Must be nice in that ivory tower of yours, what with no shades of gray or anything...Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
a law is unjust if it tramples the rights of even one person.
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
I got an email today with an article about how a bill was passed banning abortion in South Dakota, going against Roe v. Wade and opening it all up to Supreme Court decision.
I'm so pissed and disappointed right now I can't even see straight.
Do you live in SD? Then wtf do you care?
Because this is the first step in fvcking up what women fought so hard for.
Originally posted by: skimple
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.
You need to go back and research the legal history of abortion instead of making blanket statements that are not founded in fact or precedent.
Prior to RvW, abortion was a issue that was decided upon by each state - states are supposed to have rights, you know. What RvW did was to proclaim that a power previously reserved by the states was in violation of a clause in the Constitution that was not actually in the constitution, but was "implied" if you take certain sections out and stick them together. Therefore, the states could make no law in violation of the constitution, and abortion could no longer be prohibited by the states.
There are several fundamental legal arguments that could challenge the RvW decision:
- If a right is not explictly called out in the constitution, does it exist?
- Does the federal government have the authority to override the power of states?
- At what stage of life is a person entitled to individual rights?
- Etc.
IF the US Supreme Court ever decided to re-open the decision of the RvW case, and IF they decided that the legal arguments did not withstand scrutiny, the impact of the changes wrt a woman's "right" to an abortion would depend entirely on the where the court found a "flaw" in the previous decision.
It is entirely possible that the court could decide that it was a power which should be reserved for the states, in whihc case, each state could establish it's own laws. This could mean that all of the blue states would allow abortion, and all of the red states would prohibit abortion. But there is no way to predict the outcome without knowing the which legal arugument would be overturned.
If you really have the passion that you express, you need to spend the time to research and learn about the topic before posting emotionally charged statements that provide value to the debate.
Think - then speak.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.
btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.
And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.
And I'll put it where I want it.
at the time of roe v. wade several states had already legalized abortion, and had the court not sought to interject itself into the discussion it is quite probable that many other states, if not most, would have followed suit shortly.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
imo, 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, of course with the exception of endangering the mother's life and other extreme circumstances
and roe v wade basically allows states to do that.
roe did not say that life begins at birth. instead, it implemented a trimester framework, (which itself was merely an easy proxy for what medical science could do with premature babies, at the time a baby delivered early on in the third trimester could be kept alive and nurished to health using medical technology, i have to imagine that in the last 30 years technology has improved).
in the first trimester, the state has no interest in the unborn fetus, and can make no regulation. they can't even regulate it as a medical procedure, iirc (which is why abortion costs have decreased while other medical procedure costs have increased).
in the second trimester, the state's interest increasess, and it can make some regulations.
in the third trimester, the state's interest may outweigh the mother's if the mother's health isn't at risk, etc. at that point the state may regulate abortion-as-birth-control to its fullest extent.
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.
btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.
And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.
And I'll put it where I want it.
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
I got an email today with an article about how a bill was passed banning abortion in South Dakota, going against Roe v. Wade and opening it all up to Supreme Court decision.
I'm so pissed and disappointed right now I can't even see straight.
Do you live in SD? Then wtf do you care?
Because this is the first step in fvcking up what women fought so hard for.
you know it takes 2 to tango. if you don't want kids that much, don't have sex or use birth control. for everyone that complains about losing abortion: you know damn full well the consequences of sex, i.e. the possibility that you may become pregnant. by engaging in sex, you accept that possibility and responsibility IMO.
Originally posted by: RKS
SD will have a Constitution fight in order to pass any anti-abortion legislation.
Under substantive due process we are provided fundamental rights which must pass a 'strict scrutiny standard' in order to be overturned by the SC.
These fundamental rights include the right to vote, travel from state to state, and privacy. Under Privacy are the right to contraception, abortion, marriage, pro-creation, education, and relationships. While states may not prohibit abortion they can regulate it as long as they do not create an undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion.
What is an undue burden, well your state will decide that and then the SC. If you have standing then you can challenge it but in order to overturn any of these set of rights the state will have to prove that the regulation is necessary (no restrictive alternative means exist) to a achieve a compelling state interest.
BTW I agree on banning abortion-related threads or atleast confine them to P&N.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Roe v. Wade should be repealed so the states can deal with it. It's none of the federal government's business.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
Originally posted by: Schadenfreude
Eh, well you can at least drive out of state to get one then, I suppose.
btw, this thread really belongs more on the P&N forums, though.
And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.
And I'll put it where I want it.
Originally posted by: RKS
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Roe v. Wade should be repealed so the states can deal with it. It's none of the federal government's business.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am all for a real Federalist government and would love to see a small Federal gov and the states regain the autonomy that was envisioned.
Even though you quote is correct, the SC has found the right to privacy and subsequently abortion a fundamental right gauranteed by the Constitution and therefore a federal not state issue.
Originally posted by: mchammer
Originally posted by: RKS
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Roe v. Wade should be repealed so the states can deal with it. It's none of the federal government's business.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am all for a real Federalist government and would love to see a small Federal gov and the states regain the autonomy that was envisioned.
Even though you quote is correct, the SC has found the right to privacy and subsequently abortion a fundamental right gauranteed by the Constitution and therefore a federal not state issue.
Where this type of thing has left us is that they can now "find" almost anything they want in the Constitution. Many of the justices even support citing international law in thier decisions regarding the US Constituiton.
Originally posted by: RKS
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Roe v. Wade should be repealed so the states can deal with it. It's none of the federal government's business.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am all for a real Federalist government and would love to see a small Federal gov and the states regain the autonomy that was envisioned.
Even though you quote is correct, the SC has found the right to privacy and subsequently abortion a fundamental right gauranteed by the Constitution and therefore a federal not state issue.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: RKS
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Roe v. Wade should be repealed so the states can deal with it. It's none of the federal government's business.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I am all for a real Federalist government and would love to see a small Federal gov and the states regain the autonomy that was envisioned.
Even though you quote is correct, the SC has found the right to privacy and subsequently abortion a fundamental right gauranteed by the Constitution and therefore a federal not state issue.
And I think the USSC made a boo-boo. Fair enough?
Originally posted by: eakers
wow, that is a huge step backwards for women's rights in the United States.
With George Bush's agenda I wouldn't be surprised if this did become law everywhere eventually. Remember how 2001 they stopped funding any clinics wether they did abortions or not if they gave any advice to pregnant women on the subject of abortion other than "don't do it".
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
People actually like in South Dakota? I thought it was a wasteland, oh wait it is.
They should force abortion there, who needs inbreed hicks who do their relatives.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I think it would have been better if they would have been able to make exceptions for rape and incest victums. Not sure how I feel about it without those exceptions.
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I think it would have been better if they would have been able to make exceptions for rape and incest victums. Not sure how I feel about it without those exceptions.
The environment prior to conception makes no difference to the unborn child.
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Must be nice in that ivory tower of yours, what with no shades of gray or anything...Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
a law is unjust if it tramples the rights of even one person.