Hmmm... Personally I respect both the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment. I would say you have the right to own a gun and shoot any intruder that you suspect might intend to do any kind of harm to you or your family. I would also say you have the right to get an abortion (without turning your medical records over to the state to get their approval) if you suspect that unwanted pregnancy might do any kind of harm to your body. Where exactly is the hypocrisy in that?
Does the persons employer have access? Do they actually subpoena and search records or merely ask a medical officer if the person is fit? - - - Updated - - - In broad yes. They do have the right still but local ordinance dictate how that right is to be enacted. Same with abortion
Possibly not in some details... which is why I oppose the idea of each state deciding what rights I do and do not have as a citizen of the United States. Do you think each state should have the right to diminish some of my rights?
Fine. We'll give the states the ability to issue "may issue" abortions, where the local law enforcement gets to decide if you deserve one or not. Alternatively, you can write an essay on why you deserve to have an abortion.
Great so the US abandons it's Constitution in favour of piece-meal rights depending where you happen to live, and before you bring up 2A differences in various states I'll burst your bubble by stating here and now that the states should have no ability to infringe upon 2A rights.
If you think the state is so wise and wonderful, why not have the states issue a license to have a new child? If you want to have a child, you apply to the state for permission. The state decides whether you qualify or not, and if you are a person who can support a child financially AND emotionally you are allowed to have a child. Otherwise, if you get pregnant, you must get an abortion. That is... if you really think the state is so wise and wonderful.
I'm continually amazed at "Progressives" inability to logically support their points. They try to bully and intimidate others to their point of view, often by twisting their interlocutors point beyond all recognition. Trouble is, your mouth is writing checks your fists can't cash. This last election was an atomic wedgie for you folks and you are still smarting. I get that. But seriously, you can do better. You can work to understand the actual views of others, and honestly engage them in the national debate, based on the positions they actually hold, not the ones you pretend they hold. It will be fabulous. You are going to love it. No longer will play dough, coloring books and petting zoos be necessary for "progressives" after a national election!
I'd say that is a view fairly widely held in the first half of the pregnancy, you start moving into the second half, once the baby has started moving, folks start viewing the child as a human being, and when that happens, the rights of the baby begin to impact the right of the mom. But whether we have a national standard for that, or send it back to the States, or do anything at all with that, those are unknowns. Certainly we don't want any federal funding for second half abortions, except to preserve the life of the mother, that I can tell you for sure.
And that is point of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment that has largely been stripped from it by Judicial precedent, which of course, can be reversed by future courts.
Uh... no. We live in a nation with an ocean of individual rights and islands of Federal and State power, the limits of which are spelled out in our Constitution. I see no support for the idea that the State can restrict your ability to produce children except in extreme circumstances. Certainly the Court would review any such legislation under the most strict of scrutiny. Clearly you are a "Progressive" and the tax revenue, why you could use it to fund day care! And I realize you are using absurdity to illustrate a point. So, at what point in gestation does the developing baby begin to have rights that impact the choices of the mother?
I just commented in another thread how I'll enjoy watching the Trumpers (and those that will NOW deny they voted for him ) flounder around as Trump's noodle goes soft on so many of his promises
That would solve a lot of problems for sure. Of course the government is way too incompetent to make that happen. But still, you haven't really addressed the fact that you expect progressive "fairness" when it comes to Constitutional rights, yet progressives never want to honor those they don't like. You can't have it both ways.
When it's viable ( about 23 weeks). After that it's illegal except in the case of the health/ life of the woman and/or fetus. Didn't you know that ???? You're commenting on abortion and didn't know that?
Yes how dare he not accomplish promised tasks in the 8 days after he won the election but still doesn't have any real power yet. - - - Updated - - - I'm glad you agree with me.
Of course, it's probably just a matter of cleaning up the "exceptions" to the post 23 week ban, that as you point out, is already in place. Self-Defense of course, authorizes the mother to take the life of her child if not doing so would cause her grave physical harm.
Not "accomplished" , I never mentioned "accomplished".........it's a total reversal of election promises NOW.... See, the President elect is still the President elect and is NOW doing things like appointing staff and cabinet, it's happening NOW.....don't you watch the news??
"Cleaning up the exceptions" ? You mean letting women die rather than granting a 26-30 week abortion....A barbaric stance but does show, once again how little Anti-Choicers care about the "life" of women....
The so-called "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment stems from a 2 freedom of education cases. The 1923 Meyer v Nebraska case in which it was ruled that parents and educators wishes superseded the governments rules when it came to the education of children. The second is the 1925 Pierce v Society of Sisters, in which it was ruled that Oregon could not require children attend public schools. How many pro-abortionists will support the rights of parents - not the federal govt - to set the curriculum of local schools, and will support the elimination of the federal Dept of Education? If you support the "right to privacy" for abortion, then you must support those education measures.
Yes I agree that the states should not have the right to infringe upon Constitutional rights and that includes abortion.
I agree people should have their right to an abortion. All I'm saying is that we put in some common sense abortion control laws. Maybe some 10 day waiting periods, abortion licensing (we could go with punch cards maybe), put a sin tax on it of 25%, create a registry of those that get abortions, throw up some abortion free zones..... None of that infringes on their right to get an abortion.
No, I do not. The "right to privacy" was derived from the 1923 and 1925 cases, that derivation can be rejected without rejecting the earlier cases. And the right to privacy as an approach to declaring the unborn baby as a non-person is also questionable and can be rejected, as well as the "right to privacy" allowing a minor to have an abortion without any parental consent.
