I see some Constitutional argument with your drugs example. Post Harrison Congress and SCOTUS carved away a bodily right. I would have to look up helmet and seatbelt laws in more detail. I thought seatbelts was federally mandated for manufacturers to install seatbelts, but up to the states to enforce the occupants to use the seatbelt. So, I am not sure about the Constitutional argument you are making on that one. Vaccine mandates for Federal workers is close, but I am not sure that extends to all. Maybe you are referring only to Federal workers. The draft was correctly argued, in my opinion, as a power under the Constitution Article I. I am not convinced my bodily autonomy rights are subjugated by other laws and would argue I have them under the 9th amendment. Maybe there are other examples I am not aware.
How can you honestly say I dont want a discussion? What names have I called anyone? What descriptors have I used for people? What punishment for women have I sugested? That would be YOU doing that. Oh and percentages arent accrued. Your chances of getting pregnant the 1000th time you have sex are the same as the first if using the same contraception. ...Otherwise everyone would have multiple unwanted pregnancies.
A lot of people are very angry about this. Fine. This defers the issue back to the states. I'm sure some Republicans will compromise to some extent, others will not. But at least this issue is placed back in the legislature where it belongs, not the Courts creating this Constitutional right that is really mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. To those mischaracterizing the abortion issue as: "they're trying to control women's 'bodies,' they're taking away women's 'rights,' they view women as property," I feel no sympathy for you. Cry all you want, mischaracterize all you want. This is a simple enough issue where basically everyone knows what this is about. It's about balancing the interests of "the life of an unborn child, and the freedom to be sexually active without reaping the consequences of unwanted pregnancies." There are some exceptions like rape, incest, and life of the mother, but those are cases at the margins... not 97% of abortion cases. And we know pro-choicers use this as a deflection because even if an exception were crafted for those cases, they still favor the other 97% of abortions. These are real concerns, and not everybody articulates it that way, but pretty much everyone knows what this is really about.
So what are the chances that DC isn't burned to the ground by these crazed baby killers? I say slim to none.
Obviously neither of us are constitutional experts, but Alito seems to believe that since abortion isn’t in the constitution then it isn’t protected which to me seems to contradict the 9th. The right to medical privacy, which we all have should apply to these rights protected by the 9th. Why should the privacy of dark money donors be protected, but the privacy between a woman and her doctor not be protected? Why should a fetal heartbeat be considered life in a fetus, but the heartbeat of a brain dead accident not?
I agree it could well be a slippery slope if not relegated to the issue of abortion and a females right to chose is how it should be regulated legislatively. My thought process is there is no other issue that does not transcend all of society concerning ones personal choice. We have the argument of masks, vaccines, drugs etc... Those items include everyone in society. If there are such issues I'm open to hearing about them.
Does that really matter? And is that fair? Where there is demand, there will be supply, regardless of legality. See illicit drugs, or alcohol during Prohibition. Your stance is akin to saying it's illegal to make and sell alcohol, but just fine if you drink it? Does that really make any sense? And even if you don't want it or say it, outlawing abortion is about limiting the choices of the pregnant woman. Unless you force fathers to undergo the same body changes and limitations that often come with pregnancy, is it fair to tell a woman once pregnant, you can't drink alcohol, for example? Because even if that isn't your desired outcome, this will be the outcome.
A nonsensical position based on little more than feelings instead of a logical interpretation of the act. If the doctor committed a criminal offense, the woman did too. Unless she was legally unable to consent to an abortion or unaware one was about to be performed, she knowingly asked somebody to perform the abortion. In any other criminal setting, she is just as guilty as the person that she asked. And in no other criminal setting would we accept arguments like "I am under high amounts of stress" or "I have a belief that I didn't commit a crime because I fail to recognize the law in the same way the state does" as reasonable affirmative defenses when accused of a criminal act.
Murkowsky I ain’t happy either. GOP Sen. Murkowski says her 'confidence' in Supreme Court has been 'rocked' after justices she voted for appear set to overturn Roe v. Wade but you reap what you sew. The whole world tried to tell her and Collins to vote no. They talked themselves into it, and here we are.
Except the ones that perform them on themselves, right? Or the ones that arent doctors that assist other women by performing one (something you dont need to be a doctor to do). Anyways, who cares who you want to direct your punishments to, it serves the same purpose, controlling the choices people have when it comes to reproduction and enforcing them, with state violence.
Do you ever read what you write? A MAGA complaining about fear mongering is like Chris Christie complaining about fat people.
My personal opinion vs interpretation of American legal precedent are polar opposites Personally I think the #1 role of government is the protection of property rights, and your body is the most valuable property you will ever have. But American law is filled with the government encroaching on your body that I can see it being constitutional. Obviously it’s political suicide to propose it though
Yeah, Alaska, despite its relatively firm status as a "red state," was actually one of the 4 states that basically didn't regulate abortions pre-Roe, allowing it truly on demand with no guidelines for reasons. I'm guessing it is the whole libertarian bent of the state.
No it isn’t. Not a single anti abortion law passed in any state even mentions the sperm donor in any penalties that would be administered, so why should any man have any say in the matter.
Actually it is the GOP politicians and anti-abortion activists that habitually lied on this when you look at the substance of Roe vs. Wade? How many here use the “abortion on demand” nonsense taking point? Those are called lies.
