The fight for abortion rights turns to state constitutions

[Tom Paine 1949]

Here are excerpts from a much longer article that discusses the state by state legal fight for women’s reproductive rights, now that Roe v Wade has been over-ruled by a Republican-dominated SC. Please use this thread for discussion of state legal and political struggles on this important issue:

“Anti-abortion actors have long claimed that overturning Roe — and sending the question of whether individuals should enjoy reproductive freedom back to state politicians — would simplify the legal landscape. But legal scholars say the opposite is true …. The lack of a single standard regarding the legality of abortion is unleashing a flood of litigation as restrictions are challenged against individual state constitutions, and competing visions about reproductive freedom give rise to new interstate battles…

“Only four states have constitutions that explicitly do not protect abortion rights. A majority of the first wave of lawsuits seeking to block bans are based on state constitutional protections that lawyers argue are more expansive than those provided in the U.S. Constitution.

“Lawsuits pending in Idaho, Ohio, and Utah, for example, cite broad privacy rights and liberty interests, arguing that abortion bans discriminate against women and violate equal protection guarantees.

“A suit in Oklahoma contends that the state’s competing abortion bans violate due process as well as a constitutional ‘right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity.’

“The Kentucky lawsuit argues that the state’s two abortion bans (a trigger ban and a six-week ban) violate state constitutional rights of privacy and self-determination.

“A suit in Mississippi, meanwhile, filed on behalf of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, argues that the state’s Supreme Court already concluded in 1998 that the constitution explicitly protected abortion. ‘As confirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court … the decision about whether and when to have children belongs to individuals and families, not to the state’s politicians,’ said Rob McDuff, a lawyer with the Mississippi Center for Justice, which is among the groups representing the state’s lone abortion provider.

“And in Florida, a suit challenging a new 15-week ban notes that in 1980, voters amended the state constitution to provide robust individual privacy rights, which were designed to include the right to abortion; in 2012, voters rejected an attempt to repeal that right. Protecting the right to abortion in Florida is considered crucial to maintaining access in the South.”

The Fight for Abortion Rights Turns to State Constitutions

 

[jwoodie]

Here are excerpts from a much longer article that discusses the state by state legal fight for women’s reproductive rights, now that Roe v Wade has been over-ruled by a Republican-dominated SC. Please use this thread for discussion of state legal and political struggles on this important issue:

“Anti-abortion actors have long claimed that overturning Roe — and sending the question of whether individuals should enjoy reproductive freedom back to state politicians — would simplify the legal landscape. But legal scholars say the opposite is true …. The lack of a single standard regarding the legality of abortion is unleashing a flood of litigation as restrictions are challenged against individual state constitutions, and competing visions about reproductive freedom give rise to new interstate battles…

“Only four states have constitutions that explicitly do not protect abortion rights. A majority of the first wave of lawsuits seeking to block bans are based on state constitutional protections that lawyers argue are more expansive than those provided in the U.S. Constitution.

“Lawsuits pending in Idaho, Ohio, and Utah, for example, cite broad privacy rights and liberty interests, arguing that abortion bans discriminate against women and violate equal protection guarantees.

“A suit in Oklahoma contends that the state’s competing abortion bans violate due process as well as a constitutional ‘right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity.’

“The Kentucky lawsuit argues that the state’s two abortion bans (a trigger ban and a six-week ban) violate state constitutional rights of privacy and self-determination.

“A suit in Mississippi, meanwhile, filed on behalf of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, argues that the state’s Supreme Court already concluded in 1998 that the constitution explicitly protected abortion. ‘As confirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court … the decision about whether and when to have children belongs to individuals and families, not to the state’s politicians,’ said Rob McDuff, a lawyer with the Mississippi Center for Justice, which is among the groups representing the state’s lone abortion provider.

“And in Florida, a suit challenging a new 15-week ban notes that in 1980, voters amended the state constitution to provide robust individual privacy rights, which were designed to include the right to abortion; in 2012, voters rejected an attempt to repeal that right. Protecting the right to abortion in Florida is considered crucial to maintaining access in the South.”

The Fight for Abortion Rights Turns to State Constitutions

You seem to be arguing against democracy because it may result in lawsuits. Very un-Paine like.

 

[Concerned American]

Here are excerpts from a much longer article that discusses the state by state legal fight for women’s reproductive rights, now that Roe v Wade has been over-ruled by a Republican-dominated SC.

Here are excerpts from a much longer article that discusses the state by state legal fight for women’s reproductive rights, now that Roe v Wade has been over-ruled by a constitutionalist-dominated SC.
There I fixed it for you. SCOTUS IS NOT AFFILIATED NOR BEHOLDEN TO ANY PARTY. Their mission is to preserve the constitution.

 

[Concerned American]

reproductive freedom

Why do you liberals try to muddy the waters and try to make the ABORTION debate about "reproductive freedom." It has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with murder of an innocent, voiceless, life.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

So the infanticide death cultists are fighting to keep baby murder in multiple states.
Is this is a surprise to anyone?

I think legally, someone will eventually go to court & make the compelling & scientifically factual argument that the right to life for innocent unborn human beings is being violated by murdering an innocent unborn human being.
Then the courts will protect all lives, not just those that are convenient.

 

[jillian]

You seem to be arguing against democracy because it may result in lawsuits. Very un-Paine like.

What was democratic about the radical rabid court decision or the will on 20% being imposed on the rest of us?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

“You seem to be arguing against democracy because it may result in lawsuits. Very un-Paine like.” — @jwoodie

Not at all! The legal rights of the people (in the U.S.) are generally determined by laws, federal or state, supposedly in accordance with the superior U.S. (and inferior State) constitutions. Under the U.S. Constitution, the exercise of natural rights are presumed also to be reserved … to the people themselves.

Thus, prevailing legal interpretations (often wrong) of our courts can’t and should not really restrict the right of women to exercise their own natural reproductive rights (to stop an unwanted pregnancy for example).

Nevertheless, there remains the fundamental civic need to keep our laws (clearly not determined in a fully democratic manner) as much as possible in accord with “natural law,” as revealed by reason. It’s only “common sense.” : )

Hope that answers you concerning my views on how Thomas Paine would have approached this question…

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Anti-abortion actors have long claimed that overturning Roe — and sending the question of whether individuals should enjoy reproductive freedom back to state politicians — would simplify the legal landscape. But legal scholars say the opposite is true

Anti-privacy rights actors are wrong – that’s a ridiculous statement.

Overturning Roe has and will complicate the legal landscape, with each state implementing different laws and restrictions, along with free states that continue to recognize and defend the right to privacy.

The political landscape will become complicated as well, as residents seek to repeal bans and restrictions at the ballot box.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What was democratic about the radical rabid court decision or the will on 20% being imposed on the rest of us?

Conservativism used to mean incremental change through democratic consensus.

That hasn’t been true for more than 50 years.

Now conservativism is radical, unwarranted change through the tyranny of judicial fiat.

 

[Leweman]

Conservativism used to mean incremental change through democratic consensus.

That hasn’t been true for more than 50 years.

Now conservativism is radical, unwarranted change through the tyranny of judicial fiat.

That's actually liberalism, minus the used to part.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This thread is not a discussion of “abortion” or of the “rights of the unborn” per se, but of the developing legal and political battles in separate states over the issue.

There are plenty of places to discuss whether “the unborn” have rights — including in discussions of the potential “end of human life” caused by possible overpopulation, environmental catastrophe or nuclear war!

Similarly, people’s professed moral or theological opinions on the issue, as interesting as they may be, is better discussed elsewhere.

I’m also personally not interested at this point in discussing whether the 50 year precedent established by Roe vs. Wade was rightly or wrongly — or could have somehow been “better” — decided. A future Supreme Court may reverse this court, or new Federal laws or even a Constitutional Amendment may ultimately be passed. Right now the struggle goes on in individual states. In the next years we shall see if this Republican “victory” improves or worsens the situation for women’s rights … and for national unity.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Imposing a judicially created right on the whole nation was the tyranny of judicial fiat. It was creeping federalism. The federal government has been usurping state power for far too long. The issue of abortion belongs for decision at the state level.

 

[Auld Phart]

What was democratic about the radical rabid court decision or the will on 20% being imposed on the rest of us?

What was democratic about the radical rabid court decision

What was 'democratic' about RvW being passed in the first place?

I seem to remember it was approved 7-2.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruling that ended a common level of protection for women’s reproductive rights will not resolve the issue.

Roe vs. Wade actually represented a compromise position. As I understand it (I’m no expert here) Roe originally ruled only that women’s right to end a pregnancy was absolute in the first trimester, while in the second it could not be banned but could be “regulated.” After that it gave states almost carte blanche to stop abortions.

Of course the issue became a political football for politicians, and allowed them to “make hay” and build their reputations as “conservatives” by categorizing a woman’s right to abortion (even in the first minutes after conception) as “baby killing.” They also argued that the Roe compromise was excessively liberal, or maintained it was fundamentally unconstitutional, while in some states women’s actual possibility of getting abortions at all was limited by state efforts and harassment, which forced abortion centers to close their doors.

The fight to protect a woman’s right to choose not to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will all the way to term, and to determine what laws will govern her rights, may now move to the states … but will probably exacerbate divisions within them.

I hope this Thread will allow for future discussion of state legal and political struggles on this important issue as they arise.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Anti-privacy rights actors are wrong – that’s a ridiculous statement.

Overturning Roe has and will complicate the legal landscape, with each state implementing different laws and restrictions, along with free states that continue to recognize and defend the right to privacy.

The political landscape will become complicated as well, as residents seek to repeal bans and restrictions at the ballot box.

And you obviously think fifty standards are worse than one. I think just the opposite, we then have fifty chances for everyone to find a solution that they are happy with. A complicated legal landscape is a good thing for freedom.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This thread is not a discussion of “abortion” or of the “rights of the unborn” per se, but of the developing legal and political battles in separate states over the issue.

There are plenty of places to discuss whether “the unborn” have rights — including in discussions of the potential “end of human life” caused by possible overpopulation, environmental catastrophe or nuclear war!

Similarly, people’s professed moral or theological opinions on the issue, as interesting as they may be, is better discussed elsewhere.

I’m also personally not interested at this point in discussing whether the 50 year precedent established by Roe vs. Wade was rightly or wrongly — or could have somehow been “better” — decided. A future Supreme Court may reverse this court, or new Federal laws or even a Constitutional Amendment may ultimately be passed. Right now the struggle goes on in individual states. In the next years we shall see if this Republican “victory” improves or worsens the situation for women’s rights … and for national unity.

Oh national unity. That's easy. There is none. Nor will there ever be again. Abortion is the flashlight exposing all the crazy in a dark room.

California, despite having legalized abortion long ago, despite the creation of a state department devoted to paying all expenses of women who come here for abortions, is putting abortion on the ballot. I intend to vote against the measure.

 

[Leweman]

The Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruling that ended a common level of protection for women’s reproductive rights will not resolve the issue.

Roe vs. Wade actually represented a compromise position. As I understand it (I am no expert here) Roe originally only allowed that women’s rights to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was virtually absolute, while in the second it could not be banned but could be “regulated.” After that it gave states almost carte blanche to stop abortions.

Of course the issue became a political football for politicians and troublemakers to “make hay” and their reputations by categorizing women’s rights to abortion as “baby killing,” declaring the Roe compromise as excessively liberal, maintaining it was fundamentally unconstitutional, and in many states chipping away at the actual possibility of getting abortions by harassing and forcing abortion providers to close their doors.

The fight to protect a woman’s right to choose not to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will all the way to term, and to determine what laws will govern her rights, may move to the states … but will probably exacerbate divisions within them.

I hope this Thread will allow for future discussion of state legal and political struggles on this important issue as they arise.

Should women have the right to choose to murder their husband?

 

[Donald H]

Why do you liberals try to muddy the waters and try to make the ABORTION debate about "reproductive freedom." It has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with murder of an innocent, voiceless, life.

It's voiceless my friend but it's not an innocent life. It's not even a life. It's almost certainly a fetus borne out of evil.
In America sex is only for procreation! So sayeth your lord.

 

[Leweman]

Should women have the right to choose to murder their husband?

No response must mean yes.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Should women have the right to choose to murder their husband? … No response must mean yes.

Please do not troll this threadl