Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned

I am guessing that you did not hear yesterday's Court proceeding. In it, those suing Mississippi over its law, made it very clear that the right to abortion was deemed by former, famous SCOTUS decisions, as falling under the Constitutional Right of LIBERTY, not privacy.

You can listen to the case presentation, with the Q & A between Justices and councils, at my thread in Current Events (beginning, "LIVE STREAM..."). The link at the bottom of the OP, allows you to replay it.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...abortion-case-that-could-overrule-roe.594744/

 

FYI, there are many rights that are completely accepted as prescribed by the Constitution, that are not specifically mentioned in that document. In fact it was the expressed intention of our country's founders to NOT try to enumerate every case in which the general rights that Constitution lays out (including "liberty") apply, but to allow those interpretations to be made by government in the future, as those questions arise.

 

That is what Jane Roe's lawyers argued, but in the end the ruling was based on "right to privacy".

https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme...wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html

Jane Roe and the others involved based their case on the following arguments:

• The Texas law invaded an individual's right to "liberty" under the 14th Amendment
• The Texas law infringed on women's rights to marital, familial, and sexual privacy guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
• The right to an abortion is absolute - women are entitled to end a pregnancy at any time, for any reason, in any way they choose

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided two important things:

• The United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion.
• But the abortion right is not absolute. It must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.

The constitutional right to privacy comes from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause does not explicitly state that Americans have a right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court has recognized such a right going all the way back to 1891. Just one year before Roe, the Supreme Court held that "in a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed." In Roe v. Wade, the Court decided that this right to privacy extends to a woman's control over a pregnancy.

 

Why?

 

That is what will happen if Roe is overturned. Then the abortion activists can visit the state capitals instead of Washington DC.

 

Maybe they'll realize there are still plenty of States that allow it

Or maybe they'll realize the GOP lost a valuable campaign asset and see how things work out in the coming election cycles.

Its where it belongs, like death penalty legal pot, etc. Federal government does not need to be involved in it.

 

The right to privacy would go if Row is overturned but then again, Congress makes the law not SCOTUS.

 

Good, we don't need or want those kinds of voters in our government. In fact I would support banning them from voting if it could be done in such a way so as to not damage the rights of the rest of us, but I don't believe that is really possible and I believe it would have effects on the rest of us both pernicious and insidious.

 

Hmm you want to ban people from voting...interesting.

 

In this case the individual State Congresses would make law, or not make it (meaning no law to ban it). SCOTUS can overrule any law if it is unconstitutional.

 

Your guess is as good as mine. Personally I don't support abortion at all. I think the developing human deserves a chance at life. For me abortion provides nothing positive. I don't think what the supreme court is likely to do will change things much. it may add some inconvenience to the process but fetuses will still die.

 

Why does it belong there? Abortion is a fundamental right and the Constitution exists to protect such rights. Why should our basic rights vary from State to State? This is what the Federal government is FOR.

If they're irresponsible and screw things up for the rest of us. Moot point as I don't see any way it could be done without damaging everyone's rights overall. Of course that is the way I feel about any limitation on abortion rights too.

 

So you oppose Roe V Wade, which put limitations on abortion rights?

 

I am also pro-life, but even if they overturn it, I do not think it will reduce number of abortions in US. Its too easy to hop in the car, or plane and get it done in another State, or Canada. The only way to reduce them is to reduce unplanned pregnancies in the first place, but the will to do that is lacking.

That is highly debatable, and the reason why they looked at it in the 1970s and have been talking about it ever since.

 

We agree there. We also need to improve personal responsibility in the society. We need to accept the consequences of our errors.

 

In some countries its so much easier, because people fear getting accidentally pregnant and they make sure it doesn't happen. An abortion is a very unpleasant experience, and many women carry the guilt inside them for the rest of their lives, and yet for some reason we have many people who think nothing of it and don't bother preventing it. It's an attitude issue.

 

I’m well aware of the argument that people use to distort the constitution to allow for rights that do not exist. If the case is as you state then it stands to reason that the tenth amendment would not have been placed into the constitution. The tenth amendment clearly delegates the powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, so long as that power is not restricted by the constitution to the states.

The constitution limits the power of the federal government more so than it grants it.

 

They're all part of that path, all part of becoming a potential being but NOT an actual being. Only one thing really changes when the egg is fertilized by the sperm and that is a new set of unique DNA, which changes nothing compared to the egg or sperm (clones and identical twins still have rights despite not having "unique" dna). It still requires an immense amount of investment from the mother's body before the POTENTIAL becomes actual. Someday technology will be able to replicate this and the womb won't be required. It's even possible to take any cell from your body and clone you with sufficient technology (induced totipotency, current technology is induced pluripotency). There are trillions of potential persons that can be derived from, cloned from one persons cells. But the only real person is you, the actual person with a mind. Potential persons are not morally relevant, especially when weighed against actual persons rights.

 

Oh, really? If that is the case, that everything is spelled out, in detail, in the Constitution, then what, exactly, constitute, "the blessings of liberty?" For that matter, why not also list for us every specific, pre-determined thing that "the general welfare," was understood, by our founders, to cover.

 

In the sense that it did that , yes. A woman has an inalienable right to terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason; to say any different is to maintain that a woman is a lesser human than a man if she is human at all. A fetus/zygote is no more a human being than a tumor or a wart. You are trying to enslave women to their own biology and even then usurping their rights to yourself speak for the "unborn", a vast constituency made even vaster by the fact that it doesn't exist at all.

 

Having slavery or not is highly "debatable" as the ACW and some 600,000 dead proved. As the DoI said some things are "self-evident".

 

My understanding is that the pro-abortion lawyers arguing before SCOTUS could not put forward a definition of when life begins. Which means they are incompetent and unprepared. I believe the viability argument was attempted, but of course changes in medical technology impact viability.

The liberal arguments in this case regarding autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty, and equality for some reason do not apply to experimental medical technology being forced upon unwilling participants.

 

Well there are limits on abortion in just about every state of the union, so the entire country believes "a woman is a lesser human than a man if she is human at all."

 

I am still waiting for you to explain what is explicitly covered by our Constitutional right of "Liberty"-- and you might as well add our inalienable right (from our Declaration of Independence-- written & approved by the same group of guys, behind the Constitution) of, "the pursuit of happiness;" also, I asked for a full listing of the "understood," principles, cobbled together under the term, the "general welfare," in case you have forgotten.

But I want to add that you are grossly in error, to believe that, because the Constitution cedes all powers not mentioned in the Constitution, to the states, that it, "stands to reason," that the rights that are named in the Constitution, cannot be applied to things, in the future, that were not issues at the time of its writing. The document was intended to be a general template, to just lay out markers, to be more defined by the nation, as it matured. Do you think you have a right to privacy?-- not specifically mentioned, in the Constitution (according to that document, what you have a right to, is "due process"-- how many times have you used those terms interchangeably?). Do your kids deserve a quality public education? Apparently, not by your reading of the Constitution.

In short, it is up to us to define things like decency, and public welfare, and liberty, and the lawful pursuits of happiness.

Here is an excerpt about the right to PRIVACY, as it has been interpreted, from the 14th Amendment, as it relates to the Roe ruling.

<SNIP>

How The Supreme Court Decided Roe v. Wade
The Court split the difference between the two arguments presented. First, the Court recognized that abortion does fall under women's privacy rights.

The constitutional right to privacy comes from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause does not explicitly state that Americans have a right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court has recognized such a right going all the way back to 1891. Just one year before Roe, the Supreme Court held that "in a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed." In Roe v. Wade, the Court decided that this right to privacy extends to a woman's control over a pregnancy.

The justices acknowledged that being forced to continue a pregnancy puts a lot at risk for women, such as:

• Physical health
• Mental health
• Financial burdens
• Social stigma

The Court was skeptical of the state's argument that Constitutional protections begin at conception. The Constitution doesn't provide a definition of a "person." But, it does say that its protections cover those who are "born or naturalized" in the United States. After examining other cases relating to unborn children, the Court concluded that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

The Roe v. Wade decision also includes a discussion of the different views on when life begins. Many in the Jewish faith, for example, believe that life begins at birth. But, the prevailing view in the Catholic faith is that life begins at conception. Doctor's views vary, but they tend to lean toward the belief that life begins sometime before birth.

But, the Court found, it is not up to the states to decide when life begins:

"[W]e do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

However, as we mentioned above, the Court did not agree that the Constitution guarantees an absolute right to an abortion. In other words, the privacy right does not prevent states from putting some regulations on abortion.

The Court created a framework to balance the state's interests with women's privacy rights. Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant women may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters:

• During a pregnant woman's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held, a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant woman.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the woman's right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Significance of Roe v Wade
Many think of Roe v. Wade as the case that "legalized abortion." However, that isn't exactly true. What it did was change the way states can regulate abortion, and characterized abortion as something that was covered under constitutional rights of privacy.

It may come as a surprise that Roe did not have much of an impact on the number of abortions performed each year in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in the years before Roe was decided there were over one million illegal abortions performed in the U.S. annually. After Roe, that number remains around one million, performed legally. Plus, the rate of deaths occurring as the result of abortions dropped dramatically in the years following Roe.

Since the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, judicial interpretation of the constitution is that abortion is legal...

<End Snip>

https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme...wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html

 

Thanks for the link, and the posting. But, apparently, you disagree with the Court? So why would you not explain your own view? If you don't disagree w/ the Roe ruling, how could you be in favor of leaving it to each state, which could then ignore this ruling, with which you supposedly agreed?