Great post Davie. It's often that we (and I admit I do at time too) get caught up in the rhetoric rather than simple truth. This graphic really spoils a lot of the panicked arguments that I've seen from those on Facebook and in the news the last few days.
Roe v Wade has been overturned
44,122 Views |
585 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by PackFansXL
erniencsu02 said:yea now this argument was pretty damn predictable. Who didnt see this coming? Already. I'm not surprised.GuerrillaPack said:Why should anyone be forced to pay for anyone else's stuff -- whether education, children, food, housing..anything??erniencsu02 said:
I hope anti-abortion ppl are ready to pay for all these extra kids that are going to be flooding children's homes and all the new moms that are going to going on welfare. Also I dont want to hear any complaining when the black and Hispanic populations start to explode....
white people only make up 39 percent of abortions.
black and hispanic people make up over half of the abortions in our country. Careful what you wish for....
That's a socialist/communist concept.
We should abolish all of this socialist BS, and go back to personal responsibility where everyone has to pay for their OWN stuff.
Abortion laws arent going to keep irresponsible people from being irresponsible. And we have a stupid society set up to protect those people. And you want laws that play right into that?
Prisons will be insanely crowded in 20 years. Crime through the roof compared to now. Irresponsible people being forced to have kids is going to suck our society dry.
yay for bible thumpers.
I don't believe that it has anything to do with bible thumpers. I think that being able to kill a baby due to your lack of personal responsibility has literally no fault to that baby. There are hundreds of thousands of couples who cannot have children but would love the opportunity.
99% of men who support abortion only support it because they do not want consequences from sex. IE, no self control.
Just like AOC screaming about her student loan debt and how she can't pay it back. Not a damn person made you go to college. You made that decision. Own it, grow up, and move on
well there are nearly half a million kids in foster care right now.....the opportunity is there for them to adopt.Jtbridges317 said:erniencsu02 said:yea now this argument was pretty damn predictable. Who didnt see this coming? Already. I'm not surprised.GuerrillaPack said:Why should anyone be forced to pay for anyone else's stuff -- whether education, children, food, housing..anything??erniencsu02 said:
I hope anti-abortion ppl are ready to pay for all these extra kids that are going to be flooding children's homes and all the new moms that are going to going on welfare. Also I dont want to hear any complaining when the black and Hispanic populations start to explode....
white people only make up 39 percent of abortions.
black and hispanic people make up over half of the abortions in our country. Careful what you wish for....
That's a socialist/communist concept.
We should abolish all of this socialist BS, and go back to personal responsibility where everyone has to pay for their OWN stuff.
Abortion laws arent going to keep irresponsible people from being irresponsible. And we have a stupid society set up to protect those people. And you want laws that play right into that?
Prisons will be insanely crowded in 20 years. Crime through the roof compared to now. Irresponsible people being forced to have kids is going to suck our society dry.
yay for bible thumpers.
I don't believe that it has anything to do with bible thumpers. I think that being able to kill a baby due to your lack of personal responsibility has literally no fault to that baby. There are hundreds of thousands of couples who cannot have children but would love the opportunity.
99% of men who support abortion only support it because they do not want consequences from sex. IE, no self control.
Just like AOC screaming about her student loan debt and how she can't pay it back. Not a damn person made you go to college. You made that decision. Own it, grow up, and move on
Thanks. I should point out the graphic was put together before the "trigger" laws went into effect in some states. I believe abortion is now illegal in Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, etc. However, in NC, there are no such trigger laws and it still remains legal, in the majority of US states.hokiewolf said:
Great post Davie. It's often that we (and I admit I do at time too) get caught up in the rhetoric rather than simple truth. This graphic really spoils a lot of the panicked arguments that I've seen from those on Facebook and in the news the last few days.
In Virginia, the governor has proposed allowing abortion in the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, abortions for rape or incest, or when a woman's LIFE is in danger. Currently, abortion is allowed in Virginia during the first two trimesters, so this would roll back the period where abortion is legal by several weeks. Based on recent polling on this matter, his proposal appears to be in alignment with most people poled on this issue. There are some abortion supporters who do not agree with any restrictions, but I do believe these people are in the minority and not representative of the vast majority of people in the US.
For NC, I do expect a Republican lead legislature to take up the issue in January, assuming they obtain enough of a majority in the November election to override a veto by Governor Cooper. I am not sure if they will propose a total ban like other Southern states, but it is possible they could follow Virginia's lead and roll back the timeframe from the current 20 weeks to 12-15 weeks. Again, this all depends on Republicans increasing their majority and if they fail to do so, I do not expect the issue to come up in the next legislative session.
I believe a lot of the hyperbole is for fund raising and to distract from the real issues facing this country. The Democrats are hopeful this will be a key issue in the November election, but recent polling suggests only about 15% of those polled believe this is an issue worth considering. Personally, I do not believe it will be the issue Democrats hope it will and as such, the economy, inflation, rising violent crime rates, Democratic policies on Covid as it impacted children, and immigration will be much more compelling issues.
I can tell you here in Utah, the trigger laws still allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother. So, it's not an outright ban. Not sure how many other states are similar.
Thanks for the clarification. I assume some other states offer the same exceptions, but have not researched every single state.Steve Videtich said:
I can tell you here in Utah, the trigger laws still allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother. So, it's not an outright ban. Not sure how many other states are similar.
Since you live in Utah, you can help me understand the current mood with regard to abortion laws. Do you expect there to be any movement in the near term to provide for a period of time where abortions will be allowed or do you think the current law will remain for a longer period of time?
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
jkpackfan said:
Gonna be interesting to see how this affects the mid terms, I'd imagine this galvanizes the dem base so we'll see if it outnumbers those voting with their pocket books in mind.
This time yesterday I thought the mid terms would be brutal for the libs but now I'm not so sure.
With gas at 5 bucks a gallon no one is going to really care about this in a few month, especially considering that people in swing districts really aren't impacted as much as politicians say they are.
For instance here in NC nothing is going to change in regards to abortion, same as Virginia. In places like Florida DeSantis is going to restrict abortion to 15 weeks, but as it turns out 95% or abortions happen before that point in the pregnancy so most folks aren't going to be impacted anyway.
The other thing to remember is the the very left leaning states like California, Illinois, and New York are going to go to extremes as well. Those states are going to allow full term abortions where you can get an abortion right up to the point of birth. I think that is going to change the mind of people on the fence about Roe to believe that there should be some restrictions.
Lastly, 99% of the people who are losing their mind wouldn't of voted for the republican candidates anyway so those don't make a difference
I think we've lost sight of the Supreme Court ruling and are going back and forth on our views on abortion as opposed to what has actually happened.
When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago the Supreme Court made up a right to abortion out of thin air. It was not federal law nor was it in the constitution as a right given by God to the citizens of the United States.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution states the following "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
To me this says that if the federal government has not passed a law, or it is not a constitutional right, then the matter is up to the individual States to decide. As I see it the Supreme Court over reached in its decision originally and the ruling yesterday corrected that over reach. It was put back to the states as it should of been because there are no federal laws for abortion. If the federal government decides that it want to codify abortion it has that right, but that hasn't happened yet.
One of the protesters said something yesterday in an interview that I have thought about alot over the last 24 hours. The reporter asked her about abortion not actually being a right from the constitution and she said "I don't care about the constitution". I think that statement is at the crux of the issue, not abortion itself.
When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago the Supreme Court made up a right to abortion out of thin air. It was not federal law nor was it in the constitution as a right given by God to the citizens of the United States.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution states the following "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
To me this says that if the federal government has not passed a law, or it is not a constitutional right, then the matter is up to the individual States to decide. As I see it the Supreme Court over reached in its decision originally and the ruling yesterday corrected that over reach. It was put back to the states as it should of been because there are no federal laws for abortion. If the federal government decides that it want to codify abortion it has that right, but that hasn't happened yet.
One of the protesters said something yesterday in an interview that I have thought about alot over the last 24 hours. The reporter asked her about abortion not actually being a right from the constitution and she said "I don't care about the constitution". I think that statement is at the crux of the issue, not abortion itself.
Davie, while you're correct that they'll pursue restrictions rather than an outright ban, I've got a feeling that if they attempt anything less than a total ban sans rape/incest exceptions, a key component of their coalition is not going to stand for it. Roe gave them political cover that they no longer have.
Great post. I was going to post something similar but you beat me to it.
This post and your post before this one are both very good and I have very similar views on the matter. Rights are defined in the Bill of Rights and if we want to add rights, we can. It is not through judicial opinion, but through the amendment process. This is how the Constitution was meant to change with the times, not through judicial opinion and the creation of rights that do not appear.cowboypack02 said:
I think we've lost sight of the Supreme Court ruling and are going back and forth on our views on abortion as opposed to what has actually happened.
When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago the Supreme Court made up a right to abortion out of thin air. It was not federal law nor was it in the constitution as a right given by God to the citizens of the United States.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution states the following "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
To me this says that if the federal government has not passed a law, or it is not a constitutional right, then the matter is up to the individual States to decide. As I see it the Supreme Court over reached in its decision originally and the ruling yesterday corrected that over reach. It was put back to the states as it should of been because there are no federal laws for abortion. If the federal government decides that it want to codify abortion it has that right, but that hasn't happened yet.
One of the protesters said something yesterday in an interview that I have thought about alot over the last 24 hours. The reporter asked her about abortion not actually being a right from the constitution and she said "I don't care about the constitution". I think that statement is at the crux of the issue, not abortion itself.
Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
Hey I hope you're right.cowboypack02 said:jkpackfan said:
Gonna be interesting to see how this affects the mid terms, I'd imagine this galvanizes the dem base so we'll see if it outnumbers those voting with their pocket books in mind.
This time yesterday I thought the mid terms would be brutal for the libs but now I'm not so sure.
With gas at 5 bucks a gallon no one is going to really care about this in a few month, especially considering that people in swing districts really aren't impacted as much as politicians say they are.
For instance here in NC nothing is going to change in regards to abortion, same as Virginia. In places like Florida DeSantis is going to restrict abortion to 15 weeks, but as it turns out 95% or abortions happen before that point in the pregnancy so most folks aren't going to be impacted anyway.
The other thing to remember is the the very left leaning states like California, Illinois, and New York are going to go to extremes as well. Those states are going to allow full term abortions where you can get an abortion right up to the point of birth. I think that is going to change the mind of people on the fence about Roe to believe that there should be some restrictions.
Lastly, 99% of the people who are losing their mind wouldn't of voted for the republican candidates anyway so those don't make a difference
Excellent post.cowboypack02 said:
I think we've lost sight of the Supreme Court ruling and are going back and forth on our views on abortion as opposed to what has actually happened.
When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago the Supreme Court made up a right to abortion out of thin air. It was not federal law nor was it in the constitution as a right given by God to the citizens of the United States.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution states the following "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
To me this says that if the federal government has not passed a law, or it is not a constitutional right, then the matter is up to the individual States to decide. As I see it the Supreme Court over reached in its decision originally and the ruling yesterday corrected that over reach. It was put back to the states as it should of been because there are no federal laws for abortion. If the federal government decides that it want to codify abortion it has that right, but that hasn't happened yet.
One of the protesters said something yesterday in an interview that I have thought about alot over the last 24 hours. The reporter asked her about abortion not actually being a right from the constitution and she said "I don't care about the constitution". I think that statement is at the crux of the issue, not abortion itself.
If the federal government passes a law(s) allowing national abortions, would it withstand constitutional scrutiny?
Wouldn't it require a constitutional basis allowing the federal government's usurpation?
Wouldn't it require a constitutional basis allowing the federal government's usurpation?
Daviewolf83 said:Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-over-utahs-abortion-trigger-law
Looks like there's a fight! Interesting, because isn't Planned Parenthood funded by the government? This quote right here:
"In each of these cases, and countless others, Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortionaccess that has existed for at least five decadeswill lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny."
This entire comment goes back to personal responsibility. We are not free from the consequences of our stupid decisions we make in life. There is no abortion when someone stupidly decides to drive drunk. There is no abortion when we flunk out of college for partying to much. These are all stupid decisions we make and differ our consequences.
If we keep giving people the easy way out, they'll keep making bad decisions.
I'll argue, if the the US Congress passes a law on abortion, it should be challenged based on the powers agreed to be on loan from the states. It's not there and should be struck down by the US Supreme Court.Daviewolf83 said:This post and your post before this one are both very good and I have very similar views on the matter. Rights are defined in the Bill of Rights and if we want to add rights, we can. It is not through judicial opinion, but through the amendment process. This is how the Constitution was meant to change with the times, not through judicial opinion and the creation of rights that do not appear.cowboypack02 said:
I think we've lost sight of the Supreme Court ruling and are going back and forth on our views on abortion as opposed to what has actually happened.
When Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago the Supreme Court made up a right to abortion out of thin air. It was not federal law nor was it in the constitution as a right given by God to the citizens of the United States.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution states the following "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
To me this says that if the federal government has not passed a law, or it is not a constitutional right, then the matter is up to the individual States to decide. As I see it the Supreme Court over reached in its decision originally and the ruling yesterday corrected that over reach. It was put back to the states as it should of been because there are no federal laws for abortion. If the federal government decides that it want to codify abortion it has that right, but that hasn't happened yet.
One of the protesters said something yesterday in an interview that I have thought about alot over the last 24 hours. The reporter asked her about abortion not actually being a right from the constitution and she said "I don't care about the constitution". I think that statement is at the crux of the issue, not abortion itself.
Now, that would be true constitutional governance!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
What if you get a national law where let's say 1st trimester, no restrictions, and then after that restrictions kick in. If that were to be a negotiated bipartisan solution, would that be acceptable as a national law?
Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures.Steve Videtich said:Daviewolf83 said:Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-over-utahs-abortion-trigger-law
Looks like there's a fight! Interesting, because isn't Planned Parenthood funded by the government? This quote right here:
"In each of these cases, and countless others, Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortionaccess that has existed for at least five decadeswill lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny."
This entire comment goes back to personal responsibility. We are not free from the consequences of our stupid decisions we make in life. There is no abortion when someone stupidly decides to drive drunk. There is no abortion when we flunk out of college for partying to much. These are all stupid decisions we make and differ our consequences.
If we keep giving people the easy way out, they'll keep making bad decisions.
My political views tend to be more Libertarian than Conservative. As such, I do understand the argument for body autonomy when it comes to medical decisions. This is why I have opposed vaccine mandates by governments and it is a source for my inner conflict on abortion. In a perfect world, I would fully support a woman's right to an abortion and it is why I tend to settle on abortion being allowed up to 15-20 weeks.
Pregnancy is unlike anything else in medicine, due to the symbiotic relationship between a woman and an unborn child. When I was an undergrad at State, I took a class titled "Science and Religion." It was a combination of religion and philosophy and it concerned a topic I have always been interested in. Having majored in engineering and having been interested in science from an early age (got my first chemistry set when I was 10 and an electronics kit when I was 11) and also having a firm belief in God, it was a class that appealed to me.
During one of the lessons, we were discussing abortion and one of the things the professor said (Dr. Stalnaker) was this - at the point of conception, the combination of cells is unlike any other set of cells in the body. In his words, nothing else compares. Many people who are pro-abortion like to call a fetus just a clump of cells or equate a fetus to cancer cells, but they do this to diminish the impact on life. From the time of conception, the unborn child (the clump of cells) is fully dependent on the mother for its survival. If everything goes right, in the end, a human being enters the world after 9 months. No other medical process I am aware of can create life.
I do recognize that up until a certain point, the unborn child can not survive outside of the mother. Where I come down scientifically is to look at the point where survival is medically possible and if the child is born before 9 months, can it survive and be relatively healthy. Current medical science says this is possible at approximately 22 weeks.
So, my Libertarian view of abortion is this - a mother has body autonomy over her personal medical decisions up to 22 weeks. After this point in time, her medical decisions with respect to body autonomy affect more than her own personal health, it affects another human being that could survive without her help. So, I settle on the government allowing abortion (body autonomy) up to 15-20 weeks and after this time, I take into consideration both the life of the mother and the child. If the life of the mother is threatened after the 15-20 week period and her only chance of survival is to abort her pregnancy, I can support this view - as long as effort is made to also save the life of the child. Otherwise, you are killing a child that science tells us could survive outside of the womb. As to rape and incest, I also support ending a pregnancy, but I do struggle with this decision as well. I think in most cases the pregnancy in this case could be ended prior to 15 weeks, but after 22 weeks, I have a big problem in accepting abortion of an infant that could survive outside of the womb.
I am sorry for the long-winded response, but I had to provide some background on how I arrive at my view on abortion. Morally, I consider it to be wrong, but I can, at the same time, empathize with women who must carry a child for 9 months and have to make decisions regarding their own welfare, in addition to the health of the infant.
Davie:
My beliefs were/are very similar to yours, but my rationale was nowhere as formed as yours. For this, I thank you.
Additionally, your statement;
"Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures."
mirrors mine in that the Commerce clause would be the best, perhaps only, approach to supersede SCOTUS' determination that abortion is a States Rights issue.
Hopefully this court will take a Commerce Clause issue, and begin to draw back the governmental expansion previously allowed by earlier SCOTUS decisions.
My beliefs were/are very similar to yours, but my rationale was nowhere as formed as yours. For this, I thank you.
Additionally, your statement;
"Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures."
mirrors mine in that the Commerce clause would be the best, perhaps only, approach to supersede SCOTUS' determination that abortion is a States Rights issue.
Hopefully this court will take a Commerce Clause issue, and begin to draw back the governmental expansion previously allowed by earlier SCOTUS decisions.
Agree 100%! As I've said, I'm anti abortion, but pro choice for a woman. But, I don't agree with the government, us citizens as a result, having to fund the mostly poor decisions of others.
It takes two to tango. Start holding the fathers in these cases responsible, stop putting it all on the mothers. Would that change things?
It takes two to tango. Start holding the fathers in these cases responsible, stop putting it all on the mothers. Would that change things?
I've always said this, it shouldn't all be on the woman. These dead beats need to be held accountable somehow.Steve Videtich said:
Agree 100%! As I've said, I'm anti abortion, but pro choice for a woman. But, I don't agree with the government, us citizens as a result, having to fund the mostly poor decisions of others.
It takes two to tango. Start holding the fathers in these cases responsible, stop putting it all on the mothers. Would that change things?
jkpackfan said:I've always said this, it shouldn't all be on the woman. These dead beats need to be held accountable somehow.Steve Videtich said:
Agree 100%! As I've said, I'm anti abortion, but pro choice for a woman. But, I don't agree with the government, us citizens as a result, having to fund the mostly poor decisions of others.
It takes two to tango. Start holding the fathers in these cases responsible, stop putting it all on the mothers. Would that change things?
What is the basis for the discrimination claims?
I would say our views are almost identical. Thank you for expressing them better than I can.
Hokie, from a pure constitutional standpoint, the US Congress can pass a law regarding abortion; however, it's not a protected right. So, that would fall back to the powers giver (or loaned) from that States to the Federal Government. There isn't one; so, States could nullify the Law, if they were inclined or challenge the law.hokiewolf said:
What if you get a national law where let's say 1st trimester, no restrictions, and then after that restrictions kick in. If that were to be a negotiated bipartisan solution, would that be acceptable as a national law?
The Supremacy Clause, in the Constitution, only applies with powers granted to the Federal Government. Again, no power; therefore, no supremacy!
In summary, it's hard for me to accept a law, even if it was acceptable by the majority, if it isn't constitutionally based.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
Again, a misuse of the Constitution…Daviewolf83 said:Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures.Steve Videtich said:Daviewolf83 said:Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-over-utahs-abortion-trigger-law
Looks like there's a fight! Interesting, because isn't Planned Parenthood funded by the government? This quote right here:
"In each of these cases, and countless others, Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortionaccess that has existed for at least five decadeswill lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny."
This entire comment goes back to personal responsibility. We are not free from the consequences of our stupid decisions we make in life. There is no abortion when someone stupidly decides to drive drunk. There is no abortion when we flunk out of college for partying to much. These are all stupid decisions we make and differ our consequences.
If we keep giving people the easy way out, they'll keep making bad decisions.
The Commerce Clause was an agreement between States that prohibited States from taxing and other restrictions one State might put on another. It was never meant that the Federal Government could regulate commerce across States.
The word regulate, in the Constitution, had a meaning, when written as "to make regular". So, the Federal Government could step in and say: You can't do that! Other than that, everything else has been unconstitutional!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
See my post above…bigeric said:
Davie:
My beliefs were/are very similar to yours, but my rationale was nowhere as formed as yours. For this, I thank you.
Additionally, your statement;
"Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures."
mirrors mine in that the Commerce clause would be the best, perhaps only, approach to supersede SCOTUS' determination that abortion is a States Rights issue.
Hopefully this court will take a Commerce Clause issue, and begin to draw back the governmental expansion previously allowed by earlier SCOTUS decisions.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
I have long considered the use of the Commerce clause to impose federal rules on the states to be dubious, but I have left this up to more learned legal minds to figure it out.caryking said:Again, a misuse of the Constitution…Daviewolf83 said:Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures.Steve Videtich said:Daviewolf83 said:Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-over-utahs-abortion-trigger-law
Looks like there's a fight! Interesting, because isn't Planned Parenthood funded by the government? This quote right here:
"In each of these cases, and countless others, Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortionaccess that has existed for at least five decadeswill lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny."
This entire comment goes back to personal responsibility. We are not free from the consequences of our stupid decisions we make in life. There is no abortion when someone stupidly decides to drive drunk. There is no abortion when we flunk out of college for partying to much. These are all stupid decisions we make and differ our consequences.
If we keep giving people the easy way out, they'll keep making bad decisions.
The Commerce Clause was an agreement between States that prohibited States from taxing and other restrictions one State might put on another. It was never meant that the Federal Government could regulate commerce across States.
The word regulate, in the Constitution, had a meaning, when written as "to make regular". So, the Federal Government could step in and say: You can't do that! Other than that, everything else has been unconstitutional!
I also need to spend some time fully reading Dobbs. I want to read the majority and the dissenting opinions, so I can better understand the basis for the reversal. I have also not read RBG's comments on Roe, but plan to do this when I have some time. I understand she also questioned the legal standing of Roe, but I am not sure her reasoning for this opinion. Personally, I have always thought it was a bad ruling and it basically amounted to the judges trying to do something that Congress refused (or couldn't) to settle. They basically stepped in to fill the void of Congress and this is not the role of the Judiciary branch.
Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.
My feelings essentially mirror yours.
Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.
My feelings essentially mirror yours.
Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.
This country had a major shift in philosophy shortly after the turn of the 20th century. I believe Federal tyranny took its roots at that time. That said, too many people don't understand original intent.Daviewolf83 said:I have long considered the use of the Commerce clause to impose federal rules on the states to be dubious, but I have left this up to more learned legal minds to figure it out.caryking said:Again, a misuse of the Constitution…Daviewolf83 said:Based on the wording of the quote, it appears they may approach the legal action from a discrimination claim. If so, they may have a problem, since anti-discrimination rulings by the courts have had as a basis, the Interstate Commerce Act. This is how the federal government has been able to prevail over state's rights when it comes to federal enforced measures.Steve Videtich said:Daviewolf83 said:Thank you for taking the time to provide this insight for your state.Steve Videtich said:
If I had to guess, I think they stay similar for a while. Utah is very conservative traditionally. But, recent elections have been a lot closer than tradition.
Utah is known for being a young state because the local religion has tons of kids. So, abortion is not really a thought. I believe it actually has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country.
It'll be interesting to see how much it's brought up in the campaigning for midterms here.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-aclu-sue-over-utahs-abortion-trigger-law
Looks like there's a fight! Interesting, because isn't Planned Parenthood funded by the government? This quote right here:
"In each of these cases, and countless others, Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortionaccess that has existed for at least five decadeswill lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny."
This entire comment goes back to personal responsibility. We are not free from the consequences of our stupid decisions we make in life. There is no abortion when someone stupidly decides to drive drunk. There is no abortion when we flunk out of college for partying to much. These are all stupid decisions we make and differ our consequences.
If we keep giving people the easy way out, they'll keep making bad decisions.
The Commerce Clause was an agreement between States that prohibited States from taxing and other restrictions one State might put on another. It was never meant that the Federal Government could regulate commerce across States.
The word regulate, in the Constitution, had a meaning, when written as "to make regular". So, the Federal Government could step in and say: You can't do that! Other than that, everything else has been unconstitutional!
I also need to spend some time fully reading Dobbs. I want to read the majority and the dissenting opinions, so I can better understand the basis for the reversal. I have also not read RBG's comments on Roe, but plan to do this when I have some time. I understand she also questioned the legal standing of Roe, but I am not sure her reasoning for this opinion. Personally, I have always thought it was a bad ruling and it basically amounted to the judges trying to do something that Congress refused (or couldn't) to settle. They basically stepped in to fill the void of Congress and this is not the role of the Judiciary branch.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…Civilized said:
Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.
My feelings essentially mirror yours.
Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
What is an acceptable amount of pain for a fetus?
I see "Uncle Clarence" being allowed to trend now on twitter...classy
I see "Uncle Clarence" being allowed to trend now on twitter...classy
caryking said:Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…Civilized said:
Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.
My feelings essentially mirror yours.
Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.
It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).
There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.
Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?Civilized said:caryking said:Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…Civilized said:
Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.
My feelings essentially mirror yours.
Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.
It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).
There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
Featured Stories
See All
Payton Wilson Headed To Pittsburgh
by James Henderson
3:47
4h ago
131
DUGOUT REPORT: Wolfpack Wins Series Opener Versus Ball State
by Daniel Wilson
Makarewicz's Grand Slam Powers Pack Past Cardinals
by Daniel Wilson
COMMIT ALERT: Caitlin Weimar picks NC State
by Ethan Barry
14:50
13h ago
630
TOP PLAYS: Payton Wilson
by Bryant Carson