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.
I didn't say the 9th doesn't support abortion. I said that it's each state's Constitutional Right to restrict abortion just like states already restrict 2nd Amendment Rights.
You cannot restrict a fundamental right to the extent you ban it for all practical purposes.
The 14th Amendment equal protection argument has been made in court many times and lost each time. This is misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. Equal protection means that people are treated equally for the same actions. The criminal law determines what is unlawful. If two people perform the same unlawful act, Equal Protection states they should be treated equally for that transgression. If a state's laws make abortion legal and fetal homicide illegal, Equal Protection means that two people performing an abortion are treated the same, and two people committing fetal homicide are treated the same. As I have stated previously, I don't believe destroying a fetus is killing a person but for the sake of this argument let's say it is. The law can - and frequently does - differentiate between different actions that lead to the same outcome. The best example is killing someone in self defense. The person has killed someone. Someone who intentionally kills someone unprovoked commits murder. That person has also killed someone. By this misinterpretation of Equal Protection asserted by those who oppose choice, by differentiating between justifiable homicide and murder the law has created "a separate class that protects some people but not others from prosecution for killing another human's life."
This has been stated many times in this thread but the relevance has never been explained. No right is limitless. Felons can't possess guns despite the Second Amendment, it's a crime to threaten a public official despite the right to free speech, states can impose capacity restrictions on venues despite the freedom of assembly, and so on and so on. But restrictions have to have a basis and not be so restrictive as to act as a virtual ban. If the argument is that a law that prohibits abortions in every situation other than to save the life of a mother is not a ban because of the one single narrow exception is disingenuous. Most people, including me, who support choice also support some level of regulation of it. Opinions on the level vary. But prohibiting abortions in any case other than to save the life of the mother is not "regulating" abortion.
Have people been convicted of and sent to prison for committing fetal homicide? Yes. That sets the legal precedent that an unborn child is a separate human life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
Except in the case of a woman getting an abortion, which is an exception to the fetal homicide laws. There is no legal precedent set by those laws, or a conviction under those laws. Go talk to a lawyer to get some education.
"Indiana pursued charges of feticide against Patel: in court, the state argued that she had violated a 1979 law that prohibits violence against fetuses. A jury trial ruled against Patel on Monday, on charges of feticide and child neglect. Patel is now sentenced to a minimum of 20 years — and maximum of 70 — in prison."
And yet it didn't hit the Supreme Court's lap until 1973 ... That's a big gap in there. With tonics aiding in abortions throughout history past --- it seems to me, this was never a moral issue, but a financial one instead. And that's how the Federal government ended up in our bedrooms, there is money in it.
It was never about women's reproductive rights --- that much has always been evident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Well yeah its always been about depriving women of their rights.
Still, medical treatments result in an exchange of cash or pigs or something.
If the practice of abortion (before quickening) has been legal since the 1800s how is it that the 1973 roe v wade is about reproductive rights?
Because they create a separate special class that protects some people but not others from prosecution for killing another human's life.
That's unconstitutional, by the way. It violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Okay, so, it's easier to see why anti-abortion people want personhood amendments passed, either at the state or national level. They can't get the courts to apply fetal homicide laws to women who get abortions, largely thanks to Roe vs Wade.
Some cowboy in TX has already proposed a law to charge women with murder which of course in TX could carry the death penalty.
Didn't make it out of committee, but still tells you there must be something really crazy in the water in TX.
As I stated before wait until Roe vs Wade is overturned and those highly vindictive legislators will be eager to try to get them passed. The only thing that might stand in their way is the 4th Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment. Part of the cruel and unusual would include, the kids, if any, for losing their mother.
And yet ... Gender equality and women’s representation
A brief from the Susan B. Anthony List and 79 women serving as state legislators around the country highlights the increasing number of women who hold elective office in state governments. “Because of the substantial changes that even a minority of women bring to a legislative body, there is no longer a need — if there ever was — for this Court to assume that women cannot adequately protect their own interests through state political processes,” the brief argues. It notes that many state laws restricting abortion, including the Mississippi law, were sponsored by women. “Because women can now advance their own policy preferences in legislatures throughout the Nation, the Court can and should give greater deference to state legislators’ judgments about how to regulate abortion within their states’ borders.” We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to
it seems someone doesn't want women to have a voice at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
That is cringeworthy. First, the Susan B Anthony list compilers are liars extraordinaire, and it is an abomination that they have coopted Anthony's life and voice for their pro-life agenda.
Women are not going to be duped by a bunch of men, like they were in 1973. Seems to me people arguing against updating the laws on abortion are the ones trying to keep (women) everyone in the barbaric dark ages.
This must be the lie:
"Because of the substantial changes that even a minority of women bring to a legislative body, there is no longer a need—if there ever was—for this Court to assume that women cannot adequately protect their own interests through state political processes."
Medical science has advanced; maybe it's time we advance, as well.
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.
