All forms of healthcare are subject to the government regulations and/or oversight. I'm 100% pro choice, but I can see the constitutional argument as well as the social one. In the end, American will end up with a variety of laws, depending on the state. However, abortion, while restricted, will not be outlawed for the precise the same argument you are making.
SCotUS majority will repudiate Roe v Wade, leaked draft reveals
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
This is way more important than Harvey W. That was just gossip column shit.
And some clerk is going to get suspended and disciplined over the leak - if they ever find out who. But that doesn't affect journalistic ethics.
It will be in the South. They'll send that doctor to the electric chair and the Jesus freaks will cheer as the doctor fries.
The right to personal physical integrity is part of the modern interpretation of the Constitution, Dutch.
Are you talking about the US Constitution? If so, aren't we about to get the most modern interpretation from the Court? Or does modern mean something different to you?
I can understand that at the time medical science was nascent people did not see a distinction between an unborn child and its mother. Isn't the more modern view of medicine that unborn children are sentient living beings prior to leaving the womb?
Last edited:
And here we see why Alito or the Conservatives probably leaked it.
This will get the media chasing down a rabbit hole about how horrible it was that it was leaked, instead of discussing what it does.
The MSM will happily go along with that and clutch their pearls.
There is even the possibility that it was leaked so that Roberts can switch votes and then write his own majority opinion which will less obviously be a blueprint for removing other rights, and then they can say how the
"Left were reporting fake news".
Alito's opinion is pretty clearly written to allow them to go after Griswold, Lawrence, Loving, etc. He throws a fig leaf there to say "oh no, this precedent won't be used for that" but the exact same legal reasoning applies, so it is pretty obviously him bullshitting.
Well, that sentence alone coming from Dutch Oven should convince everyone the legal reasoning is bad.
The threat of the Republicans making a Federal ban on abortion isn't going to be much of an election issue?
We will have to disagree.
I would think his answer is clearly yes, based on his previous discussions on the issue.
That would be a clever way to make the argument if people weren't saying it has to be criminalized.
Arguing it is a healthcare decision and therefore outside the bounds of these kinds of legal discussions would be cool. It's how Canada does it, basically.
But sadly, that approach isn't going to fly in the US because it will invalidate all the anti-abortion laws.
What’s gonna be an election issue? “If you let trump suck Putin’s dick there would be no war and the price of gas will be lower”?
How would Republicans ban abortion? A SCOTUS decision reversing Roe vs. Wade just puts the matter back to the states. Most states will continue to permit abortions. Your statement of the issue for election purposes isn't accurate, and voters will quickly see through it.
Interesting.
What other rights do you think people are mistaken that they have?
It means that Joe Biden's position on the issue has change over the last 40 years?
It's one of those things that happen when people learn and grow.
People who want to criminalize abortion in their state will have to organize political support for it. What chance do you think they will have in New York or California? I'd say none.
Most states will continue to permit abortions. Certainly the court decision will not be an impediment to doing so.
This will be an election issue as well.
They will ban abortion by passing a federal law banning abortion.
That's how federal law usually works.
I know they will say they won't do that, but that would be almost criminally naïve to believe it.
First of all, criminalizing abortion in individual states will already be monstrous.
Second of all, states will pass laws allowing them to impose criminal penalties on people who go to other states for legal abortions (these are already drafted)
Third of all, the first time the GOP has a trifecta, they will try to pass a nationwide abortion ban.
This is not "sending it back to the States".
That's not the plan.
Mandrill understood the point I was making. I'll explain it to you. Under US law, rights are only universally applicable across the country if the US Constitution enshrines the right, or the matter has been legislated under a recognized federal head of jurisdication.
Mandrill recognizes that point. He simply argues that there is a right founded in Constitution, according to "modern" interpretation. My point in response is that SCOTUS is about to update that "modern" interpretation.
Canada is different because criminal law falls under federal jurisdiction.
