If the government forces you to give birth to a child,

Flash said:
The right to privacy came from the Griswold decision and Roe used that same right to privacy to say abortion should be a decision between woman and doctor.

Any law prohibiting abortion would involve looking into whether a woman had an abortion and violate her privacy, but criminal laws are allowed to do that in the U. S.

The real problem with the new Texas abortion law is that a state can deny any constitutional rights by allowing citizens to sue somebody for exercising those rights. A gun dealer could be sued for selling a gun, a person could be sued for exercising his free speech about some subject, a person could be sued for exercising his right to an attorney, remaining silent, etc.

If a civil lawsuit can be used to enforce the abortion law it could be used to enforce restrictions on any rights.
Click to expand...


Newsom JUST declared this to be policy in California, shoving it right into the face of McConnell's Supreme Court.

Gonna be fascinating to see how this plays out.
 
Flash said:
What provision in the 14th Amendment provides for a national referendum?
Click to expand...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


There is a provision for right to privacy in the 9th amendment which laws against abortion violate.
Click to expand...

I challeng you to show basis of how any law against abortion would necessitate a violation of privacy.

There is no provision for laws controlling immigration, executive orders, and many other governmental powers, either.
Click to expand...

None of those are civil rights which are normally listed in the constitution.

The facts remain. The decision roe v wade set the legal precedent as per stare decesis that the right to abortion should not be infringed. They ruled it and it became legistlation per stare decisis as legistlation by judiciary.
 
No one ever said roe v wade was decided by stare decesis. What was said was roe v wade became precedent and thusly legistlated by judiciary, stare decisis.

And my point is, legistlation by judiciary is a lower standard of legistlation than legistlation by elected legislative body. This is because legislators are imbued with the will of their electors. However, higher than that even would be legistlation by the people directly, such as a balloted referendum as it is the direct will of the people and diluted by nothing.

Even the supreme court is bound by the 14th amendment to recognize the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an said:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Not a word in there regarding a national (or state) referendum.

]2epo]v[an said:
I challeng you to show basis of how any law against abortion would necessitate a violation of privacy.
Click to expand...

If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor the state should not interfere in that decision.
 
Flash said:
Not a word in there regarding a national (or state) referendum.
Click to expand...
Not a word in there either of abortion yet it's cited directly in Roe v wade I hear tell. So, what's your point? Referendums exist so if the supreme court were to deny the people the right to make a public referendum, that would violate the public's 14th amendment.

If abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor the state should not interfere in that decision.
Click to expand...

That doesn't show basis why banning doctors from performing abortions at all could be construed as necessitating a violation of privacy. That only shows how banning women from getting an abortion when doctors could perform abortions could be construed as a violation of privacy. Other than that, a law could just be passed banning the tools used to do it, i.e. a ban on coat hangers. Nothing you've said shows that banning abortions necessitates an inherent violation of privacy. You simply cited one scenario where it maybe would.
 
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an said:
That doesn't show basis why banning doctors from performing abortions at all could be construed as necessitating a violation of privacy. That only shows how banning women from getting an abortion could be construed as a violation of privacy. Other than that, a law could just be passed banning the tools used to do it, i.e. a ban on coat hangers.
Click to expand...

Read Roe for a complete explanation. I am only citing the law and not attempting to defend (or attack) it.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
You'd think a lot of things. Assumptions just make an ass of you and me, but mostly you (:
Click to expand...

It wasn't based on an assumption but your confusion regarding stare decisis. Almost all court cases are based on stare decisis but that does not result in judicial legislation.
 
Althea said:
I don't need birth control, and you're not smart enough to understand.

Obviously, if you have to ask.
Click to expand...

so, lets translate........you have no reasonable or logical response, so you'll just reply with an idiotic answer that you delusional liberals will accept because you're fucking stupid..........got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top