Do you understand what a Republic is ?Yeah, don't tell me that "state rights" was a good idea.
When the state ignores the will of the PEOPLE of the state then the excuse of "state rights" is absolute bullshit.
Word spacing issue keeps abortion rights amendment from ballot; court fight expected
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2-2 along party lines on certification of a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.www.detroitnews.com
Abortion Rights Ballot Measure Not Yet Approved In Michigan As Board Deadlocks
The 2-2 vote means the proposed ballot measure to defend reproductive rights will now go to the courts.www.forbes.com
The Michigan supreme court set to decide whether voters see abortion on the ballot
Michigan's Board of Canvassers rejected an abortion rights initiative on Wednesday after its Republican board members voted against putting the proposed constitutional amendment on November's ballot.www.npr.org
Why an obscure Michigan board has the power to reject a ballot initiative on abortion rights
A once obscure Michigan elections panel is back in the spotlight after rejecting a ballot initiative seeking to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution and another to expand voting.www.pbs.org
Roe v. Wade overturned?
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
In B.C. Richmond General Hospital is the hotspot for birth tourism , maybe get Every Woman’s Healthcare on board and we can corner both sides of the market .
Sorry, shoulda known that'd be a sore spot for you. Hint. . . it's at the apex of the labia minora.
Michigan voters to decide future of abortion care after high court approves ballot proposal
The Michigan Supreme Court announced Thursday that the abortion rights ballot proposal that acquired and submitted more than 700,000 signatures will appear before voters in November, a decision made after a state board declined to certify the proposal.
Not that there was doubt it'd be put on the ballot, IMO. Good that it's there.
It is. People should have their say, it shouldn't be a trick of bureaucracy.Michigan voters to decide future of abortion care after high court approves ballot proposal
The Michigan Supreme Court announced Thursday that the abortion rights ballot proposal that acquired and submitted more than 700,000 signatures will appear before voters in November, a decision made after a state board declined to certify the proposal.www.clickondetroit.com
Not that there was doubt it'd be put on the ballot, IMO. Good that it's there.
Shouldn’t have to vote for your rights.Michigan voters to decide future of abortion care after high court approves ballot proposal
The Michigan Supreme Court announced Thursday that the abortion rights ballot proposal that acquired and submitted more than 700,000 signatures will appear before voters in November, a decision made after a state board declined to certify the proposal.
Not that there was doubt it'd be put on the ballot, IMO. Good that it's there.
Only way to get them really. While many espouse the existance of natural rights (although Serryah doesn't believe in them) for them to have any legal weight you've got to agree as a society they exist or they don't in practical terms. Obviously the best place to 'vote' on them is an amendment to the constitution but given that isn't likely to succeed and given that the courts have ruled the constitution doesn't speak to this particular right then voting at the state level is the only other option.
Rights ALWAYS have to be defended. THat's one lesson history shows again and again since the beginning. At least they ONLY have to vote to get them. Not everyone in history has been so lucky.
Graham's abortion ban stuns Senate GOP
His past, less conservative pitch won him some Democratic votes. But most Republicans stiff-armed him Tuesday as they face abortion-rights backers ascendant after Roe's reversal.
www.politico.com
So NOW it needs to be a federal law?
Apparently he wants his cake and to eat it too. States who have abortion bans of LESS than 15 weeks are fine, but other states who ban BEYOND that need to 'reverse' to 15 weeks.
Now, Roe should have been codified before this BS started.
It wasn't.
And now Linds is trying to push this extreme view (yes, it's extreme) on the nation as a whole when his party is "Nope!"
But really, is anyone surprised this was suggested at all?
You appear confused. This was never a question about it being a federal or state law previously. The question was "is abortion addressed as a right under the constitution".
Graham's abortion ban stuns Senate GOP
His past, less conservative pitch won him some Democratic votes. But most Republicans stiff-armed him Tuesday as they face abortion-rights backers ascendant after Roe's reversal.
So NOW it needs to be a federal law?
Apparently he wants his cake and to eat it too. States who have abortion bans of LESS than 15 weeks are fine, but other states who ban BEYOND that need to 'reverse' to 15 weeks.
Now, Roe should have been codified before this BS started.
It wasn't.
And now Linds is trying to push this extreme view (yes, it's extreme) on the nation as a whole when his party is "Nope!"
But really, is anyone surprised this was suggested at all?
If it is - then you can't have a state OR federal law.' So it isn't a case of "it shouldn't be a federal law" previously - previously it coudln't be ANY law because roe vs wade argued that it was a constitutional issue.
So now that it's been determined it isn't a constitutional issue, the question is does it become a federal or state issue.
Sounds like most people think it should be state.
It doesn't surprise me it was proposed. But it also doesn't surprise me that it's going nowhere.
The supreme court ruled against roe vs wade with the stated reason that the federal government could not override the state with a blanket abortion law. Whether this was the real reason or the stated reason is anybody's guess. So it is inappropriate for the federal government (at least with this supreme court) to try to put in any type of abortion law.
I doubt that abortion is even mentioned in the constitution as the procedure did not exist in 1776 so arguing its constitutionality is stupid. The constitution will say nothing on the matter. If you are arguing you are simply projecting your views on irrelevant passages in the document.
Well, i'm not sure that's accurate (mind you im' not 100 percent sure it isn't). I did read the decisions and it seemed to me that the only thing they addressed was the constitutionality of it. I didn't see anything stating what a federal gov't could or couldn't do, just that it wasn't included in the constitution and it didn't have a 'deeply rooted' history etc etc. Previously there was no federal ban on it, so it seems unlikely they would speak to something that wasn't actually part of the question they were asked, being "is it constitutional'?
Having said that there was a LOT of reading involved there and some of it was kind of boring and i may very well have missed something, but i didn't notice anything that would forbid the feds from passing a law in that ruling itself. Are you sure that's what they said? I'm sure it's covered elsewhere as to what is or is not fed vs state responsibility but i'm not sure that ruling addressed it.
Well something doesn't have to be mentioned by name specifically to be found to be constitutional. For example computers didn't exist back then but your rights to post information may still be covered by elements of the constitution under free speech etc. In this case however it seems that the current court ruling agrees with you and it feels that nothing there would apply.
Sadly the Constitution is what was used to overturn Roe, or at least, that's what Alito suggested.
"“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote.
“That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ’implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” he added.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Alito wrote."
Which is why it's also thrown out the idea of same sex marriage being overturned and other extreme things like women's rights and (perhaps) inter-racial marriage.
The same excuse could be used for all of it. Whether it would or not, who knows.
In the end it's (for now) one Republican voicing what most want, but are now backtracking on because now they're starting to get that this is NOT so simple an issue.
'I had to carry my baby to bury my baby': Woman says she was denied abortion for fetus without skull
A Louisiana mother of three was told her baby would not develop a skull and die, yet providers denied her an abortion because of concerns it would violate the state's trigger laws.
Tell me how stuff like THIS is right?
Again, you're confused.
Roe vs Wade WAS a constitutional decision. It argued that for reasons aboriton was a protected right under the constitution.
So the 'constitution' is not what was "used" to overturn RvW - a previous judge made a ruling which indicated it was constitutionally protected, now it's been ruled that it isn't constitutionally protected. It's a constitutional issue, the constitution isn't "used" to do anything, it's just a ruling on what it says. RvW suggested that it was protected under the 14th amendment (a decision that's always been held as being a little grey in legal circles) and the current ruling says that's not the case.
It could not. many of those things are expressly mentioned in the 14th amendment, unlike abortion. And it expressly addresses treating people differently. So you could make a law that banned ALL marriage - but not gay marriage only.
The idea that it could be used for those things were democrat scare tactic talking points, i don't think any serious legal practitioner would think they're likely.
But hey - if you disagree then say so and explain your reasoning. If you agree we can leave it there