Roe v. Wade overturned?

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,742
5,457
113
B.C.
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.




Do you understand what a Republic is ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,742
5,457
113
B.C.
Yes serryh, all you need to do is Google Newsome to find a video with him stating that very thing - tourist abortions available. I suspect you'll be hearing more if he decides to go for it. He's a disgusting individual!
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 .
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
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 .
We'd literally have them coming and going.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,812
1,244
113
New Brunswick

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113

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.
 

Taxslave2

Electoral Member
Aug 13, 2022
371
190
43

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.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Shouldn’t have to vote for your rights.
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.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,812
1,244
113
New Brunswick

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?
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113

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".

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.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,902
1,670
113
Toronto, ON
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".

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.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
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.
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.

I doubt that abortion is even mentioned in the constitution as the procedure did not exist in 1776 so arguing its constitutionality is stupid.
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.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,812
1,244
113
New Brunswick
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.

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.


Tell me how stuff like THIS is right?
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Sadly the Constitution is what was used to overturn Roe, or at least, that's what Alito suggested.
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.

The same excuse could be used for all of it.
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
 

Taxslave2

Electoral Member
Aug 13, 2022
371
190
43
As best I can tell, this whole ruling was not designed to define something important, but to create work for another generation of lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer