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.
Congress shares certain concurrent authority over public health matters emanating from its enumerated powers in the Constitution. Congressional authority stems from, among other sources, the Constitution’s Spending & Commerce Clauses.
But some people who want all abortion banned are also against any regulations for it.
Some people, perhaps. And some people want abortion to be legal up to the point a full-term baby is in the birth canal, with delivery imminent. The point is that not one single state legislature has taken any steps to completely ban all abortions if Roe is overturned. Not even one.
But to you, the fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional, due to one exception as this one in Indiana:
Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 203 states that killing a fetus at any stage of development is murder unless the woman terminates her own pregnancy or obtains an abortion. Applicable to Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4, 35-42-1-6
They are unconstitutional, and I've already explained why: Anyone who didn't want the baby (which includes the father) would have to legally be able to kill an unborn child to make fetal homicide laws Constitutional, just like self-defense laws allow anyone to kill another in self-defense.
Incorrect. Fetal homicide laws have already established the legal precedent that an unborn child is a separate human life.
And as I've noted in my prior post, women have been charged with and convicted for child abuse for abusing drugs during pregnancy. That would not be possible unless an unborn child was legally recognized as a separate human life, a child.
Once again, the fetal homicide laws set no precedent at all. The laws merely specify what is a crime, and there are exceptions for abortion.
They are unconstitutional, and I've already explained why: Anyone who didn't want the baby (which includes the father) would have to legally be able to kill an unborn child to make fetal homicide laws Constitutional, just like self-defense laws allow anyone to kill another in self-defense.
That analogy is incorrect. Not one court has ruled the fetal homicide laws with an abortion exception as being unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Under your way of thinking, self defense would not be an exception to murder laws. Please talk to an attorney to have this explained.
Some people, perhaps. And some people want abortion to be legal up to the point a full-term baby is in the birth canal, with delivery imminent. The point is that not one single state legislature has taken any steps to completely ban all abortions if Roe is overturned. Not even one.
They will and they plan to. Who do you think you are kidding?
Once again, the fetal homicide laws set no precedent at all. The laws merely specify what is a crime, and there are exceptions for abortion.
You're in total denial. Not only do the convictions for fetal homicide set the legal precedent that an unborn child is a separate human life, so do the laws under which women were convicted for child abuse for abusing drugs while pregnant.
That analogy is incorrect. Not one court has ruled the fetal homicide laws with an abortion exception as being unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.
Yet... Luckily, we have many more federal judges and SCOTUS Justices who actually abide by their sworn oath to support and defend the US Constitution.
They will and they plan to. Who do you think you are kidding?
Cite one pending state law that completely bans all abortions.
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.