Florida legislative leaders to discuss further restrictions on abortions

Codify it into law, then.

I've heard Republican talking heads say that SCOTUS would likely ban any federal law on abortion, which would be a decision I disagree with. But even if they would do that, that doesn't preclude the states from codifying Roe.

However, I would suggest avoiding the euphemisms that abortion advocates tend to love when discussing/debating abortion. Be specific. I think you're close to what Roe intended in that post.

 

Most people don't understand EXACTLY what they're approving.

Even if you're right that say 90 to 100 percent of people understood a "right to privacy" as protecting abortion, I think it's fair to say an incredibly significant portion wouldn't know where exactly the line is drawn unless specifically told to them.

For God's sakes, only 56% of Americans can name the three branches of government, you expect them to know the intricacies of the Roe framework just from the words: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life[.]"

https://www.wane.com/news/national-...-of-government-thats-actually-a-15-year-high/

Most people aren't political or legal junkies.

 

Didn’t we do that in the Florida constitution where the people approved of making privacy a right of all people? That is what the thinking was at the time at least. The republicans better get on the right side on this or there will be no republicans in the legislatures within 20 years.

 

That's an excellent question.

SCOTUS didn't ban a right to privacy in overturning Roe, they just said abortion is essentially not included under that right.

 

The other 44 percent still support Trump I presume.

 

Again, the ridiculousness of the stance you're taking is that you want to use it as an excuse to jettison the Roe framework in order to create a framework that doesn't protect abortion rights. But I'll give you an opportunity to explain. What framework are you going to use if not Roe's? And how does that framework actually protect abortion?

 

42 years AFTER people voted. So it has no bearing on what people voted on in 1980.

 

It's not my job to draw the line, it's the Court's.

Considering Roe was overturned two seconds ago, it's not exactly clear where that line will be. But the Court is certainly no longer bound by Roe. We all got the memo that it was overturned.

I don't see why the First Trimester is any worse of an answer than Second Trimester, however.

 

No, but the fact that Roe was so controversial and did not conclusively determine the meaning of "right to privacy," as people understood it, even for the time... certainly does.

I understand you don't have much to gain from abortion being on the ballot again, but frankly, I find that telling. If you don't expect to get a more liberal line than the one you've mentioned, then that raises scrutiny as to whether people understood exactly what the standard was in 1980.

Me, I'd be fine with offering clear lines in the form of an amendment via multiple choice for the voters. I know that's not how the process works, but if the people want even more leniency on abortion in Florida, so be it. What I'm not a fan of is shoehorning policy and amendments through euphemisms that are at best vague, at worst deceptive to voters.

 

You've thrown this out many times. And the answer remains that the people of Florida could have simply rejected the right to privacy if they felt that way. They didn't. Your argument therefore fails. The voters knew what the right to privacy encompassed when they voted on it, and the language of the amendment is even more explicit about what it protects.

In other words, you can't offer a framework that actually protects Floridians' right to privacy in the abortion context, outside of Roe's.

 

That is a circular argument.

"The voters understood what they were voting for. How do I know, because they voted for it."

I don't have to. The Florida Supreme Court can rule from anywhere between "privacy does not encompass abortion" and "Dobbs does not affect abortion law in Florida due to the Florida right to privacy, considering that the Florida right to privacy is broader than the federal right."

 

That's not the argument. The argument is that Roe and the meaning of right to privacy were common knowledge at the time. The voters therefore understood the meaning of the right to privacy to include abortion rights. And they voted, with that knowledge, to enshrine a right to privacy in our constitution.

Your argument is that Roe was controversial at the time, so we should omit abortion from the right to privacy. My rebuttal is that the voters could have rejected the right to privacy if they felt that way and demanded a vote on a right to privacy that omitted abortion. They didn't.

Let's put it bluntly, you are demanding we ignore the will of the voters because you don't like what they approved. The people of Florida could have omitted abortion from the right to privacy years later when a new constitutional amendment doing exactly that was put to a vote. They rejected that amendment.

Now, you're demanding that we pass another constitutional amendment confirming what the Florida Constitution ALREADY protects because you know your side couldn't put a proposed amendment removing abortion rights from the Florida Constitution's right to privacy up for a vote and win. So instead of amending the constitution via the will of the people, you want to have the Republican politicians on the Florida Supreme Court do it.

 

No, you want to cling to bad law in Roe and use deception to win on policy. The ends always justify the means to you.

Cry all you want about the Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States not being a de facto legislature for the Democrats. Find someone who cares.

 

Every accusation is a confession.

 

That's just a long-winded way of saying this: "The voters understood what they were voting for. How do I know, because they voted for it."

Rejecting an exception for abortion is not the same as passing an amendment protecting an abortion. One has no bearing on the other. You put a random group of people in a room, without any other information, the amount of people who would refuse to revoke abortion as a right likely would not match the amount of people who would want to enshrine a "right to privacy" as an Amendment. Framing can be a powerful form of persuasion.

Abortion advocates know this which is why they rely on bumper sticker euphemisms all the time, like "pro-choice," "I'm in favor of a women's right to 'choose,'" "I respect a 'women's body,'" while completely ignoring the elephant in the room. It's why they try and limit exposure to sonograms to pregnant women considering abortion. It's why they don't want more information for pregnant women. They want to make the decision as easy as possible so that they don't have to think about it, even if it means deception to reinforce this digging their head in the sand.

 

LOL. Imagine if somebody tried to offer this sort of inane argument against the Second Amendment. "Hey, how do we know the ratifiers knew what 'arms' meant? You're just saying they knew what they were voting for. Arms could mean anything! Saying the meaning was common knowledge at the time isn't proof of anything!"

But I'll offer evidence of the absurdity of the your stance. Here are polling numbers on Americans' support for Roe v. Wade around 1980:

Page 52 of this PDF:
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/-public-opinion-about-abortion_154617113232.pdf

That sure doesn't give the impression that Americans didn't understand what Roe v. Wade did or that it was an unpopular decision.

Let's just be frank about what you're saying. You know that if Republicans gave voters the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that removed abortion from the Florida Constitution's right to privacy, they'd lose. So instead of letting the will of the people decide the issue, like it has twice before, you want your politicians on the Florida Supreme Court to get rid of decades of precedent and rewrite the right to privacy, ignoring its original meaning.

I have no doubt that you'll get what you want, because Republicans control the judiciary. And unlike you cowards, our side will put it up for a vote AGAIN (if the Republican clowns on the Florida Supreme Court don't block it). We may win. We may lose. But we'll let the people decide. That's what separates us. We believe in democracy. You believe in power.

 

Do you read your own posts?

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"

You know what else allows abortion through not just three months of pregnancy, but 15 weeks of pregnancy? That Florida law signed by DeSantis you keep whining about.

 

I'm literally calling for it to be put on the ballot. You're relying on bad law to keep it from going on the ballot, yet I'm the power-hungry one and you're the pro-democracy one?

These ARE backwards times.

 

What you're doing is akin to demanding we put the First Amendment on the ballot again. The voters already voted. You want to use your politicians in the judiciary to invalidate the choice they made.