But the whole argument by the pro life, we let the people decide!!!!! Umm are the state representatives even consulting the people before passing these bills? Like if they waited until the next state election cycle and still reelected under platform of banning abortion, then so be it.
The legal reasoning behind them is the same as Roe, yes. If we apply Dobbs consistently all those rulings would be invalidated. Essentially all rights established by the court since the mid 19th century are invalid.I haven't looked at any of those decisions, so I don't have an opinion. I assume from your statement that they were all established under a persons right to privacy?
A failed pregnancy is a natural occurrence. Everyone dies, but we make a distinction between natural causes and deliberate acts. Granny dies of heart failure and it's sad, pop her in the head with 9mm while she's having that heart attack and it's murder.The idea that the court didn't simply decide anybody with a failed pregnancy are assumed murderers is a consolation prize is quite the position.
And all those dozens of eggs fertilized needed for invetro procedure!!!!!! /sA failed pregnancy is a natural occurrence. Everyone dies, but we make a distinction between natural causes and deliberate acts. Granny dies of heart failure and it's sad, pop her in the head with 9mm while she's having that heart attack and it's murder.
A failed pregnancy is a natural occurrence. Everyone dies, but we make a distinction between natural causes and deliberate acts. Granny dies of heart failure and it's sad, pop her in the head with 9mm while she's having that heart attack and it's murder.
You left out some of the quote - "seeking to enforce anti-abortion laws ". I don't remember hearing of any cases where a state enforced another states laws on their own residents. Police are usually limited to enforcing the laws in the jurisdiction they are licensed in."The governor also plans to direct state police to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement from other states"
See....
Just look at the furthering chaos this Trump supreme court has wroth upon the American people. Now, even law enforcement of different states will be pitted against one another. The law enforcement of one state becomes the enemy of law enforcement from another state.
To achieve THAT, you pathetic miserable Trumpies, was a pretty good doing to further divide Americans.
WOOT! YOU DID IT!!!
They essentially always do, actually. If you are convicted of murder in New Jersey, New York will definitely uphold that conviction. In this case the offense would be 'traveling to for the purposes of obtaining an abortion' or 'abetting an abortion'.You left out some of the quote - "seeking to enforce anti-abortion laws ". I don't remember hearing of any cases where a state enforced another states laws on their own residents. Police are usually limited to enforcing the laws in the jurisdiction they are licensed in.
I can't answer that without some background information. I'll read the decision as soon as I have a chance.The legal reasoning behind them is the same as Roe, yes. If we apply Dobbs consistently all those rulings would be invalidated. Essentially all rights established by the court since the mid 19th century are invalid.
So when you say Dobbs is constitutional you’re saying all those rights were wrong. Is that what you think?
The legal reasoning behind them is the same as Roe, yes. If we apply Dobbs consistently all those rulings would be invalidated. Essentially all rights established by the court since the mid 19th century are invalid.
So when you say Dobbs is constitutional you’re saying all those rights were wrong. Is that what you think?
A bullet hole in the head seems a well defined condition. Or are you referring to abortion? Sorry if I've missed understood your point.A natural occurrence the police and prosecutors are not equipped intellectually or temperamentally to make determinations on.
The background information is pretty simple - the basic idea is that the 14th amendment does not grant any rights that were not commonly assumed to be rights as of 1868. I think it's pretty clear that there was no right to contraception in 1868 as contraception as we understand it today did not exist. Also pretty clear there was no right to have sex with whoever you wanted or gay marriage back then either.I can't answer that without some background information. I'll read the decision as soon as I have a chance.
As pointed out in the solo concurrence provided by Justice Bigsby. Also, he conveniently left out Loving v Virginia ... wonder why?
Because he thinks Loving was an equal protection violation which makes it distinct on how he views the others. He doesn't agree that "substantive due process" (he only thinks procedural) is a thing.
A bullet hole in the head seems a well defined condition. Or are you referring to abortion? Sorry if I've missed understood your point.
Loving is due process but Obergefell isn't???Because he thinks Loving was an equal protection violation which makes it distinct on how he views the others. He doesn't agree that "substantive due process" (he only thinks procedural) is a thing.
So what's going to be the plan for when a woman is forced to work while pregnant, is on an hourly job and can't afford to travel to another state to have an abortion and ends up with a miscarriage because she was working too hard? Because that's the world we're heading too. Is that punishable? The state is far more culpable here than the woman.
Did you scroll down to the part about Pacific Employers Insurance v Industrial Accident?They essentially always do, actually. If you are convicted of murder in New Jersey, New York will definitely uphold that conviction. In this case the offense would be 'traveling to for the purposes of obtaining an abortion' or 'abetting an abortion'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
So yeah this is a big deal, it's basically a redo of the situation before the civil war where northern states refused to enforce southern slavery laws. Then like now, the conservative states were intent on stopping people from fleeing their states.
No AR15 back in the 1800’s. So ban them now!!!!The background information is pretty simple - the basic idea is that the 14th amendment does not grant any rights that were not commonly assumed to be rights as of 1868. I think it's pretty clear that there was no right to contraception in 1868 as contraception as we understand it today did not exist. Also pretty clear there was no right to have sex with whoever you wanted or gay marriage back then either.
They shouldn't revolve around that. They should revolve around a woman's right to defend her bodily integrity. We don't give a shit about the rights of someone fisting you without your consent. You would be within your rights to shoot that person in the head even though they have all the rights that come with full personhood. Women should have the same right to defend themselves with deadly force....
The abortion questions revolve more around the consciousness of that life and rights of that life.
Sorry, I don't have an Uncle Thomas. I also know that what one says in public may not necessarily mean it will be the outcome. Specially since he is just 1 vote.. Seriously, stop with the assumption bullshit.
That is false. It is true that if Washington passes a law that says 'no one can be punished for having an abortion in Washington' then that could be the true but simply because a state has declined to criminalize something itself does not mean that it is not bound by the full faith and credit clause if another state has.Did you scroll down to the part about Pacific Employers Insurance v Industrial Accident?
"[T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events. "
Abortion is legal in Washington state. They have no obligation to enforce or help another state with a conflicting law.
I haven't looked at any of those decisions, so I don't have an opinion. I assume from your statement that they were all established under a persons right to privacy?