So let's see who at the Court refuses to take a polygraph exam

TreeFrogTrader said:
Not sure yet how that squares with the first statement in your full quote"

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion."

There are no qualifiers there. If a state is allowed to prohibit abortion then it is allowed to prohibit abortion. What can Congress regulate then other than equql access constitutional issues, and the like? To preserve the life of the mother is a given because that flows from other constitutional rights that the mother has. Not from an abortion right - even if there were one.

I mean, I am talking about what the feds can do in regard to establishing or diminishing the right to abortion, not what they can do with programs and funding and all of that. They will do lots of that. They will start right in with trying eliminate the Hyde Amendment and providing funding for women to travel to other states and all those financial/program types of things. No denying that.

The question is -even if there is some concurrent jurisdiction on the issue- which one level - fed or state- has primary jurisdiction. If it is the state, then that is a big shift that the feds will need to deal with because they can only do things around the edges.
More...


Thet issue is whether a majorly controlled Congress by the Dems can do something to address abortion is really cloudy. I dont know if they can take, for example, Roe's criteria and use it to legislate legal and improper abortions but then where does that control? Maybe in federal hospitals and institutions they can have their own policy on abortions no matter what a State declares? possibly but most abortion clinics are private or state run hospitals, no real federal places except maybe on military bases?

Coongress and the Courts attacked racism in lodgings and segregation by using interstate commerce and federal laws to prohibit across the board type of Jim Crow... abortion is extremely different.

I am trying to imagine what the congress approach could be to this. They could make abortion a crime to prohibit it nationwide but that would fail miserably. They could mandate the right to an abortion in the first trimester but if a State who has more restrictive laws challenges it in the SC, it seems the Dobbs decision would lean towards the State.....

The only path for either side in this is State by State right now. I cannot think of a Congress solution yet but I am sure both parties are gonna work on it depending who wins seats in 2022.
 
El OchoCinco said:
The court dodged a bullet here not addressing the issue of 100% ban. They did accept implicitly the idea a state can balance the mother's rights and the state's right to protect the unborn and thus a 15 week period like in MISS would be reasonable. The made an issue to say any State's laws on health and welfare had to pursue a genuine state interest and pass a reasonableness test. They did not recognize a right in the Constitution to an abortion but did not say that a state banning all abortions 100% would be free from challenge simply by citing Dobbs. They overturned Roe, not made abortions absolutely legal or illegal.

If a State had abortions legal up until the 15th week and then suddenly passed a law banning all abortions no matter what, even in the case of saving the mother's life or incest or rape, I could see a challenge to that law as being inconsistent with legislative input on health and welfare and a 100% ban would be deemed excessive in furthering the State's interest. Especially when the law is passed by a simple majority and a segment of the population of that state favor abortions within a time period or the law is passed by an extreme political position.
More...

Indeed. It creates a new jungle of cases but changes the starting point quite a bit. It starts now with greater authority/right at the state level discretion rather than a constitutional right embedded within the constitution which no one ever found anyway.

One of the predictable conflicts will be between states where the prohibition against abortion is embedded and enshrined in their state constitutions. The feds will argue "you can't act willy nilly and have to demonstrate reasonableness at every step of the way as you exercise your right." The states are going to say. "If it is in our constitution it demonstrates the will of the people.

And round and round we go. Neverthess, there is a victory here for the states.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Indeed. It creates a new jungle of cases but changes the starting point quite a bit. It starts now with greater authority/right at the state level discretion rather than a constitutional right embedded within the constitution which no one ever found anyway.

One of the predictable conflicts will be between states where the prohibition against abortion is embedded and enshrined in their state constitutions. The feds will argue "you can't act willy nilly and have to demonstrate reasonableness at every step of the way as you exercise your right." The states are going to say. "If it is in our constitution it demonstrates the will of the people.

And round and round we go. Neverthess, there is a victory here for the states.
More...


I have not done the research but are there abortion bans right now in state constitutions? I dont think so since it is hard ot amend a constitution. I think it will still be via hte legislature.
 
El OchoCinco said:
Thet issue is whether a majorly controlled Congress by the Dems can do something to address abortion is really cloudy. I dont know if they can take, for example, Roe's criteria and use it to legislate legal and improper abortions but then where does that control? Maybe in federal hospitals and institutions they can have their own policy on abortions no matter what a State declares? possibly but most abortion clinics are private or state run hospitals, no real federal places except maybe on military bases?

Coongress and the Courts attacked racism in lodgings and segregation by using interstate commerce and federal laws to prohibit across the board type of Jim Crow... abortion is extremely different.

I am trying to imagine what the congress approach could be to this. They could make abortion a crime to prohibit it nationwide but that would fail miserably. They could mandate the right to an abortion in the first trimester but if a State who has more restrictive laws challenges it in the SC, it seems the Dobbs decision would lean towards the State.....

The only path for either side in this is State by State right now. I cannot think of a Congress solution yet but I am sure both parties are gonna work on it depending who wins seats in 2022.
More...

Give it a week or ten days and all the talk will be about eliminating the Hyde Amendment and adding federal funding to cover the cost of patients traveling to other states "where necessary." Congress can play with funding and programs. And the dems will start right in, because- well- the court is not their friend, it would appear.
 
El OchoCinco said:
I have not done the research but are there abortion bans right now in state constitutions? I dont think so since it is hard ot amend a constitution. I think it will still be via hte legislature.
More...


I dunno. It is another jungle. I am just saying that it will be an issue in some places.

Quick google looks like this:

Highlights
  • 23 states have laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.
    • 9 states retain their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans.
    • 13 states have post-Roe laws to ban all or nearly all abortions that would be triggered if Roe were overturned.
    • 9 states have unconstitutional post-Roe restrictions that are currently blocked by courts but could be brought back into effect with a court order in Roe’s absence.
    • 7 states have laws that express the intent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe.
    • 4 states have passed a constitutional amendment explicitly declaring that their constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow use of public funds for abortion.
  • 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that protect the right to abortion.
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe
 
El OchoCinco said:
The court dodged a bullet here not addressing the issue of 100% ban. They did accept implicitly the idea a state can balance the mother's rights and the state's right to protect the unborn and thus a 15 week period like in MISS would be reasonable. The made an issue to say any State's laws on health and welfare had to pursue a genuine state interest and pass a reasonableness test. They did not recognize a right in the Constitution to an abortion but did not say that a state banning all abortions 100% would be free from challenge simply by citing Dobbs. They overturned Roe, not made abortions absolutely legal or illegal.

If a State had abortions legal up until the 15th week and then suddenly passed a law banning all abortions no matter what, even in the case of saving the mother's life or incest or rape, I could see a challenge to that law as being inconsistent with legislative input on health and welfare and a 100% ban would be deemed excessive in furthering the State's interest. Especially when the law is passed by a simple majority and a segment of the population of that state favor abortions within a time period or the law is passed by an extreme political position.
More...

Good discussion you guys are having but to the last paragraph, there is nothing wrong with a state passing laws to be in compliance with federal rulings, ie 15 week ban last month, then changing the states law to total ban post this drafted decision. If anything it would show good faith on behalf of the state.

Also, as a remedy, expect a lot of abortion referendums on state ballots in 2024.
 
UsualName said:
Good discussion you guys are having but to the last paragraph, there is nothing wrong with a state passing laws to be in compliance with federal rulings, ie 15 week ban last month, then changing the states law to total ban post this drafted decision. If anything it would show good faith on behalf of the state.

Also, as a remedy, expect a lot of abortion referendums on state ballots in 2024.
More...


I already see the politicians here in my Left Coast State openly talking about how the state could be a mecca for abortions (too much is never enough), and that this should be treated as a growth industry.

Ironically. they may be working against some of the swing states on this issue by arguing that abortion-seekers there should just let their state do what it wants and take advantage of a free flight and ticket to the buffet at the Casino and a chance to see Wayne Newton singing Danke Dchoen- and get your abortion in place that does abortion the way it should be done. Think of it as "paying for order flow."

Too bad that Florida's abortion laws are not favorable. Otherwise, I am pretty sure Disney would provide an abortion option there. Might work at Disneyland in CA though. But no using the water slide for 48 hrs after the abortion!!!
 
perspective.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top