The fight for abortion rights turns to state constitutions

[jwoodie]

Roe vs. Wade actually represented a compromise position.

The problem was that it was a political compromise that quickly fell apart under its practical application. I believe that the Supreme Court should decide cases based on their Constitutionality, not political gamesmanship.

 

[Leweman]

Please do not troll this threadl

Yes or no?

 

[Donald H]

Please do not troll this threadl

There's a way of making sense of this Tom.
There can be a mindset created in which a woman killing her husband can be viewed by society as being justified for an assortment of reasons.

Quite unlikely in America but the reverse is close to being true now.
Could we use the example of a man refusing to allow his wife to have an abortion when the woman's life depends on it?

Your question doesn't make much sense unless this example on abortion is applied.

There may be other examples of legalized murder of one's wife in America. I would suggest that murder could become legalized due to political differences.

 

[Concerned American]

There's a way of making sense of this Tom.
There can be a mindset created in which a woman killing her husband can be viewed by society as being justified for an assortment of reasons.

Quite unlikely in America but the reverse is close to being true now.
Could we use the example of a man refusing to allow his wife to have an abortion when the woman's life depends on it?

Your question doesn't make much sense unless this example on abortion is applied.

There may be other examples of legalized murder of one's wife in America. I would suggest that murder could become legalized due to political differences.

He asked you nicely, duck. You have no standing in this debate. This is not a Canadian issue. So do as the OP requested and don't troll his thread.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I did not ask Donald H to “stop trolling,” I asked Leweman .

I also will ask you too to restrain from personal insults and try to stick to the issue of State legal fights over this issue. Thank you.

 

[flan327]

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.

Sorry that the TRUTH scares you

 

[flan327]

Fuck you duck. It has a brain and a heartbeat. It is a life. You are one sick commie fuck.

Post reported

 

[Donald H]

He asked you nicely, duck. You have no standing in this debate. This is not a Canadian issue. So do as the OP requested and don't troll his thread.

Please my friend, the OP has aksed you nicely!

 

[Concerned American]

Sorry that the TRUTH scares you

Glad to see that you can spell it--that is a close to understanding it as you'll ever get. Now, please explain how murdering the unborn is reproduction. I'll wait.

 

[Concerned American]

Post reported

Sorry that the TRUTH scares you.

 

[Concerned American]

Please my friend, the OP has aksed you nicely!

I am discussing the topic, duck. There is NO RIGHT to murder the unborn. The SCOTUS has reaffirmed that point. Sorry if it hurts yours or the OP's feelings. Once again, your opinion is irrelevant as you have no standing in US domestic policy.

 

[Donald H]

I am discussing the topic, duck. There is NO RIGHT to murder the unborn. The SCOTUS has reaffirmed that point.

I'm sorry again my friend but the unborn can't be murdered, by definition.

Sorry if it hurts yours or the OP's feelings. Once again, your opinion is irrelevant as you have no standing in US domestic policy.

Pissant please! I refuse to join you in deliberately spamming this thread against the OP's wishes.

 

[Concerned American]

I'm sorry again my friend but the unborn can't be murdered, by definition.


Pissant please! I refuse to join you in deliberately spamming this thread against the OP's wishes.

Beyond the obvious first post, you are spamming, duck. The unborn, carried to term are children. They have a brain and heartbeat in the womb. If the innocent life is aborted--that is MURDER. I don't care how you want to wrap it up to make you feel better. Abortion is MURDER.

 

[Donald H]

The unborn, carried to term are children. They have a brain and heartbeat in the womb.

Yes my friend, of course.

If the innocent life is aborted--that is MURDER.

No my friend, it is not murder. In the eyes of the extremists it is usually nothing more than spermicide with or without intent to do unbodily harm.

I don't care how you want to wrap it up to make you feel better. Abortion is MURDER.

Please just go relieve yourself behind the woodpile. Verily I say unto you that it will be good!

 

[flan327]

Glad to see that you can spell it--that is a close to understanding it as you'll ever get. Now, please explain how murdering the unborn is reproduction. I'll wait.

REPRODUCTION?

Are you okay?!!!!!! You seem really confused

 

[Concerned American]

You seem really confused

Did you read the OP? Maybe you should. This is the first line.

Here are excerpts from a much longer article that discusses the state by state legal fight for women’s reproductive rights,

Now are you less confused. The new double speak for abortion is reproductive rights. Abortion is the antithesis of reproduction.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Did you read the OP? Maybe you should. This is the first line.
Here are excerpts from a much longer article that discusses the state by state legal fight for women’s reproductive rights,
Now are you less confused. The new double speak for abortion is reproductive rights. Abortion is the antithesis of reproduction. — @Concerned American

The headline of this OP and both the article’s content and my comments make the topic perfectly clear: “The fight for abortion rights turns to state constitutions.”

I do not care how you define “abortion.” Some people — perhaps you — insist on calling even the preventing of pregnancy with contraceptives (which interfere with the implanting of a single already fertilized egg cell) … “baby killing.”

“Reproductive rights” for women and “control of their own bodies” obviously includes the use of such contraceptives, as well as the right of women to “plan” when they will bring children into the world via a panoply of “family planning” measures. Nobody denies that the most controversial such measure is abortion … though by far most Americans favor a woman’s right to have an abortion at least in the first trimester.

I would appreciate it if you center your comments on the topic of state legal developments, debates, and campaigns around this issue. I’m sure you can find a way to express your views respectfully, using whatever “definitions” you want, while sticking to the main topic.

 

[San Souci]

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

Try reading the 10th Amendment ,Fucknut.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The problem was that it was a political compromise that quickly fell apart under its practical application. I believe that the Supreme Court should decide cases based on their Constitutionality, not political gamesmanship.

I think neither of us is naive. We can agree that in most serious discussions of human rights, both cultural “values” and politics (sometimes simple economic interests) play a part. The fights over slavery and Jim Crow are other examples.

But the 7-2 bipartisan ruling on Roe vs. Wade lasted 50 years and might never have “fallen apart” had our country’s general partisan political divide not developed as it did.

In any case, Roe was also a “compromise” … in balancing the “rights” of pregnant woman and the “rights” of the “State” in general — both of which were recognized, carefully elucidated and conditioned. State governments now will have to make similar “compromises” if they hope to allow their rulings to last and bring this issue to rest.

Reading the original Roe ruling makes it clear how carefully the Supreme Court then recognized both the fundamental rights of women to abort in the first trimester and what it considered the gradually increasing rights of the state to regulate abortion as pregnancy proceeded, fetal “viability” was reached, and the time of birth approached.

Since the Supreme Court has now overturned Roe, the political and legal controversies now center more on the state level, and we will have to see what “compromises” — if any — emerge there.

Of course some of the state constitutions are excellent, many are broadly based on the U.S. Constitution, and many have even more expansive “rights” of “privacy” guaranteed. State constitutions and laws are frequently changed, however, and subject to local prejudices, and challenges may still work their way back up to this or a future Supreme Court.

To the extent that rights and “powers” are reserved to “the people” (in state constitutions), those powers are potentially more sweeping and absolute, since individual states lack subordinate sovereign powers that may legally interfere with the reserved natural powers and rights of the people. Recall that the 10th Amendment reserves “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … to the States respectively, or to the people.”

While there are generally no lower levels of “state sovereignty” than state legislatures and courts to rule on abortion, some cities, prosecutors & judges might still disagree with a law’s constitutionality or proper implementation, and as always individuals may defy what they consider extreme anti-abortion laws that violate their fundamental right.

In this sense the civic necessity to deal with the issue of individual vs. state rights concerning a woman having to carry an embryo or fetus to term even against her will … remains.

 

[jwoodie]

Political compromise belongs in the legislative, not judicial, branch of the federal government. As to the issue of abortion, the Roe v. Wade decision became a stalking horse for unlimited abortions. Even in a political sense, this is not a "compromise" position. A true compromise would be somewhere between unlimited abortions and no abortions. The Supreme Court correctly reversed the Roe decision on Constitutional grounds and sent the issue back to state legislatures, where political debate and compromise belong.