A Deeply Fractured US

[Remius]

A more relevant question in light of medical advances would be "at what point does the life of an unborn child become of sufficient value to warrant protecting?" If your answer is not until birth or as one respondent put it "at crowning" then we as a society are on a slippery slope that inevitably leads to racism and discrimination because I of course am of more value to society than you because I am (fill in the blank for your favourite group)

The issue is that we use a combination of science, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc etc to try and get to that point. It becomes an exercise in de conflicting where the acceptable limit is.

One such exercise is using brain death as a metric. When does higher brain function end leading to when does higher brain function start. It’s the same sort of argument for or against assisted suicide.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What science clearly shows that life begins in the womb? What is life? Is an egg and sperm not alive? If not how is it that life was created from non life? How concious and aware?

This is why abortion is such a pickle. Without even getting into the fact that all this is going on inside the body of individual.

There is a vast data bank about behaviour in the womb, that was not available in the 70's and our understanding about development has also changed greatly since then. Sooner or later someone is going to present a compelling arguments, the courts can't ignore.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just in case some people have lost sight.

The SCOTUS didn't outlaw abortion.

They threw it back to the State legislators and House of Representatives to sort out. Where the making of laws truly sits.

"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

That's the ruling that set off pandemonium outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday morning, after the justices ruled 6-3 to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling does not outlaw abortion, but it allows the states to decide. Some will ban abortion, others will not.

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.'” (Quoting Casey)

"That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

If there is enough outrage, special interests can petition their State government to study it and to put it to a vote. Whoever wins is the result of democracy, not federal edicts.

 

[brihard]

Just in case some people have lost sight.

The SCOTUS didn't outlaw abortion.

They threw it back to the State legislators and House of Representatives to sort out. Where the making of laws truly sits.

"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

That's the ruling that set off pandemonium outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday morning, after the justices ruled 6-3 to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling does not outlaw abortion, but it allows the states to decide. Some will ban abortion, others will not.

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.'” (Quoting Casey)

"That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

If there is enough outrage, special interests can petition their State government to study it and to put it to a vote. Whoever wins is the result of democracy, not federal edicts.

Out of curiosity, do you believe women have a right to have a medical abortion, whether or not a particular legislature or level of government agrees?

 

[suffolkowner]

Just in case some people have lost sight.

The SCOTUS didn't outlaw abortion.

They threw it back to the State legislators and House of Representatives to sort out. Where the making of laws truly sits.

"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

That's the ruling that set off pandemonium outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday morning, after the justices ruled 6-3 to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling does not outlaw abortion, but it allows the states to decide. Some will ban abortion, others will not.

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.'” (Quoting Casey)

"That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

If there is enough outrage, special interests can petition their State government to study it and to put it to a vote. Whoever wins is the result of democracy, not federal edicts.

I can';t say I know enough about the US constitution to understand the ruling. I'm sure it doesn't say that regulating abortions is a state responsibility though? What are the competing ideas/areas constitutionally?

 

[dimsum]

I can';t say I know enough about the US constitution to understand the ruling. I'm sure it doesn't say that regulating abortions is a state responsibility though? What are the competing ideas/areas constitutionally?

I might be wrong, but until Friday, having R v W meant that states couldn't refuse to allow abortions because it was a federal right.

The ruling meant that it is no longer a federal right, so states have the ultimate say (in their state).

 

[suffolkowner]

I might be wrong, but until Friday, having R v W meant that states couldn't refuse to allow abortions because it was a federal right.

The ruling meant that it is no longer a federal right, so states have the ultimate say (in their state).

but what makes it a state right over a federal one? In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility but section of 7 of the Charter overides, correct?

 

[brihard]

I can';t say I know enough about the US constitution to understand the ruling. I'm sure it doesn't say that regulating abortions is a state responsibility though? What are the competing ideas/areas constitutionally?

Roe V Wade decided that under the 14th amendment, due process created a right to privacy, which included a woman’s right to abortion without excessive restriction. Roe V Wade therefore ‘read in’ to the 14th a federal protected constitutional right that blanket bans on abortion would be in breach of. The recent decision has stripped the overwhelming majority of this protection, and has allowed state laws that prohibit abortion but we’re nullified by Roe V Wade to take immediate effect.

This is basically the walking back of a federally enshrined right that had existed in law for 49 years, and which several SCOTUS justices testified in senate confirmation hearings that they would not revisit or strike down. The matter is returned to legislatures, some of which, unfortunately, lean towards viewing women as chattel.

 

[brihard]

but what makes it a state right over a federal one? In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility but section of 7 of the Charter overides, correct?

In Canada all federal and provincial law must comply with the Charter. In the Morgentaler case, the Supreme Court struck down a law that criminalized abortion. As a result, abortion in Canada is purely a matter for medical law and regulation.

 

[dimsum]

but what makes it a state right over a federal one? In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility but section of 7 of the Charter overides, correct?

Yes, but in the US (in general, again), the States have a lot of power.

The whole point (and potential issue) with the US system is that it's inherently based on states not trusting the feds. Hence why the States have their own military (National Guard, etc) under the command of the Governor, not the POTUS.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes, but in the US (in general, again), the States have a lot of power.

The whole point (and potential issue) with the US system is that it's inherently based on states not trusting the feds. Hence why the States have their own military (National Guard, etc) under the command of the Governor, not the POTUS.

A triumph for the Anti-Federalists in the end?

It seems a dangerous path/justification to have taken in my mind, where the federal government is not responsible or the guarantor of an individuals rights but that they can differ from state to state?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Roe V Wade decided that under the 14th amendment, due process created a right to privacy, which included a woman’s right to abortion without excessive restriction. Roe V Wade therefore ‘read in’ to the 14th a federal protected constitutional right that blanket bans on abortion would be in breach of. The recent decision has stripped the overwhelming majority of this protection, and has allowed state laws that prohibit abortion but we’re nullified by Roe V Wade to take immediate effect.

This is basically the walking back of a federally enshrined right that had existed in law for 49 years, and which several SCOTUS justices testified in senate confirmation hearings that they would not revisit or strike down. The matter is returned to legislatures, some of which, unfortunately, lean towards viewing women as chattel.

I disagree. This always should have been a state issue. And as was said above:

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.'” (Quoting Casey)

Having said that, I am one to let sleeping dogs lay, and this should have never happened.

But I do take issue with SCOTUS digging up ancient signed and sealed legislation to overturn, without an overwhelming interest by the citizenry to do so. To me it shows simple-minded political partisanship and a clear disconnection by the court to the people they serve.

I think it sets a terrible precedent and I worry for the USA what could be next.

 

[brihard]

I disagree. This always should have been a state issue. And as was said above:

With the exception of suggesting some state legislatures lean towards viewing women as chattel, literally none of what I said that you quoted was opinion to be agreed or disagreed with. It was just a factual recounting of the actions of the court, both 49 years ago and again now. I was simply describing what the court did, and the result of establishing, and recently rescinding, a right protected at the federal level. If you disagree, you're disagreeing that this ought to have been, not that it was.

It may fall to being a state issue, or Congress may successfully legislate new protection. Maybe it'll become another "States' right to what?" question.

 

[Brad Sallows]

the justices ruled 6-3 to overturn Roe v. Wade.

6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law that was at issue in the case. 5-4 to overturn RvW.

 

[Brad Sallows]

but what makes it a state right over a federal one?

10th Amendment, mostly. "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."

 

[suffolkowner]

I disagree. This always should have been a state issue. And as was said above:



Having said that, I am one to let sleeping dogs lay, and this should have never happened.

But I do take issue with SCOTUS digging up ancient signed and sealed legislation to overturn, without an overwhelming interest by the citizenry to do so. To me it shows simple-minded political partisanship and a clear disconnection by the court to the people they serve.

I think it sets a terrible precedent and I worry for the USA what could be next.

Just in case some people have lost sight.

The SCOTUS didn't outlaw abortion.

They threw it back to the State legislators and House of Representatives to sort out. Where the making of laws truly sits.

"Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

That's the ruling that set off pandemonium outside the U.S. Supreme Court Friday morning, after the justices ruled 6-3 to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling does not outlaw abortion, but it allows the states to decide. Some will ban abortion, others will not.

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.'” (Quoting Casey)

"That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

If there is enough outrage, special interests can petition their State government to study it and to put it to a vote. Whoever wins is the result of democracy, not federal edicts.

I mean the US Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion explicitly does it?
I just find it strange that the rights of an individual would be seen to be the perogative of a subordinate entitty

In the end is it just that in a particular case the ability of a state to regulate abortion did not infringe to greatly on the individuals freedom(or due process). So we can multiply this times 50 over the next few decades as different states decide what the limits of that infringement is?

 

[Jarnhamar]

If a state bans abortions, can't people just vote in politicians who will unban abortions?

 

[Halifax Tar]

With the exception of suggesting some state legislatures lean towards viewing women as chattel, literally none of what I said that you quoted was opinion to be agreed or disagreed with. It was just a factual recounting of the actions of the court, both 49 years ago and again now. I was simply describing what the court did, and the result of establishing, and recently rescinding, a right protected at the federal level. If you disagree, you're disagreeing that this ought to have been, not that it was.

It may fall to being a state issue, or Congress may successfully legislate new protection. Maybe it'll become another "States' right to what?" question.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If a state bans abortions, can't people just vote in politicians who will unban abortions?

Yup, or relocate to jurisdiction that aligns with their beliefs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

which several SCOTUS justices testified in senate confirmation hearings that they would not revisit or strike down.

I doubt that any of them said that. What you are likely to find is something along the lines of "respect precedent, but precedent is not immutable".