How so, that one guarantees life first and foremost...14th Amendment 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."
This is the whole issue, reasonable people don't agree on this part and what that means. To me it says all states have been breaking the 14th Amendment for a long time by depriving citizen persons in the womb of life. Granted that needs to be outlines in terms of when, how, why, that life becomes the protect form of life granted to all citizen persons. Point being we need to be able to let the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are. Once again, I know you are a lawyer, but can you not see both sides of this argument as having strong points and weak ones? Can you see where we may need to decided on when life and personhood begin and agree on when protection of that personhood should start? I can certainly see that both women and babies need to be protected and granted life, but definitions are going to very by state due to when they believe personhood starts..are the courts not designed as are the states to work this out?
Oh lord....let me see if I can explain the post you quoted in a manner that even you can understand because I've already given my analysis of RvW and I'm not interested in dumbing that down further for you.
The post you quoted was in response to this post:
It’s quite a stretch to claim infringement of freedom when there will remain states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state.
Wherein someone argued that it is a stretch to claim infringement of freedom in one state when there remains states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state. That when one state violates someone's Constitutional rights, it's not an infringement on freedoms simply and solely because there are other states that don't.
That's absurd because the 14th Amendment says that Constitutional rights apply across the board regardless of what state you are in....it's not contingent upon other states recognizing those rights or not.
Constitutional rights are not subject to letting "the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are"....they are either Constitutional rights which ALL states cannot violate or they aren't. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court is arbiter of whether a Constitutional right exists or it doesn't.
Until the
Loving v. Virginia decision of the Supreme Court states "sharply disagreed" on whether marriage between a white man and a black women should be allowed to marry. That fact is completely and wholly....ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon. The fact that they could have gone to another state to get married is completely and wholly...ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon by Virginia.
Because of the 14th Amendment.
You're focused on RvW and the upcoming decision. I long ago gave my analysis on RvW.
My post you quoted was not in anyway a statement that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to abortion. It was a response to the idiotic notion that a citizen can't claim that one state infringes upon their Constitutional rights because others states give them those rights.
Because of the 14th Amendment.