Women's Rights on Trial Today

[winn dixie]

If Roe v. Wade goes down. The Republican party will too. All of our recent gains. And the way 22 and 24 are taking shape. Will all be gone! It will be a generational power shift!
FACT

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

If Roe v. Wade goes down. The Republican party will too. All of our recent gains. And the way 22 and 24 are taking shape. Will all be gone! It will be a generational power shift!
FACT

Conjecture. Now I'll add mine. Some states will have limitations which the vast majority of Americans agree with. Some will outright ban abortion. Will Democrats and Independents in those states change the way they vote based on this issue? I doubt it.


You seem to be suggesting that abortion is the controlling issue of our day. I think recent events shows that is not true. Most state legislatures are controlled by Republicans.

If the Democrats keep fucking up as spectacularly as they are now, nothing will save them especially not abortion on demand all nine months and even after birth. That is not what the majority of American believe or want IMHO.

[HedonistForever]

I was lucky enough to listen to the entire oral argument before the Supreme Court the other day and it was fascinating for a person "obsessed" ( some would say ) with my focus on the law and Constitution.


Arguably, the brightest legal minds in the country debating the matter. I thought both sides did a good job and although I agree with the opinion of the AG of Mississippi, whose new law they were arguing that "viability" should be reduced to 15 weeks instead of the current 24 weeks.


I doubt that most people knew that and assumed the argument was to completely reverse Roe V. Wade but that was not what the court agreed to hear and only limited the argument to the 15 week part of the Mississippi law as I understand it.


I think I understood most of the argument both sides were making unless they were citing legal cases that I only had a general understanding of like Roe and Casey that was a follow up to Roe.


I have to say I was very impressed by the two women who argued against the Mississippi law.


The two most interesting comments ( among many IMHO ) were made by Justice Sotomayor who said that even considering this issue since the recent changes on the court ( 6 Conservatives and 3 Liberals ) would be seen as nothing more than political.

The “viability line”—drawn in 1973 by Roe and which does not allow states to ban abortions before a fetus could survive outside the womb—hasn’t been an issue for 30 years. In fact, Sotomayor goes on to say that 15 justices of varying political backgrounds have affirmed that basic viability line since 1992. Her point is that this is not a question of case law, but politics.

Then went on to say

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?”

Sotomayor, IMHO, was "worried about the politics of the decision, how the people would "react" to affirming the Mississippi law and not whether the Constitution was interpreted right on Roe in the first place".


That is hypocrisy at it's worst.


On the issue of Stare Decisis or precedent, Kavanaugh made the best point IMHO on this issue when he rattled off all those decisions like Brown and Plessy and many others that were overturned after years of precedence, asking what made this case more special than those if the argument is that Roe and Casey can't be overturned because of precedence.


General consensus on the right is that the majority will uphold the Mississippi law and the new law of the land will see viability at 15 weeks. This will not reverse Roe but it is a first step to tossing Roe and the issue of abortion back to the states were it should have been along.


I support the right to abortion with restrictions and limitations that I won't bother to address but I think this decision belongs to the states. Let the people decide not 9 people in black robes.


I acknowledge that there are issues that only the federal government can decide as it says in amendments in the Constitution. Abortion is not one of those issues. If "bodily autonomy is so sacrosanct, why can't a woman sell her body, sell a kidney, assisted suicide which is different depending on the state you are in?


On the issue of "undue burden", there are "safe haven" laws in all 50 states that say you can give up a new born to be adopted, no questions asked so the undo burden of raising a child is gone. The "poor women may not be able to afford contraception" issue has to be weighed against how much the abortion will cost, generally around $600. What does contraception cost?


That leaves the undo burden of carrying the child and what it might do to job prospects and that has pretty much been settled with parental leave laws.


I generally don't like the government, federal or state telling us what we can and can't do but that argument has many flaws too. This however is an argument not about rights but about who the Constitution specifically gives those rights too, the feds or the states.

[HedonistForever]

I forgot one more important issue Kavanaugh raised. In the debate on the rights of the woman and the rights of the child, there can only be one winner, you must chose, both can not be accommodated.. One continues to live if abortion is done and one dies. You have to choose which means more to you and many will choose the woman who lives and many will chose the baby that will not.


Adhere to the Constitution that gives the federal government certain rights and all other considerations shall be left up to the states to decide. Is abortion mentioned in the Constitution other than some vague notion of privacy and bodily autonomy? Does this autonomy extend to selling her body for money which she doesn't have and has no other means to get it to survive? She can in some states. Can she sell a kidney to get the money she needs? Can she ask that a doctor help her end her life that she no longer wants?


All these issues must be left to the states.

The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the federal government doesn't own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, but instead, they belong to citizens. This means the rights that are specified in the Constitution are not the only ones people should be limited to

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

[SIZE=3]I support the right to abortion with restrictions and limitations that I won't bother to address but I think this decision belongs to the states. Let the people decide not 9 people in black robes.
]

Wouldn't the best people to decide be the actual person making the decision?

Instead of the State.

I've never understood your kind of logic.

Quit letting the States restrict the women's right to choose.

I do believe there should be a week limitation in the 20 week period.

What is your number and I believe we is long term correct because the minority of GOP voters want an outright ban and that is the tail that wiggles the dog

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I forgot one more important issue Kavanaugh raised. In the debate on the rights of the woman and the rights of the child, there can only be one winner, you must chose, both can not be accommodated.. One continues to live if abortion is done and one dies. You have to choose which means more to you and many will choose the woman who lives and many will chose the baby that will not.


Adhere to the Constitution that gives the federal government certain rights and all other considerations shall be left up to the states to decide. Is abortion mentioned in the Constitution other than some vague notion of privacy and bodily autonomy? Does this autonomy extend to selling her body for money which she doesn't have and has no other means to get it to survive? She can in some states. Can she sell a kidney to get the money she needs? Can she ask that a doctor help her end her life that she no longer wants?


All these issues must be left to the states.


[COLOR=#202124]

Why can't they be left up to the individual.

That whose body it is we are talking about.

No different than selling pussy and we all think that should be legal.

A d I take exception that a clump of cell are a person. That is like saying an egg is a chicken

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Cool-- so if the decision is left back to the states, I suppose that is fine-- but then laws like the one in Texas where a person can be sued for crossing state lines to get an abortion elsewhere should also be struck down. Pretty sure states don't have the right to interfere with interstate travel, regardless of the reason.

No doubt in my mind that would be struck down by every Conservative on the court. I find it hard to believe that any legislator in Texas thinks that would pass muster in the SC.

[winn dixie]

The issue of abortion is divisive in all groups religions and on and on. Arguing law is a waste of time because it can be interpreted based on political pressure and party lines.
The scotus is trying to throw it back under "states rights".
If Republicans are successful remember my quote above!
I believe in abortion. I believe in God and Iam a staunch Republican. Iam ashamed of Abbott now! I used to want him to run for prez. Not now! I want him gone.
I believe in abortion for many reasons. And I will add assisted suicide should be legal!
Republicans need to leave this issue. It will shift power to the left and have generational consequences.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Some of you guys have fallen off the turnip truck.
It's not a single issue. There are two specifically distinct issues.
Roe was primarily based on individual constitutional rights. There's no way the supremes will let that concept go as it would open the door to zillions of other attempts to impose limits on rights. The 2nd comes to mind.

But, do not the states have the right to regulate medical practices in the states? Yes they do. How they regulate which medical procedures thus becomes the actual issue, as they have to stay away from individual federal rights.
This I call this the run them (drs) out of town (state) clause. As long as these are not discriminatory, sometimes they stand. But, I remember a case from over a decade ago where a state stated how a specific type of medical facility had specific types of facility requirements attempted to be put into law. The case got fun when a judge asked if same facilty rules would apply to dentist, etc, offices. Opps.

I predict the Mississippi? thing will be a partial for both sides. But note, the judges are only going to rule on the specific claim the attys present. Which may be quite less than what a lot of folks are expecting. Thus, both sides will continue to be upset.

The argument primarily is about, what is in the Constitution and what isn't. The right to bear arms is, arguably to some, there. Abortion is not. Legally speaking, I don't see how striking down Roe would open the door to many if any other "rights" issues. It's either enumerated in the Constitution as to who controls these rights and who doesn't.

[HedonistForever]

For those of you that didn't hear the entire oral argument, Justice Thomas finally found a topic he wanted to ask questions about when he asked about a case where a woman was prosecuted for ingesting cocaine while pregnant. Does she have "bodily autonomy" to do what ever she wants with her body? Apparently the courts decided she didn't have the right to cause harm to her unborn baby much less kill it.


Just food for thought.

[winn dixie]

Laws should be governed as written. We all know what roe v wade was for. Making abortion legal. This haggling over a word or different interpretations is b/s.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

The issue of abortion is divisive in all groups religions and on and on. Arguing law is a waste of time because it can be interpreted based on political pressure and party lines.
The scotus is trying to throw it back under "states rights".
If Republicans are successful remember my quote above!
I believe in abortion. I believe in God and Iam a staunch Republican. Iam ashamed of Abbott now! I used to want him to run for prez. Not now! I want him gone.
I believe in abortion for many reasons. And I will add assisted suicide should be legal!
Republicans need to leave this issue. It will shift power to the left and have generational consequences.

Arguing law is a waste of time? Really? It's how we resolve disputes and the only other way I can think of, is with violence.


I brought up the issue of Justice Sotomayor "worried about what the people will think if she decides one way or the other". This is exactly what Justices are not suppose to do, consider feelings. They are suppose to read the Constitution and apply it as it is written and suggest that if the people don't like how the Constitution is written, they can amend it as they have done 27 times.


If the SC returns Roe to the states, it would take 38 state legislatures to reinstate Roe as it is or with modifications and limitations. We are one of if not the only country in the world that gives so much power to the people through our laws.

What is required to amend the US Constitution?

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Laws should be governed as written. We all know what roe v wade was for. Making abortion legal. This haggling over a word or different interpretations is b/s.

Kinda runs counter to your statement that arguing law is a waste of time, no? How the Constitution should be interpreted does seem to be a political argument but as you point out, shouldn't. The reason I support Conservative Justices. Liberal Justices as Sotomayor pointed out, care more about the reaction to their ruling than properly interpreting the law. That's why there shouldn't be any Liberal Justices on the SC. Even Democrat Presidents should understand this.

[Grace Preston]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

The issue of abortion is divisive in all groups religions and on and on. Arguing law is a waste of time because it can be interpreted based on political pressure and party lines.
The scotus is trying to throw it back under "states rights".
If Republicans are successful remember my quote above!
I believe in abortion. I believe in God and Iam a staunch Republican. Iam ashamed of Abbott now! I used to want him to run for prez. Not now! I want him gone.
I believe in abortion for many reasons. And I will add assisted suicide should be legal!
Republicans need to leave this issue. It will shift power to the left and have generational consequences.

From a purely political view-- you have a valid point. The Republican party makes a ton off of the abortion issue. It is one of, if not the, top reasons people donate money to the party and to Republican candidates.



Same can be said for gun control measures on the Left. They make a ton of money off this particular issue.


For decades-- it held true that these were the issues each side clung to with no intention of actually doing anything-- because they knew if they ever actually "won"... the fundraising thunderdome would lessen. You don't tend to donate to something as heavily once your side has already "won".... because-- what's left to fight?



Now-- with the higher numbers of evangelicals holding office-- they're seeking to enforce their beliefs without consideration to the political consequences.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Arguing law is a waste of time? Really? It's how we resolve disputes and the only other way I can think of, is with violence.


I brought up the issue of Justice Sotomayor "worried about what the people will think if she decides one way or the other". This is exactly what Justices are not suppose to do, consider feelings. They are suppose to read the Constitution and apply it as it is written and suggest that if the people don't like how the Constitution is written, they can amend it as they have done 27 times.


If the SC returns Roe to the states, it would take 38 state legislatures to reinstate Roe as it is or with modifications and limitations. We are one of if not the only country in the world that gives so much power to the people through our laws.

My point being with laws already on the books that we all know what the intent of said law meant.
Yes arguing on how a law should be written is important.
Abortion is legal and should remain unchanged. Republicans will regret its undoing.
After that....Word Play