Supreme Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Abortion Restrictions (speech, crime, bias)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The biggest problem with your statement: Privacy is not being protected by the Supreme Court. If it was, the Patriot Act would have been shot down and the TSA would be vastly more limited in it's actions. You're not addressing the fact that the SCOTUS is picking and choosing when to protect the privacy of United States citizens.
But beyond this, the federal government has no right to define when human life begins. Try fitting "human life begins at X point in time" under interstate commerce. It simply can't be done. So it falls to the state governments to define when human life begins. If any given state decides that you're a human being three weeks after conception then you are legally a human being three weeks after conception. It is 100% illegal for me to kill my 5 year old son no matter how I justify it. Perhaps I'm trying to protect or better provide for my wife and other children. Doesn't matter. I don't have the right to kill him. He has the legal right to live and I don't have the right to say differently. Likewise, if state law says that an unborn baby is fully human, then they have that same right to live and infringement of that right is murder by law. On the other hand, if a state determines that human life begins at birth, then an unborn baby has no such protections or rights under the law. The point is, it is up to the state government to determine.
This is nothing new. Issues of morality are regularly decided by state governments. In the state of Utah, you must be 16 years of age in order to marry with parental consent. In the state of Massachusetts, you can marry at age 12 with parental consent. Since there is no clear point in time where marriage transitions from immoral to moral, it is up to the state governments to make laws setting the limits as they see fit. Some state governments use the death penalty. Some do not because they believe it is morally wrong. Again, this is an issue of morality with no clear right or wrong, so it is up to the state government to decide the matter. Laws against murder, rape, child abuse, kidnapping, drunk driving, burglary, shoplifting, indecent exposure and so many other things are all issues of morality and all 100% determined by state law. It is up to the state governments to say that these things are illegal and to specify the penalties for violating the law.
Abortion is also clearly yet another issue of morality. Obviously, it is either right or it is wrong with plenty of opinions going both ways. If it is determined to be morally right and legal, then it must be determined whether there are any limits. For example, almost nobody favors aborting a baby one week before it's due date. So once again we have have an issue where right and wrong need to be determined and penalties set forth for violation. How does this not fall 100% under state law??How on earth did the Supreme Court ever get the idiot idea that they have any business intervening here??
The issues revolved around placing undue burden and proving that this was a necessity. Imagine a if a religious group from a state decided that they hated colonoscopies and developed legislation to close down outpatient facilities. This is where the federal government comes in to insure fairness.
All these states suddenly decided to attack Roe V Wade after 50 years by making it impossible to do business in these states because they couldn't get it overturned. This is all contrived hiding behind women's health, who can hate that right, until you look at the facts which clearly demonstrate that this is just a back door for religious zealots.
The issues revolved around placing undue burden and proving that this was a necessity. Imagine a if a religious group from a state decided that they hated colonoscopies and developed legislation to close down outpatient facilities. This is where the federal government comes in to insure fairness.
All these states suddenly decided to attack Roe V Wade after 50 years by making it impossible to do business in these states because they couldn't get it overturned. This is all contrived hiding behind women's health, who can hate that right, until you look at the facts which clearly demonstrate that this is just a back door for religious zealots.
I hope it's pretty clear that I'm not actually taking sides at this point. I have my own opinion, but setting that aside this always should have been an issue defined by state law. I'm saying that the Supreme Court had no business intervening. Whether it's property rights or undue burdens or fairness or some states having crazy-stupid laws .... all of that is 100% irrelevant. Unless the federal government can justify it on the basis of the Constitution of the United States or on the basis of interstate commerce, then it has no business telling the state governments what they can or can't do.
The federal government has no Constitutionally granted power that gives it the right to determine when life legally begins. The federal government has no Constitutionally granted power giving it the right to establish what is or is not moral, whether it be in the case of abortion or rape or child molestation or murder. Those are powers belonging to the states and only to the states. If the state of Alabama were to re-institute Prohibition tomorrow, it's 100% within their rights to do so. Most of us are already aware that there are "dry counties" where Prohibition effectively never ended. And as I pointed out, you can marry with parental consent in Massachusetts at the age of 12, but in Utah and almost every other state the minimum age is 16. Should the SCOTUS swoop in and strike Massachusetts' law down? I mean there is a huge difference between two 16 year olds getting married and two 12 year olds, right? But the Supreme Court isn't jumping in there because it is not the Supreme Court's job to play morality police. It isn't their job to ensure that every state has exactly the same laws. Roe vs Wade is a clear-cut example of the Supreme Court massively overstepping its authority. The Constitution doesn't even directly guarantee the right to privacy. The entire basis for Roe vs Wade? They claimed it was implied by the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Tying this to abortion is a pretty big stretch. If the unborn baby is considered to be human by law, then it's an absolutely massive stretch ... but that's exactly what the SCOTUS did.
And to your point, if some state were to ban colonoscopies or outpatient surgeries -- it is within their rights to do so. It is also incredibly unlikely that such a thing will ever happen, so it's an incredibly far-fetched example. But if some counties out there are still in denial and still doing the whole Prohibition thing then clearly state and local governments have the right to be weird if they choose to be weird. The entire system the USA is founded on is that state and local governments have the right to do their own thing.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 06-29-2016 at 07:39 PM..
Reason: Didn't meant to respond to two posters. Fixed it.
I hope it's pretty clear that I'm not actually taking sides at this point. I have my own opinion, but setting that aside this always should have been an issue defined by state law. I'm saying that the Supreme Court had no business intervening. Whether it's property rights or undue burdens or fairness or some states having crazy-stupid laws .... all of that is 100% irrelevant. Unless the federal government can justify it on the basis of the Constitution of the United States or on the basis of interstate commerce, then it has no business telling the state governments what they can or can't do.
The federal government has no Constitutionally granted power that gives it the right to determine when life legally begins. The federal government has no Constitutionally granted power giving it the right to establish what is or is not moral, whether it be in the case of abortion or rape or child molestation or murder. Those are powers belonging to the states and only to the states. If the state of Alabama were to re-institute Prohibition tomorrow, it's 100% within their rights to do so. Most of us are already aware that there are "dry counties" where Prohibition effectively never ended. And as I pointed out, you can marry with parental consent in Massachusetts at the age of 12, but in Utah and almost every other state the minimum age is 16. Should the SCOTUS swoop in and strike Massachusetts' law down? I mean there is a huge difference between two 16 year olds getting married and two 12 year olds, right? But the Supreme Court isn't jumping in there because it is not the Supreme Court's job to play morality police. It isn't their job to ensure that every state has exactly the same laws. Roe vs Wade is a clear-cut example of the Supreme Court massively overstepping its authority. The Constitution doesn't even directly guarantee the right to privacy. The entire basis for Roe vs Wade? They claimed it was implied by the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Tying this to abortion is a pretty big stretch. If the unborn baby is considered to be human by law, then it's an absolutely massive stretch ... but that's exactly what the SCOTUS did.
And to your point, if some state were to ban colonoscopies or outpatient surgeries -- it is within their rights to do so. It is also incredibly unlikely that such a thing will ever happen, so it's an incredibly far-fetched example. But if some counties out there are still in denial and still doing the whole Prohibition thing then clearly state and local governments have the right to be weird if they choose to be weird. The entire system the USA is founded on is that state and local governments have the right to do their own thing.
I don't think a state could legally ban colonoscopies either directly or indirectly as is the intention in Texas or other states for abortion.
I don't think a state could legally ban colonoscopies either directly or indirectly as is the intention in Texas or other states for abortion.
First of all, Texas isn't going to ban colonoscopies. That's just stupid! Like I said, that's why it's a terrible example. But they do have the right to make them illegal if the so choose.What is your basis for believing that they don't have that right?
As I've already pointed out, the continuation of Prohibition is a better example. It exists. End of story. State and local governments have the right to do their own thing and be weird if they choose to. Like I also pointed out, it's legal to marry at age 12 in Massachusetts. Once again, they have the right to be weird if they want to be weird.
First of all, Texas isn't going to ban colonoscopies. That's just stupid! Like I said, that's why it's a terrible example. But they do have the right to make them illegal if the so choose.What is your basis for believing that they don't have that right?
As I've already pointed out, the continuation of Prohibition is a better example. It exists. End of story. State and local governments have the right to do their own thing and be weird if they choose to. Like I also pointed out, it's legal to marry at age 12 in Massachusetts. Once again, they have the right to be weird if they want to be weird.
No, it's not ok for states to be weird when their weirdness denies their citizens a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. Would you support a state outlawing all firearms, I mean a total ban...just leave those guns at the state line or have them confiscated? I mean that's weird but according to you being weird is the right of a state Please keep in mind that both gun ownership and abortion are protected by the constitution and in both cases those rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court
No, it's not ok for states to be weird when their weirdness denies their citizens a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. Would you support a state outlawing all firearms, I mean a total ban...just leave those guns at the state line or have them confiscated? I mean that's weird but according to you being weird is the right of a state Please keep in mind that both gun ownership and abortion are protected by the constitution and in both cases those rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court
Firearms are quite specifically protected under the Constitution, so no states don't get to ban them. That much is pretty obvious -- and yet state governments everywhere keep trying to do it anyways and quite often succeeding for awhile. Weird, no?
Banning citizens of a state or county from drinking a beer or selling a beer seems pretty weird to me. I don't even drink and it still seems weird. Didn't we already figure that one out? What kind of crazy world would it be where some states and counties were still restricting or outright banning alcohol?? But yet here it is in all it's glory. The map of dry counties in the USA:
Does the Constitution protect anyone's right to medical procedures? No, it absolutely doesn't. So why hasn't the weirdness kicked in? Why haven't Kentucky and Wyoming banned blood transfusions? Where's the ban on open heart surgery in Nebraska and Maine? Where are all the crazy laws banning life-saving medical procedures?? Obviously, they don't exist anywhere because the American people in all 50 states aren't stupid.
Abortion is more akin to legal age of marriage, or banning the sale and consumption of alcohol, or legally allowing 12 year olds to get married, or capital punishment. It's a case where not everyone's morally based opinions match up. The SCOTUS doesn't intervene in those cases and it shouldn't intervene in the case of abortion. If the people of Texas believe it is immoral then that's their decision. It is their right to enact laws to reflect that belief. If the state of New York believes that human life begins at birth, then that's their decision and they can make abortion legal right up to the moment of birth if they so choose.
And before you mention it, only a very tiny radical fraction of pro-lifers are against abortion in cases of rape, incest of when the mother's life is in danger. The vast majority of the pro-life movement is on board with saving mom's life. Those cases constitute about 3% of all abortions annually. It is the remaining 97% that are at issue. I'm not really sure why, but pro-choice folks are constantly harping on that tiny 3%.
Quote:
Please keep in mind that both gun ownership and abortion are protected by the constitution and in both cases those rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
By the way, please tell me specifically where in the Constitution abortion is protected. I realize that the Supreme Court has claimed this is the case, but on what grounds? My whole point is that they've overstepped their authority on this particular issue. Conversely, any idiot can find the right to bear arms in the Constitution.
Firearms are quite specifically protected under the Constitution, so no states don't get to ban them. Abortion is more akin to legal age of marriage, or banning the sale and consumption of alcohol, or legally allowing 12 year olds to get married, or capital punishment. It's a case where not everyone's morally based opinions match up. The SCOTUS doesn't intervene in those cases and it shouldn't intervene in the case of abortion. If the people of Texas believe it is immoral then that's their decision. It is their right to enact laws to reflect that belief. If the state of New York believes that human life begins at birth, then that's their decision and they can make abortion legal right up to the moment of birth if they so choose. .
Nope, it is not up to the people of Texas to try to stop people from having abortions because they believe it is immoral, they can't make do that any more than a state can ban all firearms. Here you go:
“We conclude,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, “that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”
Things like abortions and guns, well they aren't like buying liquor. You have no constitutional right to buy a can of beer, nice try though
Nope, it is not up to the people of Texas to try to stop people from having abortions because they believe it is immoral, they can't make do that any more than a state can ban all firearms. Here you go:
“We conclude,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, “that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”
Things like abortions and guns, well they aren't like buying liquor. You have no constitutional right to buy a can of beer, nice try though
Again, please cite the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to have an abortion. We're both bright enough to find the 2nd Amendment, so no need to bother with that one. Just tell me where the United States Constitution guarantees abortion rights.
Again, please cite the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to have an abortion. We're both bright enough to find the 2nd Amendment, so no need to bother with that one. Just tell me where the United States Constitution guarantees abortion rights.
In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion. The Court made clear that as a basic right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the woman’s right is “fundamental,” meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The law or policy must also be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so.
Firearms are quite specifically protected under the Constitution, so no states don't get to ban them. That much is pretty obvious -- and yet state governments everywhere keep trying to do it anyways and quite often succeeding for awhile. Weird, no?
Banning citizens of a state or county from drinking a beer or selling a beer seems pretty weird to me. I don't even drink and it still seems weird. Didn't we already figure that one out? What kind of crazy world would it be where some states and counties were still restricting or outright banning alcohol?? But yet here it is in all it's glory. The map of dry counties in the USA:
Does the Constitution protect anyone's right to medical procedures? No, it absolutely doesn't. So why hasn't the weirdness kicked in? Why haven't Kentucky and Wyoming banned blood transfusions? Where's the ban on open heart surgery in Nebraska and Maine? Where are all the crazy laws banning life-saving medical procedures?? Obviously, they don't exist anywhere because the American people in all 50 states aren't stupid.
Abortion is more akin to legal age of marriage, or banning the sale and consumption of alcohol, or legally allowing 12 year olds to get married, or capital punishment. It's a case where not everyone's morally based opinions match up. The SCOTUS doesn't intervene in those cases and it shouldn't intervene in the case of abortion. If the people of Texas believe it is immoral then that's their decision. It is their right to enact laws to reflect that belief. If the state of New York believes that human life begins at birth, then that's their decision and they can make abortion legal right up to the moment of birth if they so choose.
And before you mention it, only a very tiny radical fraction of pro-lifers are against abortion in cases of rape, incest of when the mother's life is in danger. The vast majority of the pro-life movement is on board with saving mom's life. Those cases constitute about 3% of all abortions annually. It is the remaining 97% that are at issue. I'm not really sure why, but pro-choice folks are constantly harping on that tiny 3%.
Do you support the idea that if someone, who is dead, has a functional organ that another person desperately needs, they have the right to keep it and rot away with it because they didn't agree to it when they are alive? If so, you give more rights to a dead person than a woman.
If it's not your body, it's not your problem or issue. When you vote against abortion, against LGBTQ rights (yes it's akin to this in some ways), you directly violate the Bill of Rights under the words "the pursuit of happiness". Voting against abortion is forcing women to have children they don't want or have the resources to care for, overflowing children into adoption agencies (many of whom don't get adopted and live sad lives after, it's a big cause for mental illness and crimes), and leaving an even bigger welfare generation since the same people who vote against abortion don't support welfare either. And in many of these cases, people vote this way because their God or holy book tells them it's wrong, which is also in direct violation of the freedom of religion to those who don't believe the same things as you do.
If you're against abortion, don't get one. It's that simple. Abortion isn't an easy decision, women don't get abortions willy-nilly, it takes a lot of thinking and a lot of emotions. Many women go through a depression period after getting one done, not necessarily because they regret their decision but because biology makes it this way. Abortions are hard on the women who get them. And believe me it is the last thing a woman would want to get, but in some pregnancy cases, it's the best choice. If abortion was legalized it would have no affect on you whatsoever. Actually studies have shown countries who used to ban abortions but then legalize them, see an increase in abortions at first but overtime, actually see the rate of abortions decrease. Deaths of women also decrease because they aren't risking their lives to do an underground abortion.
Originally Posted by Abortion Policy and Fertility Outcomes: The Eastern European Experience
The evidence we have presented for Eastern Europe is consistent with a growing body of recent evidence from the United States that similarly compares regions with changed abortion access to regions where it has been stable. We find that strict limits on abortion access are associated with large increases in the birth rate, on the order of 10 percent or more. On the basis of all available abortion numbers in these countries, we estimate that pregnancy rates fall by 27–45 percent when abortion access is very restricted (although this is most likely an overestimate because it does not count illegal abortions). These results are somewhat larger in magnitude than estimates of the impact of abortion legalization in the United States but are consistent with earlier evidence from Romania that suggests that pregnancy rates fell about 25 percent after abortion was made illegal. In contrast, modest restrictions on abortion access have no significant effects on birth rates but do reduce abortion rates and, by implication, pregnancy rates by a substantial amount.Our estimates indicate that modest restrictions on abortion access reduced abortions by about 25 percent and pregnancies by about 10–25 percent. Moreover, we find no evidence of a rise in maternal mortality associated with these modest restrictions, which suggests that this decline in pregnancy was not offset by any substantial rise in illegal abortions.
Since I doubt anyone will actually read this study, modest restrictions means: "medical or social reasons before the 12th week mark". You can find that information in the first table of the study.
Originally Posted by The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime
The evidence we present is consistent with legalized abortion reducing crime rates with a twenty year lag. Our results suggest that an increase of 100 abortions per 1,000 live births reduces a cohort’s crime by roughly ten percent. Extrapolating our results out of sample to a counterfactual in which abortion remained illegal and the number of illegal abortions performed remained steady at the 1960s level, we estimate that (with average national effective abortion rates in 1997 for all three crimes ranging from between 142 and 252) crime was almost 15-25 percent lower in 1997 than it would have been absent legalized abortion.
These estimates suggest that legalized abortion is a primary explanation of the large drops in murder, property crime and violent crime that our nation has experienced over the last decade. Indeed, legalized abortion may account for as much as one-half of the overall crime reduction. Assuming that this claim is correct, existing estimates of the costs of crime [e.g., Miller et al. 1993] suggest that the social benefit to reduced crime as a result of abortion may be on the order of $30 billion dollars annually. Increased imprisonment between 1991 and 1997 (the prison population rose about 50 percent over this period) lowered crime 10 percent based on an elasticity of -.20. Thus, together abortion and prison growth explain much, if not all, of the decrease in crime.
Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults. This conclusion is in line with a broad literature documenting the intergenerational correlation in income (Solon, 1999) and showing that adverse living circumstances as a child are associated with poorer outcomes as an adult (Haveman & Wolfe, 1995). Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with positive selection and that its impact is persistent.
Thus, overall, we find evidence consistent with long-run selection effects through abortion. While the statistical sig- nificance of our findings depends on the particular outcome under consideration, it is robust to the choice of instrument, and the pattern is clear: when abortion costs are lowered, cohort outcomes improve.
I should note that I picked some economic studies to show that abortion costs does have a correlation to crime and so does abortion access. Here are three studies for you that show how much abortions save in our economy via reducing incarceration. Other than the moral aspects of abortion, a reduction in crime has a positive effect on all of us. So we actually see benefits from legalized abortion, it would be stupid to make it illegal and overturn Roe v. Wade.
Last edited by Prickly Pear; 06-29-2016 at 09:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please keep in mind that both gun ownership and abortion are protected by the constitution and in both cases those rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court
