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.
I'm rather curious about why this has not happened.
Why do people not lobby their legislators to change the laws with respect to abortions? There are three co-equal branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. Well, theJudicial branch has just weighed in on their interpretation of the Constitution with regard to abortion. They do not make the laws. Why is everyone so ticked off about their ruling when an amendment to the Constitution or a law could make the SCOTUS' ruling moot?
In my humble opinion, citizens of this country are too lazy to bother to do this and congress (legislative branch) won't take it on because ... well I don't know why they haven't bothered. Maybe too lazy to do their jobs?
I've said this exact thing multiple times. Roe was standing on its own as nothing more than a court ruling That ruling did NOT amend the Constitution nor was it codified as law. The states were still free to restrict abortion or not as they saw fit.
. The Roe v Wade decision was not binding as a Constitutional right nor an established law.
And that simply put is all the court said in its decision. That the authority in the matter belongs and has always belonged to the individual states. If the federal legislature had passed a federal law after Roe then this would not be happening.
But now...so sorry. If you don't like your states laws then get them changed. If the "overwhelming majority" of all US citizens in all 50 states want unrestricted abortion access it shouldn't be that hard to get state legislators to listen.
They are bound by law to follow the will of their constituencies. Something I believe they need to be reminded of. Harry Reid set a precedent in the 90s by ignoring his constituents and "voting his conscience" on the Omnibus Crime Bill. Publicly came out and flat said he wasnt listening to Nevadans as the people he was supposed to be representing. And he got away with it.
The moral and personal feelings I may have about abortion have NOTHING to do with where I stand in this. Nor do anyone elses. The correct Constitutional and legal decision has been made. The fight over this is back at state level. Where it always belonged.
why not now... since we are talking bodily autonomy... it actually makes sense with vaccine mandates and mask mandates
its simple the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can NOT mandate any of these things about bodily autonomy, it IS a states issue
Nobody was forced to take a vaccine or wear a mask. As a matter of fact where I live, many people didn't wear masks the entire time Covid was raging. So there is that.
it’s astonishing how little people know about the constitution, and the philosophical views which inspired it. limited federal government, legislative power held by states, representatives elected by the people to enact legislation, accountable to the people.
this gives you more liberty, more control over government, states reflecting the wishes of those they serve.
Many people understand the Constitution and the philosophy behind it. It's just that the fallout resulting from certain SC decisions are upsetting long standing rights and assumption we have come to rely on. The "rights" we lived under and depended on for almost 50 years have been pulled out from under all of society. And the court also presented us with a list of other longstanding rulings that could be in jeopardy.
So yes, this is not just about fixing a legal wrong. It is also about upsetting people's lives in a major way.
Nobody was forced to take a vaccine or wear a mask. As a matter of fact where I live, many people didn't wear masks the entire time Covid was raging. So there is that.
Did you try to travel or go into a Fed building? Your local Fed did not enforce the rules, which did not mean it did not exist
They already do. Abortions past a certain phase in a pregnancy are illegal in most states unless there is a health risk for the mother. Vermont has no restrictions which means you can have an abortion even on the day of delivery (disgusting). But in most states oyou can't have an abortion after 24 weeks. The government is controlling your body to a certain degree
Can you show me where in the 14th amendment used by the Roe V Wade case gives a Constitutional right to an abortion? I didn't see it in any of the five sections of that amendment.
That's why SCOTUS overturned the decision. If a right is not specifically stated in the Constitution then the 9th and 10th amendments apply
The "right to privacy" to get an abortion isn't even in the Constitution. So R v W was just a bad ruling all the way around. Abortion laws should have always been decided upon at the state level. Unfortunately we have lost 50 years of growth and learning to understand abortion laws, as a society. We never learned as a society to iron out abortion laws in such a way that we the people could have eventually compromised on them. The SCOTUS took this process away from us.
So it will take a decade or so for the people to figure this out. The extremists will be the ones screaming the loudest, so they will be getting their way for the first few years. I am going to assume that after a decade of the crazies trying to force their views on us, cooler heads will prevail, and we will have sensible abortion laws.
So the freakout on both sides will become noisy for a decade, just prepare for it, live thru it, and don't jump on the band wagon with the uncompromising extremists. and please don't ruin personal relationships and reputations getting sucked into the tribalism from the baby killers or bible thumping purists.
For 50 years they said the opposite. So were they better educated then? Or are they better educated now because they agree with you?
In two instances they said the opposite and the most recent visit on that topic of abortion was 30 years ago and the vote was 5-4. Seemed to be close to getting overturned 20 years after Roe. So now it's 5-4 the other way and now in your opinion it was egregiously wrong? Don't make me laugh.
Since the job of the Supreme Court is to accurately interpret the constitution perhaps you can provide proof where it states the right to privacy, or better yet stipulate the right to abortion. I'll wait
So yes, this is not just about fixing a legal wrong. It is also about upsetting people's lives in a major way.
I don't. This will work itself out. Even liberal Europe has abortion limits and it wasn't decided by the courts. Germany has abortions on demand until the 12 week. Germany is doing fine, don't you think?
The most vulnerable are those that aren't even considered legal humans, but can feel pain, have brain waves, and recognize voices.
The answer is not to kill these humans, but to increase the social safety net.
Sadly, too many of the ones who want to eliminate abortion are the same ones who say "not my problem" after the baby is born to someone who is incapable if caring for it. You know, the people who don't want their tax dollars going towards feeding hungry babies, otherwise known as welfare or WIC for infants. .
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.
