(06-27-2022, 10:44 PM)pally Wrote: In 1973 7 Justices said it was covered by the Constitution

(06-27-2022, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting question is would pro-choice people accept a federal law legalizing abortion, but only in the first trimester?  Public support for abortion really drops off the cliff after the first trimester.

(06-27-2022, 11:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Which is a shame because in a lot of cases those ~9% of abortions after the first trimester are due to medical emergencies, unviable fetuses or other unforeseen complications. And the other most common circumstance is someone who wanted to get an abortion but didn't have the financial resources or Healthcare availability to get the abortion in the first trimester.

Quote:I'd be curious to see how low we could get that percentage following the first trimester if we increased access to abortions across the country. Because I am not sure there are many people who think they want a baby in the first trimester and then change their mind in the second trimester spontaneously (without any news of unviability or health risks to the mother).

(06-27-2022, 07:54 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We bought at $199k in 9/20. We did a cash-out refi in 11/21 based on appraised value of $470k (figured it might be a good time to pull the equity and stash it with rate hikes on the horizon). The few local sales of similar homes are now sort of stalled around $530K. I suspect they will be going down from here. It's not reasonable or affordable for the area.

(06-28-2022, 04:37 AM)MasonDT70 Wrote: I also live in AS, and the price increase in houses even withing just a year have priced me andy wife out of buying. Hell even our rent on our apartment, just a 1200sq ft 2 bedroom, has gone up from 980 to 1460 in 2 years. Housing in general is insane here atm. 

(06-27-2022, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting question is would pro-choice people accept a federal law legalizing abortion, but only in the first trimester?  Public support for abortion really drops off the cliff after the first trimester.

(06-27-2022, 10:44 PM)pally Wrote: In 1973 7 Justices said it was covered by the Constitution

(06-27-2022, 11:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And at one point slavery and segregation were found to be covered by the Constitution.  You can't have it both ways, either precedent is sacrosanct or it is not.  If it is not, then Friday's decision cannot be viewed solely through the lens of an unprecedented assault on SCOTUS norms.  Which it clearly isn't, based on the over 200 times the SCOTUS has reversed precedent in its past, as already covered in this very thread.

(06-28-2022, 08:18 AM)Sled21 Wrote: And even the champion of the left, Ruth Bader Ginsburgh wrote about how worried she was that the court would hear a case regarding it because it was a flawed decision. They made it up, it's no where to be found in the Constitution, hence you revert to the 10th Amendment. And for the record, I'm not arguing for or against abortion, this is strictly a Constitutional issue for me. That document serves us well, people need to quit screwing with it. If it needs to be changed, there are proper processes, not judicial activism.

(06-28-2022, 08:21 AM)pally Wrote: Which of those other precedent changes actually rolled back granted rights?   I’ve seen Plessy vs Ferguson thrown around a lot as a changed precedent so let’s look at that.  In 1896, Plessy said separate was ok as long as everything was EQUAL.  Brown vs Topeka BOE came along and said time had proven  separate wasn’t equal.  Plessy was expanded not retracted to the previous status quo of 1895. Most changed precedents did the same or took into account new laws passed in the times between decisions.  This was the first time a civil right was constitutionally granted and then was taken away.  Right to privacy…ha…Thomas said it…the govt gets to decide what sexual activity adults can participate in, who they can marry, what birth control they can use.   This isn’t the America our founders envisioned. It isn’t 1792 with 13 states anymore.  It is idiotic for the Supreme Court to act as it is

Quote:[/url]



[url=https://www.quora.com/profile/Scott-Steward-7]Scott Steward



The 10th Amendment says that any power not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government is not their jurisdiction but is a matter for the States and the People to decide. Control of Abortion, or ANY medical issue at all, is not listed as an enumerated power of the Federal Government, so it is not within the Federal jurisdiction to mandate social policy or medical issues. Or to mandate a national healthcare insurance plan either, but that is another topic.

There is no Constitutional or other requirement that all states have the same laws, rules and policies. Ther are myriad examples of different rules in different staffers. That is how the Framers intended when they wrote the Constitution. So yes, the 10th Amendment applies, and it tells us that the Federal Government has no business mandating any medical issues including abortion. Abortion is social policy, not the purview of nine unelected lawyers.

Evidently you are referring to Roe v Wade. A long list of highly respected Constitutional scholars including Ruth Bader Ginsberg (see below) have publicly declared that the Court wrongfully decided this case, both for taking up and making pronouncements on a matter that clearly under the 10th Amendment is a state level jurisdiction, and because the decision of the court is so untethered from the Constitution as to be indefensible as Constitutional law. Even the Justices could not agree on what part of the Constitution to try to refer to, and they ended up relying on one of the most egregiously poor decisions in SCOTUS history .. Griswold v Connecticut and its “penumbras of emanations” nonsense as precedent in lieu of justifying their decision on actual firm Constitutional text. It is a vivid example that using flawed precedent in lieu of Constitutional text can result in even worse judicial malpractice. It is equivalent to a doctor using the wrong medicine on one patient because they don’t know what to do, then using the same medicine on the next patient with an entirely different illness just because they did that last time they didn’t know what to do.

Quote:Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.
"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
"The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law," 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
" Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."
North Carolina Law Review, 1985
Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roeborders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather."
….
"What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed."
" The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them," FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002
"[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
" Liberals, Don't Make Her an Icon" Washington Post July 10, 2003.
William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.
"Blackmun's [ Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."
" Unbecoming Justice Blackmun," Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.
John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School
Roe "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
….
"What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking."
"The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade," 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).
Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post
Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."
" Letting Go of Roe," The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.
Richard Cohen — Washington Post
"[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy."
….
"As a layman, it's hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.
"If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
….
Roe "is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument."
….
"Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. 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."
" Support Choice, Not Roe" Washington Post, October 19, 2005.
Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School
Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore "represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case."
Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.
Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations
"In the Court's first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges."
"The Supreme Court 1995 Term: FOREWORD: LEAVING THINGS UNDECIDED," 110 Harvard Law Review 6, 20 (1996).
"What I think is that it just doesn't have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it's been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn't vote to overturn it myself, but that's because I think it's good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled."
Quoted in: Brian McGuire, "Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing," New York Sun November 15, 2005
Jeffrey Rosen — Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic
"In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.
….
"Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun's famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it."
" Worst Choice" The New Republic February 24, 2003
Michael Kinsley
"Against all odds (and, I'm afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court.
"…a freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami."
"Bad Choice" The New Republic, June 13, 1994.
"Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….
"Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway."
" The Right's Kind of Activism," Washington Post, November 14, 2004.
Kermit Roosevelt — University of Pennsylvania Law School
"[I]t 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' entited 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."
" Shaky Basis for a Constitutional 'Right'," Washington Post, January 22, 2003.
Archibald Cox — JFK's Solicitor General, Harvard Law School
"The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution"

(06-28-2022, 08:21 AM)pally Wrote: Which of those other precedent changes actually rolled back granted rights?   I’ve seen Plessy vs Ferguson thrown around a lot as a changed precedent so let’s look at that.  In 1896, Plessy said separate was ok as long as everything was EQUAL.  Brown vs Topeka BOE came along and said time had proven  separate wasn’t equal.  Plessy was expanded not retracted to the previous status quo of 1895. Most changed precedents did the same or took into account new laws passed in the times between decisions.  This was the first time a civil right was constitutionally granted and then was taken away.  Right to privacy…ha…Thomas said it…the govt gets to decide what sexual activity adults can participate in, who they can marry, what birth control they can use.   This isn’t the America our founders envisioned. It isn’t 1792 with 13 states anymore.  It is idiotic for the Supreme Court to act as it is

(06-28-2022, 07:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally speaking, I wouldn't. But that's mostly because I don't believe that it is something that should be legislated. It's a medical procedure where the circumstances of each situation is so individual that it is far too detailed for any sort of legislative rulemaking. There is no law that could be passed that would cover all of the variables needed to be an effective policy. In addition, abortion prohibitions are ineffective. We need to be educating our children and making family planning resources more readily accessible. Those are things that have been proven to actually reduce abortion rates, so my preference for evidence based policy also leads me to the idea of these proactive measures and not a prohibition on abortion.

This is all just speaking in terms of statutory and budgetary law, mind you. Constitutionally I still don't consider the unborn as persons with rights at any point until birth. But that's just the third leg of my position and admittedly my more extreme one.

(06-27-2022, 10:10 AM)pally Wrote: what other rights do the unborn possess?  If the mother miscarried there would not even be a death certificate because under most state laws a miscarried pregnancy isn't a person.  You can't take out life insurance on a fetus.  You can't collect child support on a fetus.  A person who kills a fetus while committing a crime will only be charged with its death after viability.  I can't get a deduction on my taxes because of a pregnancy.  Justice Alito said if a right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right.  Preborn personhood isn't in the constitution nor is it considered a historic norm.  

So tell me, what rights does this unborn have?

(06-28-2022, 10:41 AM)pally Wrote: The right to personal autonomy over one's body should not have to be spelled out in a country that claims its citizens are free.  It is an inherent right .   And is covered by the 9th amendment. The 10th does not supersede the 9th just because it is convenient. Gun rights are God given, according to those advocates.  How in the hell can the decisions concerning ones' own body be otherwise?

What's next...Uncle Sam choosing your tattoo? piercings?  maybe back to the days of forced sterilization of people deemed not qualified to be parents?  We know they want to regulate how and with whom you have sex.  Maybe they will go after timing and location.  Every Saturday, the woman must submit to the man in the bedroom only in the missionary position.  She is allowed to close her eyes and think of England during the act.

Every decision made by the Roberts court has been to place the individual above the need, wants, desires, or good of society...except this one.  A woman's right is overridden by a fetus that cannot exist on its own.  She becomes a broodmare with all the personal and financial implications that come with it.  She exists solely for the purpose of breeding.  

Abortion, BTW,  was LEGAL in all 13 states at the time of ratification of the Constitution.  It wasn't made illegal until the mid 19th century..thus it was not long standing policy at the time of Roe-v-Wade. Alito did a lot of cherry-picking to justify his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs based reversal

edit: newspaper opinion pieces do not qualify legal arguments

(06-28-2022, 12:49 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Your arguing for the right to have an abortion. I am not arguing abortion one way or the other, and don't because it is too hot button a topic, I'm just speaking about it being a "Constitutional Right." It's not in the Constitution, anywhere. Gun rights are specifically addressed in Amendment II. And this ruling, as much as people are railing against it, does not make abortion legal or illegal, it simply returns the matter to the states to decide. 10th Amendment in action. 

edit: I posted the opinion piece because it had the opinions of the many legal scholars, including RBG, who wholly stated Roe was flawed law.

(06-28-2022, 12:49 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Your arguing for the right to have an abortion. I am not arguing abortion one way or the other, and don't because it is too hot button a topic, I'm just speaking about it being a "Constitutional Right." It's not in the Constitution, anywhere. Gun rights are specifically addressed in Amendment II. And this ruling, as much as people are railing against it, does not make abortion legal or illegal, it simply returns the matter to the states to decide. 10th Amendment in action. 

edit: I posted the opinion piece because it had the opinions of the many legal scholars, including RBG, who wholly stated Roe was flawed law.

(06-28-2022, 01:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's what I don't understand and I'd post about it on Facebook but everyone is playing the victim and no one realizes what it actually means.

People say the government needs to stay off of women's bodies and that's why this ruling does, but now they're pissed?

All these companies (like Über) are now saying they'll pay to take people to states where it's legal.

Stupid.