The Overturning of Roe v Wade

[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?

 

[candycorn]

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Roe is not getting overturned

 

[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?

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.

Please Explain How. . . If and when the Supreme Court were to decide that a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" is a "person". . . That one State could (Constitutionally) embrace that decision and another could Constitutionally DENY it.

 

[Oddball]

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 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific is a tricky thing.


There is ample evidence to show that the clerks who transcribed and codified it were the ones who bastardized the meaning of the word "person".

Properly applied or not, if the USSC rules that a zygote is just as much a "person" as are the legal fictions known as "corporations", "trusts", "governments", etcetera, then all bets are off.

I'd love to be a witness to this argument before the court.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific is a tricky ruling.

There is ample evidence to show that the clerks who transcribed and codified it were the ones who bastardized the meaning of the word "person".

Properly applied or not, if the USSC rules that a zygote is just as much a "person" as are the legal fictions known as "corporations", "trusts", "governments", etcetera, then all bets are off.

I'd love to be a witness to this argument before the court.

Same here.

Especially considering the language and precedents established in the nations more than 30 State and Federal "Fetal Homicide Laws."

 

[candycorn]

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.

Please Explain How. . . If and when the Supreme Court were to decide that a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" is a "person". . . That one State could (Constitutionally) embrace that decision and another could Constitutionally DENY it.

That is my point...its either an all or nothing proposition. Either abortion will be legal everywhere or illegal everywhere.

If it is made illegal everywhere, you may well have a situation that Johnson faced in civil rights where a landmark piece of legislation transforms the electorate. Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

 

[Chuz Life]

That is my point...its either an all or nothing proposition. Either abortion will be legal everywhere or illegal everywhere.

If it is made illegal everywhere, you may well have a situation that Johnson faced in civil rights where a landmark piece of legislation transforms the electorate. Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Thanks for staying on point with the OP.

Personally, I believe the facts are the facts, the Constitution says what it says about "persons" and their rights and beyond that, I don't really care about what the political fallout might be.

 

[Oddball]

Roe is not getting overturned

You can't say that with any certainty.

 

[Chuz Life]

For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.

They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."

So much so, that the Fetal Homicide Laws, so far, have to make EXCEPTIONS to themselves to prevent them from being used to prosecute elective abortions.

Remove those exceptions and what will we have left, but an outright ban on abortions.

 

[fncceo]

Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally. It is based on the 14th Amendment right to (medical privacy) and makes no determination as to the human status of a fetus.

The current COVID situation has made it pretty clear that our rights to medical privacy are easily removed and not Constitutionally protected. Without a 'carved in stone' right to medical privacy, RVW is subject to interpretation.

Only seven states have no laws regarding foeticide. Most states regard the unlawful termination of a foetus to be equivalent to homicide.

 

[buttercup]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

 

[candycorn]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television. It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.

 

[buttercup]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television. It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.

I think you're projecting. Also I don't think you see why many men are for abortion. They don't want the responsibility or accountability. Many men want to be able to screw around as much as they want, use women, and of course abortion-on-demand allows them to get rid of the "mistake" instead of being responsible for their own actions like a real man.

Your position enables that behavior.

 

[candycorn]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television. It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.

I think you're projecting. Also I don't think you see why many men are for abortion. They don't want the responsibility or accountability. Many men want to be able to screw around as much as they want, use women, and of course abortion-on-demand allows them to get rid of the "mistake" instead of being responsible for their own actions like a real man.

Your position enables that behavior.

My position on a poll enables behavior?

 

[Chuz Life]

Back to the subject of the OP.

I'm really interested in knowing what the arguments are or what the explanation for how and why it would revert back to the States as so many people claim.

 

[buttercup]

Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true.

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.

The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television. It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.

I think you're projecting. Also I don't think you see why many men are for abortion. They don't want the responsibility or accountability. Many men want to be able to screw around as much as they want, use women, and of course abortion-on-demand allows them to get rid of the "mistake" instead of being responsible for their own actions like a real man.

Your position enables that behavior.

My position on a poll enables behavior?

Your position on abortion, I thought my point was clear and obvious.

 

[Muhammed]

Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally.

Just like Scott v. Sanford, the Democrats present the absurd argument that some people are not actually people.

 

[Chuz Life]

Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally. It is based on the 14th Amendment right to (medical privacy) and makes no determination as to the human status of a fetus.

Here is the complete text of the 14th Amendment.


AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Comment: Doesn't the 14th more clearly speak to the rights that "all persons" have to their LIVES and the equal protections of our laws than it does to a so called right to privacy?

The most ludicrous thing is that the so called right to privacy is actually being used to shield the DENIAL of all the other 14th Amendment rights to "children in the womb."

It can not stand forever.

 

[Chuz Life]

Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally.

Just like Scott v. Sanford, the Democrats present the absurd argument that some people are not actually people.

I'm going to check that out.