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 world didn't change in June. The Constitution was correctly interpreted after 50 years of legislating from the bench. Nothing in the 14th amendment refers to a Constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy. It was that court's broad interpretation. That court decision even set guidelines as to when a woman can or cannot have an abortion. How can anyone think that's what the Founders meant when they passed it.
So overturning Roe V Wade brings us back to pre 1973 which left that up to the States. If people in Indiana don't want to ban or put strong restrictions on abortion they can elect representatives who don't either. Or pass a Federal Law or even an Amendment to the Constitution if you want it enshrined.
There must be thousands of laws that fall under the 9th or interpreted. There’s no way the founding fathers could know anything about credit card fraud, securities exchanges, child porn, immigration, modern wars and health ins. Not even woman’s vote. True? We must keep moving forward - in time there will be laws about space travel. There’s nothing in there about such things. Yet we need laws.
There must be thousands of laws that fall under the 9th or interpreted. There’s no way the founding fathers could know anything about credit card fraud, securities exchanges, child porn, immigration, modern wars and health ins. Not even woman’s vote. True? We must keep moving forward - in time there will be laws about space travel. There’s nothing in there about such things. Yet we need laws.
But Roe V Wade didnt cite the 9th amendment which may have made more sense IMHO. They cited the 14th which says nothing about a woman's right to an abortion. It's about citizens cannot be deprived the right to life liberty and property without due process. How does that translate to abortion guidelines set by SCOTUS in Roe V Wade?
This is pure legislating from the bench by that court
Quote:
The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
You me an to tell me the 14th amendment said all of the above about abortion guidelines? Laughable
It's not like abortions didnt happen in the 18th and 19th century they did. And it was legal in most States until the mid 19th century but also socially unacceptable and subject to State laws.
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 08-07-2022 at 01:59 PM..
They didn't let voters decide like Kansas did. Accept what the voters want either way and you won't hear any bickering.
Along these lines, to be fair, we have read many times in C-D that when voters go to the ballot box, many topics such as inflation/the economy weigh more heavily on their voting decisions than abortion. Thread after thread about how nobody votes based on abortion. So if that is true, pure voting cannot be relied on to show what the voters actually want. Either that, or people are voting based on abortion - it doesn't work both ways
Along these lines, to be fair, we have read many times in C-D that when voters go to the ballot box, many topics such as inflation/the economy weigh more heavily on their voting decisions than abortion. So if that is true, pure voting cannot be relied on to show what the voters actually want. Either that, or people are voting based on abortion - I'm losing track of what the hivemind thinks.
Exactly. The only way the people specifically have a say about a particular issue is when it is voted on in a referendum.
Yes the voters in Indiana decided. They know exactly who their reps are and their policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowGirl
Along these lines, to be fair, we have read many times in C-D that when voters go to the ballot box, many topics such as inflation/the economy weigh more heavily on their voting decisions than abortion. Thread after thread about how nobody votes based on abortion. So if that is true, pure voting cannot be relied on to show what the voters actually want. Either that, or people are voting based on abortion - it doesn't work both ways
Like i said, put it on the ballot like Kansas and Arizona did, then let the voters decide. No need to bicker from either side once the votes are tallied.
They didn't let voters decide like Kansas did. Accept what the voters want either way and you won't hear any bickering.
The Kansas vote is great, but it only temporarily holds the line. Rabid anti-abortion legislators will be back with a new amendment as soon as they can. Or, they will luck into or create an opportunity to replace their Supreme Court Justices who are holding the line.
The whole concept of voting on this at the state level is patently absurd anyway.
The pro-choice side believes mainly that women have the fundamental right to abortion. The anti abortion side believes mainly that the fetus has a fundamental right to life.
The idea that a fetus has a greater right to life in Indiana than in NY is patently ridiculous.
The idea that a woman has a fundamental right in NY that she doesn't have in Indiana is also ridiculous.
Rowe was the perfect solution to this collision of rights as well as states interests. Now that the right has thrown this solution out, and appears unwilling to come up with a new version of Rowe that is acceptable to the pro-choice folks the only option left is to vote the right out to the extent necessary to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Like i said, put it on the ballot like Kansas and Arizona did, then let the voters decide. No need to bicker from either side once the votes are tallied.
Abortion has been on the ballot in Indiana for years,
I love how everyone here want to tell a state how to run itself.
Don’t like Indiana’s abortion policies? Don’t move there.
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.
