24 States Would Have No Legal Protections for Abortion if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Even though I'm pro choice, and quite pro choice, there's nothing that forces Roe v. Wade to stand up. It is not law, it's not in the constitution at all. Another case can come before SCOTUS and they can clear a path to nationwide bans on abortion if they rule it so.

 

The way abortion rights have been abused to make taxpayer fund them, and their disdainful inhumane treatment of what's clearly a living human being itself has been abusive, and I think the left need adequate push-back on this matter. Either you appreciate the rights you have, or you go down this moral cesspit the left have and wind up losing them.

 

 

[luckytxn 2,264]

l

On 11/25/2019 at 12:13 PM, laylalex said:

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-11-22/in-24-states-abortion-would-not-be-legally-protected-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned

 

I'm very aware that out here in California, should I need to seek a termination, I'm "safe." (Not that I'm planning on it, but life has a way of going sideways when you least expect it.) But I'm not thinking about myself -- I'm thinking about the women and their partners and their families who live in other parts of the country who will be forced to continue pregnancies they do not want, or which in some cases may be a danger to their health. (Check out the new legislation up in Ohio if you think I'm being over the top: https://www.mic.com/p/ohios-latest-anti-choice-bill-makes-abortion-offense-worthy-of-death-19373919) I support a woman's right to choose, and especially a woman's right to protect her own health. 

You are just fear mongering again. There was no reason to come to the conclusions that the article posed and at the most it said that it may be the case. Before Roe v Wade came to be 70% of the woman in this country could get legal abortions. Even in Texas where the law was struck down an abortion was possible if the mothers life was in danger The lawsuit that Roe v Wade overturn the bans was made on the now bogus theory that woman has a "right to privacy" However, it held that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Now if the right is not absolute than some restrictions can and will be placed.

 

Since then and even before the court has allowed the government to invade individuals right of privacy by saying they can babysit us and disallow what we are allowed to ingest into our bodies and thus saying we do not own our bodies anymore and that the government does. And all this even in the privacy in our own homes. We have even progressed into people thinking that we are not allowed to think what we want and can't even express our feelings openly anymore. So yes the landscape has changed and woman should not be allowed to have a separate status in society and they should have to have the same restrictions that we all have placed on us by society.  If we don't we are saying that woman are superior and should be more equal than others. Also why shouldn't men who created this baby not have any say so in the decision? He is impacted for the 18 years that being is on earth and forced to help support so to say that he doesn't have any say so is wrong.

 

Woman are pretty liberal and want laws made that impact individuals and most are removing the right of privacy of many things but they demand that their right to privacy not be touched. Definition of being an hypocrite.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

8 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Even though I'm pro choice, and quite pro choice, there's nothing that forces Roe v. Wade to stand up. It is not law, it's not in the constitution at all. Another case can come before SCOTUS and they can clear a path to nationwide bans on abortion if they rule it so.

 

The way abortion rights have been abused to make taxpayer fund them, and their disdainful inhumane treatment of what's clearly a living human being itself has been abusive, and I think the left need adequate push-back on this matter. Either you appreciate the rights you have, or you go down this moral cesspit the left have and wind up losing them.

Hello, friend. There are a number of misconceptions in your post, and I'd like to set the record straight a little. 

8 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

[T]here's nothing that forces Roe v. Wade to stand up. 

Yes, there is -- we have a wonderful, robust common law system that is based in part of the concept of stare decisis. To wit, the courts base their rulings on law as it has been previously interpreted by other courts. Courts are loath to overturn existing law, since cases based on similar facts should result in similar results. Law needs to be predictable and not arbitrary. What forces Roe to stand is the weight not only of the rulings that preceded it (Griswold v. Connecticut being its most obvious antecedent), but also the cases that have followed (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Gonzales v. Carhart, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, to name the biggies). Underpinning all of these rulings is (and I will expand on this below) is the concept that abortion is a legal right, with some restrictions, because it flows from the right to privacy that is provided to us all through the Bill of Rights. What forces Roe to stand up? It's a Supreme Court ruling which has not been overturned, so it is the law of this country. Which brings me to:

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It is not law

Yes, it is law. It is Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Constitution, as well as statutes and case law that preceded the ruling. The ruling has not been overturned. Supreme Court rulings literally are the law, because it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law in a case or controversy that is brought before it, and apply it thereto. There is no higher arbiter of the law, and the rulings are law, not just "having the effect of law."

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

it's not in the constitution at all. 

Hang tight, because I'm going to write quite a bit here. The Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to personal privacy, but such a right is implied from various aspects of the Bill of Rights. Griswold was relied on heavily by the majority in Roe in addressing the issue of privacy, so it's good to see what Griswold said. Essentially (and I admit to digging into my law school notes here), Griswold was about whether married couples had the right to use contraception. The Court held that a “right of privacy” protecting the intimate relations of married couples is implied in the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment protects the right to association. The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in a person’s house without their consent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. The Ninth Amendment provides that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The protected activities in each of these Amendments are “penumbras” that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but instead represent various “zones of privacy” into which the government cannot intrude. The marital relationship is located within a “zone of privacy” impliedly created by these various fundamental constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, a married couple had the right to procreate, or not, and the state could not step in and prevent access to contraception.

 

In Roe, the Court held that the “zone of privacy” implied in the Constitution is broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. It went even further than Griswold, however, and said that the right to an abortion was a due process issue under the Fourteenth Amendment (with some implication of the Ninth Amendment too, reserving rights to the people). However, this holding is qualified by noting that the right is not unlimited and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. Regulation limiting a “fundamental right” of privacy must be justified by a compelling state interest, and legislative enactments must be narrowly tailored to further that interest. Applying this test to the abortion issue, a woman’s privacy interest outweighs any countervailing state interests during the first part of her pregnancy when abortion is deemed relatively safe and when the fetus is very early in its development. However, at some point in the pregnancy, the potential dangers to the mother of a later abortion and the increased development of the fetus as a potential person outweigh the right of the mother to privacy. Thus, state interests grow in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a certain point during pregnancy, became compelling enough to override her general right to privacy. 

 

The concept of penumbras of the Amendments isn't some crazy idea I came up with -- in a post-Griswold universe, it's not uncommon. Penumbral rights flowing from the Amendments have been established by jurists on both ends of the political dial. 

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 Another case can come before SCOTUS and they can clear a path to nationwide bans on abortion if they rule it so.

Well, yes and no. (Cf. supra on the concept of stare decisis.) It is going to take an exceedingly persuasive case, an impeccably compelling legal argument, to strip rights that have been exercised by people for almost half a century. The Court's trajectory has been, generally speaking, to expand and enhance the rights of the people. While those rights can be subject to restriction, even restrictions that have increased over time (the line of cases after Roe demonstrate that, though none have undone the beating heart of privacy of Roe), the wholesale stripping of rights previously established is rare. One could point to, perhaps, the 18th Amendment, the Dred Scott case, or even the Civil War era Amendments, though it is important to note that of those three, only the Civil War era Amendments still stand. (I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why.) 

 

Here I will interject my own opinion, which I have not yet so far. Clearing a path to a "nationwide ban" (whatever that means) would not come by one case alone -- it would take a number of cases, and it would take decades to fully eradicate Roe. Even then, there is a very strong argument to be made that a nationwide ban is impossible, because of state constitutional protections on the right to privacy. While the states cannot curtail rights given by the Constitution to the people, they can expand rights (with a bunch of caveats that aren't particularly germane here). There's nothing stopping Connecticut or California or Oregon from keeping abortion legal within their boundaries, because their constitutions can provide for the right.

 

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The way abortion rights have been abused to make taxpayer fund them

Incorrect; please read up on the Hyde Amendment.

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

their disdainful inhumane treatment of what's clearly a living human being itself has been abusive

Incorrect; the legal definition of "human being" does not encompass a fetus. Cf. 1 U.S. Code § 8.

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 I think the left need adequate push-back on this matter.

Again, personal opinion, but I believe there has been considerable pushback on the morality and legality of abortion in this country, including, but not limited to, murder of health providers that work with women seeking terminations.

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Either you appreciate the rights you have, or you go down this moral cesspit the left have and wind up losing them.

I do appreciate my Constitutional right to privacy! It is one of the reasons why I no longer live in the UK.  

 

Peace out from maven, y'all, and Happy Thanksgiving. 🦃

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Hello, friend. There are a number of misconceptions in your post, and I'd like to set the record straight a little. 

Yes, there is -- we have a wonderful, robust common law system that is based in part of the concept of stare decisis. To wit, the courts base their rulings on law as it has been previously interpreted by other courts. Courts are loath to overturn existing law, since cases based on similar facts should result in similar results. Law needs to be predictable and not arbitrary. What forces Roe to stand is the weight not only of the rulings that preceded it (Griswold v. Connecticut being its most obvious antecedent), but also the cases that have followed (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Gonzales v. Carhart, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, to name the biggies). Underpinning all of these rulings is (and I will expand on this below) is the concept that abortion is a legal right, with some restrictions, because it flows from the right to privacy that is provided to us all through the Bill of Rights. What forces Roe to stand up? It's a Supreme Court ruling which has not been overturned, so it is the law of this country. Which brings me to:

Yes, it is law. It is Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Constitution, as well as statutes and case law that preceded the ruling. The ruling has not been overturned. Supreme Court rulings literally are the law, because it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law in a case or controversy that is brought before it, and apply it thereto. There is no higher arbiter of the law, and the rulings are law, not just "having the effect of law."

Hang tight, because I'm going to write quite a bit here. The Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to personal privacy, but such a right is implied from various aspects of the Bill of Rights. Griswold was relied on heavily by the majority in Roe in addressing the issue of privacy, so it's good to see what Griswold said. Essentially (and I admit to digging into my law school notes here), Griswold was about whether married couples had the right to use contraception. The Court held that a “right of privacy” protecting the intimate relations of married couples is implied in the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment protects the right to association. The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in a person’s house without their consent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. The Ninth Amendment provides that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The protected activities in each of these Amendments are “penumbras” that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but instead represent various “zones of privacy” into which the government cannot intrude. The marital relationship is located within a “zone of privacy” impliedly created by these various fundamental constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, a married couple had the right to procreate, or not, and the state could not step in and prevent access to contraception.

 

In Roe, the Court held that the “zone of privacy” implied in the Constitution is broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. It went even further than Griswold, however, and said that the right to an abortion was a due process issue under the Fourteenth Amendment (with some implication of the Ninth Amendment too, reserving rights to the people). However, this holding is qualified by noting that the right is not unlimited and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. Regulation limiting a “fundamental right” of privacy must be justified by a compelling state interest, and legislative enactments must be narrowly tailored to further that interest. Applying this test to the abortion issue, a woman’s privacy interest outweighs any countervailing state interests during the first part of her pregnancy when abortion is deemed relatively safe and when the fetus is very early in its development. However, at some point in the pregnancy, the potential dangers to the mother of a later abortion and the increased development of the fetus as a potential person outweigh the right of the mother to privacy. Thus, state interests grow in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a certain point during pregnancy, became compelling enough to override her general right to privacy. 

 

The concept of penumbras of the Amendments isn't some crazy idea I came up with -- in a post-Griswold universe, it's not uncommon. Penumbral rights flowing from the Amendments have been established by jurists on both ends of the political dial. 

Well, yes and no. (Cf. supra on the concept of stare decisis.) It is going to take an exceedingly persuasive case, an impeccably compelling legal argument, to strip rights that have been exercised by people for almost half a century. The Court's trajectory has been, generally speaking, to expand and enhance the rights of the people. While those rights can be subject to restriction, even restrictions that have increased over time (the line of cases after Roe demonstrate that, though none have undone the beating heart of privacy of Roe), the wholesale stripping of rights previously established is rare. One could point to, perhaps, the 18th Amendment, the Dred Scott case, or even the Civil War era Amendments, though it is important to note that of those three, only the Civil War era Amendments still stand. (I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why.) 

 

Here I will interject my own opinion, which I have not yet so far. Clearing a path to a "nationwide ban" (whatever that means) would not come by one case alone -- it would take a number of cases, and it would take decades to fully eradicate Roe. Even then, there is a very strong argument to be made that a nationwide ban is impossible, because of state constitutional protections on the right to privacy. While the states cannot curtail rights given by the Constitution to the people, they can expand rights (with a bunch of caveats that aren't particularly germane here). There's nothing stopping Connecticut or California or Oregon from keeping abortion legal within their boundaries, because their constitutions can provide for the right.

 

Incorrect; please read up on the Hyde Amendment.

Incorrect; the legal definition of "human being" does not encompass a fetus. Cf. 1 U.S. Code § 8.

Again, personal opinion, but I believe there has been considerable pushback on the morality and legality of abortion in this country, including, but not limited to, murder of health providers that work with women seeking terminations.

I do appreciate my Constitutional right to privacy! It is one of the reasons why I no longer live in the UK.  

 

Peace out from maven, y'all, and Happy Thanksgiving. 🦃

Allow me to bury some misconceptions:

 

Stare decisis, while generally a good idea to employ, is most certainly not a requirement for a Supreme Court justice to use. As the case with both Griswold and Roe, they, themselves, were not employing stare decisis. Similarly, there's at least 100 SCOTUS rulings where SCOTUS overruled itself, clearly not employing stare decisis, demonstrating that the idea that stare decisis must be used is simply a litmus test and for specific cases they agree with. For cases they don't agree with, stare decisis can be discarded. Thus, the idea that one must use this principle is pure unadulterated fantasy.

 

If another case comes before the courts on abortion, the court can easily point out that its decision was made erroneously, that the right of the fetus and its autonomy was incorrectly discarded, and reinstate its rights. There's no compelling reason why they can't, and to demonstrate the false belief you employ, they should. At this point, a human baby can survive outside the womb at 21/22 weeks.

 

As a pro-choice person myself, it is my interest that a woman's right to her body autonomy be protected, but the biologically wrong idea that a human being inside a uterus is a "clump of cells" to be callously discarded when not convenient is the argument of a sociopath killer. 

 

There actually is a middleground that takes choice and life into account, but neither side want to listen. Unfortunately, both sides like to push their idealism too far to one side, and my interest lies in affirming that the side that pushes too far be taken down a few notches. Right now that's the "pro-abortion" people, trying to make taxpayers fund abortions, justify dehumanization and yes, murder of babies. Every single abortion where a human is deliberately killed is murder, and when allowed to die without treatment, a form of negligence. So, while I suggest the "choice" of a woman to end her pregnancy at any point she chooses, the opposite end of the coin for allowing choice is ensuring that all babies are attempted delivery and kept alive, regardless of gestational age, and it must be demonstrated that these efforts occurred. Damages caused to the baby should be considered a crime and/or tort, with the responsible party to the damages being liable. Women should be educated on the effects of abortion, the life they're ending, and the responsibilities they still have of the child's life even if they want to end their pregnancy, if the baby survives. A baby that survives and who's health is put at risk means mother loses her rights, and if separated, the father gets all rights, or whichever is next in line for custody rights according to relevant law, and woman is still financially responsible.

 

With rights comes responsibility.

[Dashinka 24,499]

12 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Ahhhhh, I'm just grumpy I'm at work on the day before T-Day at 5pm, writing case summaries. And it pinged me in a way that touched MY particular no-no spot on my aging soft underbelly. I'm in therapy at the moment dealing with all sorts of BS from my past that involved men who thought they knew the best for me. 

 

I did report myself! I should get special points for that one. It's kind of a surreal experience.  

 

And as to your first point -- a lady doesn't say.  

Ok, just curious, I certainly understand the stare decisis part, but wasn’t the Roe decision based somewhat on the known medical science at the time?  

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Ok, just curious, I certainly understand the stare decisis part, but wasn’t the Roe decision based somewhat on the known medical science at the time?  

Hey, running home now (SWEET LIBERTY!), but I promise to respond. In a nutshell, yes and no. I never said my nutshell was useful!

 

Oh, and I'll be responding after I've put some liquor in me, so hopefully I'll be mo' mellow. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Not sure the TOS makes a distinction when making a personal attack.

 

   IIRC, we have been told that accusing someone of a personal attack in open forum is a no go. That's why the report button is there. The moderation team is here to determine if and when a post violates the TOS.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   IIRC, we have been told that accusing someone of a personal attack in open forum is a no go. That's why the report button is there. The moderation team is here to determine if and when a post violates the TOS.  

Funny you mention that. I got told that just this am. I had to whip out the platinum card to aviod a little down time 

[TBoneTX 45,291]

Many posts quoting or referring to removed material are now themselves removed.

[TBoneTX 45,291]

On 11/26/2019 at 1:25 PM, Rosalind F said:

the male participant of the conception does not have to experience the health-related consequences of pregnancy

This is not to make light of the above quote (acute aortic dissection is one risk not mentioned), but...

 

Arguably, the biggest health risk is to the husband, whose life and limb are endangered -- and whose very existence is imperiled and potentially even forfeit -- during the infamous First Trimester -- two words that strike fear in every male heart.

Edited November 28, 2019 by TBoneTX

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/28/cdc-record-low-u-s-abortions-roe-wade/

CDC: Record Low U.S. Abortions Since Roe v. Wade

 

The Data:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/ss/ss6811a1.htm#T23_down

 

Worrisome still is the 5000+ 21+ week abortions. I wonder if there's data about how many of those 5,000 abortions resulted in death of the baby, especially once they reached a few weeks later where viability climbs rapidly and there's more justification to consider negligence/murder.

 

But it's promising that there's less abortions. Hopefully it means more people are valuing life, and are making more educated/responsible choices.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds