I would defer to the 14th Amendment, which 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." If a State has marriage laws, for example, it cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection. This should protect Loving and Obergefell, but like the right to privacy, the right to marry outside your race, or same gender aren't explicitly written into the Constitution. And both miscegenation and denying gays the right to marry have a long, legal tradition in this country, with laws that trace back to Colonial times. Even though Alito in his draft states the draft is about abortion only, the law doesn't work that way. If the draft becomes a majority position, there will be laws that fight Obergefell using the exact same argument Alito uses to overturn Roe.
Women posting lists on reddit, tiktok, etc of gynecologists around the country who will do tubals, oophorectomies (ovary removal) and hysterectomies (uterus removal) without needing spousal consent or an age restriction. Only the tubal is reversible. Women literally undergoing major surgery because depending on where they live, they'd be forced to carry a baby they don't want. So they'd rather not even be fertile anymore. Considering how many doctors want the husband's permission, how soon before Texas, Oklahoma, or someone else makes that a law?
Would quickly pass a bill along party lines to build federal buildings to house abortion clinics in states that ban abortion. The US owns 2% of Texas.
Apparently, Biden believes abortion is murder AND he is okay with that. Biden: The Idea No One Can Make The Judgment To Abort A Child "Goes Way Overboard" | Video | RealClearPolitics “So I mean, the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard.” He doesn't even pretend that a fetus is just a "part of the mother". He acknowledges the fetus' personhood while promoting abortion. I don't understand how one does that.
I finally read the Alito ruling. I changed my mind on abortion now that I know that it’s in women’s best interest to ban abortion as well as racist if we don’t ban abortion. No one is more of an advocate for women and black Americans than the fringe right wing.
Correct, the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based upon sex. You outlined the law's current standard for Constitutional cases involving discrimination of sex, intermediate scrutiny, and as of today, that is the law. Justices who resemble Scalia's jurisprudence, I don't think believe that the Constitution prohibits discrimination based upon sex, even through equal protections. However, there are already other laws on the books that prohibit discrimination based on sex, including federal laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You are suggesting that pro-life advocates don't really care about the lives of unborn children because they disagree with you on policy, so I am mocking your argument.
Yeah. Of course, statutory protections are different from constitutional protections, and the former are subject to changing policy preferences, etc. I think you're correct that Scalia, for example, took the position that the government is constitutionally permitted to discriminate on the basis of sex. That was apparently based upon his narrow reading of the language, traditional norms, understanding of people at the time, etc. Others have pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not single out the category of race and should be read more broadly. If the Court were to adopt Scalia's view on this point and defer to legislatures, I'm not saying we'd in Handmaid's Tale territory tomorrow, but it would obviously be a significant departure from settled precedent.
You haven't ever seen me use "abortion on demand", rarely I wade into the foray on this one. And that's two of the resident leftist's, who are now defending lies about a ruling THAT HASNT EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET in an effort to twist and scare people. I guess whataboutism really is a two way street. Sorry I'll call BS on both sides when I see it. Because I'm not toting the far left fearmongering GOP is evil line that makes me a MAGA far righty. (You didn't say that some one else did)
I don’t know, man. I think youve got to have a pretty dark view of humanity to believe that over half of the USA supports an action that they view as murder.
Some issues are better left for states, marriage legality is not one of them. Does a gay couple’s marriage become unlawful if they transfer jobs from a blue state to a red state? Insurance benefits? Death benefits? Child custody. As a country we are long past telling individuals who and what sex their spouse should be, and what the different ramifications should be based on where they live. If the “sanctity of life” is so important to the right when it comes to abortion, we should at least value people and their rights equally once they are here. Otherwise the whole dialog is a charade for religious beliefs, which has no place in this discussion. I could think of a thousand other examples but you get my point.
You make a good argument as to why everyone should give up their AR 15s-not that I’m saying they should, but once you excise tech progress and societal advancement out of the constitution……surely the founders didn’t ever think of our having rapid fire assault weapons when the 2d amendment was written. What’s good for the goose…… There was a day when women couldn’t vote and black votes counted as 3/5 of a person, because without the 3/5 Compromise, there was no constitution to begin with. Not everything can or should be viewed through a lens crafted in 1787. .
