America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Bcking would be proud!

as long as there is no old data 

[Boris Farage 353]

16 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

 

Very, very brief 14th Amendment refresher as I am tired and it is late here, but the bat signal was raised so here I am. I admit fully to going to my lecture notes for this.

 

So we all know (or should know) that the 14th Amendment's due process clause prevents the government from depriving a person of their life, liberty or property interests without due process, which is almost always (not getting into that, v late) the provision of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cool, cool. Abortion is not a "life" interest but rather a "liberty" interest -- it falls under the purview of the right of privacy, which includes the right to a private family life. Griswold is for the proposition that the government can't stop people from using contraception (dear @Boris Farage, I am not classifying abortion as contraception here, to be clear) because it is a governmental intrusion to private family life. Copy/paste from notes on Griswold here:

 

And in the majority opinion in Griswold, contraception fell into one of these zones of privacy which aren't specifically enumerated, but exists instead in a penumbra of the Fourteenth. 

 

Griswold is in many ways the opening of the door to Roe, which is where we get the law that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy within certain limits (as expanded and contracted by the line of cases that follow Roe) lies in the penumbra of the Fourteenth, too. More copy-paste from old notes, these on Roe (apologies for Wall of Text):

 

So there's the rub -- the relevant burden for the state is to show they have a compelling state interest in the fetus remaining in the womb, and viability (a squishy term) is the artificial marker drawn here by law. We have any number of artificial age markers at play in the government for different reasons -- 16, 18, 21, 35, 65 are but a few. And for abortion, that's "viability." Fine. So if we imagine a graph on an X-Y axis, with the fetus age on the X axis, and state interest on the Y axis, you see the interest increasing along with the age. At four weeks, it's negligible. At 12 weeks, it is greater, but it is still not compelling. It is only when you get to the magical viability moment that the scale tips to being compelling, after which point the woman ceases to have a privacy right to exercise. 

 

None of this is in the text of the Constitution, but it is within the penumbra of the Fourteenth, because abortion falls within the fundamental right of privacy. This is also a very good place for me to repeat my refrain that there exists that in the world which is legal, and that which is moral, and these concepts do not always intersect. Whether your morality prohibits you from believing that abortion is a right that should be extended at all, or if you believe it should be available only in very limited circumstances, that is okay. It is fine by me, you do you, boo. But Roe is still good law, and is the bedrock on which the line of abortion cases rests, and it says that this is a fundamental right that can be taken away only where there is a compelling state interest, and where the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. 

 

Am I worried about abortion rights being fully curtailed in this country? Sure. I worry about a lot of stuff, way too much for a maven of such small brain. But even with the composition of this SCOTUS, I do not believe that we will see the right to an abortion removed in my lifetime (and I am not an old coot, just yet). It is exceedingly rare for a fundamental right to be taken away from people. Perhaps the right to own slaves in slaveowning states is the only thing I can think of, and that was by Constitutional Amendment. The likelihood of a new amendment passing to prohibit abortion in this country is extremely low. Frankly the ERA has a better chance of passing. 

 

Peace out, I'm zonked. It's midnight here and y'all made me look at my law school notes which made me die a little inside.  

I hope you worked out some inner demons with this screed, dearest Maven. It seems very thoroughly researched, and i have no doubt is factually correct. But it's so very dry and boring. I'll wait for the film.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

I hope you worked out some inner demons with this screed, dearest Maven. It seems very thoroughly researched, and i have no doubt is factually correct. But it's so very dry and boring. I'll wait for the film.

Why thank you, mon cher Boris. (I like how our endearments are increasing in intimacy as time goes by.) I drafted it in 30 minutes, so I have no doubt it is half-arsed, but I appreciate the compliment. So sorry to have bored you. Suffice to know this -- I am right, and you are wrong, about equal protection for fetuses. ❤️ It will be a lot less painful going forward if you embrace that I am usually right about most of the things I post on here.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

Why thank you, mon cher Boris. (I like how our endearments are increasing in intimacy as time goes by.) I drafted it in 30 minutes, so I have no doubt it is half-arsed, but I appreciate the compliment. So sorry to have bored you. Suffice to know this -- I am right, and you are wrong, about equal protection for fetuses. ❤️ It will be a lot less painful going forward if you embrace that I am usually right about most of the things I post on here.  

I can speak on your behalf, from many years of reading your posts.   You have always been right in your own mind!

[Shiran 1,134]

20 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

That in the world which is legal, and that which is moral, and these concepts do not always intersect.

Very much agree with that, and "morality" is a fluid, and very subjective target, that tends to very rough translate into "what is good for the society, even if is not  great for the person" The main issue with it being, that "morality" tends to change slowly and not keep with advances in societies, often acting as an anchor. So you end up with simplistic views promoting giving birth, and then refusing to take a shred responsibility for bring a child into increasingly less suited for human life world.  On the other hand, any line drawn after "conception" is rather arbitrary, as with medical advances, a fetus will become viable at earlier, and earlier, and earlier date. I stand by what I said, ideally, there should be very little need for abortions not because of their illegality, but because we, as society, will move away from the point where there is non-medical need to have them. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Shiran

[TBoneTX 45,288]

On 9/24/2019 at 1:58 AM, elmcitymaven said:

that which is moral

"When you swim in the creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a moray..."