SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

[oks10]

I never said you can’t be infringed because I understand the definition of infringement. I simply stated that it was a stretch to make that claim. Will you have to drive or fly to another state? Maybe, but if this draft is made final then abortions will still be legal and available in this country.

So, you never said you can't be infringed but it's a stretch to say you can because somewhere it'll still be legal? Do you see where that doesn't make sense? Or are you strictly speaking from the federal government side of things and ignoring the state laws being passed right now?

 

[OSUgradndad85]

So, you never said you can't be infringed but it's a stretch to say you can because somewhere it'll still be legal? Do you see where that doesn't make sense? Or are you strictly speaking from the federal government side of things and ignoring the state laws being passed right now?

It’s definitely a sensitive and tough issue to tackle. I’m not just saying it will SOMEWHERE be legal, but in multiple states. There are already at least 5 without restrictions so it’s save to say those won’t all of a sudden ban abortion. And of the remaking states in this republic I believe it’s a safe bet that many more will at least keep restrictions in place. My original point was, and still is, that many previous posts are trying to make us believe that all of a sudden the ability to get an abortion just disappears like a fart in the wind. No different than my ability to die with dignity through assisted suicide. Just because the feds aren’t involved doesn’t mean my right and ability to do that is “infringed”.

 

[oks10]

Just because the feds aren’t involved doesn’t mean my right and ability to do that is “infringed”.

But it you live in one of those states with strict bans, you are. That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[CPTNQUIRK]

It’s definitely a sensitive and tough issue to tackle. I’m not just saying it will SOMEWHERE be legal, but in multiple states. There are already at least 5 without restrictions so it’s save to say those won’t all of a sudden ban abortion. And of the remaking states in this republic I believe it’s a safe bet that many more will at least keep restrictions in place. My original point was, and still is, that many previous posts are trying to make us believe that all of a sudden the ability to get an abortion just disappears like a fart in the wind. No different than my ability to die with dignity through assisted suicide. Just because the feds aren’t involved doesn’t mean my right and ability to do that is “infringed”.

Your thought process seems to be exactly backward on this issue. One is infringed upon in terms of federal law if any state bans the practice. Your thought process is just the opposite of that in that you think one is not infringed upon as long as some states allows the practice. You are just wrong in your logic.

 

[TheMonkey]

 

[OSUgradndad85]

But it you live in one of those states with strict bans, you are. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Hey, I agree 100%. Your ability within that state is “infringed”, no doubt. But overall I’d say inconvenienced is a more accurate description. I’m just saying that previous comments make it sound as if your ability to get an abortion anywhere legally is not possible and that’s just not accurate.

 

[OSUgradndad85]

Your thought process seems to be exactly backward on this issue. One is infringed upon in terms of federal law if any state bans the practice. Your thought process is just the opposite of that in that you think one is not infringed upon as long as some states allows the practice. You are just wrong in your logic.

Unfortunately for the infringement argument, the Constitution doesn’t have an Amendment 2(a) that includes abortion.

 

[Rack]

But how is that personhood and the associated rights different just bc that life was created by consensual sex vs rape/incest?

It's not, that's one reason I'm conflicted on this issue.

 

[Rack]

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:



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.

So, while it's hard to agree with a post that starts out to discount ones opinion as "stupid" and in fact calling another poster "stupid." I assure you I am not, at least on most days, stupid. I do agree with the second half of your post, the only reason I agree with it going to the states is because I feel the question of life has been wrongly ruled on in RvW and that is the only way it's going to be ruled on correctly over time...just as Dread Scott was wrongly ruled on and had to be corrected. Just because a person disagrees with another person on a message board that doesn't mean the other person is stupid. Saying things like "in a manner even you can understand" aren't ways to garner respect. I'm not saying I'm any better in the way I used to respond in the past and sometimes fall back into, but just realize we are, almost all, on this board, far smarter than some may give us credit for due to our writing style or lack of thought sometimes put into post. I've also generally always respected your post on legal matters, even when I disagree with them...All that said, I do agree on the second half of your post here.

 

[wrenhal]

Evangelicals see themselves as "not of this world" conforming their worldview to any other religious or secular views is a non starter. Their worldview is rigid as it is based on their interpretation of a 2000 year old book. You might pick off some fringe people but there is a core demographic who will vote, donate, protest and do just about anything that signals virtue to their community and makes them feel like a "better Christian".

I don't think protecting life is just an evangelical thing. This isn't that hard when it comes to abortions of convenience ...certainly its way harder when dealing with the life of the mother, rape, and incest. It also has nothing to do with "virtue signaling."..it's about taking the life of a living human being by choice. This has never been hard and it's never made any sense to millions that Roe v Wade ever became law. We have evolved to the point scientifically that we know that babies are babies and not just a lump of tissue...when we learned this laws have to change to fit that...or at least allow local populations to make the rules in their areas. Science is why this needs to change, not JUST evangelicals or other religions.

I've seen video of the March for Life that happened a month or so ago. There were atheists/non-religious people there that just plain thought it was a barbaric practice. There were libertarians that aren't religious that simply believe it goes against the NAP.
And why did that sample from npr specifically section out "black protestants"? I've seen many black churches come out against abortion as well.
Pro-life isn't just a bunch of white Christian men like it seems they want to make it.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[Rack]

I've seen video of the March for Life that happened a month or so ago. There were atheists/non-religious people there that just plain thought it was a barbaric practice. There were libertarians that aren't religious that simply believe it goes against the NAP.
And why did that sample from npr specifically section out "black protestants"? I've seen many black churches come out against abortion as well.
Pro-life isn't just a bunch of white Christian men like it seems they want to make it.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

On this, many Christian blacks I know are strongly anti abortion just as many are pro choice. I happen to believe that one of the main reasons that abortion was promoted in the black community WAS to keep the numbers down...That was a form of genocide that actually existed in our country and still does however now we pan it off as the people that get abortions across all races are too poor to raise kids or it's going to be too much of a hardship on them. Most abortion advocates don't realize this at all or look at it as an unfortunate side effect on the population of the black community, I don't believe at all that they KNOWINGLY let this go on any longer...but in the past it was a part of it...and as such some of the older black clergy I know are strongly anti abortion.

 

[wrenhal]

In Texas, abortion laws inhibit care for miscarriages
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...s-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

As the Supreme Court appears poised to return abortion regulation to the states, recent experience in Texas illustrates that medical care for miscarriages and dangerous ectopic pregnancies would also be threatened if restrictions become more widespread.


One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss.


The other miscarriage treatment is a procedure described as surgical uterine evacuation to remove the pregnancy tissue — the same approach as for an abortion.


"The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same," said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.


Miscarriages occur in roughly 1 out of 10 pregnancies. Some people experience loss of pregnancy at home and don't require additional care, other than emotional support, said Dr. Tony Ogburn, who chairs the OB-GYN department at the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine. But in other situations, he said, providers may need to intervene to stop bleeding and make sure no pregnancy tissue remains, as a guard against infection.

But if you're treating a miscarriage, then the law restricting use wouldn't apply right? It only restricts their use for abortion, or does it ban their use altogether?

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[OrangeFan69]

We're not banning abortion. The technology is already out there.

We're just making it more expensive.

People don't follow laws anyway.

If you don't want a woman to get an abortion and you're the biological father, don't have sex with her.
If you don't want a woman to get an abortion and you're NOT the biological father, it ain't your business.

A smarter idea would be to get more baby formula made first. We're definitely putting the cart in front of the horse.

 

[wrenhal]

The 18 U.S. Code 1507 reads: "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Lots of potential defenses that protesting near a Judges residence that has apparently already made up his mind in this matter doesn't fall afoul of that law. They might be successful, they might not. There is actually only one published federal court opinion interpreting this statute in any way.

It starts out with a particularly interesting comment: "Carter did not urge in the District Court, and he does not now argue to us, that 18 U.S.C. § 1507, as applied to his conduct is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. A Louisiana statute modeled on the bill that later became § 1507 was held valid on its face and as applied to the conduct then before the Court in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d 487 (1965). We do not know why defendant raises no First Amendment issue, and we express no view on the question of the validity of § 1507 as applied to the conduct revealed by this record.

It also has very different facts than these types of situations.

Protests near the Judge's residence about an opinion that had actually already been issued and released by the court (yes, I know that this one is leaked and hasn't been finalized....here I'm talking about one already made by the court) pretty clearly wouldn't be in violation of that statute.

The specific intent to interfere, obstruct or impeding "the administration of justice" or the specific intent to influence the judge, juror, witness, etc. has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as well.

"Why else would they be there?" Doesn't get you there.

Many protestors have stated that their intention is to make them change their mind before the decision is finalized.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[Rack]

We're not banning abortion. The technology is already out there.

We're just making it more expensive.

People don't follow laws anyway.

If you don't want a woman to get an abortion and you're the biological father, don't have sex with her.
If you don't want a woman to get an abortion and you're NOT the biological father, it ain't your business.

A smarter idea would be to get more baby formula made first. We're definitely putting the cart in front of the horse.

Hey @OrangeFan69 good to here from you! I agree with the first part of your argument. This IS both parties responsibility in terms of sex in consensual sex. However to say it ain't any persons business, not involved in the act of making a person... who is actually considered a person or not is false. That is truly, to a pro life person, like saying it "ain't" your business who's property a salve was if you didn't own one. That was a main argument of Southern slave owners...my slave my choice would have been their moto. They had no personhood, as such they were considered collateral and had zero rights. That is currently, at least partially because the courts do count murder of a pregnant woman as two murders, but abortion, even late term, as nothing more than disposing of one possession (i.e. collateral). This is the issue and saying that I, or anyone else, has no right to have an opinion on that degree of wanton disposal of life just because they didn't help create it, isn't a good argument. Once again, I'm fine with your opinion, but I just want you to understand the depth of the other side and why they feel its all our business.

Additionally, isn't it very interesting how the baby formula shortage has become such a HUGE issue in the media now that being able to abort on demand is under major quesiton? Does anyone think this is just a coincidence? Honestly it seems very very strange the timing of the issue.

 

[wrenhal]

Hey Janet, while we’re at it let’s really improve the poverty and workforce situations and just round up and kill every born child of this type of mother.

Exactly, the poor shouldn't be having children....!

Sounds a lot like Margaret Sanger and her "undesirables".

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[Rack]

I don't believe it is a good thing to knee jerk a law that goes way to far. Dems and GOP alike have been rightfully blasted in the recent past for doing this....Abortion is the ONE place you don't want to rush into it.

They can't introduce it, then realize you went way to far and try to beat out your own bill so you can change it and make adjustments with something like Abortion.

#1 That kind of inefficiency is one of the biggest issues our Govt has had for decades

#2 that still costs taxpayers money and now your spending your productivity reworking your own mistake

#3 I think the first draft was their "true" intentions and showed just how far they want to go with it and when they found out there was pushback they crumbled easily.

We have to keep in mind that 74 million voted for Trump and 81 million voted for Biden

and

103.3 million that didn't vote. a topic like RvW could spur many of those 100million + people who don't vote most years to really get involved. I would caution the GOP to tread ahead slowly, because I don't think anyone knows where that non voting population is standing with RvW.

GOP pushes too hard on this, they might find a huge backlash from what were traditional non voters

Very good post but it goes both ways in terms of caution and it's disgusting to me that both parties play this divide and conquer game. The "leaked" opinion and the attempted grandstanding of it by Chuck S on the hill are just the latest example of this crap. The populace needs to wake up and smell the coffee on these bad actor tactics to divide us just to get passions up and people to the polls that they believe will elect more of their sides...the problem then becomes we get more bad actors on the extremes like the trumpsters who think we need to "fight" to win...and the left who pulls stuff like the "leak."

 

[steross]

But if you're treating a miscarriage, then the law restricting use wouldn't apply right? It only restricts their use for abortion, or does it ban their use altogether?

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

Did you not read the article or did you not understand the issues the article presented?

 

[OrangeFan69]

Hey @OrangeFan69 good to here from you! I agree with the first part of your argument. This IS both parties responsibility in terms of sex in consensual sex. However to say it ain't any persons business, not involved in the act of making a person... who is actually considered a person or not is false. That is truly, to a pro life person, like saying it "ain't" your business who's property a salve was if you didn't own one. That was a main argument of Southern slave owners...my slave my choice would have been their moto. They had no personhood, as such they were considered collateral and had zero rights. That is currently, at least partially because the courts do count murder of a pregnant woman as two murders, but abortion, even late term, as nothing more than disposing of one possession (i.e. collateral). This is the issue and saying that I, or anyone else, has no right to have an opinion on that degree of wanton disposal of life just because they didn't help create it, isn't a good argument. Once again, I'm fine with your opinion, but I just want you to understand the depth of the other side and why they feel its all our business.

Additionally, isn't it very interesting how the baby formula shortage has become such a HUGE issue in the media now that being able to abort on demand is under major quesiton? Does anyone think this is just a coincidence? Honestly it seems very very strange the timing of the issue.

I don't think slavery is good either.

You are not going to stop abortions. You are only going to make it more difficult and unsafe.

You can probably influence friends and/or family to listen to your argument, but you need to understand that your opinion while valid in your sphere of influence does not mean much to the average person.

Women don't treat an abortion like a trip to the nail salon.

The problem with Abbott Nutrition - who has a 1/3 of the baby formula market refused to update their manufacturing plant as recently as 2019 when informed that antiquated equipment is putting their products at risk for contamination because it would be to expensive...and then spent 3 Billion on a stock buyback.

Off topic, not a conspiracy, just an aside. I take responsibility for it being in the conversation.

 

[Rack]

I don't think slavery is good either.

You are not going to stop abortions. You are only going to make it more difficult and unsafe.

You can probably influence friends and/or family to listen to your argument, but you need to understand that your opinion while valid in your sphere of influence does not mean much to the average person.

Women don't treat an abortion like a trip to the nail salon.

The problem with Abbott Nutrition - who has a 1/3 of the baby formula market refused to update their manufacturing plant as recently as 2019 when informed that antiquated equipment is putting their products at risk for contamination because it would be to expensive...and then spent 3 Billion on a stock buyback.

Off topic, not a conspiracy, just an aside. I take responsibility for it being in the conversation.

I'm personally not going to or even trying to stop them completely or make them unsafe, I want a more balanced approach that disallows wanton destruction of persons and I want the courts to decide when personhood begins. I also KNOW you don't think slavery was or is good (I never made that assumption, lol, no one does hopefully) nor do, I assume, you think abortion is a great thing...I just wanted to give a dramatic/personhood example as a way for you to truly understand the pro life argument from their perspective. I think we all agree that in a perfect world every mother and child would be wanted and taken care of...I just happen to believe that by just ignoring the fact that many feel they cannot help that to happen isn't productive to making our society better. We SHOULD be working our butts off to make life better for mothers and children...in a rich country we should NOT have women having to make a choice between bringing a child into harsh circumstances or not. This IS really what I want to reduce...but I do also want to reduce the fact that we conduct this practice after a certain time period in a pregnancy and that this issue is being used to divide in honestly scary ways... rather than unite the populace in a common goal...One I think we ALL can, sincerely, agree upon with compromise and compassion. That goal to make life better for everyone, to reduce the times women feel they have to make this choice and to provide substantial womb to tomb help so that they can and desire to make the best choice for them and the persons inside them.

So, bottom line, my desire is NOT to end abortion 100% all the time, but to make it truly very less common and to unite all parties to that end. This means better access to birth control, higher education levels, and yes more abstinence due to our appreciation for the lives of BOTH babies AND mothers.