[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Spirit of Hope]

So the 9th amendment is useless then. The founders wrote that amendment explicitly because they knew they couldn't think of every right that they wanted to protect. So they wrote an amendment to protect rights that they hadn't explicitly written down. And you are ignoring that amendment.

Useless, no. However, when taken in conjunction with the 10th it transfers the power to define and protect those non-enumerated rights from the Federal level to the states themselves. For example, a Federal law to prohibit abortions would fall afoul of the 9th.

So you ignore the 14th amendment then? You know, the one that says states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

[Elwher]

Useless, no. However, when taken in conjunction with the 10th it transfers the power to define and protect those non-enumerated rights from the Federal level to the states themselves. For example, a Federal law to prohibit abortions would fall afoul of the 9th.

So you ignore the 14th amendment then? You know, the one that says states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

[Spirit of Hope]

So you ignore the 14th amendment then? You know, the one that says states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

So your stance is that unless a right is written in the constitution it can't be incorporated against the states? But that the 9th amendment, that is written in the constitution, doesn't count because the 10 amendment?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So you ignore the 14th amendment then? You know, the one that says states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So tell me where does the US Constitution say a person must give birth irrespective of the risks? And point to such a legitimate law that mandates the deprivation of life from a woman with ectopic pregnancy.

[Necroghastia]

So you ignore the 14th amendment then? You know, the one that says states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

is the notion of amendments superceding each other simply by number referenced anywhere in the constitution

[Godular]

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

is the notion of amendments superceding each other simply by number referenced anywhere in the constitution

If I recall correctly, the amendments that supercede anything specifically state that they do so in the amendment text.

[Ifreann]

Abortion should be free, safe, and legal, regardless of what the US Constitution says.

[Macrotron]

Abortion should be free, safe, and legal, regardless of what the US Constitution says.

Yes

[Elwher]

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

So your stance is that unless a right is written in the constitution it can't be incorporated against the states? But that the 9th amendment, that is written in the constitution, doesn't count because the 10 amendment?

Close, but not quite. The 9th says the Federal government cannot take away any right, even if it is not expressly granted in the Constitution. the 10th says that the decisions concerning these non-enumerated rights are left up to the states. The 14th says that any right expressly granted in the Constitution cannot be taken away by the states.

As the right to abortion is not referenced in the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to take it away, i.e. no Federal ban on abortions. In fact, the viability test in Roe is, in my opinion, Federal overreach.

[Elwher]

Abortion should be free, safe, and legal, regardless of what the US Constitution says.

And the laws concerning this medical procedure, like any other, should be made and enforced on a state-by-state level.

[Vassenor]

Abortion should be free, safe, and legal, regardless of what the US Constitution says.

And the laws concerning this medical procedure, like any other, should be made and enforced on a state-by-state level.

And that's how we get to heartbeat bills because some states have decided women should be broodmares and nothing more.

[Necroghastia]

Abortion should be free, safe, and legal, regardless of what the US Constitution says.

And the laws concerning this medical procedure, like any other, should be made and enforced on a state-by-state level.

nah i think iffy had it right without that addendum

[Neutraligon]

And the laws concerning this medical procedure, like any other, should be made and enforced on a state-by-state level.

And that's how we get to heartbeat bills because some states have decided women should be broodmares and nothing more.

And how we get poor women who are unable to have abortions, while the rich can simply travel to a different state to get them. This will of course increase the burden on these women and on the state since when these children are born those poor children will have to be supported somehow...either through the foster care system or through supporting the family. Of course, what this typically means is that federal funds are used to support these children.

[Necroghastia]

So your stance is that unless a right is written in the constitution it can't be incorporated against the states? But that the 9th amendment, that is written in the constitution, doesn't count because the 10 amendment?

Close, but not quite. The 9th says the Federal government cannot take away any right, even if it is not expressly granted in the Constitution. the 10th says that the decisions concerning these non-enumerated rights are left up to the states. The 14th says that any right expressly granted in the Constitution cannot be taken away by the states.

As the right to abortion is not referenced in the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to take it away, i.e. no Federal ban on abortions. In fact, the viability test in Roe is, in my opinion, Federal overreach.

10 says that powers not expressly given to the federal government are delegated to the states. 9 says there are more rights than are explicitly numerated, and does not explicitly mention the federal government. 14 says that rights cannot be abridged or deprived by the states and unless I'm missing something says jack diddly shit about those only being "expressly granted" rights.

[Spirit of Hope]

Abortion should be free, safe, and legal, regardless of what the US Constitution says.

And the laws concerning this medical procedure, like any other, should be made and enforced on a state-by-state level.

Ignoring of course that it violates a constitutionally protected right. Your weird reading of the constitution aside.

Close, but not quite. The 9th says the Federal government cannot take away any right, even if it is not expressly granted in the Constitution. the 10th says that the decisions concerning these non-enumerated rights are left up to the states. The 14th says that any right expressly granted in the Constitution cannot be taken away by the states.

As the right to abortion is not referenced in the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to take it away, i.e. no Federal ban on abortions. In fact, the viability test in Roe is, in my opinion, Federal overreach.

10 says that powers not expressly given to the federal government are delegated to the states. 9 says there are more rights than are explicitly numerated, and does not explicitly mention the federal government. 14 says that rights cannot be abridged or deprived by the states and unless I'm missing something says jack diddly shit about those only being "expressly granted" rights.

You're right. I mean the 9th amendment was explicitly added to prevent this exact reading of the constitution, that only enumerated rights are protected. The 14th was added so states couldn't violate constitutionally protected rights. The 10th is just saying whatever powers the federal government doesn't have the states do have.

Though this is a guy who has said he thinks the FDA is unconstitutional overreach.

[Elwher]

And the laws concerning this medical procedure, like any other, should be made and enforced on a state-by-state level.

Ignoring of course that it violates a constitutionally protected right. Your weird reading of the constitution aside.

10 says that powers not expressly given to the federal government are delegated to the states. 9 says there are more rights than are explicitly numerated, and does not explicitly mention the federal government. 14 says that rights cannot be abridged or deprived by the states and unless I'm missing something says jack diddly shit about those only being "expressly granted" rights.

You're right. I mean the 9th amendment was explicitly added to prevent this exact reading of the constitution, that only enumerated rights are protected. The 14th was added so states couldn't violate constitutionally protected rights. The 10th is just saying whatever powers the federal government doesn't have the states do have.

Though this is a guy who has said he thinks the FDA is unconstitutional overreach.

What I said was that some of the things the FDA does are an overreach, not the entire agency. That, however, needs a thread all its own.

[Elwher]

Close, but not quite. The 9th says the Federal government cannot take away any right, even if it is not expressly granted in the Constitution. the 10th says that the decisions concerning these non-enumerated rights are left up to the states. The 14th says that any right expressly granted in the Constitution cannot be taken away by the states.

As the right to abortion is not referenced in the Constitution, the Federal government has no power to take it away, i.e. no Federal ban on abortions. In fact, the viability test in Roe is, in my opinion, Federal overreach.

10 says that powers not expressly given to the federal government are delegated to the states. 9 says there are more rights than are explicitly numerated, and does not explicitly mention the federal government. 14 says that rights cannot be abridged or deprived by the states and unless I'm missing something says jack diddly shit about those only being "expressly granted" rights.

If powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states, as the 10th states, then the Federal government only has the power to protect those rights expressly granted to it by the Constitution (including all amendments, of course). The power to protect the rights not enumerated in the Constitution but mentioned by the 9th reverts to the several states. In order to grant the Federal government the power to regulate medicine within the states, an amendment would be necessary.

The 14th needs not mention rights "expressly granted" as it is in the Federal constitution and therefore grants the Federal government the power to enforce Federally protected rights.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No, and were the rights to privacy or to an abortion referenced anywhere in the Constitution I would agree with you. They aren't, so it does not apply.

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So tell me where does the US Constitution say a person must give birth irrespective of the risks? And point to such a legitimate law that mandates the deprivation of life from a woman with ectopic pregnancy.

imma just quote this post

[Spirit of Hope]

10 says that powers not expressly given to the federal government are delegated to the states. 9 says there are more rights than are explicitly numerated, and does not explicitly mention the federal government. 14 says that rights cannot be abridged or deprived by the states and unless I'm missing something says jack diddly shit about those only being "expressly granted" rights.

If powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states, as the 10th states, then the Federal government only has the power to protect those rights expressly granted to it by the Constitution (including all amendments, of course). The power to protect the rights not enumerated in the Constitution but mentioned by the 9th reverts to the several states. In order to grant the Federal government the power to regulate medicine within the states, an amendment would be necessary.

The 14th needs not mention rights "expressly granted" as it is in the Federal constitution and therefore grants the Federal government the power to enforce Federally protected rights.

You are misreading the constitution.

First the Constitution expressly grants the Federal Government some powers and denies the States others.

Then their is the Bill of Rights, including the 9th and 10th Amendments, which was designed as a limiting factor on the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights the Federal Government can protect, it is a list of rights that the Federal Government can not attack.

The 9th Amendment basically says that they (the writers of the amendments) listed some of the rights of the people, amendments 1-8, but that the people have other historic rights. That they listed the some rights does not deny the peoples other rights.

The 10th Amendment says that powers not given to the Federal Government, and not denied to the States, belong to the States.

Remember at the time the Bill or Rights only applied to the Federal Government. If States wanted to violate any of the constitutionally protected rights they could. Only the Federal Government was barred by the Bill of Rights.

Congress eventually realized this was a bad thing, specifically because states were violating constitutional rights, and thus passed the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment said that States had to respect the rights of the People. The 14th Amendment makes no mention of specific rights, it says everyone gets the equal protection of the law and that no state can take any of those privileges or immunities away. Rights guaranteed by the 9th Amendment are privilege's and immunities and so are protected by the 14th Amendment.

So the 9th Amendment says that the People have rights not explicitly given in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has found that the right to privacy is one of those rights, seeing as how a bunch of the other Amendments were about protecting privacy from the government (religion, papers, houses, etc.). The 14th Amendment says that States can't violate rights enshrined in the Constitution.

So the right to privacy exists (9th) and states can't violate it (14th).

[Happpy]

What anti-choice people fail to realize is that the so-called """"""heartbeat"""""" laws, are actually detecting electrical activity, NOT A HEARTBEAT. The recent Texas "heartbeat" law is based on LIES.

As for proof that the republican party doesn't give a shit about "fetal viability" , the Texas legislature passed ANOTHER law simultaneously, the so-called "Human Life Protection Act" (House Bill 1280) which will be 'activated' if Roe V. Wade is ever overturned. Once active, it would outlaw ALL abortions, WITH NO EXEMPTIONS.

Why is it that white evangelical far right boomers get to DICTATE social policy despite being a MINORITY in this country???

[Kowani]

SCOTUS to hear Texas abortion case on Monday

[Godular]

SCOTUS to hear Texas abortion case on Monday

Your link asplode.

[Kowani]

SCOTUS to hear Texas abortion case on Monday

Your link asplode.

fixed, thank you

[Katganistan]

No the point of the legislation is not revenge, it is to point out the absurdity of the abortion debate, that the way the abortion debate is framed is fundamentally anti-woman. After all, why is it women are the ones punished for the pregnancy while men are not held responsible?

A man who makes love with a woman has a moral responsibility to her, and especially if that act results in pregnancy, he has a responsibility to her and their children.

Yes, hence all the single mothers out there.
Honestly, the platitudes add nothing to the discussion.

[Katganistan]

Lex Naturalis.

There is no such ‘responsibility’ in natural law. Natural law rather specifically countermands your claim at the outset.

In nature, many male animals mate with as many female animals as they can -- monogamy does exist, but it is not the norm.

In fact, male lions will kill the cubs in his pride if they were fathered by another lion. And some mother animals, if stressed, will eat their own newborn offspring. So maybe 'natural law' isn't really where you want to go with this, Sundiata.