According to the source noted below, 35 states require women receive counseling before they can have an abortion, and 27 states require a waiting period after receiving said counseling. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion Do these restrictions violate the Constitution? If so, why/how?
10 States have waiting periods for purchasing a hand gun. States have mandatory waiting periods for divorce. There are lots of waiting periods established in business, licensing, etc. Why is this one example for abortion different than any of these other constitutionally protected rights?
I'm a little unclear on your response. Do these waiting periods and 'training' requirements for an abortion violate the constitution or not?
The question isn't about just abortion, hence the response. Would you also include all waiting periods, or just for abortion in the "unconstitutionality" bucket? I'd also say that those I articulated are actually constitutionally defined rights, where as right to privacy leading to legally acceptable abortion is not. It was derived from the 10th. The better question is does government have the right, when explicitly precluded by the constitution, to regulate. (ie waiting periods).
You can't ask about abortion without addressing the others. As a group, they represent the same constitutional matter.
Effective..... So why should we take the thread seriously if you aren't interested in the entire picture?
A waiting period for a Gun can be justified on the basis of public safety. This is a legitimate purview of Gov't as per the principles on which this nations was founded - and on which basis law and the constitution is supposed to be interpreted. There is no similar justification for Abortion.
Ummm... the principles on which this nation was founded gives the perspective by which law is to be interpreted. The failure to understand this is on you.
I don't care if they do or don't violate the Constitution,( they probably do since they discriminate against women) but either way they are Really Stupid laws. I don't know any other medical procedures that REQUIRE counseling or mandatory waiting periods. The only thing these misogynistic laws do is what they intended to do, make life harder for women...
Is the counseling forced upon the patient? Is there a law that says they have to have this "counseling". A consultation, say with a plastic surgeon, is not counseling. Is there a waiting period forced upon the patient?
Yes to the 1st one. I think. I'm not medical expert. Why is counseling with the operating doctor not counseling? Why is counseling with the abortion clinic, not considered counseling. This started because of a gun control thread where some states have laws that require gun safety/handling classes. Are you opposed to gun safety classes for people who want to buy a firearm? Even if they don't know what a barrel is or the trigger is?
I never said that. I did say a consultation is not counseling. Well THIS is the abortion forum.... BUT the BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE IS : A woman having an abortion harms NO ONE. NO one else is FORCED to have counseling and/or a FORCED viewing of a video before they can have a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. A person slinging a gun around can harm people...especially one not trained in it's use.
But constitutional rights are rights and all should be treated similarly. And yes, abortions will affect more than just the mother and fetus. The father, the mother's family and the father's family are all emotionally affected.
The abortion is the woman's decision alone because it ONLY affects HER life, she has NO obligation or responsibility to breed just to make others happy ! ...... AND if someone gets sad about it that doesn't mean there should be a law against it.... OK, slow day so I'll ask HOW do you want gun laws and abortions laws to be treated the same? What do they have in common? ( Absolutely nothing) Did you READ this ??? : """A woman having an abortion harms NO ONE. NO one else is FORCED to have counseling and/or a FORCED viewing of a video before they can have a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE."" ...and before you rant on about your little guns I am 100% against any gun laws....as the Republicans want, even if a person is so mentally impaired they can't live on their own they should have a gun....guns should lie around the house handy for any children to play with, felons should buy them, the blind should be able to buy them, children should take them to school for protection, soccer matches should require them ....can't tell Americans what to do!!!!
Just because there is a waiting period to purchase doesn't automatically mean that other rights must have similar waiting periods. Should there be a waiting period before you can vote? How about a waiting period before your right to privacy kicks in? What about a waiting period before your right not be discriminated against is upheld? Should there be a waiting period before you can exercise your right to freedom of expression? What purpose would these waiting periods serve? There has to be a legal basis for the waiting period and if there is no basis then the waiting period is unconstitutional.
While the OP premise is ludicrous at least I will give him credit for tacitly conceding that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.
I would characterize it in this way. There is a landmark case, that likely wasn't decided on supportable tenants of the constitution, And yet, it's a part of the legal landscape, and it's been unreviewed since. It begs the question then that attributes that decision as precedent. As we have seen when legal decisions are potentially re reviewed, t (Dredd v Scott for example) that those decisions can change. And the reason they can change is because we don't ultimately have something that is explicitly written into the constitution or any of the amendments. So, the decision can always be overturned. The decision has the effect of being reviewed as a constitutional process, which is significantly different than the inalienable right as expressed in constitutional amendments.
BZZZT Wrong on multiple counts! RvW has been challenged repeatedly without ever being overturned because it is based on SOUND Constitutional principles that are already written into the Constitution and form the Law of the Land. In order to overturn RvW you will need to establish that it was NOT based upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Since no one has ever come close to making that challenge the odds are you won't either but feel free to try and see where it gets you. Now back to the inane OP premise. Are you tacitly conceding that it is utterly bogus?
Waiting period before a vote? Well there is typically 1 year between votes, so there is a waiting period. And I've not made any claim to having waiting periods. I am only comparing gun rights v abortion rights as this is how this thread got its start. By having gun rights have a class before ownership to make sure the owner knows what they are doing with said firearm. The thread starter claimed there are no other rights that require a class or counseling before it happens. I proved him wrong by showing 35 states require some kind of counseling before abortions can take place.
I would say it this way. SCOTUS is a joke an they should all be dismissed due to dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the principles on which this nation was founded ... the rule of law.. and common sense in general. The "FACT" in this case is that "Experts Disagree". There is no overwhelming consensus among subject matter experts (Biologists - in the proper domain, Philosophers, Bio-ethicists) that a single human cell "zygote" is defacto, a living human. The reality is that the reverse is true. Of the 5 different scientific "perspectives" on when human life begins - metabolic, genetic, embryological, ecological, neurological - only one (genetic) puts the start at conception ... and this perspective has fallen out of favor for reasons discussed in this chapter from a developmental biology textbook. http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf The case in question is a case of competing rights. The right of a woman over her own body vs the right of the zygote. We then have to weigh each on the scales of Justice to see which weighs more. On the one side we have the highly valued rights of the woman. Our country was founded on the principle that individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't = Gov't is not to make any law outside this legitimate purview. In a nutshell this is protection from harm. So.. the rights of the woman weigh heavily on one side. Protection of citizens from direct harm (death in this case) however, is a legitimate power of Gov't. I think we could safely argue that the zygote is not a citizen but, I will make a different argument. On the other side of the scale is "Experts Disagree" = "we do not know". The idea that we "we don't know" can outweigh the rights of the woman is an anathema to logic and reason The idea that we would make law on the basis of "we don't know" is an anathema to Justice, the Rule of Law, logic and reason. I have actually had people argue "well we do not know otherwise". This is an insanely nonsensical and irrational justification for law.
