So, Roe v. Wade was just overturned

In reply to Steve_Jones :

How many personal rights concerning the functioning of YOUR organs are left up to the state?

As the husband of a wife who's had two ectopic pregnancies and subsequent D&C's, I seriously weep and fear for those that live in heavily conservative states, and would strongly consider moving if I were a resident in one of the 14... I am strongly unwilling to leave my wife's health up to anyone to decide except herself and her practitioners... I implore everyone else to think about it and do the same. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

docwyte said:

Worryingly is that states are trying to make it illegal for their residents to leave the state to get an abortion.  That if they find out, the woman can get charged.

Sorry but this is a *bad* thing.  Never in my life would I have thought I see this, this is a huge step backwards in personal rights

I see a lot of Constitutional problems with this kind of law, but then again, who knows what will happen next.

Sadly, I think we can pretty much predict what will happen next. Alito mentioned it in his opinion that leaked, and Clarence Thomas also just brought it up.

They want to go after same sex relationships, same sex marriage, and access to birth control.

In reply to John Welsh :

165lbs looks different on a lot of different people. I myself was at that line pretty recently, and I would say that most of the women I know and care about are outside the recommended use case for Plan B.

I always thought of the interpretation of the 2nd A and Rowe vs Wade as similar, in that they are both fundamentally flawed in the reading (2nd A does not read to apply as broadly as it does, RvW is a highly convoluted interpretation).

 I suspected the reason they existed as they did because there was a bit of a practical "this needs to be this way because of where society is" in the rulings (guns are widespread, abortions are going to happen one way or another).

In reply to NOHOME :

Please tell me that's all sarcasm.

This thread is another example of me gaining my World News (and some understanding of that news) from GRM.  Thank you all for the civility. 

Nicole Suddard said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

How many personal rights concerning the functioning of YOUR organs are left up to the state?

Since you decided to only call me out, not the others here saying the same thing, please show me where I said it was the morally or ethically correct thing? I said it was legally correct.  There are plenty of things left up to the individual States, driving age, drinking age, etc. because there is nothing in the Constitution that says those are a FEDERAL issue.  This is the same wether it "affects my organs" or not. Abortions affect Fathers too.

In reply to infinitenexus :

I think I would be rethinking that whole situation then.  And there have been women prosecuted for manslaughter due to miscarriage already.  

infinitenexus said:

So what happens if the baby dies in the womb? Will my wife be forced to carry a rotting corpse inside her and possibly die of septic shock, or go somewhere to have an abortion and wind up in prison?

how thinly are we stretching definitions here? If baby dies in womb, is mother still pregnant? 

infinitenexus said:

In reply to NOHOME :

Please tell me that's all sarcasm.

He does have a point though.   The states where it will be illegal are states that VOTE for that.

If they (majority) don't like it, they will vote to change that.

Steve_Jones said:

Mr_Asa said:

bluej (Forum Supporter) said:

Lof8 - Andy said:

So what does it actually mean?  abortions are now completely illegal?  Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?

It means it's currently up to individual state laws.

Which is kinda interesting, cause SCOTUS just removed NY state's ability to make laws on the second amendment. 

Its like there's no internal consistency in SCOTUS for some reason.

They removed State laws on restricting the 2nd Amendment because it is specifically a right spelled out in the Constitution.  There is no Federal right to an abortion spelled out, so it is left up to the individual States in that case, as stated in the same piece of paper.  If anything this shows consistency in reading that document, not lack of. On a strict legal basis, unfortunately this is the correct ruling.

I find it VERY interesting that I appear to be unable to vote this comment up, only down.  And I am able to vote other comments up.  Hmmmm.

Please note that Steve's post is correct from a legal perspective.

Please also note that Steve makes no comment at all about whether or not access to legal abortion is good (although his last phrase has implications).  He is only commenting on the decision from a legal standpoint.  And he is correct about it.

aircooled said:

infinitenexus said:

In reply to NOHOME :

Please tell me that's all sarcasm.

He does have a point though.   The states where it will be illegal are states that VOTE for that.

If they (majority) don't like it, they will vote to change that.

But imo denying a medical procedure to a women isn't something that should be able determined by the state.

In reply to Duke :

Its because the post is voted into the negatives, but it doesn't show it. So the true vote count may be -7, you vote it up, it is now -6, but anything below 0 just shows 0.

Nicole Suddard said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

How many personal rights concerning the functioning of YOUR organs are left up to the state?

That's not relevant.  And if you actually read his post instead of just responding to it, you would note that his last phrase implies support for reproductive rights.

He is strictly discussing the LEGAL aspect of this decision, not the social, moral, or individual aspects.

93EXCivic said:

aircooled said:

infinitenexus said:

In reply to NOHOME :

Please tell me that's all sarcasm.

He does have a point though.   The states where it will be illegal are states that VOTE for that.

If they (majority) don't like it, they will vote to change that.

But imo denying a medical procedure to a women isn't something that should be able determined by the state.

Then vote to change it, that's how it works

In reply to 93EXCivic :

Well, "medical procedure" is the issue really, and has always been. 

When is it a medical procedure, and when is it killing a baby, who should have rights also?  (yes, a road that has been gone down many times)

Duke said:

Steve_Jones said:

Mr_Asa said:

bluej (Forum Supporter) said:

Lof8 - Andy said:

So what does it actually mean?  abortions are now completely illegal?  Or illegal after a certain length of pregnancy?

It means it's currently up to individual state laws.

Which is kinda interesting, cause SCOTUS just removed NY state's ability to make laws on the second amendment. 

Its like there's no internal consistency in SCOTUS for some reason.

They removed State laws on restricting the 2nd Amendment because it is specifically a right spelled out in the Constitution.  There is no Federal right to an abortion spelled out, so it is left up to the individual States in that case, as stated in the same piece of paper.  If anything this shows consistency in reading that document, not lack of. On a strict legal basis, unfortunately this is the correct ruling.

I find it VERY interesting that I appear to be unable to vote this comment up, only down.  And I am able to vote other comments up.  Hmmmm.

Please note that Steve's post is correct from a legal perspective.

Please also note that Steve makes no comment at all about whether or not access to legal abortion is good (although his last phrase has implications).  He is only commenting on the decision from a legal standpoint.  And he is correct about it.

I agree with this on paper. In reality, it is basically impossible to get an amendment passed. So.... 

Steve_Jones said:

93EXCivic said:

aircooled said:

infinitenexus said:

In reply to NOHOME :

Please tell me that's all sarcasm.

He does have a point though.   The states where it will be illegal are states that VOTE for that.

If they (majority) don't like it, they will vote to change that.

But imo denying a medical procedure to a women isn't something that should be able determined by the state.

Then vote to change it, that's how it works

So if enough people voted to deny cancer treatment that should be allowed?

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I apologize for getting heated. Please understand that the effect of these laws is a lot more visceral for certain people than others. What I meant to emphasize is that these laws are not the same as other personal freedoms left up to the states, because they literally concern the functioning of peoples' internal organs and their rights to the privacy of their functions.

In reply to Duke :

It is absolutely relevant. Please see my response to him.

The problem is that our ability to merely "vote to change laws" is becoming increasingly more difficult. Whether it be through gerrymandering, voter ID laws, constant questioning about the "validity" of elections, etc. 

Here in AZ, there are numerous laws put in place - as well as ongoing redistricting - that threatens to undermine our ability to have a state legislature that actually represents the majority of AZ voters. Our Senators might be more Progressive, but our state lawmakers are thoroughly entrenched in Conservative Christian and/or rural mentalities.

I would be less threatened if states better mirrored their popular vote history. 

This is how Prohibition of Alcohol ended in 1933 with the 21st Amendment. 

After that each State regulated alcohol the way they want.   

 Some states allow liquor sales in grocery stores.  Others require Alcohol Beverage Control stores (ABC stores) which are run by the states themselves.

In Texas liquor stores have to close on Sunday's.  Beer and wine can be sold on Sundays in grocery stores after 10:am.

93EXCivic said:

Steve_Jones said:

 

So if enough people voted to deny cancer treatment that should be allowed?

The counter point to that (not necessarily my view BTW):  If enough people voted to give people cancer (kill them), would that be allowed?