SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13925
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 10:00 pm
Anyone know of any coathanger factories that I can invest in? I foresee a huge increase in demand.
Here's my stock tip of the day - Nahanco . Now does look like a good time to invest.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Gob »

So lets see if I've got this right.

This group of unelected people decide they've found a loophole, which, by invoking the ancient constitution, means they can impose their prejudices on the nation, and give religious fruitcakes free range to ban women from having abortions. All this despite what your "elected"* representatives decided.

Democracy? You should try it.

Oh, and before we here the usual "hereditary peers in the UK" nonsense, please have to hand an example of them making such a radical change to existing UK laws.

*Some may disagree that you "elect" your representatives.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20704
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Gob wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 6:58 am
So lets see if I've got this right.
Don't be an arse. :lol:
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
datsunaholic
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:53 am
Location: The Wet Coast

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by datsunaholic »

Gob wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 6:58 am
So lets see if I've got this right.

This group of unelected people decide they've found a loophole, which, by invoking the ancient constitution, means they can impose their prejudices on the nation, and give religious fruitcakes free range to ban women from having abortions. All this despite what your "elected"* representatives decided.

Democracy? You should try it.

The elected representatives didn't decide anything; the Women's Health Protection Act passed the House but was defeated in the Senate. So, dead.

The US has never been a Democracy. In fact, there is NOTHING that is directly voted on by the people as a nation. The most you can vote on is at the State level. National laws have NEVER been voted on by the public; they cannot be. It's a representative government by design and a pure democracy won't work. What was the quote, "A person is smart, people are dumb"? My State has a bunch of that- citizen initiatives that pass the vote but are immediately struck down as unconstitutional. The only thing an initiative needs is enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. There's no constitutionality test before it goes before the voters, but initiatives cannot change the State constitution nor change multiple laws at once. So those that try to, are never enacted.

Yes, the Constitution is old, and it is extremely hard to change, but that's a hell of a lot better than having a Constitution written on a dry erase board with the "leader" given the eraser and pens. Yes, it has issues- it's vague (especially the first 10 amendments) and the power to change it rests with the States regardless of population. Bad compromises made simply to get it ratified in the first place, make it impossible to change because doing so reduces the power given to those wanting to maintain that imbalance. But it would take a revolution to fix it.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Gob »

datsunaholic wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 9:02 am


The elected representatives didn't decide anything; the Women's Health Protection Act passed the House but was defeated in the Senate. So, dead.
Eh? So all this fuss is about them cancelling a law which doesn't exist?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
datsunaholic
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:53 am
Location: The Wet Coast

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by datsunaholic »

No, it's about Roe vs Wade, which wasn't a law. It is a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, which the current Supreme Court is about to overturn. What Roe v Wade did was tell the States what they could/couldn't do with their own laws concerning abortion, using the 14th Amendment as the constitutional basis. The supposed upcoming ruling overturns that, basically returning abortion laws back to the individual States.

The upcoming ruling itself doesn't ban abortions, but what it does do is allow States to do so. Bad enough as it is, another problem is that some of those States banning abortions also intend to prosecute women who get abortions in States where it IS legal (when they return to their home State where it's illegal).
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

A good friend of mine posted her abortion story on FaceBook. I will try to get her permission to repost it here, scrubbed of identifying names etc. An eyeopener. Basically she might well be dead herself and her existing three kids would just not exist if she had not had an abortion many years ago. So much for right-to-life - three (and possibly four) people are alive today because she and her husband chose to have an abortion, and it was legal to do so. (#myabortionstory - I have only the vaguest notion what that means and AFAIK it's Twitter-related but I am not entirely clear what one does with it.)

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Gob »

datsunaholic wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 11:17 am
No, it's about Roe vs Wade, which wasn't a law. It is a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, which the current Supreme Court is about to overturn. What Roe v Wade did was tell the States what they could/couldn't do with their own laws concerning abortion, using the 14th Amendment as the constitutional basis. The supposed upcoming ruling overturns that, basically returning abortion laws back to the individual States.

The upcoming ruling itself doesn't ban abortions, but what it does do is allow States to do so. Bad enough as it is, another problem is that some of those States banning abortions also intend to prosecute women who get abortions in States where it IS legal (when they return to their home State where it's illegal).
Thanks for that, but I still consider it utter lunacy.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20704
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Gob wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 12:20 pm
Thanks for that, but I still consider it utter lunacy.
You find the concept of requiring laws to be constitutional "lunacy"? So, you don't think there should be a Constitution?

So you're kind of against the British court action in this case, are you?
Constitutional experts tended to agree that Parliament had to be consulted, and vote, before the Prime Minister could activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, to take the UK out of the European Union.
However Theresa May and her government thought differently. The Prime Minister did not want a debate, or a vote, in Parliament before Britain left the European Union at the end of the long process of negotiation.
In July 2016, a group of citizens appealed to the High Court to stop the government activating Article 50 without Parliament's consent. On 3rd November, the High Court delivered its verdict. This verdict was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24th January. Parliament must vote before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty could be triggered. It did so.
Whoops - forgot the source https://about-britain.com/institutions/constitution.htm
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Scooter »

datsunaholic wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 11:17 am
The upcoming ruling itself doesn't ban abortions
The ruling itself doesn't ban abortion, but that would be its immediate effect in the 23 states and territories that either have pre-Roe bans still on the books, or trigger laws set to enact a ban as soon as a SCOTUS ruling comes down. Add to that another 9 states that have adopted heavy restrictions on abortion, and abortion access reverts more or less to its pre-Roe status the second that ruling is handed down.

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

Scooter--if I recall, pre Roe there were only a very few states (3 or 4) that permitted any kind of abortion on demand; I imagine there will be more if Roe is overturned, but it is clear that abortion will be a lot harder for many women to to have access to any abortion services. As for whether women can be prosecuted for travel to other states t have an abortion, I hope they won't go down that road; I would hope the SC would see interstate travel as a fundamental Constitutional right, but the inmates are now running the asylum so all rights may be up for grabs.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Scooter »

Yes, you're correct, abortion access immediately pre-Roe was more restricted than I implied. But to now have it immediately banned or severely restricted in 30 states and 4 territories is a catastrophe.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

No argument there; and there's no real reason for it. If it comes true, the best we can do is to try and fund groups to bring women desiring abortions to where it's legal. We have two different countries now (as then) and it's just silly to claim otherwise.

It just brings me back to what I've said for years--we should have let the southern states secede; it would have saved us untold bloodshed and we wouldn't have had the crap going on that we have now. And I say this as someone who unabashedly loves New Orleans and even considered relocating there years ago.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Scooter »

Yeah, but they probably would have sided with Nazi Germany in WWII, and that would have made for problems.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by BoSoxGal »

8289B076-6557-48C5-BF26-A39CD1ABC7C0.jpeg
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Big RR »

Scooter wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 7:20 pm
Yeah, but they probably would have sided with Nazi Germany in WWII, and that would have made for problems.
Maybe, but by that time I'd bet they would have been bankrupt and split into a number of countries; some may have even begged to rejoin the union and Virginia likely would not have seceded. and, if course, Texas would, of course, be back with Mexico, so there may have been trouble there. :lol:

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Jarlaxle »

Burning Petard wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 2:22 pm
Remember, it was a Republican nominee for SCOTUS (Judge Bork) who declared the 9th and 10th amendments were dead.

I sort of look at the headline for this thread as a major step toward equal rights for women in America. This has long been the reality for males over the age of 18. It is called Selective Service, or 'the draft'. Under that situation, the government has the right and power to conduct various personal invasions of autonomy and security of person, such as the close inspection of genitals by an inspector with minimal medical training (also called 'short arm inspection') or involuntary servitude (such as 'police the area' which means inspecting the grass and removing any cigarette butts or other garbage) or the ultimate extinguishing of all rights by death (also called 'the last great measure of sacrifice')

Why the great expressions of surprise? Has this not been promised as one of the goals of the US senate in the advice and consent process of membership on SCOTUS? Don't blame this on only the GOP. The senate Dems when they achieved majority control did not change the veto power of Senator Mitchell.

Try Democracy? Really? Imagine the results of every political policy decided by a Gallup poll.

What have been the damages from Roe? All those poor souls doomed to Hell forever without baptism. This draft opinion is an expression of state religion.

snailgate.
The whole constitution is pretty much dead and has been for decades.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Gob »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 2:14 pm

You find the concept of requiring laws to be constitutional "lunacy"?

Nice bit of twisting there., I expect the elected representatives of a country to decide what laws should be passed, and judges to make their decisions based on those laws.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Gob »

Yet, infuriatingly for the pro-choice voters who helped elect Joe Biden and a Democratic Congress, the party finds itself largely powerless at present, without a legislative path forward to protect abortion rights in the likely event the court reverses its decision in Roe.

Biden said it would be a “radical decision” by the court and called on Congress to act to enshrine the rights afforded by Roe into federal law via legislation.
Now that's more sensible. Then the USA may catch up with the rest of the first world a little bit.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

Post by Scooter »

Yeah, good luck getting 10 Senate Republicans to agree.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Post Reply