanbar.org

What part of not in that manner didn't you understand? FF was very very clear on that.

 

[ding]

There is more to it than that. Hopefully you don't think you just graduated law school and gained 20 years of experience by spending 5 seconds on Google.

I implore you, go read some of the analysis by experts.

Is "more to it than that" anything like "not in that manner?"

What more to it is there?

 

[BlackSand]

No, activist religious nutter judges with no respect for basic principles of jurisprudence is why it got overturned.

Not exactly something you are going to want in the scotus, going forward.

.

How are they activists ... They didn't write any Laws, their opinion didn't state any requirements, and they didn't create any Rights?
They didn't try to fabricate something out of nothing and corrected the earlier Court's decision.

.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Child labor was a reversal. After a couple decades of precedent

Specifically mentioned in some of the analysis, as is why that reversal did not violate Stare Decisis.

Yes, the people with a lifetime of education and experience in jurisprudence thought of that before you did. Crazy, huh?

 

[jc456]

If Americans aren't willing to police their own government that's their problem

Without term limits that isn’t possible. You know that. Too much money as well

 

[Toro]

There is more to it than that. Hopefully you don't think you just graduated law school and gained 20 years of experience by spending 5 seconds on Google.

I implore you, go read some of the analysis by experts.

God no. Thank heavens I decided not to go to law school. What a waste!

Did you go to law school? If not, feel free to post these analysis by experts.

TIA.

 

[ding]

Yes, the people with a lifetime of education and experience in jurisprudence thought of that before you did. Crazy, huh?

Yeah... especially since the court has reversed itself 141 times. Crazy huh? All those people with a lifetime of education and experience in jurisprudence being reversed 141 times. Weird.

 

[BlackSand]

The Obergefell ruling made sense under the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause. What kind of mess would there be if a gay couple got married in New York and then moved to Mississippi who wouldn't recognize it, but that logic doesn't work with abortion. However, if you want to argue that banning abortion in some states violates equal protection of women in those states that might be a valid argument, which begs the question, why didn't the Berger court state that in the first place instead of pulling some invisible right to privacy out of their ass?

.

In Roe they also tried to define requirements by trimester ...

"During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians. From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health. From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health."


That's Legislation and not a Right to Abortion or Privacy.

.​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Without term limits that isn’t possible. You know that. Too much money as well

Every election is a term limit. If people want to elect the same politician for 40 years then that's their naivete.

 

[jc456]

Every election is a term limit. If people want to elect the same politician for 40 years then that's their naivete.

When states allow party cross over during primaries ain’t possible



And, an incumbent wins almost 80%

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When states allow party cross over during primaries ain’t possible

Then change the primary election law.

 

[Dragonlady]

.

Constitutionally Protected Rights don't apply to "half the population" ... Equal Protection Under the Law is more than a catchphrase.
No Constitutionally Protected Right was deleted for anyone.

The Supreme Court didn't even demand the States write a Law that allows or forbids abortions ...
That's up to the State Legislatures.

.​

Just the idea that a person's "rights" depend on which state you live in, is ridiculous.

Voting time, days and hours should be the same across all states. Ditto abortion. These rights should not be subject to geographical lines. You're either one nation, governed by one set of major laws and standards or you're not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just the idea that a person's "rights" depend on which state you live in, is ridiculous.

Voting time, days and hours should be the same across all states. Ditto abortion. These rights should not be subject to geographical lines. You're either one nation, governed by one set of major laws and standards or you're not.

We are a republic of 50 states each as powerful as the fed.