Gold Supporting Member
- Apr 17, 2009
- Reaction score
- in between
Yes, we can agree.Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"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.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.
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.
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?
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.
If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.