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.
Roe was not covered by the Constitution. It is a state's decision. Just as it was, properly, pre the bad Roe v Wade decision.
We need less federal intervention and more local control.
I was very pleased by the intense questions posed by our newest Strict Constitutionalist associates.
What? Roe Wade IS a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. Therefore Roe IS covered by the Constitution and it prohibits the type of intervention you say you oppose.
The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right. The Mississippi law violates one of the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade established nearly 50 years ago.
So your argument is you do not want the Constitution and the Supreme Court to protect the rights of women, and their privacy and healthcare decisions, because you claim that very protection is federal intervention, but you wholeheartedly endorse control over women and their bodies as long as that which is truly governmental intervention is done "locally".
Scary on so many levels.
As far as your applause for the newest SC appointees who were handpicked to overturn Roe: They lied under oath as to their intention and purpose. I have no respect for that.
Quote:
They weren’t just evasive, or vague, or deceptive. They lied. They lied to Congress and to the country, claiming they either had no opinions at all about abortion, or that their beliefs were simply irrelevant to how they would rule. They would be wise and pure, unsullied by crass policy preferences, offering impeccably objective readings of the Constitution.
That's a miscarriage of justice as the 14th Amendment is quite clear. If SOME persons are protected from prosecution for killing an unborn child, then ALL persons must be protected from prosecution for the same.
"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." - 14th Amendment, US Constitution
Nevertheless, in a civilized society, law and justice should recognize that there is a lot of difference between a man or woman who forced a pregnant woman to lose her baby against her will and the woman who quite willingly got an abortion. It's too bad you don't see the big difference. As someone who believes it best for babies to be born wanted and loved, I have no trouble seeing the difference.
Constitutionally, they can't do that as doing so creates a separate class (pregnant women and their abortion providers) protected from prosecution for killing another human life.
Then you surely support a constitutional amendment that would essentially ban all abortions. Fetal homicide laws would be obsolete. But I never hear any Republicans in congress promoting doing any such thing.
No, I am not wrong. Anyone and everyone can read the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment. States MUST treat ANY person within their jurisdiction THE SAME AS ANY OTHER PERSONS under their laws.
Then when are judges going to read the Constitution your way? Never?
This is some interesting research that shows the abortion issue may be a much larger factor in upcoming elections than people think. It's not just the economy.......stupid lol.
It indicates that a large number of people are currently only vaguely aware if at all with regard to the threat to legal abortion and when made aware abortion becomes a much bigger issue to them.
If Republicans are politically smart, they won't try to enforce their new abortion ban laws before the Nov. 2022 elections. But then not doing that won't mean there won't be any horror stories related to women needing abortions but couldn't get any, and protests that may come with it.
What? Roe Wade IS a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. Therefore Roe IS covered by the Constitution and it prohibits the type of intervention you say you oppose.
The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right. The Mississippi law violates one of the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade established nearly 50 years ago.
So your argument is you do not want the Constitution and the Supreme Court to protect the rights of women, and their privacy and healthcare decisions, because you claim that very protection is federal intervention, but you wholeheartedly endorse control over women and their bodies as long as that which is truly governmental intervention is done "locally".
Scary on so many levels.
As far as your applause for the newest SC appointees who were handpicked to overturn Roe: They lied under oath as to their intention and purpose. I have no respect for that.
That's ridiculous. Firstly, the basis for Roe exists nowhere within the actual text of the Constitution and the hoops that the Supreme Court had to jump to at the time to "find" such a right were laughable.
But, if that's going to be your argument, are you going to acknowledge that the Constitution affords no right to an abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe? Or is this line only going to be something you make when the Supreme Court rules in a way that you're happy with?
Lastly, please spell out why you believe these justices lied about Roe (WaPo is under a paywall) so that we can fact check your assertion via the actual text and context of what these justices stated
Nevertheless, in a civilized society, law and justice should recognize that there is a lot of difference between a man or woman who forced a pregnant woman to lose her baby against her will and the woman who quite willingly got an abortion. It's too bad you don't see the big difference. As someone who believes it best for babies to be born wanted and loved, I have no trouble seeing the difference.
You're ignoring the unborn child, which due to the precedence of fetal homicide laws is legally classified as a separate human life. It is unconstitutional for anyone to force that human's death against its will.
No one has said abortion can't be regulated. You are arguing with yourself. All rights can be regulated.
The MS law being contested regulates abortion, just as any state can do the same as they regulate gun rights. End of discussion.
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.
