Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade; says 1973 decision was "egregiously wrong" (firearms, American)
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.
No, it isn't. It is clearly unconstitutional for a state to allow some (pregnant women and their health care professionals) but not others to kill an unborn child. Either anyone can kill an unborn child, or no one can.
Homicide is in fact a crime. Every state in the US has laws criminalizing homicide, the killing of one human by another.
You are right - homicide is the killing of a person by another person. That is not in itself illegal - it is simply a manner of death. What is illegal is murder, manslaughter, etc. If "homicide" was illegal then killing someone in self defense would be illegal, executions would be illegal, etc. The law differentiates between different homicides based on the circumstances. Again, I don't agree that abortion is homicide, but for purposes of discussing this Equal Protection point it is easiest to concede the point for the discussion. Your Equal Protection argument is flawed.
More people believe it's immoral than believe it's acceptable. FACT. Furthermore, abortion just isn't a prominent issue. Only 6% of Harris Poll respondents, including men, are concerned about it.
Not according to a Gallup poll in June 2021.
You have no idea how prominent an issue it will become if the court overturns Roe v Wade or how new voters will factor into that. Most of them will be young and vote D. It will be an issue for them and if its not pro-choice advocates will make it one.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not issue an abortion ban. It would return the regulation of abortion to each state, exactly where gun control regulations currently exist. Like I said... Keeping and bearing arms IS an actual enumerated Constitutional Right, whereas abortion is NOT. If states are not allowed to regulate abortions, why should they be able to regulate gun ownership, etc.?
States can already regulate abortion under Roe v. Wade. They cannot ban abortion.
(States also cannot ban gun ownership, and I don't believe any have ever tried.)
You are right - homicide is the killing of a person by another person. That is not in itself illegal - it is simply a manner of death. What is illegal is murder, manslaughter, etc. If "homicide" was illegal then killing someone in self defense would be illegal, executions would be illegal, etc.
Abortion is in NO way shape or form killing another human in an act of self-defense for over 99% of women who get abortions. It's just plain killing another human life for no reason other than the sake of convenience.
Well, howdy-do. I bet a LOT of people would like to be allowed to kill another human just for the sake of their own convenience.
You have no idea how prominent an issue it will become if the court overturns Roe v Wade or how new voters will factor into that.
It won't be, and here's how we know... There are FAR more gun owners in the US than there are those concerned about abortion. If states can regulate and/or ban gun ownership, which IS an actual enumerated Constitutional Right while abortion is NOT, there is no reason they can't regulate and/or ban abortion. If abortion regulations aren't allowed, neither are gun control regulations. And you can BET that WILL be a WIDELY broadcast election season issue. Sorry, but the pro-abortion contingent is on the losing end of this debate. If states can't regulate abortion as they see fit, they can't regulate gun ownership, either.
States can already regulate abortion under Roe v. Wade. They cannot ban abortion.
(States also cannot ban gun ownership, and I don't believe any have ever tried.)
But states do enforce federal gun laws...(something they do not have to do), strange that states would enforce these laws on their own, when they dont have to, some states are very aggressive about enforcement too.
By that logic, Heller should not have been decided the way it was, and States should have been left free to impose whatever laws they want with respect to firearms. After all, who are the SC to tell NY what their gun laws should be. Same thing with all of the amendments that have been incorporated.
States have passed laws over the years to slowly restrict certain types of firearms, the process to obtain firearms, etc because it doesn’t stipulate in the constitution that those restrictions are illegal and a violation of the second amendment just like “Privacy” doesn’t mean a right to abortion. In fact in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights doesn’t even mention the word “Privacy” which the decision of Roe v Wade is based upon.
Then why is the Biden Admin even challenging the MS law? it doesn't ban abortion.
The Biden Admin has opened a HUGE kettle of fish by challenging the MS law... If they contest states' rights to regulate abortion, they're at risk of eliminating states' ability to regulate gun ownership, as well. Keeping and bearing arms actually IS an enumerated Constitutional Right, whereas abortion is NOT.
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.
