Roe v Wade overturned
- Thread starter Boomslang
- Start date
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
Just another reminder that the right to an abortion was never part of the Constitution, and all the overturning did was correct that an abortion is not a right protected under the Consitution and therefore should go back to the states to decide...just like everything else not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. As a woman, which is defined as an adult human with two XX chromosomes, I do not feel any of my rights have been taken away from yesterday's overturning of Roe v. Wade by the SCOTUS. Conversely, many more US citizens will now enjoy rights, specifically the right to life and all of the other rights protected under the Consitution, and which will continue to be.
I am not really interested in wading in to this conversation again because the last time I did in a similar thread on TreeBuzz I was accused by an admin of "adolescent game playing" which I did not appreciate at all. However, I just want to make it very clear that not all of a "majority of United States citizens", which I am thinking you were implying as being women, feel any rights were taken from them.
Last edited:
Serf Life
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Maine Island
But they were. You personally are ok with that and I can appreciate your views. Feelings about a right vs it actually being there.
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
What right protected under the US Constitution was taken away?
The 8th...cruel and unusual punishment comes to mind. Cruel for the mother being coerced into being a parent in a society that provides no support. Cruel to a child being brought in to the world unwanted and likely to live in poverty. But hey, maybe they'll be lucky and get shot during second period math class in 9 years. Since apparently that's an inalienable right.
I'm under the impression that the Constitution doesn't recognize the unborn as citizens.
I may be wrong, and I suppose it's a moot point.
The Constitution itself does not address slavery. Should that correctly go to the States? (Which of course it can't because of the 13th Amendment, the point being many things are not in the Constitution itself.)
The Prohibition of Liquor lasted from 1920 to 1933. I wonder if this will last over/under 13 years.
I may be wrong, and I suppose it's a moot point.
The Constitution itself does not address slavery. Should that correctly go to the States? (Which of course it can't because of the 13th Amendment, the point being many things are not in the Constitution itself.)
The Prohibition of Liquor lasted from 1920 to 1933. I wonder if this will last over/under 13 years.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
The 13th ammendment covers slavery, and was properly added to the constitution via house/senate. Unlike roe v wade which was decided as law by the courts...and now over turned because it was not legal for the federal government to enact policy in that way.
"In 1864, an amendment abolishing slavery passed the U.S. Senate but died in the House as Democrats rallied in the name of states’ rights. The election of 1864 brought Lincoln back to the White House along with significant Republican majorities in both houses, so it appeared the amendment was headed for passage when the new Congress convened in early 1865. Lincoln preferred that the amendment receive bipartisan support—some Democrats indicated support for the measure, but many still resisted. The amendment passed 119 to 56, just barely above the necessary two-thirds majority. Several Democrats abstained, but the 13th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, which came in December 1865. With the passage of the amendment, the institution that had indelibly shaped American history was eradicated.' from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hi...ay-in-history/house-passes-the-13th-amendment
JCB
Branched out member
- Location
- Westport, Mass.
Sorry, but a majority is a majority--and most Americans (women and men) favor legal, accessible abortion.
Many other countries feel that abortion is a woman's civil right. Countries that do not feel that way are most often autocratic. Which is exactly where we are heading!
JCB
Branched out member
- Location
- Westport, Mass.
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS did just that.
CHTjules
New member
- Location
- Lebanon, PA
If that is the case, then why hasn't abortion been made into a Federal law through legislation? My guess is because there wouldn't be enough votes in the House/Senate for the needed/required majority vote for it to pass. A recent example would be H.R. 3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 which was introduced in June 2021. It was a bill that would effectively codify a right to an abortion, but it failed to pass when it died in the Senate this past May because it didn't reach the Senate's 60-vote threshold.
Last edited:
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Huh? Majority in which area...yes major say OK legal in some way, but there is no agreement in that way. I need to look at the poll etc more yet, to see how questions were asked/phrased. This was just a quick search.
America’s Abortion Quandary
A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances.
www.pewresearch.org
USA appears to have the most relaxed laws on abortion, especially compared to Europe
Plus the whole point over this being over turned was because it was not a legal/constitutional law. If house/senate pass a law/amendment, and states ratified it for constitution, I still may not agree with the law/amendment but at least it would be legal.
Stumpsprouts
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Asheville
Right. I hope some day it does become a law to allow abortions in the USA… Roe v Wade didn’t make a lick of sense from a legal standpoint and an amendment or law or whatever is the way it should have been made legal. Someday it might but I certainly doubt it will happen within the next couple presidencies.
Less to your point Jules but more generally-
Can we at least agree that it is reaching too far for a state to make it a crime for someone from that state to seek an abortion in another state? That’s where some legislation is headed. If we are all for states rights, than that doesn’t pass the logic test.
Not to mention SCOTUS shooting down New York states firearms restrictions. I guess that state’s right didn’t count.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
There is a huge difference between those two rulings. One is talked about in the constitution and one is not. Plus they didn't really strike down NY law. State are allow to deny gun permits if they have a clearly defined reason to do so. NY you had to prove you needed one, and they could deny it without reason...so therefore illegal under the constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to carry a concealed firearm.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
What state is trying this? What bill in the works saying this?
If this would happen, my guess would be that scotus would shoot it down,because freedom of travel is a constitutional right (part of the 5th ammendment). And I state can't control what is legal/illegal in another state (unless maybe it is a federal law). Look at Marijuana, you can go to tlanother state and buy it, and your home state won't prosecute you for it...unless you bring it back. So if the illegal action isn't happening in their state, what grounds would they have?
I will say it gets a bit trickier if husband/boyfriend presents a legal case for killing his child in home state (by her going to another state to kill it). That is something that scotus may have to deal with.
climbhightree
Branched out member
- Location
- Lebanon, Pa USA
Doesn't say you can't either. Plus in NY you couldn't carry a gun (open or concealed) without permit...hemce the Constitutional problem
Serf Life
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Maine Island
What was the mag capacity limit in the constitution? Where bump stocks in it. Full auto? That’s a tired argument. What wasn’t around in the late 1700s which is common place today?
Serf Life
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Maine Island
The majority of the court were put there by a president who didn’t win with a majority vote. For context
Bucknut
Carpal tunnel level member
“Keep and bear arms” has always been crystal clear to me and many others. Finally SCOTUS agrees.
I posted a snippet of Kavanaugh's concurrence above in post #29. He explicitly says he would find against any state trying to criminalize going out of state seeking an abortion. He bases this on the right to interstate travel. I agree with him, and you.
