The foundation of Roe versus Wade lies in the right to privacy within the 14th Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade What will the ramifications be for privacy in relation to health care if this is overturned?
Ya, but I didn't think he'd ever be President either... ...this country has sunk so low anything is possible.......
Quite a difference Fox, changing the constitution is not and easy thing to do, he can't do it with an executive order .. the only recourse would be for the Supreme Court to over rule Roe, and even then abortion would still be open for legality via the 2nd Amendment and the Equal protection Clause. - - - Updated - - - Wouldn't know, why don't you ask people who have actually killed babies.
` ` No president can change the U.S. Constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment to change or remove the 14th Amendment and realistically, that is just never going to happen.
No.. he's already come out saying he had no problem with same sex marriage. He just deceived the Christian right and Evangelicals.
It's disappointing how many people don't understand the government under which they live. As to "that is just never going to happen", a few weeks ago folks were saying that about a Trump presidency. You're correct, it would be pushing a big rock up a steep hill, but never say never. (I don't think the 14th Amendment should be overturned, but I would like to see a discussion about specific changes to the constitution. That might be a fun topic to discuss...).
He openly supported the LGBT community during his RNC nomination speech, and received applause for doing so, then thanked everyone for applauding. You'd think the left would realize how ridiculous they look, but they keep digging. - - - Updated - - - You might want to educate yourself on what it takes to amend the Constitution.
I'm not here to educate an Australian in US government. You're free to give some hand-outs though if you want.
The question should be what will Pence do. Trump has already announced that he will not be spending his time in the White House, he wants to play golf and relax. So in other words, when he gets to dress up and play King, he will be there, otherwise Pence will be making decisions. Pence's history for abortion rights is dismal. So I believe we can expect him to take ANY tact that might possibly punish women.
No. With Conservative Jurists, the restoration of the 14th amendment is in mind. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Privileges and Immunities are rights we have human being, prior to the formation of Government, that our government was instituted to secure. This particular clause was added to the Constitution to empower the national government to protect the civil rights of citizens from violation by state governmentsa jurisdiction it previously lacked and to reverse Barron v. Baltimore, which held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. In 1873, a mere five years after its ratification, the Privileges or Immunities Clause was functionally ripped from the Constitution by a bare majority of the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Cases, which concerned whether Louisianas grant of a monopoly to a state-approved slaughterhouse violated the liberty of other butchers to pursue their lawful occupation. In a five-to-four decision, the majority distinguished two classes of privileges or immunities: national ones that the Court would enforce, such as the right of free access to [the nations] seaports and the right to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over [ones] life, liberty, and property when on the high seas, and state privileges and immunities that the Court would neglect, which included all the civil rights and liberties that the 39th Congress had tried fruitlessly to protect by enacting this clause. Another 14th Amendment case was Lawrence v. Texas that struck down a state ban on sodomy between members of the same sex on a right to liberty. We conclude, wrote Justice Kennedy, that the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For the Court the threshold issue was whether the prohibited conduct was an exercise of liberty, or whether instead it was harmful to others. This is the tension between free people and the regulation that occurs when one's free choices impact the natural rights of others in close by. In older times there was a change in the rights enjoyed by the developing fetus once movement was detected or "quickening". This is about halfway through the pregnancy. For all the arguing and back and forth we have done, I don't see that we have found any more widely recognized standard for when the developing baby begins to obtain rights that should be protected by the society working collectively through government. But, if SCOTUS over-ruled Roe, it would simply go back to the States. The Blue States would likely adopt standards very close to those you hold, the Red States more restrictive standards, which would require the mother to travel from a Red State to a Blue State if she wanted an abortion past the time allowed by the State she resides in.
No actually it would be the opening of all medical records. Male and female. Are you comfortable with the thought your employer could see your full health history?
The President has zero power to overturn an Amendment. The only way his opinion is more important than your's or mine is because he (or she) is the President, and as such their opinion on any topic gets press coverage.
A. Thank you for once again pointing out that the whole point behind Repubs wanting to take away women's rights is to punish them for having sex. B. American citizens should be American citizens in ALL of America, they shouldn't have to cross state lines to experience all their rights. Is that just Repubs way of etching away until women have no rights??? C. If abortion is wrong in one state why wouldn't it be wrong in all states? D. What makes anyone think that destroying the 14 amendment and overturning RvW would end abortions? What a stupid idea? Can they explain HOW??? E. No matter how loaded the Trump administration makes the Supreme Court they don't destroy amendments and rights and precedents quite as easily as you may think.
Justices have found ways to twist the constitution in ways that essentially nullify what the rest of us think it says, or expands it well beyond the apparent meaning of the words. This would be a matter of turning the 14th amendment on its head by declaring that fetuses deserve equal protection, which would first require that they think of fetuses as persons.
But the minute they declare fetuses "persons" means the fetuses also have the same RESTRICTIONS other persons have. They cannot use another person's body to sustain their own life.....unless, as Repubs want, women lose ALL their rights ...and THEY are declared Non-persons...
There's some logic to what you say, but I'm not convinced that a conservative scotus will see it that way if they believe fetuses are persons. But yes, if we were to assume fetuses were persons, the hypocrisy of requiring women to carry them to term would be similar to requiring somebody to donate their kidney to save somebody else.
You are correct....but does this new administration have any respect for women? No. Pregnant women would lose their right to self defense.....no one else would....does that seem like American ideals to you?
Very perceptive. That was my reading of Trump. Expect tantrums when he actually has to do some work. I would not worry too much about Pence. First mistake and he will be fired