How many men have no clue

a reply to: Sookiechacha

People are blaming the Democrats for letting this happen by NOT codifying Roe when they had the chance, before the court ruling. If they had, do you think the SCOTUS ruling would have nullified the congressional law? What about birth control, sexual activity between consenting adults, same sex and interracial marriage? If Congress codifies those SCOTUS rulings into federal law, can SCOTUS still overturn Griswald, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell and nullify any congressional act in the process?

Have you ever asked yourself "why"?
Why didn't they, why haven't, they codified any of these issues?
Because they want, they NEED you to be afraid. They need your vote, so they do nothing but wait.
Some times I wonder if putting Roe v Wade back in the states hands wasn't a ploy to help them in November.
Thomas is the only reason that thought hasn't taken root.
But they will use it, to use you, to get your vote so they can do.... nothing.
Republicans are just as bad.
They keep us divided, in almost every way. They use our very own human nature against us. Tribalism.

No, if they get back in power, they won't codify any hot button issues.
Neither will the Republicans.
We ALL need to join together for two election cycles and vote EVERY sitting Career Politician out of office.
This is the best and fastest way to get things moving again.
Hey, but that's just my off-topic opinion.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It isn't.

Thank you.

Except that Congress is composed of each state's elected officials.

Irrelevant. US Congressmen have no vote in a state legislature and state legislators have no voice in the US Congress.

Would SCOTUS overrule a federal abortion ban too?

They should, according to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. If they did not, I would question their fitness for the position.

I would have to read the decision to comment on the other case.

People are blaming the Democrats for letting this happen by NOT codifying Roe when they had the chance, before the court ruling. If they had, do you think the SCOTUS ruling would have nullified the congressional law?

I think they should have; abortion is not enumerated and per the 10th Amendment it is the pervue of the states. However, I suspect the Supreme Court might have not taken the case if Congress had codified Roe v. Wade.

If Congress codifies those SCOTUS rulings into federal law, can SCOTUS still overturn Griswald, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell and nullify any congressional act in the process?

It depends. In the case of inter-racial marriage, I believe the 14th Amendment might well apply; common-law marriage has existed for the history of the country without substantial regulation. Birth control would probably be covered under privacy, the right to be secure in one's own home.

Does a pregnant woman have a constitutional right to emergency medical treatment, even if it means an abortion to save her life? IF so, where would that be "covered" in the Constitution?

Yes, she does.

That would be covered in the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Depriving available medical treatment to a dying person would indeed be depriving them of life.

It's painfully obvious that you have little to no concern for women you have no authority to control.

There is huge difference between having concern and shoving one's nose where it doesn't belong. I do not know Kansas culture, or any culture really except Alabama's. I watch the events as they unfold, and I may even comment on them here, but I would not presume to tell someone in another state what laws they should pass or reject.

I prefer to stay in my lane. Perhaps you should consider trying it. Believe it or not, Alabama does not want or need your supervision; we can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.

What do you expect to accomplish by posting in this thread?

I hope to educate others, or at least challenge falsehoods. In other words, Deny Ignorance.

That way, maybe more people can make well-informed choices.

Which ones?

The ones I specified.

You need to understand something, Sookiechacha: I am not intimidated by you. You are not my ruler. If you don't want me to call you out for hateful rhetoric, don't use hateful rhetoric. If you don't want me to call you out for supporting a procedure, don't support that procedure. I am not going to lie for you, and I am not going to remain silent while you make hurtful statements to others. That's just something you are going to have to live with. If that upsets you, tough cookies. Go scream at the sky.

I gave you a public, heartfelt apology and compliment for my mistake and the statements I made concerning that mistake. You have every right to accept it or refuse it if you so choose. However, you show your true colors to all who read when you make that choice.

Right now, you come across as hateful and spiteful. That's not on me; that's on you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That would be covered in the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Depriving available medical treatment to a dying person would indeed be depriving them of life.

Depriving available medical treatment to a dying person would indeed be depriving them of life.

Why the 5th Amendment? What is the "capital, or otherwise infamous crime" that a pregnant women in distress is being accused of?

Why do you think "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; works here, but not here: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.", from the 14th Amendment?

I gave you a public, heartfelt apology and compliment

I don't think you did. I think you gave me a patronizing pat on the head for surprising you with a link, and a condescending and contrite confession of being wrong about the bill. Now, you're making it clear that you're not apologizing to me for anything.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why the 5th Amendment? What is the "capital, or otherwise infamous crime" that a pregnant women in distress is being accused of?

OK, if you prefer to use the 14th it says the same thing in this context. But the 5th also applies; the key word is "nor"... the 5th Amendment does not only apply to people who have been accused of a crime.

Now you have two... count 'em, two... Amendments to the US Constitution that makes denying lifesaving treatment a violation and thus illegal. How many do you need?

I think you gave me a patronizing pat on the head for surprising you with a link, and a condescending and contrite confession of being wrong about the bill. Now, you're making it clear that you're not apologizing to me for anything.

No, the apology and the compliment was sincere... unexpected since I am used to you posting someone's opinion instead of an actual bill, but sincere. How you take that is up to you.

You apparently do not know how to be gracious. If you or anyone else apologized to me over a mistake, I would graciously accept and move on... I've done it many times. That's how civilized people do around here. You seem to have so much anger inside yourself that you cannot do so. Again, that's on you.

I wouldn't expect too many more sincere apologies, though. You'll just ignore them, as you have clearly shown here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now you have two... count 'em, two... Amendments to the US Constitution that makes denying lifesaving treatment a violation and thus illegal.

No I don't. I don't have any. SCOTUS said that there is NO constitutional right to abortion, PERIOD.

How many do you need?

The 2nd Amendment comes to mind, when one thinks of a life-threatening situation.

I wouldn't expect too many more sincere apologies

Well, I haven't even received one, from you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No I don't. I don't have any. SCOTUS said that there is NO constitutional right to abortion, PERIOD.

It did. It did not say there was no Constitutional right to life.

If you just want something to argue about, argue with yourself. Right now I'm growing tired of your childish hissy fits.

The 2nd Amendment comes to mind, when one thinks of a life-threatening situation.

I have no idea what you're blabbering on about now. I hope it's not what I expect; do not try to perform a home abortion with a handgun.

I think it's time I ignored your posts until you can calm down a bit. You are becoming more hysterical than normal.

Goodbye for now, Sookiechacha. Try to calm down, for your own health.

TheRedneck