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

[Sue U]

But why does the state (or anyone else) need to "determine the facts" and "exercise judgment" over whether any individual's choice should be entitled to an exception?

Because SCOTUS has just ruled it so. . .?

No it didn't. SCOTUS ruled only that in the context of abortion, there is no constitutional right to privacy as a function of substantive due process, allowing (but not requiring) individual states to now impose restrictions at any point of pregnancy. Which leaves my questions standing: Why can't women simply make such decisions on their own, in consultation with their physicians? Why does a woman's medical choice necessitate involvement of the state? What is the social benefit objective that justifies an abortion ban? What countervailing considerations may outweigh it?.

Murder, theft, assault, etc. are all objectively detrimental to the functions of an orderly democratic society, notwithstanding that they may also suffer from disapproval by religious doctrine. It is perfectly fine for you to follow your religious beliefs and to encourage others to adopt them; just don't legislate them for me.

Then you believe my motivation to vote for Law X is less valid than your motivation. As long as I don't have any religious belief in my mind, I am permitted to vote? "It is perfectly fine for you to follow your humanist beliefs and to encourage others to adopt them; just don't legislate them for me."

Your assertion is as objectionable as the other.

ETA: why is your determination of which matters are "all objectively detrimental to the functions" etc. more correct than any other? Is it the word "objectively" - which, from any perspective, is actually subjective given that it is how you (or I) choose to describe something we believe is objective. It's a philosphie, innit?

The fact is that in some contexts motivation for legislation is what matters (Church of Lukumi Bablu Aye v. Hialeah) and in other contexts it is the effect that matters (Allegheny County v. ACLU). I wanted to address these issues earlier in the week using the precedential judicial tests for violations of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, but given the SCOTUS decision on Monday in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, it appears the court has now murdered that mode of analysis as well, so Christianity (as a "historic and traditional" practice) reigns supreme.

Gah.

[MajGenl.Meade]

SCOTUS ruled only that in the context of abortion, there is no constitutional right to privacy as a function of substantive due process, allowing (but not requiring) individual states to now impose restrictions at any point of pregnancy.

And because they have "allowed" it, the states (all of them) will respond with their "restrictions". The states that "allow" abortion all have some kind of restriction as to when abortion is no longer permitted. 24 weeks I think is the most usual outside limit (other than in threat to mother's life).

There is not one state that will not have some kind of law about abortion. Apparently the state has an interest, even if I'm not very skilled at arguing with a lawyer about it.

The fact is that in some contexts motivation for legislation is what matters (Church of Lukumi Bablu Aye v. Hialeah)

I don't know about that but I do understand English. I do not believe "because some Christians say so" is a valid ground for legislators to make law. But I do think that my personal beliefs are always the only valid ground for me to vote for (or against) a person or a law (if the opportunity exists to do so). And for you to suggest that THAT is wrong (if you do/did) is of course hypocrisy. You do exactly the same - you vote according to your beliefs, so does everyone else. I do not accept the logic that I should leave my faith outside the election booth and reject anything that does not comport with . . . . beliefs others "permit" to be valid.

[Big RR]

But I do think that my personal beliefs are always the only valid ground for me to vote for (or against) a person or a law (if the opportunity exists to do so). And for you to suggest that THAT is wrong (if you do/did) is of course hypocrisy. You do exactly the same - you vote according to your beliefs, so does everyone else. I do not accept the logic that I should leave my faith outside the election booth and reject anything that does not comport with . . . . beliefs others "permit" to be valid.

I cannot, and do not, speak for Sue, but I personally do not believe that is what she is saying. By all means you basic moral beliefs form part of your views and how you vote, but you do not have the right to impose them on others. A simple example has to do with Sunday blue laws. I recall when I was young that most retail businesses were closed; later, when we got the big department stores, this was limited and, e.g., we could sell work gloves and sporting gloves, but not dress gloves. It was no secret that the christian churches were behind this to make Sunday "special". These were later changed. Now there is no law that says any business cannot close on Sunday, or even any law permitting a area to declare a Sunday holiday for other than religious reasons (there is a county in NJ which still suspends most retail sales on Sunday but has provided a secualr reason behind it that has been accepted by the courts), but your desire to have a sabbath day of rest cannot and should not be imposed on others who do not share your beliefs; or do you disagree?

[Sue U]

The states that "allow" abortion all have some kind of restriction as to when abortion is no longer permitted. 24 weeks I think is the most usual outside limit (other than in threat to mother's life).

There is not one state that will not have some kind of law about abortion. Apparently the state has an interest, even if I'm not very skilled at arguing with a lawyer about it.

And that is precisely my point: What is it that justifies the state interest at 24 weeks? That is certainly much later than "conception," as some religions and their adherents would have it, and much earlier than "emergence of the head during labor," as my faith defines it. Roe settled on secular standards of "first trimester" and fetal "viability" as points at which varying degrees of state interest may be justified with respect to the "privacy" interests of a pregnant woman.

I cannot, and do not, speak for Sue,

That's okay, you did just fine. And Sunday "blue laws" are an excellent example of legislated observance of religious practice.

[Big RR]

[BoSoxGal]

Well Lauren Boebert is tired of the separation of church and state, so there! The RWNJs are over it and the rest of us are just going to have to embrace the suck of theocracy!

[MajGenl.Meade]

By all means you(r) basic moral beliefs form part of your views and how you vote, but you do not have the right to impose them on others.

Big RR - always there is this "imposing" argument which is so much hog-wash in a democratic form of government. You and others who vote as you do have every right to so "impose" your view. You do it now. Electorates always do it. Nobody votes AGAINST what they believe to be right for fear of having the wrong moral motivation.

Agreed, WE (you and I) don't have the right to pick up a pistol and force two of three people who disagree with our vote to go along with whatever it is for which we voted. That would be "imposing".

But you and I have every right to persuade those two people to vote as we do - and then the fourth person, vote as they will, must obey the will of the three in respect of law. That's how voting works. (Yes, yes, whatever law the 3 pass must meet requirements of the Constitution etc etc. Don't quibble).

Sue:

And that is precisely my point: What is it that justifies the state interest at 24 weeks?

I leave that to lawyers - they are the ones who have and will argue this out for the rest of time. Our not knowing is unlikely to be of much influence, I'd guess.

[Scooter]

The same folks saying, "don't have sex and you won't get pregnant" believe in a religion based upon the idea that a woman didn't have sex and got pregnant.

-- Father Nathan Monk

[Big RR]

Nobody votes AGAINST what they believe to be right for fear of having the wrong moral motivation.

Depends what you believe constitutes"AGAINST"; I know several women who believe that abortion is immoral and would never have one under any circumstances who still believe it should be legal and accessible to all who want it. I believe that freedom of speech is important enough that I would not vote to ban speech I find abhorrent, even though I may well try to shout the speakers down. And while I find the religious beliefs of some religions abhorrent, I would not vote to ban them. People don't always vote to impose their view on others; many of us would be perfectly happy to live and let live. It's only some people who think they should control the behavior of others to comport with their personal sense of morality.

[Bicycle Bill]

Throughout history, not having sexual intercourse is guaranteed to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (bar one but you know . . .)

To Joe Guy, E'line, and others:

Meade gets it... with the exception of the religious doctrine of Mary the Mother of God -- which, as some of you are quick to point out, is documented only in a book of 'fairy tales' and legends like the one about a great cataclysmic flood, the only survivors of which were a guy and his family in a home-built boat/floating menagerie -- you can show me NO OTHER EXAMPLE of a woman who became pregnant except by engaging in sexual activity (or utilized something like artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization and subsequent implantation of the zygote/embryo)

So I contend -- and it cannot be disproven by either scientific or anecdotal evidence -- that abstinence is, in fact, as close to 100% effective as makes no difference whatsoever.

Now, whether or not the unwashed, lecherous masses can control their animal instincts and refrain from fugging like a batch of horny spider monkeys is something else again.

-"BB"-

[Sue U]

Now, whether or not the unwashed, lecherous masses can control their animal instincts and refrain from fugging like a batch of horny spider monkeys is something else again.

Why in the world should we? What do you have against sex? Why should everyone else suffer just because you're not getting any?

[datsunaholic]

Now, whether or not the unwashed, lecherous masses can control their animal instincts and refrain from fugging like a batch of horny spider monkeys is something else again.

Why in the world should we? What do you have against sex? Why should everyone else suffer just because you're not getting any?

That's the point though, right? The argument made by the Evangelicals, the "Moral Majority", the "Christian Right", etc etc is that the consequence of fornication should be having to raise the products of said fornication. That's your punishment for being horny.

That was the message that my 7th grade Catholic sex-ed class intended to convey, at least. Don't know how effective it was for anyone else, but it sure worked with me. Or at least it's am excuse I can use; reality is more pathetic.

I started questioning that line of thinking decades ago but it still nags me now and again. It has formed the basis of my moral leanings. However, I have no desire to impose my moral beliefs on anyone else. Because it's none of my business.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nobody votes AGAINST what they believe to be right for fear of having the wrong moral motivation.

Depends what you believe constitutes"AGAINST"; I know several women who believe that abortion is immoral and would never have one under any circumstances who still believe it should be legal and accessible to all who want it. I believe that freedom of speech is important enough that I would not vote to ban speech I find abhorrent, even though I may well try to shout the speakers down. And while I find the religious beliefs of some religions abhorrent, I would not vote to ban them. People don't always vote to impose their view on others; many of us would be perfectly happy to live and let live. It's only some people who think they should control the behavior of others to comport with their personal sense of morality.

You prove my point, thank you. All votes for are votes against. Your "several women" do not vote against what they believe most - that abortion should be available etc. And they therefore are part of "imposing" their will on people who don't believe that abortion should be available. All people think they should control society in accordance with their own beliefs - even if it is the belief in "live and let live".

In essence, your acting on your beliefs is more virtuous than me acting on mine, because you are right and I am wrong. And you will understandably vote to counteract mine if we are on opposite sides of an issue. Same goes for me.

We are either both imposers or both not imposers, in equal measure.

And BB, please. With friends such as your self . . .

[MajGenl.Meade]

The argument made by the Evangelicals, the "Moral Majority", the "Christian Right", etc etc is that the consequence of fornication should be having to raise the products of said fornication. That's your punishment for being horny.

Was there something wrong with the idea that a pregnancy required proper attention from those responsible? There's a word that today is not regarded as anything very important - responsibility. It wasn't just "Christians" who warned against sex - it was parents.

My parents (decidedly not Christian) and the parents of my friends in 50s/60s (none of whom went to church) very much believed that children should (a) refrain from sex because girls could get pregnant and (b) if they got a girl pregnant, the boy should do the honorable thing. Parents of girls in particular warned against giving in to male desires (let alone their own) and the consequence of pregnancy.

Nothing to do with religion and punishment for being horny. Everything to do with not ruining young people's lives before they'd even begun to find their way in the world. It was fearsome to be threatened with having to get married and support a family!

I recall at age 14 or 15 our headmaster at school talking to us about sex. Why was it not wise to have sexual intercourse? (Pregnancy). Any other reason? Well, how about anyone who was willing to have sex was probably doing so with others? (VD). Here's a photo of a man's cheeks, lips and teeth rotting away. It was a bit like the anti-smoking lectures.

[Big RR]

Your "several women" do not vote against what they believe most - that abortion should be available etc. And they therefore are part of "imposing" their will on people who don't believe that abortion should be available. All people think they should control society in accordance with their own beliefs - even if it is the belief in "live and let live".

I disagree; there is a big difference in telling people they should or should not do something because I believe it is right or wrong, and saying I have no right to tell anyone that. Live and let live is not a belief, it is part of the natural order. As the Declaration of Independence says, laws are instituted to protect our rights, not the other way around. Choosing not to force my personal will on anyone is not the same as someone else forcing their will.

Here's a photo of a man's cheeks, lips and teeth rotting away. It was a bit like the anti-smoking lectures.

And the scare tactics worked equally well in both cases, especially for adolescents. Or did no teens smoke or have sex when you were young?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I disagree; there is a big difference in telling people they should or should not do something because I believe it is right or wrong, and saying I have no right to tell anyone that.

I don't even understand that sentence. Or perhaps I do and agree with it because it says nothing at all. Who is saying you have no right to tell anyone that (whatever that is).

You simply refuse to acknowledge that you vote the way you want things to be. So do I. Why are you arguing that? Everyone votes for the way they want things to be. And against what they don't want, viz. Trump

[Sue U]

You prove my point, thank you. All votes for are votes against. Your "several women" do not vote against what they believe most - that abortion should be available etc. And they therefore are part of "imposing" their will on people who don't believe that abortion should be available. All people think they should control society in accordance with their own beliefs - even if it is the belief in "live and let live".

In essence, your acting on your beliefs is more virtuous than me acting on mine, because you are right and I am wrong. And you will understandably vote to counteract mine if we are on opposite sides of an issue. Same goes for me.

We are either both imposers or both not imposers, in equal measure.

This is simplistic and exactly wrong, because it elides the fundamental basis for rule-making. If you live in a free society that values individual liberty, then the state may not impose any limitation on a person's conduct without it being narrowly tailored to serve an identifiable governmental interest necessary to the functioning of that society. This is the principle that keeps the majoritarian mob at bay. The purpose of law and government is not to make things the way you personally like them according to your preferences, but to ensure the fewest limits on all citizens' personal autonomy. This principle -- not anyone's personal morals or beliefs -- is what differentiates between rules that are "wrong" and "right."

[Big RR]

Exactly Sue; Meade, I guess you believe that the world would be a better place if everyone would live according to the rules you think they should follow, but it would never work (dictatorships always fail). I'm with Sue in believing that there should be minimal intrusions on personal autonomy. There are a lot of things my neighbors and others do that I do not like--some I even detest--but I am not so full of myself to think I have the right to impose my will on them.

If you honestly don't understand the difference between telling people what to do and leaving them alone to make their own decisions, there's not much more that I can say.

[Burning Petard]

"There are a lot of things my neighbors and others do that I do not like--some I even detest--but I am not so full of myself to think I have the right to impose my will on them"

Big RR, I agree with you on this. But there are many who do not. That is the source of the plethora of sad stories about the pettiness of Condo Boards and Homeowner Associations.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

Indeed BP; which is why i have resisted moving into a condo thus far. But at least I do have a choice whether I will move into one or not.