The states should decide....
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
Setting aside the prohibitive or permissive approach federal legislation might take, what is the article i power that you are invoking for the legislation?
I have to say, it would be mildly amusing to see a federal prohibition or limitation of some sort enacted, only to have, say, Don Verilli, arguing to SCOTUS that it's not authorized under the Commerce Clause.
Holy hell, who is paying for all that free stuff? Parents can provide for their children, like we always have.
Roe vs Wade (1973) a decision written by Justice
Blackman was based on a "right to privacy". Many legal
scholars agree that Blackman's decision was clearly not
based on the U.S. Constitution which never mentions
a "right to privacy".
It was always felt by legal scholars that Roe vs Wade
would someday be overturned because it was considered
unconstitutional. That day was June 24, 2022. Let the
individual states make their own abortion laws.
Blackman was based on a "right to privacy". Many legal
scholars agree that Blackman's decision was clearly not
based on the U.S. Constitution which never mentions
a "right to privacy".
It was always felt by legal scholars that Roe vs Wade
would someday be overturned because it was considered
unconstitutional. That day was June 24, 2022. Let the
individual states make their own abortion laws.
Yeah, like it or not, the only solution is one where neither side gets everything that they want. Zealots on either end will hate that, so it won't happen.
Personal responsibility and making good decisions. All comes from the same side of the mouth
Many parents actually can't provide for their children, and the state picks up the tab for quite a bit in education costs as well. Of course we all pay for that from our taxes, as we should.
Lol your utopia doesn’t exist. We don’t subsidize being a parent in this country. I can be against murder and also have the position that I have no obligation to raise your children. We shouldn’t murder children because they are a burden on you.
I am 33 years old with no children. I took measures to make sure I don’t have children. I don’t feel I am in a position to raise a child and being as I am an adult it is my responsibility to not bring a child that would inconvenience me into the world.
I’ve also had talks with every person that I’ve had sex with and told them I don’t support an abortion. Personal responsibility.
More unwanted children who will become angry adults who commit violent crimes and continue our failed cradle to jail social experiment. Freakonomics pointed out that Roe v Wade essentially was responsible for the reduction in violent crime over the last 50 years. Now we’ll soon be enjoying more violent crime, higher social costs and an increase in abortion rates in our fast approaching dystopian future.
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
Careful Margaret Sanger. You’re a couple points away from supporting eugenics. As long as we keep progressive DAs in control violent crime will always be rampant.
I love when people tell me what I think, so how strong do I think the support is for full term abortion?
Maybe this is the simpler question; in your estimation, in, lets say 18 months time, how many states will have zero abortion access?
How can we simultaneously have a rise in crime due to less abortions while having an increase in abortion rates?
I don’t have a dog in the abortion fight…I am probably the only person without an opinion yea or nay.
But I think the Court’s decision is the right one, in that it will (or should) force Congress to pass legislation that can settle this once and for all. Congress should have done this years ago.
But I think the Court’s decision is the right one, in that it will (or should) force Congress to pass legislation that can settle this once and for all. Congress should have done this years ago.
So force them to be parents against their will and then offer no support. Yes, it’s truly about the children!!
As if codifying would have done any good. The Republicans would have just run it up to the supreme court and they would have come up with whatever stupid reasoning they wanted to get their ruling through.
This is a supreme court who isn't legitimate in my eyes. One seat was stolen by Republicans and two others put on by a President who tried to commit treason, nevermind the sitting Justice who's wife tried to commit treason. It's insane what we've allowed to happen in this country.
You posing as an HROT expert on Sanger is hilarious. Your other posts here lead me to believe the extent of your knowledge on a subject of any significance is highly suspect, at best.
"The Negro race has reached a place in its history when every possible effort should be made to have every Negro child count as a valuable contribution to the future of America. Negro parents, like all parents, must create the next generation from strength, not from weakness; from health, not from despair."
-Margaret Sanger
Unless they were raped how can you say someone was forced to be a parent? We learn in sex Ed that putting dick into a vagina can end in pregnancy
You’re a special kind of stupid aren’t you?
So you're assuming birth rates will remain static?
You're a bright one, aren't you?
Unfortunately very common kind of stupid actually. Accuse you of having a utopian vision in contrast to a non-utopia where everyone acts responsibly I guess. He's a special kind of confident.
Maybe im not smart - how are we going to have an increase in abortions while simultaneously having a crime wave due to less abortions. Maybe you should spell it out?
No seat was “stolen.” All 3 positions were filled following the guidelines in the Constitution. Just because YOU don’t like the fact they weren’t appointed by democrats and don’t have liberal agendas doesn’t make the court illegitimate.
Why do you consider this a appropriate for Congress instead of the states, from a constitutional perspective?
Well...if you have women crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, then Commerce Clause would be a jurisdictional hook.
They only care about the "right" to life. They don't care about the quality of life, they never have. There's no money to be made in helping the poor.
I don’t, necessarily. Earlier in another thread I felt the decision was correct as I thought it was a states issue.
HOWEVER……..I also realize making it a states issue is not going to solve anything. There will likely be large discrepancies in laws among the states. If Congress decides the matter on the Federal level, it will at least establish a single criteria that applies to all. Hopefully it will be a “middle ground” that won’t please everyone, but at least be somewhat acceptable. Even though I still think it is a states issue, I also believe Congress will ultimately need to get involved for the sole reason of putting the abortion issue (somewhat) to rest.
It was not a matter of if…but when….Roe would be overturned.
I don't think there is any doubt about that.
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/...es-showing-rising-need-abortion-supreme-court
https://freakonomics.com/2005/05/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
You understand that more and more kids without fathers will become the very issue you love to hate, right? Many of these single moms will be on welfare as well. You get that too, right?
That's an interesting take on interstate commerce. Traditionally meaning has been product or service crossing state lines. I assume you are using the Ogden standard, which blurred everything. As soon as some state does something stupid by prohibiting women residents from crossing state lines, that opens up a commerce clause claim.
Let's assume Congress passes a national law. It will undoubtedly be challenged by a lot of states. If it makes it to SCOTUS, with the current makeup, Roberts would undoubtedly vote to allow a federal law, as would the liberals. I'd think Gorsuch would go with the states. I'm not sure about the others.
You seem to be missing the question. You say we'll see a crime wave due to less abortion. You also say we'll see more abortions. How can both situations exist simultaneously?
I don't know how this court would receive a national law allowing abortion during the first trimester.
So you're OK with gun regulations when it comes to kids getting cut down
Congress never passed legislation because it was settled case law for 50 years.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty- Latest: swagsurfer02
-
-
-
