Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[avromie7]

Mind their business = states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

When were states forced to provide them?

[imayid2]

Like circumcision?

Freedom of religion is thankfully still a thing. If anyone’s gonna tamper with that it ain’t this court.

[imayid2]

When were states forced to provide them?

States were sued anytime they put any obstacle in the path of a clinic providing  abortion. They weren’t required to actually provide abortion, but it’s not just a mind you own business thing.

[zh cohen]

Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution.

A real analogy would be if a citizen of NY would travel to NJ and do something there which is a crime in NY but not in NJ.

There are crimes for which person can be prosecuted in the US, even it they did the crime in a country where it was legal.

[drosenberg88429]

Does it really come down to that? Say it isn't murder, does that make it a right protected by the Constitution? How? Where?
Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it, would they have a constitutional right to obtain this procedure? Would states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

As long as it isn't harming anyone else? Why in the world shouldn't you have the right to surgically modify whatever body parts you want? Yes, I believe personal liberties are enshrined in the principle of the constitution, even those which are not explicitly spelled out. That is what the (unusably vague) 9th amendment is there for.

[zh cohen]

I don’t believe even the fiercest anti-abortion absolutist makes the claim the abortions are actually bad for the woman.

It seems like you haven't been exposed to many who are opposed to abortion (other than from a frum perspective).

One of the arguments is that killing their own child has a major negative psychological impact on a mother.

[gozalim]

@S209 is arguing that
1. removing the constitutional protection (not banning) of abortion is a bad idea
2a. this court is political
2b. for that decision.

reasonable people can agree or disagree on the 1st 2. what some here are arguing is, that, regardless of your opinion on abortion, or even on the federal protection of it, the actual roe decision was itself politically motivated judicial activism. there is strong argument that that last statement is objectively obvious.

some examples

The Supreme Court's decision in Roe was among the most controversial in U.S. history.[8][9] Roe was criticized by some in the legal community,[9] including some who support abortion rights who thought that Roe reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way,[10][11][12] and some have called the decision a form of judicial activism.[13]

[10] Balkin, Jack. Bush v. "Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics" Archived February 27, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, 110 Yale Law Journal 1407 (2001): "Liberal and feminist legal scholars have spent decades showing that the result was correct even if Justice Blackmun's opinion seems to have been taken from the Court's Cubist period."
[11] Roosevelt, Kermit. "Shaky Basis for a Constitutional 'Right'", Washington Post, (January 22, 2003): "It is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. ... This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional 'person' entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment. ... By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values." Retrieved January 23, 2007. (Archived June 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine)
[12] Cohen, Richard. "Support Choice, Not Roe", Washington Post, (October 19, 2005): "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well." Retrieved January 23, 2007.

[aygart]

[imayid2]

As long as it isn't harming anyone else? Why in the world shouldn't you have the right to surgically modify whatever body parts you want? Yes, I believe personal liberties are enshrined in the principle of the constitution, even those which are not explicitly spelled out. That is what the (unusably vague) 9th amendment is there for.

What if the state was concerned that social pressure to engage in these body modification activities would create intense social pressure resulting in 18 yr olds mutilating themselves in ways they would deeply regret. Can they ban providers from operating in their state? Or would the 14th require them to mind their own business? How about your 9th amendment views, which regardless, being vague and unusable, is  therefore, well, unusable.

[aygart]

What if the state was concerned that social pressure to engage in these body modification activities would create intense social pressure resulting in 18 yr olds mutilating themselves in ways they would deeply regret. Can they ban providers from operating in their state? Or would the 14th require them to mind their own business? How about your 9th amendment views, which regardless, being vague and unusable, is  therefore, well, unusable.

There already are medical regs in place for such things. Similar regulations for abortion have been upheld under RVW.

[ExGingi]

Not sure why it is first pregnant women, and then pregnant adult. FTR, on the exchange it only asks pregnancy questions for females (age 12 and over).

[imayid2]

There already are medical regs in place for such things. Similar regulations for abortion have been upheld under RVW.

Which state successfully banned abortion providers?

[S209]

@S209 is arguing that
1. removing the constitutional protection (not banning) of abortion is a bad idea

Not only am I not arguing that, I don’t believe that. I’m just pointing out the complete distortion and misunderstanding of the opposing view’s arguments by some.

The right to assemble is protected explicitly by the first amendment. See, not so scary 

No unreasonable searches and seizures is a constitutional right as well, but until the 14th amendment you were only protected from such activity by the *federal* (not state) government.

Freedom of religion is thankfully still a thing. If anyone’s gonna tamper with that it ain’t this court.

Further proof of (I assume innocently) clouded thinking. If my religion says I must obtain an abortion, would it now be a protected activity?

[drosenberg88429]

What if the state was concerned that social pressure to engage in these body modification activities would create intense social pressure resulting in 18 yr olds mutilating themselves in ways they would deeply regret. Can they ban providers from operating in their state? Or would the 14th require them to mind their own business? How about your 9th amendment views, which regardless, being vague and unusable, is  therefore, well, unusable.

I hope this isn't getting personal or emotional. That would not be productive.

I take it that you are asking 3 questions:

A) Are there activities which have such severe ramifications, but people may engage in for immature reasons, that the state should raise the legal age of participation in above that of the legal age of adulthood? (There are such things which the state does outlaw for 18 year olds, such as tobacco. Alcohol is arguably different, being as the prevalence of vehicular accidents for 18-21 year olds under the influence was so rampant as to have posed a menace to society. Narcotics, particularly non deadly variants such as psychedelics and marijuana, is a totally different discussion.)

B) Are there activities that no adult in their right mind would participate in were they to appreciate the gravity of the ramifications, and as such one wishing to do so cannot be considered sane and it should be illegal to aid and facilitate anyone attempting such action? (Suicide would be the first example that comes to mind. The legality of suicide, and by extension medically assisted euthanasia, is another loaded discussion, with strong arguments on both sides. A much less loaded nanny state example would be something like juul electronic cigarettes or mandating seatbelt usage.)

C) Is the spirit of the constitution at all relevant, if something is not explicitly spelled out but strongly insinuated there? Do we go for a broad or strict constitutional interpretation?


If any of these questions were not your intention to ask, please correct me. I was trying to decipher your post, but I do not wish to put words in your mouth.


If I may, I wish you ask you just 1 simple yes or no question: Do your religious beliefs at all impact whether you think abortion should or should not be a protected right?

[imayid2]

No unreasonable searches and seizures is a constitutional right as well, but until the 14th amendment you were only protected from such activity by the *federal* (not state) government.

True. And totally non analogous to our discussion about which rights not recognized explicitly in the constitution should be assumed protected from federal and state law.

Further proof of (I assume innocently) clouded thinking. If my religion says I must obtain an abortion, would it now be a protected activity?

Everyone recognizes that circumcision is absolutely required by Jewish law. There is no court that wouldn’t protect it under freedom of religion. It’s a much harder sell to argue that “in this specific case my religion requires me to abort.” The distinction is so obvious it makes you wonder who’s getting muddled 

[imayid2]

Without getting bogged down with specific examples, my intention was to prove that the legal question here isn’t only contingent on wether or not abortion is akin to actual murder as posited by @aygart. There is a complex issue at stake which is totally independent of that question, namely which liberties should be recognized as protected by the constitution through the Due Process Clause. The Justices specifically pointed out (page 32) that by the criteria under which Casey defined as a broader right to autonomy “at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like”.
This issue has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. From a pure secular level the courts outlined reasoning for rejecting abortion as being protected under the 14th makes a bucketload of sense.
Have you read it?

[drosenberg88429]

Without getting bogged down with specific examples, my intention was to prove that the legal question here isn’t only contingent on wether or not abortion is akin to actual murder as posited by @aygart. There is a complex issue at stake which is totally independent of that question, namely which liberties should be recognized as protected by the constitution through the Due Process Clause. The Justices specifically pointed out (page 32) that by the criteria under which Casey defined as a broader right to autonomy “at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like”.
This issue has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. From a pure secular level the courts outlined reasoning for rejecting abortion as being protected under the 14th makes a bucketload of sense.
Have you read it?

Yup, the general question of libertarianism.

I'll be honest - I have not read nether the original Roe vs Wade decision, nor the repeal decision. I'm not even taking sides on whether I agree or disagree with the court. All I'm saying is that it's not so open and shut to say that there's only 1 side here, and the other side is so blatantly wrong and based on absolutely nothing as to be allowing their partisan beliefs to cause them to invent and conjure rights with absolutely no constitutional basis.

[imayid2]

Yup, the general question of libertarianism.

I'll be honest - I have not read nether the original Roe vs Wade decision, nor the repeal decision. I'm not even taking sides on whether I agree or disagree with the court. All I'm saying is that it's not so open and shut to say that there's only 1 side here, and the other side is so blatantly wrong and based on absolutely nothing as to be allowing their partisan beliefs to cause them to invent and conjure rights with absolutely no constitutional basis.

Well stated. Your point is (grudgingly ) noted.

[gozalim]

Yup, the general question of libertarianism.

I'll be honest - I have not read nether the original Roe vs Wade decision, nor the repeal decision. I'm not even taking sides on whether I agree or disagree with the court. All I'm saying is that it's not so open and shut to say that there's only 1 side here, and the other side is so blatantly wrong and based on absolutely nothing as to be allowing their partisan beliefs to cause them to invent and conjure rights with absolutely no constitutional basis.

roe may not be fully political, but it's at least as political as this court's rejection of it.
furthermore, it's far-fetched enough that rejecting it can be honest, not necessarily political

[PlatinumGuy]

roe may not be fully political, but it's at least as political as this court's rejection of it.
furthermore, it's far-fetched enough that rejecting it can be honest, not necessarily political

Honest despite the same justices saying they wouldn't do it in their confirmation hearings?