Roe v Wade

[Merge]

Well, if you are going by what Thomas said in his concurring opinion, then the federal government does not have the authority to promulgate laws on those issues. But each individual state could do so.

Right, his opinion is that any case settled through the due process clause should be overturned.

I'm not sure the rest of the court would agree so it is still up to congress to pass any laws on those matters.
Given some prior opinions, I think congress passing a law on the topic would make the court less likely to reverse Griswold, or possibly even hear the case. So action from congress now is warranted.

 

[Merge]

Yeah, you know..... that "pro-life crowd"..... nothing but beer swilling, uneducated, bible thumping neanderthals who wouldn't know a deep thought from a deep fried taco.

Nope. Didn't imply that at all. There are plenty of very intelligent people who are pro-life.

What I did imply is that most I have seen and those who I have talked to care more about making abortion illegal than reducing the reason why people have them. From my experience, the most vocal opponents of abortion do not support anything that would reduce the desire for women to have them.

 

[SPK145]

I'm curious as to what the technical difference is. The terms are so often used inter-changeably. If I were to guess, pro-life has a more religious connotation, an anti-abortion stance is more scientifically based. Am I close? I could see many overlaps, however..

"Pro-life" would mean you are also against the death penalty. I am not.

"Pro-life" would also mean no exceptions to abortion. I believe there should be exceptions for rape/incest (up to a certain point in the pregnancy, say 15 weeks), health of the mother/confirmed birth defects in the child (at any point in the pregnancy.)

 

[SPK145]

Right, his opinion is that any case settled through the due process clause should be overturned.

I'm not sure the rest of the court would agree so it is still up to congress to pass any laws on those matters.
Given some prior opinions, I think congress passing a law on the topic would make the court less likely to reverse Griswold, or possibly even hear the case. So action from congress now is warranted.

Hopefully the Equality Clause should prevail in those other issues. Doesn't apply in the case of abortion.

 

[SHUSA]

"Pro-life" would mean you are also against the death penalty. I am not.

"Pro-life" would also mean no exceptions to abortion. I believe there should be exceptions for rape/incest (up to a certain point in the pregnancy, say 15 weeks), health of the mother/confirmed birth defects in the child (at any point in the pregnancy.)

what is your stance on abortion for minors?

i think the timeframe for abortion should probably be tied more to weeks after discovering the pregnancy. obviously thats much more complicated but some women dont know theyre pregnant till much later in the pregnancy than others.

 

[SPK145]

what is your stance on abortion for minors?

i think the timeframe for abortion should probably be tied more to weeks after discovering the pregnancy. obviously thats much more complicated but some women dont know theyre pregnant till much later in the pregnancy than others.

Full parental notification for minors.

On the 2nd part, after 9 weeks you will have missed 2 menstrual cycles. If that doesn't give you a heads up, it's easy to see why you are so stupid and got pregnant in the first place.

 

[SHUSA]

Full parental notification for minors.

On the 2nd part, after 9 weeks you will have missed 2 menstrual cycles. If that doesn't give you a heads up, it's easy to see why you are so stupid and got pregnant in the first place.

yes but like all healthcare decisions the hippocratic oath doesnt omit dumb people.

i tend not to assume too much about pregnancy/menstruel cycle since ive never experienced myself

 

[PiratePride]

"Pro-life" would mean you are also against the death penalty. I am not.

"Pro-life" would also mean no exceptions to abortion. I believe there should be exceptions for rape/incest (up to a certain point in the pregnancy, say 15 weeks), health of the mother/confirmed birth defects in the child (at any point in the pregnancy.)

thanks

 

[donnie_baseball]

You think PP offers healthcare, childcare and tax credits?

Why would they? They have a billion-dollar business, 35% of which comes from abortions. We have a local pregnancy aid center that gives away formula, diapers, clothes. There is another one that does job training and actually houses pregnant and new moms as long as they want. There are several in each county of NJ. Most sensible people would bristle at the thought of expanding welfare, and many of the pro-lifers you "lose" with your argument are already donating money, time, or goods to these types of centers. Luckily, the local one hasn't been firebombed yet by the people of your political ilk.

 

[donnie_baseball]

You realize when you say you’re approaching it from a woman’s point of view that women do not have just 1 view on this. Go outside Kavanaughs house and you’ll find one view and go to your local Christian church you’ll find plenty of women with differing views. You view it from the perspective of a woman of pro choice. Nothing wrong with doing that. But to be fair I think you should also look at it from the perspective of a woman of pro life. Weigh the 2 after that. But the self righteous BS of I look at it from a woman’s perspective is baloney because there is no one perspective for women.

Agree with this, and many of the young white men so enraged about the recent loss of "reproductive rights" -- and not referring to Merge here -- because they don't have an easy exit plan anymore, depending on where they live.

 

[CL82]

Right, his opinion is that any case settled through the due process clause should be overturned.

I'm not sure the rest of the court would agree so it is still up to congress to pass any laws on those matters.
Given some prior opinions, I think congress passing a law on the topic would make the court less likely to reverse Griswold, or possibly even hear the case. So action from congress now is warranted.

Agree to disagree here. I understand your point, but Congress passing laws “just because“ is a bad idea. I think Congress passing a law could well precipitate judicial review. In all likelihood, that review would find that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to do so, although some of the majority in Dobbs clearly limited their opinion to the facts of that case.

 

[PiratePride]

Nope. Didn't imply that at all. There are plenty of very intelligent people who are pro-life.

What I did imply is that most I have seen and those who I have talked to care more about making abortion illegal than reducing the reason why people have them. From my experience, the most vocal opponents of abortion do not support anything that would reduce the desire for women to have them.

You have obviously not spoken to a lot of people.

 

[Merge]

Why would they?

Right. That was my point. The societal and cultural changes I believe would help reduce the number of abortions, based on studies and polling of women who have abortions, will not come from planned parenthood.

There is another one that does job training and actually houses pregnant and new moms as long as they want. There are several in each county of NJ. Most sensible people would bristle at the thought of expanding welfare, and many of the pro-lifers you "lose" with your argument are already donating money, time, or goods to these types of centers.

Not to diminish their role, but I was referring to more of a cultural shift across the country.

Luckily, the local one hasn't been firebombed yet by the people of your political ilk.

My political ilk?.... come on...

 

[Merge]

Agree to disagree here. I understand your point, but Congress passing laws “just because“ is a bad idea. I think Congress passing a law could well precipitate judicial review. In all likelihood, that review would find that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to do so, although some of the majority in Dobbs clearly limited their opinion to the facts of that case.

Disagree it is "just because" It is because we have a court case which is determining the right, and that right may not be as much of a right as we previously thought it was based on comments from Thomas.

Congress creates laws and if it is congresses intent to ensure all Americans have the right to contraception, then they need to make the law and the court can determine if it is constitutional if it is challenged.

 

[CL82]

Disagree it is "just because" It is because we have a court case which is determining the right, and that right may not be as much of a right as we previously thought it was based on comments from Thomas.

Congress creates laws and if it is congresses intent to ensure all Americans have the right to contraception, then they need to make the law and the court can determine if it is constitutional if it is challenged.

The foregoing analysis disregards constitutional issues including separation of powers and enumerated powers.

 

[Merge]

The foregoing analysis disregards constitutional issues including separation of powers and enumerated powers.

No it doesn't. That's exactly how it is supposed to work.

A law can only be challenged after it has passed and the court can determine if it is constitutional or not.
That can't happen without a law in place.

 

[CL82]

No it doesn't. That's exactly how it is supposed to work.

A law can only be challenged after it has passed and the court can determine if it is constitutional or not.
That can't happen without a law in place.

So, by that logic Congress should willfully enact laws “outside its lane“ and cross its fingers and hope for favorable judicial review? Respectfully disagree.

 

[Merge]

So, by that logic Congress should willfully enact laws “outside its lane“ and cross its fingers and hope for favorable judicial review? Respectfully disagree.

The legislative branch makes laws. That is their lane.

That’s not to say they always get it right. Almost 500 federal laws have been stricken down by the court. That’s exactly how the process is supposed to work though.

So yes, every law creates has an element of finger crossing… not much different here. You just don’t like the bill.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

The legislative branch makes laws. That is their lane.

Are you sure? I’ve been convinced over the last 14 years that’s the role of the executive branch

 

[Merge]

Are you sure? I’ve been convinced over the last 14 years that’s the role of the executive branch

lol. Well played.

 

[CL82]

The legislative branch makes laws. That is their lane.

That’s not to say they always get it right. Almost 500 federal laws have been stricken down by the court. That’s exactly how the process is supposed to work though.

So yes, every law creates has an element of finger crossing… not much different here. You just don’t like the bill.

Disagree. Writing laws that get struck down is a failure. It is colossally inefficient since the federal bureaucracy winds itself up to implement the law and individual citizens and businesses have to adjust to it during the time between its implementation and its eventual curtailment by the courts.

Your logic here is the same as suggesting that everyone should steal, because if they don’t get caught, well, then it was fine.

Unencumbered federalism was expressly rejected by the founding fathers.

 

[Merge]

Disagree. Writing laws that get struck down is a failure. It is colossally in efficient since the federal bureaucracy whines itself up to implement the field law and individual citizens in businesses have to adjust to it during the time between its implementation and its eventual curtailment by the courts.

Your logic here is the same as suggesting that everyone should steal, because if they don’t get caught, well, then it was fine.

Unencumbered federalism was expressly rejected by the founding fathers.

lol... No. There is no ambiguity with stealing. There is ambiguity when it comes to determining if a bill is constitutional or not.

Thomas stated that Griswold was decided incorrectly because of how it was decided. He did not say that any law created to protect access to contraception across the country would be unconstitutional.

This would not be congress intentionally passing a law that they knew would be unconstitutional. This is congress acting within the confines of the constitution to protect a right which the court has hinted could be overturned which would then allow states to block access to contraception.

 

[CL82]

lol... No. There is no ambiguity with stealing. There is ambiguity when it comes to determining if a bill is constitutional or not.

Thomas stated that Griswold was decided incorrectly because of how it was decided. He did not say that any law created to protect access to contraception across the country would be unconstitutional.

This would not be congress intentionally passing a law that they knew would be unconstitutional. This is congress acting within the confines of the constitution to protect a right which the court has hinted could be overturned which would then allow states to block access to contraception.

Do you believe the constitution expressly provides for contraception? If so, please advise what specific sections you believe provides for it.

Do you understand the concept of enumerated powers? If so please express which provision of Article I, Section 8 and believe empowered Congress to regulate contraception.

 

[Merge]

Do you believe the constitution expressly provides for contraception?

Lol... No... Though I don't see it expressly providing anything about healthcare either and yet we have plenty of federal laws regarding healthcare.

If so, please advise what specific sections you believe provides for it.

It's more of a question of if that bill passed, how does it violate the constitution? The court usually defers to a person's liberty there and I'm not sure how a bill which provides access to contraception would violate an individuals liberty. They could do so if there was a government interest to do so, but I fail to see one here.

Do you understand the concept of enumerated powers? If so please express which provision of Article I, Section 8 and believe empowered Congress to regulate contraception.

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States"

^ That part. The part that has been used to create so many current federal laws where the constitution is silent. The court has never stricken down a law stating that it was unnecessary. Congress has a very broad reach there.

 

[CL82]

Lol... No... Though I don't see it expressly providing anything about healthcare either and yet we have plenty of federal laws regarding healthcare.



It's more of a question of if that bill passed, how does it violate the constitution? The court usually defers to a person's liberty there and I'm not sure how a bill which provides access to contraception would violate an individuals liberty. They could do so if there was a government interest to do so, but I fail to see one here.



"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States"

^ That part. The part that has been used to create so many current federal laws where the constitution is silent. The court has never stricken down a law stating that it was unnecessary. Congress has a very broad reach there.

If the federal government makes laws in areas that aren’t specifically enumerated, that in and of itself is violative of the Constitution.

 

[Merge]

If the federal government makes laws in areas that aren’t specifically enumerated, that in and of itself is violative of the Constitution.

If that were correct, there would be no 9th amendment... and the court has acknowledged that there are unenumerated rights.

But like I said, the court usually defers to a person's liberty. I don't see how the government codifying access to contraception's violates your personal liberty. Quiet the opposite.

 

[CL82]

If that were correct, there would be no 9th amendment... and the court has acknowledged that there are unenumerated rights.

But like I said, the court usually defers to a person's liberty. I don't see how the government codifying access to contraception's violates your personal liberty. Quiet the opposite.

You are confusing enumerated powers with unenumerated rights. They are different things.

Perhaps the wrong call to reach for the ninth amendment in your grasping at straws, because it expressly speaks to rights retained by the people. It’s inconsistent with a federal government that has unfettered powers to do what it wants.

I’ve politely ignored your “personal liberty” justification for federal overreach. But since you seem kind of stuck on it, I’ll note that it’s constitutionally irrelevant to a discussion of federal overreach. Do you understand why?

 

[Merge]

You are confusing enumerated powers with unenumerated rights. They are different things.

Perhaps the wrong call to reach for the ninth amendment in your grasping at straws, because it expressly speaks to rights retained by the people. It’s inconsistent with a federal government that has unfettered powers to do what it wants.

I’ve politely ignored your “personal liberty” justification for federal overreach. But since you seem kind of stuck on it, I’ll note that it’s constitutionally irrelevant to a discussion of federal overreach. Do you understand why?

Yes, I understand what you’re saying.
I don’t agree with you that congress can not make a law that not specifically enumerated in the constitution. History and the court has upheld that you are not correct there. Their power has been way more broad than you are implying.

Im just taking it a step further to ask of it is passed, how would the court view the law… and liberty would absolutely be a part of the courts decision.

 

[CL82]

Yes, I understand what you’re saying.
I don’t agree with you that congress can not make a law that not specifically enumerated in the constitution. History and the court has upheld that you are not correct there. Their power has been way more broad than you are implying.

Im just taking it a step further to ask of it is passed, how would the court view the law… and liberty would absolutely be a part of the courts decision.

I suppose Congress can purport to make a law about anything so long as it’s has sufficient votes, but there needs to be an underlying Constitutional basis for the law to be valid. So, for example Obamacare was enacted, somewhat controversially, under the federal government’s taxing authority. That may have been a considerable reach, but it was still a basis. That said, the federal government can’t randomly decide that something is a good thing and create a law about it, unless it specifically has constitutional authority to do so.

 

[Merge]

I suppose Congress can purport to make a law about anything so long as it’s has sufficient votes, but there needs to be an underlying Constitutional basis for the law to be valid. So, for example Obamacare was enacted, somewhat controversially, under the federal government’s taxing authority. That may have been a considerable reach, but it was still a basis. That said, the federal government can’t randomly decide that something is a good thing and create a law about it, unless it specifically has constitutional authority to do so.

The court said the mandate was constitutional because of the "tax" but there are many parts of the bill that have nothing to do with taxing authority and are still in effect today. Like mandating that insurance plans cover pre-existing conditions. You're not going to find the authority for the federal government to mandate that explicitly in the constitution. It's based on interpretation and the implied powers provided to congress.

So yes... They can just decide something is a good thing and create a law about it.
Should that law be challenged and heard in court, it would be up to the governments attorneys to defend how it fits within a constitutional framework. Just as they have done hundreds and hundreds of times in our country's history, and they have won a majority of those cases.

 

[CL82]

The court said the mandate was constitutional because of the "tax" but there are many parts of the bill that have nothing to do with taxing authority and are still in effect today. Like mandating that insurance plans cover pre-existing conditions. You're not going to find the authority for the federal government to mandate that explicitly in the constitution. It's based on interpretation and the implied powers provided to congress.

So yes... They can just decide something is a good thing and create a law about it.
Should that law be challenged and heard in court, it would be up to the governments attorneys to defend how it fits within a constitutional framework. Just as they have done hundreds and hundreds of times in our country's history, and they have won a majority of those cases.

Yes, but the authority for the bill was based upon the governments brought the authority to tax. Without that, there is no Obamacare.

Regarding the whole “authority to decide something good, and cross one’s fingers and hope that it’s legal” as the role of Congress, I’ll just agree to disagree, because we’re wheel spinning at this point. You’re a searching that Congress has passed hundreds and hundreds of laws without any any constitutional underpinning is just wrong. Sometimes, the constitutional underpinning might be strained, as with the expansion of the commerce clause, or Obamacare as a tax, but it has to be there. I get the sense that you realize that from some of your replies but just seem to be willfully disregarding it and others.

Feel free to have the last word