Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: Brassmonkey

A democracy exists when the majority or any group even a minority as in this case wants to do what’s against the constitution. In this case, it’s the anti-abortionists who are trying to do something that for decades was codified in law.

And through deception three judges on the SCOTUS lied to the Senate and said they wouldn’t unravel Row V wade and now they have done it.

So, in this case, it’s the anti-abortionists who are undemocratic and want people to force women to do according to their beliefs.

I have seen so much hyper ventilating over this, what am I missing the only thing that draft would do would be deny the fed the ability to regulate abortion and put things back into the hands of the states?

Am I missing something else cause as I understand things (ignorant knuckle dragger that I am) if the constitution doesnt expressly put it in the hands of the Fed its supposed to be in the hands of the states.

It wont make abortion illegal across the country..

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Roe v. Wade "invited no dialogue with legislators," she wrote. "Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators' court."

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Even RBG knew RvW was bad law.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Wedge issues cause wedgies!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Brassmonkey

That's the thing about constitutional rights, they aren't voted on. They just are. In order to send abortion issues back to states, which was the goal, the Supreme Court needed to find that there was no Constitutional right in the first place.

So here we are right back where we started, with women being autonomously subjugated in some states and autonomously free in others. They will no longer enjoy the equal protection under the law or the due process and privacy rights they've had for the past 49 years.

Another thing Is what does privacy rights and due process have to do with abortion? I thought that has to do with a warrant and your papers and effects? Seems like you are talking about the 5th amendment right to not self incriminate yourself. Equal protection of the law applies to if abortion was talked about in the constitution which it clearly is not there.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

You would think that abortion rights would hinge on the 4th Amendment. That seems right. But, Roe hinges on the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents state governments from infringing on the right to privacy.

LINKY

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
a reply to: Brassmonkey

A democracy exists when the majority or any group even a minority as in this case wants to do what’s against the constitution. In this case, it’s the anti-abortionists who are trying to do something that for decades was codified in law.

And through deception three judges on the SCOTUS lied to the Senate and said they wouldn’t unravel Row V wade and now they have done it.

So, in this case, it’s the anti-abortionists who are undemocratic and want people to force women to do according to their beliefs.

What law was passed by congress “codifying” the legality of Abortion. I think you have Democracy backwards. It stands to reason that the left used 9 people in 1973 to force their will on a large number of states and a majority of people in those states didn’t want to legalize abortion which took away the right of the people to decide in those states this question.

That is by definition Anti-Democratic

a reply to: Brassmonkey

It stands to reason that the left used 9 people in 1973 to force their will on a large number of states and a majority of people in those states didn’t want to legalize abortion which took away the right of the people to decide in those states this question.

Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated Supreme Court

The reality is that in 1973, Roe vs. Wade was decided by a Court that was comprised of a majority of justices who were nominated by Republican presidents.

The vote on Roe vs. Wade was 7-2. Those justices supporting the case’s pro-choice outcome were as follows, including the president nominating each and the president’s party affiliation:

Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)

a reply to: Brassmonkey

There are a lot of constitutional rulings that were not voted on at the ballot box, like Citizen's United and Obergefell V Hodges, and certainly not on vaccine mandates.

Such SCOTUS rulings are landmark decisions because Congress refused to act. Some acts of Congress are landmark because SCOTUS refused to act.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Saying that Justice Thomas is the only reason for interracial marriage is absolutely ridiculous.

Not what I said. I said it would never happen as long as he was still on the court. Not that he's the only reason it wouldn't happen.

I WILL CALL OUT YOUR RACISM EVERY SINGLE TIME!

"Projection...blah, blah blah, desperation...blah blah blah...huff, puff, blah blah blah.

Hahaha! Liar... it's word for word. I even gave you page numbers.

I don't think those words you quoted say what you think they say.

11 pages of the decision, specifying the history of abortion, had no basis? I suppose the Justices wrote all that for kicks? Extra credit, maybe?

I never said that history had no bearing on the court's deliberation. But, there's nothing in those words you cited that imply that Roe was decided because abortion was so inured into society that we can't take away now, in 1973. Also, inter-racial marriage was NOT an inured part of society in American history.

I get it: you are going to deny anything that goes against your personal interpretation of what you want the decisions to say.

This is a 1st draft. It's Alito's opinion. It is not a decision. It is not the final ruling. It's a teaser. It's extreme and harsh. I'll wait and see what the actual ruling that SCOTUS hands down next month says before I invest in the content of Alito's 1st draft opinion.

At that time, it was difficult to even detect pregnancy before the quickening. Believe it or not, the drug store pregnancy test and ultrasound were not invented in the 1780s.

That was Alito's point: there was no need to criminalize something that couldn't be detected. As soon as the pregnancy was detectable, abortion was not permitted.

LOL Never heard of the rabbit dying?
So it took 20 weeks for a woman to figure out she was pregnant back then? But now, she needs to have a positive pregnancy test, a vaginal ultrasound, counseling and cool down time and an abortion within 6 weeks? Okay!

But actually.

Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Following English law, abortion was legal in the American colonies until the time of “quickening” in the fetus, when the baby started to move, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy. Recipes for herbal potions including pennyroyal, savin and other plants capable of “bringing on the menses” were common in home medical guides of the period.

Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject. Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”)

thedailyhatch.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not what I said. I said it would never happen as long as he was still on the court. Not that he's the only reason it wouldn't happen.

Whatever. Everyone read what you said.

I don't think those words you quoted say what you think they say.

First they weren't really the words used; now they don't really mean what they say. I guess that's an improvement... maybe...?

I never said that history had no bearing on the court's deliberation.

BACKSTROKE!

The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the 14th Amendment applied because there was ample historical evidence that abortion had not generally been considered criminal during the history of the USA. Therefore it was exercised as a right, and the 14th Amendment stated that such rights could not be denied to the people. In truth, abortion was never practiced without some restrictions in the history of the USA (until Roe v. Wade) and thus was never considered a right. Roe v. Wade conferred a right which did not exist prior to the decision, and therefore was "legislating from the bench" by providing new law via Judicial decree.

That's what the whole history thing was about. You would know that if you bothered to actually read the decisions and the leaked opinion.

Also, interracial marriage was NOT an inured part of society in American history.

No, it wasn't. But it was addressed by the 14th Amendment, with clear legislative intent to right the wrongs of slavery. That made interracial marriage a right enshrined in the US Constitution. Abortion was not addressed by any specific language in the US Constitution, and thus had to be an inured right.

Loving v. Virginia also found that the state had no legitimate self-interest in regulating marriage by race. Therefore, the laws it struck down were capricious and discriminatory. That does not apply to abortion, as even Roe v. Wade acknowledges the state has a legitimate interest in protecting life.

LOL Never heard of the rabbit dying?

LOL Never heard of history? That test was developed in 1931.

We can now determine pregnancy in very early stages. I personally think 6 weeks is too soon to legislate to, but I'll take that up with Alabama.

But actually.

The fact that tribal groups did something has no bearing on the USA. We are discussing USA law, not Cherokee law, not International law, not Universal law, not Brazilian law, not Chinese law, not Martian law... USA law! Period. Nothing else.

The fact that some people evaded the law also does not mean the law was not in effect.

That wasn't even a good try...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There are a lot of constitutional rulings that were not voted on at the ballot box

Hahaha! Yeah, like, ALL OF THEM!

Constitutional rulings are established by the Federal Courts, not by Congress and not by popular vote.

Such SCOTUS rulings are landmark decisions because Congress refused to act. Some acts of Congress are landmark because SCOTUS refused to act.

Say what?

Do you even know what Congress does? Do you have any idea what the Federal Courts do?

Congress makes laws which must be in compliance with the US Constitution. The Federal Courts hear challenges to laws passed by Congress and determine if they are valid based on the US Constitution. Congress does not do Constitutional review of laws passed, and the Federal Courts do not (or at least are not allowed to constitutionally) make laws.

---------

While we're here, since you insisted on tossing out so much misinformation, where do you get the idea that the 4th Amendment has anything to do with abortion? Are police searching people's homes for abortions without a warrant? Frisking them to see if they have an abortion without probable cause?

Sheesh! The ignorance! It burns...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There are a lot of constitutional rulings that were not voted on at the ballot box

Hahaha! Yeah, like, ALL OF THEM!

Constitutional rulings are established by the Federal Courts, not by Congress and not by popular vote.

Such SCOTUS rulings are landmark decisions because Congress refused to act. Some acts of Congress are landmark because SCOTUS refused to act.

Say what?

Do you even know what Congress does? Do you have any idea what the Federal Courts do?

Congress makes laws which must be in compliance with the US Constitution. The Federal Courts hear challenges to laws passed by Congress and determine if they are valid based on the US Constitution. Congress does not do Constitutional review of laws passed, and the Federal Courts do not (or at least are not allowed to constitutionally) make laws.

---------

While we're here, since you insisted on tossing out so much misinformation, where do you get the idea that the 4th Amendment has anything to do with abortion? Are police searching people's homes for abortions without a warrant? Frisking them to see if they have an abortion without probable cause?

Sheesh! The ignorance! It burns...

TheRedneck

If you were a cop and you searched my house for an abortion you’ll probably find me 😃 just be easy on the taser because dead lives matter and please don’t spill my beer.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I wonder why pro-choice don't rejoice when mother nature does some womb cleaning ala natural disaster. Why do they not relish in the empowerment?

We are a cluster of cells that need her nurturing bubble to maintain our existence, why are they not proud when she excercises her free will?

originally posted by: loam
So in other words, we largely share the same position (at least theoretically from my perspective), but you've spent the last several hours spewing vitriol?

Did you assume? Yes, yes you did.

You also made it a very diligent point not to answer me directly until I beat you over the head, which I was more than happy to do.

originally posted by: JinMI
Yes! Safe, legal and rare. As in not used for contraception because karen and chad cant afford toothpaste but insist on unsafe sex because reasons.

So you want to monitor people's bedroom habits? You still one of those small government types?

Do I look like a mathamagician?

No, you look like a person with no actual solutions.

Serious question. Why are we, the nation, fighting over the result of a leisurely behavior? The root of the problem?

Because there are too many asswipes who are concerned about what people do in private.

a reply to: matafuchs

I don't consider myself to be a Constitutional Scholar, but as a layman I've read and studied the document for years. The Ninth Amendment is very important.

That the media describes Barack Obama as a constitutional scholar shows how ignorant of the document the media is.

The more I think about this, the more I think this is some type of false flag operation. The way Roberts votes, this has no chance of being over turned.

I think there is corruption at the highest levels of each branch of our government. I think someone has something on one or more of the SCOUTS.

What better way to gin up fury and anger than to drop this bombshell just before mid-terms. I hope real Americans don't fall for it. If they do and the Democrats retain control of both houses, I think we are doomed.

Whatever..

a reply to: Salander

Sorry, my comment was more sarcasm than directed at anyone in particular. I have found that these types of threads can encourage some to actually learn about something they know nothing about.

In other cases, not matter the subject, they are experts.....

a reply to: TheRedneck

where do you get the idea that the 4th Amendment has anything to do with abortion? Are police searching people's homes for abortions without a warrant? Frisking them to see if they have an abortion without probable cause?

The 4th Amendment enshrines the expectation of privacy and due process. It protects our right to be secure in our person, our homes, our papers and other effects against warrantless searches and seizures. Theoretically, it should protect us from governmental mandated physical intrusion upon our person, government interference in our medical treatments and seizure of our medical history.

Alas, it hasn't.

But it was addressed by the 14th Amendment, with clear legislative intent to right the wrongs of slavery. That made interracial marriage a right enshrined in the US Constitution. Abortion was not addressed by any specific language in the US Constitution, and thus had to be an inured right.

"Marriage" is not enshrined in the Constitution, period. Inter-racial marriage didn't legally become a constitutional right until the Supreme Court said so, in 1967. Before that time, people were prosecuted and punished by the government for the offense. Same sex marriage didn't legally become a constitutional right until 2015.

Loving v. Virginia also found that the state had no legitimate self-interest in regulating marriage by race.

Loving v. Virginia found that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for no good reason. Alito likes to use the caveat "no legitimate goal".

Therefore, the laws it struck down were capricious and discriminatory.

That's what happens when the government violates the 4th Amendment, inserts itself inside people's bodies and bedrooms and denies certain people equal protection and due process.

That does not apply to abortion, as even Roe v. Wade acknowledges the state has a legitimate interest in protecting life.

Roe found that the state has an interest protecting women's lives life by ensuring that abortions are safe and accessible, and that women are not forced to source their needs from black market drug dealers and shady back alley clinics. It has an interested in protecting the potential life of a fetus, which is NOT recognized as a person constitutionally, but above the life and welfare of the actual born person, endowed with constitutional rights and that the government is charged to represent and protect.

LOL Never heard of history? That test was developed in 1931.

LOL It dates back way earlier than that. 1931 is when scientists found out why a pregnant woman's urine laced in their food or water would kill a rabbit.

We can now determine pregnancy in very early stages. I personally think 6 weeks is too soon to legislate to, but I'll take that up with Alabama.

It's certainly not enough time to make a rational, non-panic-y choice.