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.
But that's the beauty of returning controversial questions like this to the states. An unelected court should not be setting public policy on something like abortion. Legislators who are accountable to the people are the ones who should be making the laws. NOT the courts.
and that is just what the SCOTUS just said....R-vs-W is NOT the LAW OF THE LAND,...it is a judicial decision.... the Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution) is the ONLY avenue for this...something like this (for or against) will require a constitutional convention of the states
using R-vs-W (a judicial decision) as the law...was/is unconstitutional, and that is exactly what the ""opinion"" that was leaked stated
I'm not sure how that would play out. I'm having a discussion of one of my female friends on FB. She's a religious person that posts some new religious quote every day or two. Today she posted "my body my choice".
Personally, I think Congress should pass a law legalizing abortion-AND that the GOP should get on board with it. That takes away the Dem's political capital. Then let the states apply "reasonable restrictions", as they have in the past.
Yes, it is her body, and it is her choice as to who to allow to enter it. But the resultant baby is not her body, it is a separate and distinct life that is temporarily residing within her.
From my understanding the SC according to the leaked memo, is set to ban abortion because it is not within the scope of the Constitution. This does not mean that it would be outlawed across the country but it would fall to the individual states to put it to a vote whether it will be legal or not.
I think it is rather ridiculous to go after and overturn something like Roe V Wade that has been the standard for what 50 years? Abortion is a very personal choice between the people directly involved and Government should have never been part of it. It is a medical procedure that is done after much reflecting and soul searching. It is a really tough decision for the woman.
I say put it on the ballot in every state this November and we will see what happens.
How long was Plessy v. Ferguson the law of the land? How long would Dred Scott have been on the books without a civil war?
Roe is just an awful decision and gross overreach by the court, regardless of how you feel about the result.
I'm not thrilled about the potential positive impact for Kevorkian Democrats, but I am glad such a ridiculous decision is likely going away.
Yes, it is her body, and it is her choice as to who to allow to enter it. But the resultant baby is not her body, it is a separate and distinct life that is temporarily residing within her.
And when a woman is raped. That happens thousand of times a year that the woman gets pregnant. Just imagine carrying that child for 9 months. Shame, agony, depression and many more you can add. Look how many of these Republicans that publicly are against it, but privately, their wives, daughters and girlfriends get that abortion.
As I understand, though, this is all for activity within Texas. It wouldn't extend to action where someone drove a woman from Texas to, say, Oklahoma to get an abortion. To be clear, my point about freedom of movement touches on interstate freedom of movement--which Congress can regulate--as opposed to intrastate freedom of movement, which Congress could not regulate.
This gets into the difference between 'driving' and 'traveling'...
From a legal perspective the two are very different when in a courtroom.
Yes, it is her body, and it is her choice as to who to allow to enter it. But the resultant baby is not her body, it is a separate and distinct life that is temporarily residing within her.
No one has the right to "temporarily reside" within another person's body, against that person's will, even if it is to save their own life.
Yes, it is her body, and it is her choice as to who to allow to enter it. But the resultant baby is not her body, it is a separate and distinct life that is temporarily residing within her.
Its 50% HER DNA. Now go run along and stay part of the misinformed .
SCOTUS is a BRANCH of govt. It has just as much authority as the rest of govt. Just thought I'd mention it as some seem to think they are a secondary source and without empowerment.
I'm a progressive Independent - not a Democrat. The only way I could tell you would be logically, not emotionally.
Many people do not believe that termination of pregnancy is wrong. They were never taught that. In my family for example, each daughter was told that if we were sexually active, our mother would obtain birth control. There would be no recrimination, disappointment or hysteria. Just the facts that in our family and social circle, people plan to become pregnant. And, when they do, they are married. No children, nieces, cousins have ever had a child before marriage. No one wants to do that. It's harder on everyone. Especially the pregnant woman. We do not reward out of wedlock pregnancies with baby showers.
The choice is simple - Plan B "the Morning after pill. T.O.P., or adoption. Our parents do not push us to have grandchildren for them. It's not seen as a badge of honor.
The outcomes of out of wedlock pregnancy are almost always bad, or significantly worse than planned pregnancies. An example is the murder of little Caylee Anthony by her teenaged mother. Casey Anthony lied about graduating from HS but her parents still gave her a party. When she became pregnant, they gave her a shower.
Free range parenting does not work, and a beautiful real fully formed child was horrifically murdered because "mom" was not ready.
The relationship between a patient and her health care provider is private. The government has no place in the bedroom or the doctors office. The United States believes in "Separation of Church and State".
Not everyone in America believes in the "personhood of the fetus".
This is a perfect example of governmental overreach.
Have "Dominion" over your church and your family. White wash incest like the Duggars did. Go right ahead!
The article quotes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as saying (my italics): “Such a decision, if it comes to pass, would be an utter abomination. Women across America would suffer irreparable harm to their rights, their health, and their dignity. It will go down as one of the worst and most damaging opinions that the court has handed down in modern history, and the court would suffer a mortal blow to its reputation that I fear will last forever,” the New York Democrat said on the floor on Wednesday. “Yesterday I pledged that Senate Democrats will act on legislation to codify Roe into law. It is vital that we act quickly because this is no longer an abstract exercise.” [end quote]
So what would happen if it IS codified into law? Couldn't the SCOTUS still outlaw such a law?
(I have no legal training, so this I am being serious when I asked the above questions.)
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.
