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.
Due to the requirements of passing a Constitutional Amendment and the number of pro-life, small population states, the likelihood is that it will never happen, as you well know.
But that doesn’t mean taking away an individual right that has existed for 49 years and is still supported by nearly two-thirds of the American public will come without political costs. It will be interesting to see if John Roberts can get one of the 5 conservatives to flip ...
It would have been more accurate had you wrote . . . It will be interesting to see if John Roberts can get one of the 5 conservatives to ignore the Constitution and agree to perpetuate a fraud upon the people which has been in effect for almost fifty years.
There's a traceable record kept by the government. That alone violates any semblance of privacy.
Privacy where do you draw the line? Want your sex life on the list? The records of your monthly pregnancy tests on file. Checking your medical records to assure you’re not pregnant? If you are monitoring your pre natal visits till the birth?
Privacy where do you draw the line? Want your sex life on the list? The records of your monthly pregnancy tests on file. Checking your medical records to assure you’re not pregnant? If you are monitoring your pre natal visits till the birth?
Why are there any government records kept on those who exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights?
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
Much of my family are right wing religious fundies and I can promise you an abortion ban wouldn't be the stopping point. Even forms of birth control used by most married couples and condoms would be on the chopping block. They really want to turn the clock back to the Victorian age in terms of sexual norms.
Much of my family are right wing religious fundies and I can promise you an abortion ban wouldn't be the stopping point. Even forms of birth control used by most married couples and condoms would be on the chopping block. They really want to turn the clock back to the Victorian age in terms of sexual norms.
Yeah, I have some lunatic left wing socialists in my family and I can promise you abortion on demand won't be the stopping point. Even killing of full term babies up to toddler age would be on the chopping block if having a child wasn't to their liking. They really want to ensure that "my body my choice" extends well past birth.
Much of my family are right wing religious fundies and I can promise you an abortion ban wouldn't be the stopping point. Even forms of birth control used by most married couples and condoms would be on the chopping block. They really want to turn the clock back to the Victorian age in terms of sexual norms.
Why are there any government records kept on those who exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights?
The government doesn’t stop them from using do they? You have availability and access. How far are you willing to let the government keep track of your reproductive life?
Due to the requirements of passing a Constitutional Amendment and the number of pro-life, small population states, the likelihood is that it will never happen, as you well know.
Ah...so adding enumerated powers to the federal government is difficult...by design. Seems like a feature, not a bug. Which is why violations of the 10th Amendment should be erased, overturned, vacated, etc. If the fed.gov wants to create an enumerated power over the states and the people, they need to do the difficult amendment thing....BY DESIGN.
Roe and Casey are "decision as law" and as such create a 10th Amendment violation that allows the federal government to hold an implicit enumerated power without going through the process of 3/4 of the states ratifying that new power. The SCOTUS absolutely should strike down all such laws, and if the fed.gov, States and People all think the fed.gov needs the power handed to them, well then by all means, amend the Constitution. Until then, it belongs to the States and the People. AS INTENDED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
But that doesn’t mean taking away an individual right that has existed for 49 years and is still supported by nearly two-thirds of the American public will come without political costs.
The decision did not create a right, it simply gave cover to the federal government to violate the 10th Amendment without actually making a federal law that could get challenged. In actuality, it violated a right possessed by the States and the People, protected explicitly by the 10th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
It will be interesting to see if John Roberts can get one of the 5 conservatives to flip to leave some semblance of Roe in effect for political cover. Otherwise, the reaction to the decision from key constituencies such as suburban Independents and younger voters will watched closely by the media and political scientists in years to come. The demographic groups most likely to support Roe (college educated; the unchurched, younger generations) are gaining voting share, while those most likely to oppose (religious conservatives; older generations) are not.
The SCOTUS is not charged with making sure one party or the other wins elections. They are charged with being the judicial check on both executive and legislative power, as well as upholding the US Constitution.
The US Constitution does not enumerate a federal power over women's bodies, women's healthcare, aborting pregnancies, or anything of the sort. That which is not enumerated as a power of the federal government is a power reserved to the States and the People, so says the 10th Amendment.
If John Roberts finds a way to politically cover his own arse with some weird half decision like his ObamaCare mandate abomination, that doesn't make what he does proper, anymore than Dred Scott or Kelo v New London were proper. It means the Court is still political instead of judicial and they value fame/money/power over their sworn constitutional duties.
The government doesn’t stop them from using do they? You have availability and access. How far are you willing to let the government keep track of your reproductive life?
Same. The government should keep track of reproductive health records if they keep track of 2nd Amendment Rights records. Fair is fair.
How do you bridge the gap between a right to privacy and a right to kill another human on a whim for convenience?
Being pregnant, delivering a baby, and parenting a living breathing child is not an “inconvenience”. It is the greatest responsibility you will undertake in your lifetime.
Pregnancy itself is a major commitment that requires discipline on the part of the mother. You must quit smoking, drinking, limit caffeine, avoid sushi, deli meats, certain cheeses. You must take vitamins and folate supplements. You must have regular pre natal checkups. You need to monitor blood sugar, blood pressure. There are invasive tests to check for genetic or congenital abnormalities.
Some women sail through pregnancy, some develop life threatening conditions. Some are so sick they can’t function. Some have to undertake bed rest for a significant period of time.
Not all labour goes off without a hitch. Some women haemorrhage and die. Some require a hysterectomy. Some deliver early and have an infant that requires exorbitantly expensive and distressing neo natal care.
A lot of the time, the obstetrician takes a scalpel to one’s vagina and cuts a line down to the anus, in order to get the baby out.
Some women are paralysed by badly administered epidurals.
Once the baby is born, women are at risk from serious mental illness caused by fluctuations in hormones. Post natal depression and post natal psychosis are very real and very awful conditions that are not predictable in advance. Women that love and want the child can suffer these. Imagine going through this because you were forced to.
Women who WANT the child will willingly take those risks and make those sacrifices. For women that DON’T want the child, it is unacceptable to make them. No government should dictate that you risk life and limb this way against your will. It’s not a decision for others to make in your behalf.
And yes it would be better to not get pregnant in the first place. I mean DUH. But you’ll always have a segment of the population who are too irresponsible, too young, engage in wishful thinking, are too drunk or high, or simply don’t care. Who’s going to make sure those women follow through with healthy pre natal practices?
Not only are the kids unwanted, but they could be born suffering cognitive and other disabilities due to foetal alcohol syndrome, low birth weight, other issues that arise from not being taken care of during gestation. Which makes them even harder to look after when the mother that didn’t want them in the first place takes them home.
I want all children to be WANTED by their parent/s. I would rather an embryo be terminated early before it’s sentient than than suffer as a child.
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.
