Not at all. That's one reason my biggest concern is the scotus right now. The democrats better be prepared to filibuster far right scotus nominees.
Here's something from Fugazi to ponder : ""The reason the states can place restrictions is because the unborn are not recognised as person under the Constitution, and as such do not fall under the restriction that all born people have to abide by, change that status and the states will no longer be able to place restrictions as it would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ie the state cannot give a protection to one set of people it does not give to all others. The state cannot guarantee the protection of the fetus (as a person) while it inflicts non-consenting injuries onto another person without giving the same protection to all other (born) people. This is one of the biggest things that pro-life people fail (or ignore) to understand about their advocation for personhood from conception, the only look to the protections and do not consider the restrictions of that status."""""
Actually I don't think it will be either. My point was to try to make people think about the wider implications of this it has the potential of overturned to open up all sorts of investigations into medical privacy if they overturn row versus Wade but leave the privacy restrictions in place you will see what happens here where abortion is illegal but carried out regardless because the participants are protected through privacy laws there was an interesting case of Dr Bayliss who was operating in Brisbane and operating and illegal abortion clinic for years for years. They found it extremely difficult to bring a case against him because the patients records were sealed under the privacy act
I agree, the Democrats should grow spines and fight everything the Repubs want....but even if they get through one or two conservative justices it doesn't mean the SC will roll over and change laws at Trumps request.
The biggest issue will still remain how to frame legislation I live in a state where abortion is illegal but practised at the rate you see in America. It all comes down to the phrasing. In areas where abortion is completely illegal you have an increased rate of maternal deaths. Where abortion has a clause that states it can be performed for the life and health of the woman abortions climb to where they are equal to areas where it is legal For abortion legislation to be founded on personhood first they must define when that becomes applicable doesn't become applicable at contraceptive conception or does it become applicable at implantation or does it become applicable only at viability? If personhood legislation is applied then you may see more women being charged with murder following natural miscarriage - - - Updated - - - But but but.......He isPresident!!! Doesn't that mean he can do what he wants?
Why is an Australian so concerned over the US constitution? I never once heard him say the he would even try to ban abortion. Where did you even get this idea from? It is nice to know that the US is so Amazing and head and shoulders above the rest of the world that you have people from other countries keeping up with what goes on here.
He said that he would Roe versus Wade overturned and he said it the other day. What I was trying to do with this thred was open to discussion in relation to what that might mean. Because Roe versus Wade is tied to the 14th Amendment. I'm interested in Abortion law worldwide posted on Irish law, Latin American and Australian. I have even posted on some African issues. But this board is mostly American so.....
no more, no less then Obama, Bush or any President before them all I ask is that Trump passes off American in better shape then he got it like Obama is .
Why are YOU so concerned about the nationality of those who post. She posted nothing wrong. Your blindness to the faults of America shouldn't lead you to say ignorant things about other countries. "head and shoulders above"? look up maternal death rates.
Good point I just happen to have the Who 2012 health report open http://www.who.int/healthinfo/EN_WHS2012_Part3.pdf Page 66 Australian maternal death rate 7 Page 78 USA maternal death rate 21
It's like the 14A, but closer to the top of the list. I know it gets ignored a lot by the left but I assure you it's still there.
More probably, since this is 2012 data which really reflects earlier year/s. It is a reflection on the poor health care coverage the so called Obama care initiative did not start I think until after this date. What is really cincerning is that in 1990 the maternal mortality rate was only 12 - - - Updated - - - It doubled??? Why?
Considering the reality that there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion" and that it is merely a bumper sticker slogan projected by pro-lifers, if you mean Intact dilation and extraction (the correct medical term), then that was banned in the US in pretty much all cases in 2003, that ban was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S. 124 (2007). So in reality your "concerns" for "PBA" are ill informed and misguided. What parts of the 14th amendment, do you want to "restore", or how about actually following the 14th amendments equal protection clause instead of attempting to ignore it.
There are various factors that contributed to this increase, some have suggested it was the massive cuts in family planning services and refusal to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act as possible reasons .. however the cuts etc did not kick in until September 2011 and dont account for the sharp spike in maternal deaths logged at the beginning of that year. One of the growing ideas is that Medicaid kicks in automatically for pregnant women in most states, but runs out six weeks after they give birth, leaving low-income women at risk from lingering ailments, reports found that most of the states maternal deaths occurred after 42 days from birth. In contrast California launched a statewide effort to expand care for expectant and recent mothers, such as increased hemorrhaging and hypertension tools and training, in hospitals across the state. Since the programs launch, Californias maternal mortality has declined from 14 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2008 to around 10 per 100,000 births in 2014.
In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of killing the baby before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the baby's heart using ultrasound to guide the needle. ~ http://www.boston.com/yourlife/heal...8/10/shots_assist_in_aborting_fetuses/?page=1 Barbaric! The U.S. Constitution found in school textbooks and under glass in Washington is not the one enforced today by the Supreme Court. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that since the nation's founding, but especially since the 1930s, the courts have been cutting holes in the original Constitution and its amendments to eliminate the parts that protect liberty from the power of government. From the Commerce Clause, to the Necessary and Proper Clause, to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has rendered each of these provisions toothless. In the process, the written Constitution has been lost. Barnett establishes the original meaning of these lost clauses and offers a practical way to restore them to their central role in constraining government: adopting a "presumption of liberty" to give the benefit of the doubt to citizens when laws restrict their rightful exercises of liberty. He also provides a new, realistic and philosophically rigorous theory of constitutional legitimacy that justifies both interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning and, where that meaning is vague or open-ended, construing it so as to better protect the rights retained by the people. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10118.html
Doesn't really refute anything I stated, that in reality - firstly that there is no such thing as "partial birth abortions" and secondly, that Intact dilation and extraction has been illegal in most circumstances since 2003 Really, explain why a process that causes instant death (sudden heart failure) with no pain is "barbaric" (savagely cruel)? Great, that means abortion will never be made illegal.
The 2A is interpreted by many states in different ways, and that's a Bill of Rights amendment. Look at California for example. If the 2A can be interpreted in such a way, there's no reason the 14A cannot be interpreted differently by the states. Don't think we're not going to call you on the left's hypocrisy.
