The Overturning of Roe v Wade

[Coyote]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

 

[Slade3200]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Currently, 53% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal "only under certain circumstances," far more than the 25% who favor it being legal with no restrictions and the 21% who think it should be completely illegal. These results from a May 1-12 Gallup poll, align with what Gallup has found most years since 1975, the year it began tracking these attitudes.” ibid

Republicans/conservatives don’t care what a majority of the people want – they’re perfectly happy with the tyranny of rightwing minority rule.

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

 

[Coyote]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

On the first, no.
On the second..not really. Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. No one has the right to do it for them. Against their will.

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

On the first, no.
On the second..not really. Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. No one has the right to do it for them. Against their will.

No?

That's funny.

How does the charge of "Homicide" or "Murder" under a fetal homicide law NOT establish the fact that the "child in the womb" that was killed is a "person" under the law?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.

Wrong.

Start of the October 2020 Term there will be five conservative ideologues on the Court prepared to do just that – contrary to settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence, contrary to the will of the majority of the American people.

Of course, this is not about ‘abortion’ – it never was.

This is about the authoritarian right’s desire to compel conformity and punish dissent, to increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, and to allow more government, bigger government to interfere in the private lives of Americans.

 

[Slade3200]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?

 

[Coyote]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

On the first, no.
On the second..not really. Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. No one has the right to do it for them. Against their will.

No?

That's funny.

How does the charge of "Homicide" or "Murder" under a fetal homicide law NOT establish the fact that the "child in the womb" that was killed is a "person" under the law?

Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.

It is also important to note that taking it to a predictable extreme will infringe on a woman’s own rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?

I do not know what's in the pipeline to be immediately considered.

I do know that several State's lawmakers have held off on any lawys that would challenge Roe because they knew the odds were not very good in the SCOTUS.

Changing that balance may in fact compel lawmakers to go forward with the passing of some of those laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.

It is also important to note that taking it to a predictable extreme will infringe on a woman’s own rights.

Geez this is like herding cats.

Let's try this.

1. Under any of the fetal homicide laws, can a person be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" during a criminal act?

Yes or No?

 

[Slade3200]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?

I do not know what's in the pipeline to be immediately considered.

I do know that several State's lawmakers have held off on any lawys that would challenge Roe because they knew the odds were not very good in the SCOTUS.

Changing that balance may in fact compel lawmakers to go forward with the passing of some of those laws.

Perhaps. But it would have to be a pretty convincing law to make it to SCOTUS, overrule Roe and set a historical change to the ethical foundation of our country. Plus it would need a very solid constitutional argument to be made. For the most part I’ve only heard mostly political arguments around this issue. A lot of bluster

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?

I do not know what's in the pipeline to be immediately considered.

I do know that several State's lawmakers have held off on any lawys that would challenge Roe because they knew the odds were not very good in the SCOTUS.

Changing that balance may in fact compel lawmakers to go forward with the passing of some of those laws.

Perhaps. But it would have to be a pretty convincing law to make it to SCOTUS, overrule Roe and set a historical change to the ethical foundation of our country. Plus it would need a very solid constitutional argument to be made. For the most part I’ve only heard mostly political arguments around this issue. A lot of bluster

"Perhaps" is a green light.

You know that, right?

 

[Faun]

Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.

It is also important to note that taking it to a predictable extreme will infringe on a woman’s own rights.

Geez this is like herding cats.

Let's try this.

1. Under any of the fetal homicide laws, can a person be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" during a criminal act?

Yes or No?

I knew someone who was murdered in the early 90's, before fetal homicide laws, and the killer was charged, convicted and executed for her murder, her husband's and her unborn child's. That doesn't establish personhood.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

The issue with letting States decide is the same problem you run into with mixed race marriages, gay marriages, etc... If you're married in Maine, you're still married if you move to Montana. Outlawing medical procedures in a patch-work way is not likely to happen because the reasoning would have to be uniform in all of the states where it is outlawed. I can see blue states sabotaging the red states to a degree on this.

That’s not consistent with conservative judicial dogma hostile to the right to privacy enshrined in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments and the doctrine of substantive due process enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Wrongheaded conservative judicial dogma dictates that because there is no right to privacy, the interests of the state outweigh a woman’s protected liberties and her bodily integrity, authorizing the states to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.

Absent a right to privacy, therefore, women must seek reproductive autonomy through the political – not judicial – process by opposing at the ballot box laws ‘banning’ abortion, or advocating for their repeal.

Consequently, conservative jurists are perfectly content to uphold a haphazard patchwork of state laws ‘banning’ abortion.

 

[Slade3200]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?

I do not know what's in the pipeline to be immediately considered.

I do know that several State's lawmakers have held off on any lawys that would challenge Roe because they knew the odds were not very good in the SCOTUS.

Changing that balance may in fact compel lawmakers to go forward with the passing of some of those laws.

Perhaps. But it would have to be a pretty convincing law to make it to SCOTUS, overrule Roe and set a historical change to the ethical foundation of our country. Plus it would need a very solid constitutional argument to be made. For the most part I’ve only heard mostly political arguments around this issue. A lot of bluster

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?

The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on decisions renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.

True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?

I do not know what's in the pipeline to be immediately considered.

I do know that several State's lawmakers have held off on any lawys that would challenge Roe because they knew the odds were not very good in the SCOTUS.

Changing that balance may in fact compel lawmakers to go forward with the passing of some of those laws.

Perhaps. But it would have to be a pretty convincing law to make it to SCOTUS, overrule Roe and set a historical change to the ethical foundation of our country. Plus it would need a very solid constitutional argument to be made. For the most part I’ve only heard mostly political arguments around this issue. A lot of bluster

"Perhaps" is a green light.

You know that, right?

thats the beauty about our system of government. There is always a green light to try anything. We can only hope that the system filters out the bad and promotes the good after all’s said and done.

 

[JoeMoma]

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.

Can I get you to expound on that?

All it takes for Roe to be overturned is for the majority of the Supreme Court to rule on a case to make it so.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court should favor popular opinions over scientific facts and the Constitution?

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

 

[Coyote]

Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.

It is also important to note that taking it to a predictable extreme will infringe on a woman’s own rights.

Geez this is like herding cats.

Let's try this.

1. Under any of the fetal homicide laws, can a person be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" during a criminal act?

Yes or No?

Yes.

 

[Chuz Life]

thats the beauty about our system of government. There is always a green light to try anything. We can only hope that the system filters out the bad and promotes the good after all’s said and done.

Same as it ever was.