U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-19-2019, 09:38 AM
 
12,555 posts, read 10,425,611 times
Reputation: 17309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Different issues. l

BTW, cases with Similar issues come up all the time, and are heard multiple times.



https://www.history.com/topics/black...ssy-v-ferguson

was overturned by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_...d_of_Education
They aren't different issues. It will be rehearing the same issue it heard in 1973. They may take it, they may not.

It is rather rare for the Supreme Court to completely overturn precedent. And overturning Roe means a lot of other rights are in jeopardy, since it was based on the right to privacy and also bodily/healthcare/reproductive autonomy.

Be careful what you wish for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2019, 03:06 PM
 
18,664 posts, read 7,257,655 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
They aren't different issues. It will be rehearing the same issue it heard in 1973. They may take it, they may not.

.
Wrong. Heartbeat bills are simply cases about point when fetus is showing signs of forming as a human. Quite different from full ban at heart of Roe case.

I expect several SC cases to be heard, and many of these restrictions to pass SC under our brand new, majority Conserv/Constitutionalist SC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2019, 05:58 PM
 
12,555 posts, read 10,425,611 times
Reputation: 17309
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Wrong. Heartbeat bills are simply cases about point when fetus is showing signs of forming as a human. Quite different from full ban at heart of Roe case.

I expect several SC cases to be heard, and many of these restrictions to pass SC under our brand new, majority Conserv/Constitutionalist SC.
Not wrong.

The standard under Casey, which altered Roe, is that states cannot impose restrictions that put undue burdens on women. That is what the question will be. The fact that it's a heartbeat bill at issue is nothing new or special. States lose with harsh restrictions all the time under Casey. This is just another example, another law attempting to challenge federal law.

The question will be whether only allowing abortions up to 6 weeks is unduly burdensome. Also an overarching question of the validity of the right to abortion in the first place.

Considering it is pretty normal for a woman to not even know she is pregnant until just before or after 6 weeks, only allowing her an abortion up to 6 weeks is likely to be found unduly burdensome. Unless the Court totally ignores precedent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2019, 06:10 PM
 
18,664 posts, read 7,257,655 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
.

States lose with harsh restrictions all the time under Casey. This is just another example, another law attempting to challenge federal law.
.

SC was ultra liberal starting with 1970s. Now its balanced. Going to be interesting to watch these cases resolved.

So far, I am pleased at the results of the latest SC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,615 posts, read 9,329,595 times
Reputation: 6065
I have a feeling this is going to bring a lot of women to the polls in 2020, knowing they're going to have to carry drunk Uncle Jim's baby to term if he gets frisky at the family barbecue or if they are raped in a Walmart parking lot by some guy late at night.

Last edited by cBach; 05-20-2019 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 11:02 AM
 
32,293 posts, read 26,153,180 times
Reputation: 18932
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Why would the Supreme Court take this up again. They already decided decades ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
They aren't different issues. It will be rehearing the same issue it heard in 1973. They may take it, they may not.

It is rather rare for the Supreme Court to completely overturn precedent. And overturning Roe means a lot of other rights are in jeopardy, since it was based on the right to privacy and also bodily/healthcare/reproductive autonomy.

Be careful what you wish for.

you all need to reread the roe v wade decision and understand that the scotus back then said this;


Quote:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It also ruled that this "right to privacy" is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.[2][3] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: the Court ruled that during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.[4] Because the Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", the decision required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[5]

so even back then the court put restrictions on when abortion was allowed.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade


one other thing to understand is that back then medical technology wasnt good enough to hear the babys heartbeat as early as we do now.


and last, these heartbeat bills do not eliminate roe v wade, they merely define when an abortion in the first trimester can be done. i suspect that they will go to the scotus, and the scotus will reaffirm roe v wade, and allow tougher restrictions on abortions after the first trimester, while still allowing first trimester abortion on demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Barrington
45,613 posts, read 33,883,136 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
And isn't that the point?

It's no coincidence that multiple states have bills on the table RIGHT NOW regarding abortion.
Absolutely no coincidence.

Same can be said for the relatively new GOP position on mandating insurers cover preexisting conditions that emerged in the few months leading up to the 2018 midterms. Suddenly many Congress Critters who historically advocated to allow insurers to decline to ensure those with preexisting conditions were suddenly all for mandating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 11:21 AM
 
32,293 posts, read 26,153,180 times
Reputation: 18932
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Absolutely no coincidence.

Same can be said for the relatively new GOP position on mandating insurers cover preexisting conditions that emerged in the few months leading up to the 2018 midterms. Suddenly many Congress Critters who historically advocated to allow insurers to decline to ensure those with preexisting conditions were suddenly all for mandating.

not true. in fact that was one of the things republicans agreed with on obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 02:11 PM
 
18,664 posts, read 7,257,655 times
Reputation: 7981
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post


and last, these heartbeat bills do not eliminate roe v wade, they merely define when an abortion in the first trimester can be done. i suspect that they will go to the scotus, and the scotus will reaffirm roe v wade, and allow tougher restrictions on abortions after the first trimester, while still allowing first trimester abortion on demand.
I tend to agree, that after the first trimester, SC will pretty much allow what it wrote in Roe v Wade for the 3rd trimester which allowed states to forbid it except for life v death situations, to extend to much of the 2nd trimester based on the viability of the baby starting earlier due to medical advances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2019, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,709 posts, read 13,825,147 times
Reputation: 6934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
It certainly appears to be a coordinated effort to me. And very brilliantly so. The variations in scope and approach in these laws is going to put enormous pressure on the now antiquated Roe v Wade legal framework from the early 1970's.

It is clearly time for a major upgrade from the SCOTUS on this subject. And with this carefully coordinated frontal assault on Roe, we might just get it.
The selections of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch has some how given these states new found courage, I thought they agreed with precedent or did they lie. I don't see any of these radical laws getting past the district courts particularly outright bans but some may make it. So far these red states have been on a losing streak with their ridiculous laws, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana have all had to cover legal costs for Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, The only win was in Ohio where they pulled the title IX funding for family planning clinics, what a great victory.

Last edited by Goodnight; 05-20-2019 at 02:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:52 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top