there are no doubts or issues over the definition of a woman with respect to.abortion. you are just reaching because abortion involves a pregnancy...nothing to do with definitions of a woman. GOP is fine forcing raped or abused women to keep the baby....has nothing to do with State rights.
Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
there are no doubts or issues over the definition of a woman with respect to.abortion. you are just reaching because abortion involves a pregnancy...nothing to do with definitions of a woman. GOP is fine forcing raped or abused women to keep the baby....has nothing to do with State rights.
Come on now what a STUPID post. Probably makes you a good candidate for the US Supreme Court though.
You give the US Supreme Court too much credit. It's run by a cabal of unethical people now.
Vax mandates have existed for many decades so not sure why you are still blabbering about vaccine mandates unless you never sent a child to school or served in the military.
A woman's choice over her body was already supported by the Constitution but the moral and religious aspects of abortion have set it apart and have dominated and led to the split we have now.
there are no longer the great legal scholars we had on both conservative and liberal sides. We have glorified law clerks with ivy league degrees who want a political career versus a judicial one.
You can disagree with a well written decision but respect the legal reasoning. Dobbs case case was a pure political move with a judicial decision written to support the political goal...
Thte MISS law said 15 weeks. It was reasonable from the conservative side and liberal side and should never have been challenged unless I am missing something from that law. SC just used it as a hook to get rid of Roe completely.
The Internet is not a good place to discuss some subjects. One would hope the Captain might be a bit less lightweight face to face and Buy1 would of course require a good table slap to scare him silly and make him just shut up.
American women can obtain abortions in Canada if Roe v. Wade falls, minister says
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-provide-abortion-access-american-women-1.6440238
Here is an interesting part of the Dobbs draft that is well written. Sorry for poor text but copying and pasting is hard from this text.
Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, it imposed on the entire country a detailedset ofrules much like those thatone might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See Roc, 410 U. S., at 163-164. Di- viding pregnancy into three trimesters, the Court imposed special rules foreach. During the first trimester, the Court announced, “the abortion decision and itseffectuation must be left to themedical judgment of the pregnant woman's attendingphysician.” Id., at 164. Afterthatpoint, a State's interest in regulating abortion for the sakeof a woman's health became compelling, and accordingly, a State could “regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasona- bly related to maternal health.” Zbid. Finally, ‘in the stage subsequent to viability,” which in 1973 roughly coincided with the beginningofthe third trimester, the State's inter- est in “the potentiality of human life” became compelling, and therefore a State could “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medic caljudgment, for thepreservationofthelifeor healthofthe Citeas: __U.S.__@0_) 3 Opinionofthe Court mother.” Ibid. This elaborate scheme was the Court's own brainchild. Neither party advocated the trimester framework; nor did either party or any amicus argue that “viability” should ‘mark the point at which the scope of the abortion right and a State's regulatory authority should be substantially transformed. See BriefforAppellant in No. 70-18; Brieffor Appellee in No. 70-18; see also C. Forsythe, Abuse of Dis- cretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade 127, 141 (2012) Not only did this scheme resemble the work ofa legisla: ture, but the Court made little effort to explain how these rules could be deduced from any of the sources on which constitutional decisions are usually based. We have al- ready discussed Roe's treatment of constitutional text, and the opinion failed to show that history, procedent, or any other cited source supported its scheme.
Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, it imposed on the entire country a detailedset ofrules much like those thatone might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See Roc, 410 U. S., at 163-164. Di- viding pregnancy into three trimesters, the Court imposed special rules foreach. During the first trimester, the Court announced, “the abortion decision and itseffectuation must be left to themedical judgment of the pregnant woman's attendingphysician.” Id., at 164. Afterthatpoint, a State's interest in regulating abortion for the sakeof a woman's health became compelling, and accordingly, a State could “regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasona- bly related to maternal health.” Zbid. Finally, ‘in the stage subsequent to viability,” which in 1973 roughly coincided with the beginningofthe third trimester, the State's inter- est in “the potentiality of human life” became compelling, and therefore a State could “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medic caljudgment, for thepreservationofthelifeor healthofthe Citeas: __U.S.__@0_) 3 Opinionofthe Court mother.” Ibid. This elaborate scheme was the Court's own brainchild. Neither party advocated the trimester framework; nor did either party or any amicus argue that “viability” should ‘mark the point at which the scope of the abortion right and a State's regulatory authority should be substantially transformed. See BriefforAppellant in No. 70-18; Brieffor Appellee in No. 70-18; see also C. Forsythe, Abuse of Dis- cretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade 127, 141 (2012) Not only did this scheme resemble the work ofa legisla: ture, but the Court made little effort to explain how these rules could be deduced from any of the sources on which constitutional decisions are usually based. We have al- ready discussed Roe's treatment of constitutional text, and the opinion failed to show that history, procedent, or any other cited source supported its scheme.
The basic underlying issue in abortion is whether you consider it murdering a human being or removing a clump of cells. That really has nothing to do with the Constitution. If it's murder, it should be banned. If it is a clump of cells, it should be allowed. It is not a Constitutional issue. It is not even a religious issue, per se.