IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It seems like this might make you rethink your theory about suburban women suddenly flipping elections.They’ve never been able to make it a wedge issue for Democrats- not in years.
It seems like this might make you rethink your theory about suburban women suddenly flipping elections.They’ve never been able to make it a wedge issue for Democrats- not in years.
How does an unborn baby (or even a baby after birth) exercise a right to life?
I don't think proposing and ratifying a new constitutional amendment is typically all that simple.
There's nothing in the current federal constitution that forbids private civilians from murdering each other, so an amendment would be needed.
And there are some states, mine included, that define a fetus as a potential crime victim (i.e. by creating a whole separate charge/count, acting as a sentencing enhancement, etc.).
I understand your point. But, from a legal perspective, it's just not that simple and we're, again from a legal perspective, not looking at the same issues. In criminal law there is no competing interest such as a mother's right to reproduce and make medical decisions for her own body as there is in whether states can ban abortion.
Roe vs Wade hasn’t been overturned yet. My whole point has been that this could be the wake up call which a slow series of creeping actions has not.It seems like this might make you rethink your theory about suburban women suddenly flipping elections.
I don't mean an amendment - a ruling like Roe v Wade
Most people think there is a right to abortion. There isn't. There is a ruling and another SC ruling would trump the current one
It would be simple to overturn Roe by ruling that the constitution doesn't protect the right to an abortion.
Without a new constitutional amendment, it would be impossible to rule that babies have a constitutional right not to be killed by their moms or doctors. (Your post said "unborn babies need constitutional protection and right to life.")
The federal constitution doesn't address moms or doctors.
No matter what I doubt the Supreme Court will rule differently than they did with Roe (at least as modified by Casey).that's all true - I meant the Supreme Court can rule their interpretation of who can be afforded Rights .... and unborn babies are recognized in many ways as living individual human beings
will this SC rule differently than the one did 49 years ago ? I hope so
No matter what I doubt the Supreme Court will rule differently than they did with Roe (at least as modified by Casey).
They will not find that abortion was banned by English Common Law or the laws in place during the writing of the Constitution. So it isn't something that was just understood through out time. Unlike "murder" in the typical sense.
They will still think that the fourteenth amendment limits the state's ability to interfere with the mother's private health care decisions.
If they rule as expected they will most likely just rule that Mississippi has expressed a compelling enough state interest to clear whatever level of scrutiny they now say applies that the law in question would be an allowable form of interference in the mother's personal autonomy. But that is expressing that the state has a right as opposed to expressing the unborn has a right that the state must protect.
What you are wishing for (not saying you expect) seems to be a declaration that the unborn has a "claim" to "live" that would supersede the mothers "entitlement" to her own healthcare (and most anyone else's liberty). While I am not saying that could not happen, what I, and maybe others are asking where would the justices root such a claim?
The only way I can see it is to extend the "equal protection clause" of the 14th in such a way that would seem to open all kinds of cans of worms. Like I said maybe they can creatively thread this needle in a way I'm struggling to imagine. The rights expressed 49 years ago were rooted in precedent and the Constitution. Where does this "right" come from - especially if you reject the "living" Constitution. (A "it was always there" is easier if you aren't limited to what the authors wrote ...)
(I'm still not a lawyer nor have any law school type education. So I'm sure I butchered with my expression some of the concepts, but hopefully got the point across. )
very good post and we'll see
of course, I'm pro-life, I hope the SC bans abortion but i'd be shocked if they did
On that note:There is really no possible way that the Supreme Court can ban abortion. The closest thing they can do is allow states to ban abortion.
This is my preferred outcome as well, but I think having SCOTUS discover a constitutional right to life is approximately the same kind of logical leap as discovering a constitutional right to abortion. People like me are perfectly capable of waving our hands and muttering something about penumbras too.There is really no possible way that the Supreme Court can ban abortion. The closest thing they can do is allow states to ban abortion.
I'd invite you to take your best shot at coming up with some such penumbras.This is my preferred outcome as well, but I think having SCOTUS discover a constitutional right to life is approximately the same kind of logical leap as discovering a constitutional right to abortion. People like me are perfectly capable of waving our hands and muttering something about penumbras too.
It only takes five justices to decide that obviously parents can't be allowed to murder their children, so therefore abortion is illegal under some sort of goofy "equal protection of the law" argument. That's a ludicrous argument, but it's no more ludicrous than arguing that a right to privacy -- which is mentioned nowhere in the constitution -- somehow protects a decision made between a woman and her doctor that affects a third party.I'd invite you to take your best shot at coming up some such penumbras.
I don't think it's workable.
Roe was workable because the Constitution really does say that the government is not allowed to do certain things to people without a sufficiently good reason. We can argue about whether restricting abortion is one of those things, or about how good the reason must be. But the basic framework of protecting individual liberties against government encroachment is in the document.
Contrariwise, there's nothing in the federal constitution about protecting individuals against being murdered by other private individuals. The Supreme Court can decide that fetuses have all the same constitutional rights as teenagers, but teenagers don't have a federal constitutional right not to be murdered by their parents (or by their parents' doctors). If a mom murders her teen daughter, there's a good chance that will violate state law; but I can't think of a way that it would violate the United Stated Constitution, with or without penumbras.
This is my preferred outcome as well, but I think having SCOTUS discover a constitutional right to life is approximately the same kind of logical leap as discovering a constitutional right to abortion. People like me are perfectly capable of waving our hands and muttering something about penumbras too.
I don't think we'd ever get more than zero votes for that proposition, if by "can't" we mean that it's forbidden by the federal constitution. That would be way more ludicrous than saying that liberty includes privacy. The Roe argument was that the Constitution protects individual liberties against state interference, that individual liberties include privacy, and that privacy includes abortion. I understand thinking that the chain of reasoning is far-fetched (I agree), but at least it's a chain of reasoning. I don't think there's any comparable chain of reasoning that gets us from anything in the Constitution to "parent's can't be allowed to murder their children." If someone else can come up with something, I'll be impressed.It only takes five justices to decide that obviously parents can't be allowed to murder their children
You're a lot more heroic than I am when it comes to circumscribing people's creativity.I don't think we'd ever get more than zero votes for that proposition, if by "can't" we mean that it's forbidden by the federal constitution.
You're a lot more heroic than I am when it comes to circumscribing people's creativity.
Wouldn't this conflict with the right to travel that's considered a substantive right even if not explicitly granted by the Constitution? I mean, you're a much better former lawyer than I would be potential one, but I remember something like that in our Constitutional Law class in college. The right to travel and receive welfare benefits was implicated in the caselaw, I believe.For example, can a state make it illegal for a pregnant woman to go to a different state to get an abortion?
States can make it illegal to kidnap a person in their state and take them to another state to be murdered. That arguably conflicts with the right to interstate travel in the same way.Wouldn't this conflict with the right to travel that's considered a substantive right even if not explicitly granted by the Constitution? I mean, you're a much better former lawyer than I would be potential one, but I remember something like that in our Constitutional Law class in college. The right to travel and receive welfare benefits was implicated in the caselaw, I believe.
That doesn't seem quite on point. The Mann Act, the closest thing to that scenario, is federal law, isn't it?States can make it illegal to kidnap a person in their state and take them to another state to be murdered. That arguably conflicts with the right to interstate travel in the same way.
Oh, I'm sure they want to test it. The question is whether or not it's Constitutional. I find it hard to believe the Court, even in its current composition, would uphold restrictions on travel and prior restraint. That seems, like the article suggested, throwing it at the wall to see what will stick with the current Court.Missouri has apparently considered testing this question
Under Coleman's measure, anything from driving women across state lines for abortions to internet providers allowing access to certain abortion-related websites would be outlawed. She said St. Louis-area billboards advertising easier-to-get abortions in neighboring Illinois would be banned, too.
"It's trying to evade the laws of the state of Missouri," said Coleman, a St. Louis-area Republican. "Abortion is a really brutal practice and Illinois has chosen not to, in any way, provide protections for the unborn and women, and so we're trying to do everything we can to make sure Missourians are protected."
***
While some legal experts doubt that Coleman's proposal is constitutional, they also worry that the Supreme Court might refuse to intervene to stop it — just as it did with the Texas law.
Another way of putting it is that people who leave the state of Missouri to get abortions are obeying the laws of the state of Missouri. Abortion is (hypothetically) illegal in MO. Getting an abortion in MO would therefore be illegal. Going to NY and getting an abortion would be legal under NY law, and MO law doesn't apply there. People who go to another jurisdiction to something that's perfectly legal in that jurisdiction are fine.Missouri has apparently considered testing this question
Under Coleman's measure, anything from driving women across state lines for abortions to internet providers allowing access to certain abortion-related websites would be outlawed. She said St. Louis-area billboards advertising easier-to-get abortions in neighboring Illinois would be banned, too.
"It's trying to evade the laws of the state of Missouri," said Coleman, a St. Louis-area Republican. "Abortion is a really brutal practice and Illinois has chosen not to, in any way, provide protections for the unborn and women, and so we're trying to do everything we can to make sure Missourians are protected."
In all seriousness, I know you're pro-life, but these sort of things are coming from people who are evangelicals in both religion and deed. These sort of enforcement mechanisms will be pushed and will alienate those supporting an otherwise defensible pro-life position. It'll be like those sympathetic to the drug war's aims in spirit and deed who look around a little more deeply, seeing first-hand the wreckage of Constitutional liberties and coming to view the whole thing as a no-go and a full-stop.I think I'm hard-wired to hate this sort of thing, because it triggers me more than it rationally should.
The bolded sure seems like a violation of the First Amendment and a pretty clear violation of Section 230 as well.Missouri has apparently considered testing this question
Under Coleman's measure, anything from driving women across state lines for abortions to internet providers allowing access to certain abortion-related websites would be outlawed. She said St. Louis-area billboards advertising easier-to-get abortions in neighboring Illinois would be banned, too.
"It's trying to evade the laws of the state of Missouri," said Coleman, a St. Louis-area Republican. "Abortion is a really brutal practice and Illinois has chosen not to, in any way, provide protections for the unborn and women, and so we're trying to do everything we can to make sure Missourians are protected."
***
While some legal experts doubt that Coleman's proposal is constitutional, they also worry that the Supreme Court might refuse to intervene to stop it — just as it did with the Texas law.
It’s illegal to advertise all sorts of illegal stuff on the internet. Do those laws all infringe the 1st Amendment and Section 230?Rich Conway said:The bolded sure seems like a violation of the First Amendment and a pretty clear violation of Section 230 as well.
Seems like there's a huge difference between "John can't advertise his illegal meth lab" and "Comcast must prevent its subscribers from accessing John's advertisement". Your link says the bill will do the latter.*It’s illegal to advertise all sorts of illegal stuff on the internet. Do those laws all infringe the 1st Amendment and Section 230?
I get that share, and I understand where you're coming from. In a ton of other contexts, I would agree with you completely. It's just that for me personally, abortion has enough moral gravity that I have to put up with the religious extremists in my ranks. I know I'll probably break with them when it comes to actual policy and especially enforcement mechanisms, but I'll cross that bridge if we ever get there.In all seriousness, I know you're pro-life, but these sort of things are coming from people who are evangelicals in both religion and deed. These sort of enforcement mechanisms will be pushed and will alienate those supporting an otherwise defensible pro-life position. It'll be like those sympathetic to the drug war's aims in spirit and deed who look around a little more deeply, seeing first-hand the wreckage of Constitutional liberties and coming to view the whole thing as a no-go and a full-stop.
Yeah, I'm just re-stating what is already pretty obvious and already considered by you. I appreciate the moral gravity of the pro-life position; I've just come around to the point of view that without any enforcement mechanism that doesn't make a woman a ward of the state while she's pregnant, I can't abide any law regarding abortion.I get that share, and I understand where you're coming from. In a ton of other contexts, I would agree with you completely. It's just that for me personally, abortion has enough moral gravity that I have to put up with the religious extremists in my ranks. I know I'll probably break with them when it comes to actual policy and especially enforcement mechanisms, but I'll cross that bridge if we ever get there.
This is called dealing with the Devil. And there’s been far too much of this going on IMO, on your side. Despite our differences, I regard you as a rational, intelligent, thinking person of good will. But I fear that because this issue affects you so profoundly you have been willing to ally yourself with extremists (I think I can recognize this because I’ve been guilty of the same sin with regard to some other issues, such as immigration and racism.)I get that share, and I understand where you're coming from. In a ton of other contexts, I would agree with you completely. It's just that for me personally, abortion has enough moral gravity that I have to put up with the religious extremists in my ranks. I know I'll probably break with them when it comes to actual policy and especially enforcement mechanisms, but I'll cross that bridge if we ever get there.
I haven't read the draft decision so maybe this is incorrect, but I guess I got this wrong. At least from my reading that Alito spends a good deal of time on the history of bans, So maybe he does not try to prove that "it was understood" but that "it was allowed?" Anyway it sure doesn't seem from the news reports like Alito had any interest in threading any needle.No matter what I doubt the Supreme Court will rule differently than they did with Roe (at least as modified by Casey).
They will not find that abortion was banned by English Common Law or the laws in place during the writing of the Constitution. So it isn't something that was just understood through out time. Unlike "murder" in the typical sense.
They will still think that the fourteenth amendment limits the state's ability to interfere with the mother's private health care decisions.
If they rule as expected they will most likely just rule that Mississippi has expressed a compelling enough state interest to clear whatever level of scrutiny they now say applies that the law in question would be an allowable form of interference in the mother's personal autonomy. But that is expressing that the state has a right as opposed to expressing the unborn has a right that the state must protect.
:
:
Wouldn't this conflict with the right to travel that's considered a substantive right even if not explicitly granted by the Constitution?
I don't think this current court particularly cares about functional governance. Both the liberals and the conservatives. The case where they considered large swaths of Oklahoma still to be Indian lands because Congress must deal with Indian treaties fairly is one case that gave me pause. Another was refusing to hear the enforcement mechanism claim of the Texas abortion law. That seemed to me, on its face, contravening a "functional" government.Too many lawyers try to parse down the law as if it's going to be test run in a wind tunnel. What SCOTUS does has to be weighed against actual "functional governance" If there is no practical public administration pathway, then the general public will hit an attrition point.
I don't think we'd ever get more than zero votes for that proposition, if by "can't" we mean that it's forbidden by the federal constitution.It only takes five justices to decide that obviously parents can't be allowed to murder their children
I definitely got part of this right. Fox News is saying this is no big deal, women can still get abortions if they want, they just have to go to another state. MSNBC is (correctly) saying this overturned 50+ years of precedent and now allows states to outlaw abortion. MSNBC is also saying it's the end of times, which is probably a little overboard.Anyway, to the point of the thread, I'll make my prediction. SCOTUS will effectively gut Roe/Casey, allowing states to create whatever roadblocks to abortion they wish. Fox News and other right-leaning sources will say the decision didn't overturn Roe but rather clarified the limits. MSNBC and other left-leaning sources will say the decision overturned 50+ years of precedent and now allows states to outlaw abortion.