We have been down this "states rights" path before, and it ended badly.

[ICHerky]

@ICHerky uses emojis all the time - the right wing opinion media stole his ability to use facts.

What’s facts are needed for dumb ass statements you make?

Abortion is a religious issue for some but not most. It’s about killing unborn babies and that is wrong in my opinion. You disagree and think it’s okay to kill unborn babies.

Nothing about that has anything to do with religion.

 

[globalhawk]

What’s facts are needed for dumb ass statements you make?

Abortion is a religious issue for some but not most. It’s about killing unborn babies and that is wrong in my opinion. You disagree and think it’s okay to kill unborn babies.

Nothing about that has anything to do with religion.

Herky, this is insane. You don't think abortion has anything to do with religion?

 

[IaHawk44]

What’s facts are needed for dumb ass statements you make?

Abortion is a religious issue for some but not most. It’s about killing unborn babies and that is wrong in my opinion. You disagree and think it’s okay to kill unborn babies.

Nothing about that has anything to do with religion.

Killing unborn babies, lmao.

Grab some balls and rebut my statements with facts, Trump pos.

 

[Hawknado]

You really believe a state could constitutionally ban marriage? Good luck with that one.

I didn’t say that. I said the rights lie with the state. 10th amendment.

 

[ft254]

On one hand - local control of governance decisions is preferable when those leaders represent the will of the people.

On the other hand… when elections and courts are manipulated and you’re selective with where you apply states rights it’s nothing more than bullshit.

I have never had a more negative outlook to where this country is headed. It’s bleak and I don’t really see it changing. I no longer see the point of the “United” states. This model is broken with nothing but more damage on the way.

IMO states are the least competent. At least in Iowa we are protected by the lenghts they can legislate. Nationally the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus has paralyzed legislation. It is pathetic. Now the Supreme Court with the 5 conservative justices that Congress pushed through has created a crisis among the American public with radical rulings on gun and abortion laws.

 

[ICHerky]

Herky, this is insane. You don't think abortion has anything to do with religion?

Read what I wrote and you’ll see that I think it does for some.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The Supreme Court makes decisions based on unwritten rights and what is written in the constitution. Unenumerated (unwritten) rights include the right to travel, privacy, autonomy, and dignity. None of these rights are specifically stated in the constitution, but the Supreme Court defends these rights.

I have to object to this part because it lends credence to the wingnut claim that privacy isn't in the constitution.

Take another look at the Bill of Rights. At a minimum, these amendments involve privacy rights:

1A
3A
4A
5A

Nor does discerning privacy rights in these 4 parts of the constitution require tortured logic or strained inference.

For example, without 1A, governments could arrest people for public or private worship, public or private speech, public or private gatherings. 1A protects privacy.

Quartering soldiers in your home is a blatant violation of privacy barred by 3A. 3A protects privacy.

4A's protections against searches and seizures is an equally blatant protection of privacy rights. 4A protects privacy.

And what else is 5A's protection against self-incrimination if not a preservation of your right to keep things private? 5A protects privacy.

How much more "enumerated" do you need it to be?

 

[globalhawk]

Read what I wrote and you’ll see that I think it does for some.

Stop. Were the atheists and agnostics pushing to overturn RvW? Edit: As a group in general.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The SCOTUS isn’t there to ban anything. The constitution is meant to limit power of the government. They function on the basis of decisions through the lens of the constitution.

Was that a deliberate attempt to deflect, or are you just being sloppy?

I didn't say the Court banned anything. What I said was that the framers' failure to protect something by name shouldn't be read as license to ban it.

What the Court did in this decision was to free the states to do the banning.

 

[Hawknado]

Was that a deliberate attempt to deflect, or are you just being sloppy?

I didn't say the Court banned anything. What I said was that the framers' failure to protect something by name shouldn't be read as license to ban it.

What the Court did in this decision was to free the states to do the banning.

States rights doesn’t automatically mean bans. All it means is states decide. Nothing more, nothing less. The next couple years will be interesting as the states figure out any amendments to their constitutions or laws. States will be allowed to have abortion, that’ll be shown by who people elect. Same with states that are going to put limits.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I didn’t say that. I said the rights lie with the state. 10th amendment.

Yes.

And if the right lies solely with the state under the 10th Amendment, as you say you believe, then the State may regulate or eliminate it.

So do you still believe a State can Constitutionally ban marriage?

 

[abby97]

Look, those guys are too smart to state outright that they are overturning Roe because of religion. But since nearly all objections to abortion are ultimately based in religion, and given what we know about the religious background of the justices in question, it's not hard to see what drove this stripping away of women's rights.

So is it your contention that nonreligious people don't respect life? So is it your contention that we should allow murder or ending the lives of the handicapped, or mentally challenged or the ill?

 

[Hawknado]

Yes.

And if the right lies solely with the state under the 10th Amendment, as you say you believe, then the State may regulate or eliminate it.

So do you still believe a State can Constitutionally ban marriage?

That would depend entirely on what is written in state constitutions and state law.

If there were somehow an argument that a state could ban marriage then it is on the elected representatives to fix the issue. It’s how the system works.

 

[Joes Place]

Farrell said the book was immensely popular, and she did not find any evidence of objections to the inclusion of the section.

"It didn't really bother anybody that a typical instructional manual could include material like this," she said. "It just wasn't something to be remarked upon. It was just a part of everyday life."

More here (including the recipe)

Ben Franklin’s Abortion Recipe

"The next Morning drink a Quarter of Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction, with 12 Drops of Spirits of Harts-horn."

slate.com

#America'sFoundersFavoredAbortionRights

 

[gohawks50]

I have to object to this part because it lends credence to the wingnut claim that privacy isn't in the constitution.

Take another look at the Bill of Rights. At a minimum, these amendments involve privacy rights:

1A
3A
4A
5A

Nor does discerning privacy rights in these 4 parts of the constitution require tortured logic or strained inference.

For example, without 1A, governments could arrest people for public or private worship, public or private speech, public or private gatherings. 1A protects privacy.

Quartering soldiers in your home is a blatant violation of privacy barred by 3A. 3A protects privacy.

4A's protections against searches and seizures is an equally blatant protection of privacy rights. 4A protects privacy.

And what else is 5A's protection against self-incrimination if not a preservation of your right to keep things private? 5A protects privacy.

How much more "enumerated" do you need it to be?

It was a copy and paste from the article. If you click on privacy the article mentions that the idea of privacy is within other enumerated rights. I think the founders thought future societies would be able to make inferences from their words. Apparently many of us, including some SC Justices are unable to use that sort of reasoning.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

If there were somehow an argument that a state could ban marriage then it is on the elected representatives to fix the issue.

You are the one making the argument when you say it’s an issue reserved to states under the 10th Amendment.

Because if you take that position — which you say you do — then you necessarily agree that a state can Constitutionally ban marriage.

 

[Joes Place]

Unless I missed there are no mentions of any medical procedures or treatments in the constitution.

Correct.

But we do have "examples" of what the Founder's actions were.

Abortion recipes (Franklin)
Required Vaccinations (Washington)

 

[Hawknado]

You are the one making the argument when you say it’s an issue reserved to states under the 10th Amendment.

Because if you take that position — which you say you do — then you necessarily agree that a state can Constitutionally ban marriage.

Perhaps there are cases to be made that marriage could be banned? As of right now marriage is covered under state law so it would have to go through the process of legislation for it to be banned. I don’t really know why this is of interest though.

Perhaps there could be an argument that marriage is a religious sacrament and doesn’t need to be made into law? Not my position but I’m sure some people could think that.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Perhaps there are cases to be made that marriage could be banned? As of right now marriage is covered under state law so it would have to go through the process of legislation for it to be banned. I don’t really know why this is of interest though.

Perhaps there could be an argument that marriage is a religious sacrament and doesn’t need to be made into law? Not my position but I’m sure some people could think that.

We clearly aren’t communicating. I’m asking you the question that if you think the issue of marriage is left to the states, then you are okay with a state banning marriage, right?

In other words, if Iowa for example banned marriage, you wouldn’t say the federal courts can step in if that happened because they have no power over the issue (per your interpretation of the 10th Amendment)?

 

[Hawknado]

We clearly aren’t communicating. I’m asking you the question that if you think the issue of marriage is left to the states, then you are okay with a state banning marriage, right?

In other words, if Iowa for example banned marriage, you wouldn’t say the federal courts can step in if that happened because they have no power over the issue (per your interpretation of the 10th Amendment)?

Dude, my feelings about it are not the issue. I am speaking on could it be done or not, not if I’m “okay” with it. States currently have power over marriage and theoretically could pass legislation that bans marriage. I have no idea in what world that would ever happen. I don’t have knowledge of state law or state constitutions in regards to marriage and what they say. Anything at the end of the day COULD be legislated to be banned that isn’t in the constitutions (state or federal). I don’t get what you are trying to argue.

I also think they would have a real hard time banning marriage considering rights of religion.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

That Roe made up a right (privacy) not in the Constitution.

Wait, so Americans can have no expectation of privacy in the US? Even after many of these corrupt liars on the SCOTUS stated it was a right that is well established by our laws?

Damn, you’re lost. Fascist much?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Dude, my feelings about it are not the issue. I am speaking on could it be done or not, not if I’m “okay” with it. States currently have power over marriage and theoretically could pass legislation that bans marriage. I have no idea in what world that would ever happen. I don’t have knowledge of state law or state constitutions in regards to marriage and what they say. Anything at the end of the day COULD be legislated to be banned that isn’t in the constitutions (state or federal). I don’t get what you are trying to argue.

I also think they would have a real hard time banning marriage considering rights of religion.

More likely is that some states might choose to get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it up to churches to conduct and register marriages.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Hawknado]

More likely is that some states might choose to get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it up to churches to conduct and register marriages.

What could possibly go wrong?

I highly doubt it. Would change taxes and a lot of stuff that would be annoying

 

[Tfxchawk]

RGB didn't say Roe was a bad law, she didn't like it because it left women's rights open for attack.

A stolen SCOTUS seat and stacking the court with radical Christian fundamentalists overturned Roe, Democrats can't legislate against that.

She thought it was bad. And Roe v Wade wasn't ever a law. That's kind of the point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

 

[anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r]

More here (including the recipe)

Ben Franklin’s Abortion Recipe

"The next Morning drink a Quarter of Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction, with 12 Drops of Spirits of Harts-horn."

slate.com

#America'sFoundersFavoredAbortionRights

So wait a minute….founding fathers wrote a math textbook, that contained an abortion recipe?? LOL but CRT in schools right?

 

[Joes Place]

She thought it was bad.

No
She thought what was going to happen, ended up actually happening.

 

[Joes Place]

So wait a minute….founding fathers wrote a math textbook, that contained an abortion recipe?? LOL but CRT in schools right?

Yup.

 

[spiderland]

We clearly aren’t communicating. I’m asking you the question that if you think the issue of marriage is left to the states, then you are okay with a state banning marriage, right?

In other words, if Iowa for example banned marriage, you wouldn’t say the federal courts can step in if that happened because they have no power over the issue (per your interpretation of the 10th Amendment)?

Dude, I feel your frustration, I really do…

 

[spiderland]

Dude, my feelings about it are not the issue. I am speaking on could it be done or not, not if I’m “okay” with it. States currently have power over marriage and theoretically could pass legislation that bans marriage. I have no idea in what world that would ever happen. I don’t have knowledge of state law or state constitutions in regards to marriage and what they say. Anything at the end of the day COULD be legislated to be banned that isn’t in the constitutions (state or federal). I don’t get what you are trying to argue.

I also think they would have a real hard time banning marriage considering rights of religion.

Okay, forget marriage, as you seem to be getting hung up on this. Let’s go with weekend bike rides in the country if you’re over 50 and have hazel eyes. Nebraska just passes a law making this a crime. I’ve read the Constitution and all the amendments three times now and nowhere do I explicitly find “bicycle rides” or “weekends,” let alone eye colors. So 10th Amendment, right? I’m screwed unless I can get the Unicameral to somehow change their mind and let me ride my bike? SCOTUS says SOL?

 

[IaHawk44]

She thought it was bad. And Roe v Wade wasn't ever a law. That's kind of the point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

She didn't think it was bad because she was against women's rights, just the opposite.

For abortion to be legal there has to be a law, that's kind of the point.

 

[RileyHawk]

Dude, I feel your frustration, I really do…

Lol - yep. It's funny when these numbskulls think their avoidance of direct questions keeps their biases hidden. In fact, it is very telling.

 

[Tfxchawk]

No
She thought what was going to happen, ended up actually happening.

Good lord you gaslighting creep. She stayed quite clearly it was a poor interpretation and would likely be overturned. She also said by doing what they did the supreme court took an issue that would have settled out.over time and turned it into a lightning rod.

 

[Hawknado]

Okay, forget marriage, as you seem to be getting hung up on this. Let’s go with weekend bike rides in the country if you’re over 50 and have hazel eyes. Nebraska just passes a law making this a crime. I’ve read the Constitution and all the amendments three times now and nowhere do I explicitly find “bicycle rides” or “weekends,” let alone eye colors. So 10th Amendment, right? I’m screwed unless I can get the Unicameral to somehow change their mind and let me ride my bike? SCOTUS says SOL?

Dude, when we are talking about constitutional rights we talk about what is in the constitution. The 10th amendment states anything not protected in the constitution goes to the states which means they can make laws or do whatever. Nothing about riding a bike needs to be in the constitution. I don’t know how else I can explain it to you. Find a quick video on civics on YouTube or something

 

[Tfxchawk]

She didn't think it was bad because she was against women's rights, just the opposite.

For abortion to be legal there has to be a law, that's kind of the point.

Of court she was for womena rights and was also in favor of abortion. She was clear that roe was a bad ruling

 

[Hawknado]

Okay, forget marriage, as you seem to be getting hung up on this. Let’s go with weekend bike rides in the country if you’re over 50 and have hazel eyes. Nebraska just passes a law making this a crime. I’ve read the Constitution and all the amendments three times now and nowhere do I explicitly find “bicycle rides” or “weekends,” let alone eye colors. So 10th Amendment, right? I’m screwed unless I can get the Unicameral to somehow change their mind and let me ride my bike? SCOTUS says SOL?

If you want an actual explanation for why Nebraska couldn’t pass that law, look at the 5th and 14th amendments in the constitution and then look at Nebraska laws on discrimination. Your argument doesn’t make any sense. Those laws targeting age and appearance wouldn’t be allowed without some serious changes to the law.

 

[RileyHawk]

Good lord you gaslighting creep. She stayed quite clearly it was a poor interpretation and would likely be overturned. She also said by doing what they did the supreme court took an issue that would have settled out.over time and turned it into a lightning rod.

No. She said:

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

And

In response to a student question about what would happen if Roe were overturned now, Ginsburg said the effect would largely be restricted to poor women in anti-choice states. Many states would never outlaw abortion, and wealthier women will always be able to travel to those states, she pointed out.

“If you have the sophistication and the money, you’re going to have someplace in the United States where your choice can be exercised in a safe manner,” she said. “It would mean poor women have no choice. That doesn’t make sense as a policy.”

Your interpretation is the only thing that is poor. She supported Roe but didn't think it protected women's choice well enough. And she was right.

 

[Mike Zierath]

We all know that the phrase "states rights" is simply a cover for men & women of ill intent. It is a code to hide behind when they want to do bad things to others in the name of righteousness . This is a case where I fear the slippery slope of denial will not stop with abortion. There is a fine line between beaurocracy and theocracy and I fear our national toe is on that line.

AMEN

 

[joelbc1]

I do not know this.

Well mark, you learn something every day.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[joelbc1]

A lot of mental progress in this country in the last 50 years.

Mainly because in 1964 and 1965 the Feds passed legislation that’s outlawed many of the practices. Not because “the states” had an epiphany and decided they better change their ways.