SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

[I-5]

It would be nice if we could all, or most all of us, come to a consensus, but chances are we won't. Additionally, like it or not, SCOTUS is going to be dominated by conservatives for at least the next 6-8 years. They're not going to reverse themselves anytime soon.

In the meantime, the focus needs to be on education, contraceptives, surgical alterations (vasectomies, tying tubes) and other preventative measures rather than wasting time and energy railing about SCOTUS and abortion rights.

Pragmatically speaking, I agree with you Riv. I just don't think this SCOTUS is following the Constitution as much as following their bible, and that is troublesome. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do. Will you be shocked if gay marriage is restricted by this 6-3 court? I won't.

I want maximum separation of church and state always, as that is what makes the US the greatest country in the world.

[RiverDog]

It would be nice if we could all, or most all of us, come to a consensus, but chances are we won't. Additionally, like it or not, SCOTUS is going to be dominated by conservatives for at least the next 6-8 years. They're not going to reverse themselves anytime soon.

In the meantime, the focus needs to be on education, contraceptives, surgical alterations (vasectomies, tying tubes) and other preventative measures rather than wasting time and energy railing about SCOTUS and abortion rights.

Pragmatically speaking, I agree with you Riv. I just don't think this SCOTUS is following the Constitution as much as following their bible, and that is troublesome. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do. Will you be shocked if gay marriage is restricted by this 6-3 court? I won't.

I want maximum separation of church and state always, as that is what makes the US the greatest country in the world.

So is Alito, the justice that wrote the majority opinion, following the bible vs. the Constitution? Is Kavanaugh? John Roberts? Outside of them making a ruling that you objected to, what evidence do you have that they were following the Bible? I don't even know what religion they are, let alone whether or not they are devout followers.

Conservative justices are generally stricter in their interpretations of the Constitution whereas liberal justices are looser in their POV's. In the 14th Amendment, the part of the Constitution that was referenced in Roe v Wade, there is no verbiage that refers directly to abortion. When RvW was first decided, the then liberal court interpreted the right to privacy as extending to a woman's right to choose an abortion. The current court disagreed and opted to interpret the Constitution differently, ruling that there was no specific Constitutional right to an abortion. It conforms with the notion that conservative justices tend to look at the black-and-white text of the law when rendering a judgment.

Religious instruction, as it does in many people, may have been one of the building blocks of the justice's personalities, including the liberal wing. But that doesn't mean that they are referencing the Bible in lieu of the Constitution when arriving at their opinions.

Unless you want to disqualify anyone that has ever belonged to a church or practiced a religion from having anything to do with a governmental position, you're never going to achieve 'maximum' separation of church and state. If you did, then we shouldn't stop with SCOTUS. We could start disqualifying members of Congress as well.

[Aseahawkfan]

Pragmatically speaking, I agree with you Riv. I just don't think this SCOTUS is following the Constitution as much as following their bible, and that is troublesome. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do. Will you be shocked if gay marriage is restricted by this 6-3 court? I won't.

I want maximum separation of church and state always, as that is what makes the US the greatest country in the world.

The Supreme Court did not limit abortion when it made it's ruling. The Court returned to the States the ability to legislate abortion by the people of a given state through their legislators. Which is why it is still legal and expanded as a right in some states and reduced in others.

The Supreme Court has no power to restrict gay marriage. The only power they might possibly possess is the ability to return to the States the ability to legislate gay marriage.

The Supreme Court defines legal concepts in the United States political framework based on a variety of factors within the law which may allow State or Federal legislators to expand or reduce rights or change the way they are adjudicated within the system.

The court did not rule based on their religious belief. They ruled based on a legal interpretation of the Constitution. They made very strong legal arguments for the ruling.

The ruling can be changed if the Democrats successfully pass a federal reproductive rights law.

[Aseahawkfan]

So is Alito, the justice that wrote the majority opinion, following the bible vs. the Constitution? Is Kavanaugh? John Roberts? Outside of them making a ruling that you objected to, what evidence do you have that they were following the Bible? I don't even know what religion they are, let alone whether or not they are devout followers.

Conservative justices are generally stricter in their interpretations of the Constitution whereas liberal justices are looser in their POV's. In the 14th Amendment, the part of the Constitution that was referenced in Roe v Wade, there is no verbiage that refers directly to abortion. When RvW was first decided, the then liberal court interpreted the right to privacy as extending to a woman's right to choose an abortion. The current court disagreed and opted to interpret the Constitution differently, ruling that there was no specific Constitutional right to an abortion. It conforms with the notion that conservative justices tend to look at the black-and-white text of the law when rendering a judgment.

Religious instruction, as it does in many people, may have been one of the building blocks of the justice's personalities, including the liberal wing. But that doesn't mean that they are referencing the Bible in lieu of the Constitution when arriving at their opinions.

Unless you want to disqualify anyone that has ever belonged to a church or practiced a religion from having anything to do with a governmental position, you're never going to achieve 'maximum' separation of church and state. If you did, then we shouldn't stop with SCOTUS. We could start disqualifying members of Congress as well.

Now you see why I view things as I do. No real understanding of what the Supreme Court did by much of the Democratic left. Just CNN/MSNBC driven propaganda fed to the masses who couldn't be bothered to learn about the Constitution they are speaking about.

[c_hawkbob]

Pure arrogance actually believing you're the only ones that understand a thing there is a disagreement about.

[mykc14]

I understand you're giving your opinion, and I respect it, but you're not making laws that others have to follow. Having an opinion is perfectly fine, but should your opinion overrule another's when it comes to their own choices? THAT'S the point.

Conversely, if a person of the jewish faith tells you their belief is that life begins with the baby's first breath, should their opinion have any sway over your choices?

Maybe I misunderstood your first question but I thought you were asking why my opinion mattered, not if my opinion should overrule another person's. I was telling you why I felt it mattered. I think everybody's opinion matters in this debate, it's a tough one. Of course one person's opinion shouldn't overrule rule another's but that doesn't mean their opinion shouldn't matter. You never asked if I felt like my opinion should overrule another person's, just why it matters. If anybody thinks that our legal system is allowing innocent lives to be lost their opinion should matter- not that it should overrule another person's, but it does matter. A Jewish belief has no sway over my beliefs, but it does influence their opinion, just like a Christian perspective shouldn't be the sole factor deciding abortion rights in our country.

[Aseahawkfan]

Pure arrogance actually believing you're the only ones that understand a thing there is a disagreement about.

Riverdog also clearly understands what happened on a legal level. Just not people who think the Supreme Court legislates and believe the tripe out of the liberal media's mouth that the Supreme Court "restricted" abortion when they did not.

And also pushing the idea they based it on their religious belief rather than Constitutional law which existed prior to the Roe vs. Wade ruling which was itself a legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment that was viewed as not in line with Constitutional law when it was first handed down by a good portion of the nation. Everyone attacks the Supreme Court when it rules in a way they don't like rather than getting their representatives to codify a better law.

They're too liberal when they do something the liberals support. They're too conservative when they do something conservative's support.

Sorry I expect Americans to be more educated about their governmental system. Far be it from me to expect The People who are supposed to govern the nation to know more than they do about how their government system works.

I guess I better go watch a politically-biased news station or web site, listen to the local fearmonger talking head, then come back and post it as my own opinion. Then I'd be more in line with mainstream American political discourse.

[I-5]

Maybe I misunderstood your first question but I thought you were asking why my opinion mattered, not if my opinion should overrule another person's. I was telling you why I felt it mattered. I think everybody's opinion matters in this debate, it's a tough one. Of course one person's opinion shouldn't overrule rule another's but that doesn't mean their opinion shouldn't matter. You never asked if I felt like my opinion should overrule another person's, just why it matters. If anybody thinks that our legal system is allowing innocent lives to be lost their opinion should matter- not that it should overrule another person's, but it does matter. A Jewish belief has no sway over my beliefs, but it does influence their opinion, just like a Christian perspective shouldn't be the sole factor deciding abortion rights in our country.

You make yourself clear, and I understand your point of view so thanks! Of course, everyone's opinion matters, but to clarify my question, why should anyone, even a justice of the SCOTUS, be able to tell a woman what to do about her choice about something that is not universally agreed on (the beginning of life)? That's the fundamental issue I'm asking. I know abortion rights weren't part of the Constitution, but the point remains; if doctors and scientists can't agree on the beginning of life, why does the SCOTUS have a right to pass rulings that make that judgement affect people's lives? They don't have that right in my view.

[RiverDog]

I know abortion rights weren't part of the Constitution, but the point remains; if doctors and scientists can't agree on the beginning of life, why does the SCOTUS have a right to pass rulings that make that judgement affect people's lives? They don't have that right in my view.

Oh, come on, man!

The Supreme Court's job is to pass judgment on laws, making a determination as to whether or not they are within the framework of the Constitution. It's a 'right' given to them by the Constitution. Would you rather that the Court just disappear and not make rulings on controversial issues, like Brown v Board of Education, that land in their laps having made the rounds in the lower courts and just let state and local jurisdictions pass whatever laws they see fit?

For the umpteenth time, if it means that much to you, quit whining about the decision and pressure your elected representatives to take action and pass legislation that will protect abortion rights. Hell, even a conservative like me is likely to support a reasonable abortion rights law.

[I-5]

Who’s whining Riv? Its a forum for people to comment, just like you’re commenting. Chill out, dude.

[RiverDog]

Who’s whining Riv? Its a forum for people to comment, just like you’re commenting. Chill out, dude.

You have my apologies, but what 'right' does SCOTUS have in making that ruling? That's an emotionally based reaction, not one that an intelligent poster like yourself would make. They not only have a 'right', but they also have an obligation to rule on what is presented before them. I simply reacted with the same emotion in which you made your comment.

[c_hawkbob]

if doctors and scientists can't agree on the beginning of life, why does the SCOTUS have a right to pass rulings that make that judgement affect people's lives?

Looks like a pretty straightforward question to me. You may be projecting a bit of your own emotion there Riv. I've go a niece that used to think I'm the smartest, most reasonable and fair person in the world and she's absolutely stunned that I'm pro choice ... it's an emotionally charged issue. If it gets you worked up perhaps you should steer clear.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The SCOTUS didn't make a ruling on the beginning of life. They 1) Found in favor of the State of MS over an abortion clinic that disagreed with the 15-week limit in MS state law, and 2) Returned the determination of abortion law to the states. I'm guessing y'all know these two things already, so I don't understand why you're attributing the decision of the beginning of life to the SCOTUS. Like River said, they're ruling on what is in front of them which is their job.

[RiverDog]

if doctors and scientists can't agree on the beginning of life, why does the SCOTUS have a right to pass rulings that make that judgement affect people's lives?

Looks like a pretty straightforward question to me. You may be projecting a bit of your own emotion there Riv. I've go a niece that used to think I'm the smartest, most reasonable and fair person in the world and she's absolutely stunned that I'm pro choice ... it's an emotionally charged issue. If it gets you worked up perhaps you should steer clear.

It's the underlined portion that got me going. It's an ignorant statement/question as it's obvious where SCOTUS derives their authority from.

And BTW, I'm pro choice, too, and would gladly support any reasonable legislation that would establish a federal right to an abortion, as would most of the country. Why Congress doesn't get behind a bill and make a major push to get it passed is beyond me. I guess it's more valuable to them as a campaign issue.

[RiverDog]

The SCOTUS didn't make a ruling on the beginning of life. They 1) Found in favor of the State of MS over an abortion clinic that disagreed with the 15-week limit in MS state law, and 2) Returned the determination of abortion law to the states. I'm guessing y'all know these two things already, so I don't understand why you're attributing the decision of the beginning of life to the SCOTUS. Like River said, they're ruling on what is in front of them which is their job.

Here's what Alito said about the beginning of life when he penned the majority opinion:

"Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.'"

What he is saying that it was Roe v. Wade, back in 1973, that made the judgment as to when life begins by preventing states from restricting abortion until an arbitrary line had passed. It is not up to the courts to make that kind of decision any more than it is for them to decide at what point a person is considered to be driving under the influence. It's a line in the sand that needs to be defined by the legislature.

The court is not making a moral judgment on abortion or foisting their views on others as some have indicated. They are making a legal judgment, what does and doesn't exist in the Constitution.

[I-5]

If you don’t think the reversal of Roe vs Wade is ideologically based, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Do you think Kavanaugh and ACB agree with Alito, and if so why wouldn’t they candidly say so when pointedly asked during their confirmation hearings about their legal views on R v W?

Don’t take my comment about affecting peoples lives the wrong way…of course the SCOTUS affects lives, because we need rules to function as a society and democracy. My comment is only on the family choices here…the implication is obvious but I guess not to some.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's the underlined portion that got me going. It's an ignorant statement/question as it's obvious where SCOTUS derives their authority from.

And BTW, I'm pro choice, too, and would gladly support any reasonable legislation that would establish a federal right to an abortion, as would most of the country. Why Congress doesn't get behind a bill and make a major push to get it passed is beyond me. I guess it's more valuable to them as a campaign issue.

It is extremely valuable as a campaign issue. I can accuse the Democratic leadership of a lot of things, being dumb isn't one of them. When I hear Republicans call Democrats dumb, I just chuckle. None of these folks are dumb. They are not run by dumb people. They are agenda driven, morality can at times be secondary to policy agendas as we have all seen, and driven to obtain sufficient power to pass the agenda they are pushing. The abortion issue is but one item on a long agenda for Democrats and they would love to ride the abortion issue to a bigger majority in the Congress, so they can really get a lot of their agenda done.

[Aseahawkfan]

If you don’t think the reversal of Roe vs Wade is ideologically based, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Do you think Kavanaugh and ACB agree with Alito, and if so why wouldn’t they candidly say so when pointedly asked during their confirmation hearings about their legal views on R v W?

Don’t take my comment about affecting peoples lives the wrong way…of course the SCOTUS affects lives, because we need rules to function as a society and democracy. My comment is only on the family choices here…the implication is obvious but I guess not to some.

Of course it was ideologically based, just as the original ruling of Roe vs. Wade was ideologically based. The original ruling was viewed as judicial activism and not at all supporting Constitutional law.

Both are ideologically based and this is the push back. But you are still very, very wrong that the Supreme Court restricted abortion. It is not illegal in America. They returned the right of governing to the States as was originally done prior to the ruling. They used sound legal arguments to support why they returned the power to the States and it is well-supported if not more so than the original Roe vs. Wade ruling.

And hopefully, long-term this will lead to a Federal codified reproductive right with a much stronger standing for the future rather than the backdoor rubbish of the original ruling that was so easy to overturn. Most people even this forum support some kind of abortion right, so it should be much easier in the modern day to get some kind of Amendment passed with a stronger and less easy to undo reproductive right.

I'm sure if the Dems increase their majority in Congress later this year, they'll get it done.

[RiverDog]

If you don’t think the reversal of Roe vs Wade is ideologically based, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Do you think Kavanaugh and ACB agree with Alito, and if so why wouldn’t they candidly say so when pointedly asked during their confirmation hearings about their legal views on R v W?

Don’t take my comment about affecting peoples lives the wrong way…of course the SCOTUS affects lives, because we need rules to function as a society and democracy. My comment is only on the family choices here…the implication is obvious but I guess not to some.

Of course, it's ideologically based. But the ideology was not based on religious convictions or personal views on the right to life or when life begins. It's base on the typical ideology that conservative justices have been practicing for decades, that the Constitution should be interpreted in a more literal sense vs. the liberal philosophy of it being a flexible document that can be molded to fit modern society. Both POV's are very well reasoned approaches, and IMO neither one of them is right or wrong. All I am arguing is how the court came to their decision. I never said that I agreed with it, only that they are correct in that there is no specific wording in the Constitution that conveys a right to an abortion.

It is not up to SCOTUS to make the rules that are required for society to function. That is the job of the Legislative Branch.

[I-5]

In this regard, I agree with both Riv and ASF that codification is the future of reproductive rights in America. We hadn't needed it because of R v W, but the time has come. We'll give it a few years. Until then, SCOTUS gave the dems unnecessary fuel.

We can debate who restricted what, but returning the rights to the states is still the state having a say in reproductive rights. As I heard someone else say, why stop at the state level and give it to counties instead? Heck, let each city govern itself. Or you know, let the individual make their own choice....

[RiverDog]

In this regard, I agree with both Riv and ASF that codification is the future of reproductive rights in America. We hadn't needed it because of R v W, but the time has come. We'll give it a few years. Until then, SCOTUS gave the dems unnecessary fuel.

Thank you. I've been harping up and down this thread that they've had nearly 50 years to pass a law. And as I keep saying, you can count me in.

But it's probably not doable under the current Congress. They'd have to get 10 R Senators to stop a filibuster, but you never know. They'd get Collins and Murkowski for sure, maybe a few other R's in purple states. Lyndon Johnson ram rodded the 1964 Civil Rights bill through Congress despite fierce opposition from his own party, including his Senate mentor. If we had a POTUS with those kinds of balls, they could get it done, but not with Sleepy Joe.

[Aseahawkfan]

Thank you. I've been harping up and down this thread that they've had nearly 50 years to pass a law. And as I keep saying, you can count me in.

But it's probably not doable under the current Congress. They'd have to get 10 R Senators to stop a filibuster, but you never know. They'd get Collins and Murkowski for sure, maybe a few other R's in purple states. Lyndon Johnson ram rodded the 1964 Civil Rights bill through Congress despite fierce opposition from his own party, including his Senate mentor. If we had a POTUS with those kinds of balls, they could get it done, but not with Sleepy Joe.

It's going to depend on the midterms. What is 2/3rd vote by Congress to create an amendment? I should look up that process and refresh my memory. I think some Rs would come on board for some type of abortion right as Republicans aren't nearly as universally against abortion as the nation used to be. Even my Trump loving buddies aren't for a universal abortion ban. Some of them are heavily for abortion and the one religious guy even he isn't interested in restricting people based on his beliefs. So I think even a mild majority with some deal making could get something done.

[I-5]

'Sleepy Joe' isn't really working from a branding POV. This sleepy president is getting $%t done passing legislation, for better or worse (depending where you stand). Go Brandon!

They've had 50 years to pass a law implies every congress would pass it...NOT. Should the right to gun be codified instead of being an amendment? What are they waiting for?

[Aseahawkfan]

'Sleepy Joe' isn't really working from a branding POV. This sleepy president is getting $%t done passing legislation, for better or worse (depending where you stand). Go Brandon!

They've had 50 years to pass a law implies every congress would pass it...NOT. Should the right to gun be codified instead of being an amendment? What are they waiting for?

What are you talking about? The 2nd Amendment is the codification. Founders used arms because they knew arms would constantly change, but the basic concept would not. They used guns in their day and swords or knives. They were aware arms would change over time, but the need for the population to own them as a check on government military power would not. It's why most of the Amendments are very general ideas. Even the First Amendment isn't long, but the idea is clear.

All they need to do at some point is put in an Amendment or codify a law with some general idea of reproductive rights for the state to build off of. It doesn't need to be long or deeply explained. Just a general reproductive right that the legislative bodies can build off.

And you should already know that States were chosen to have rights because the start of the nation was a loose Confederation of States with different governments that formed a nation while at the same time wanting to maintain some political sovereignty that suited the people in those states so the national didn't become a centralized Federal tyranny. Why don't you know this stuff? Sheesh.

[RiverDog]

Thank you. I've been harping up and down this thread that they've had nearly 50 years to pass a law. And as I keep saying, you can count me in.

But it's probably not doable under the current Congress. They'd have to get 10 R Senators to stop a filibuster, but you never know. They'd get Collins and Murkowski for sure, maybe a few other R's in purple states. Lyndon Johnson ram rodded the 1964 Civil Rights bill through Congress despite fierce opposition from his own party, including his Senate mentor. If we had a POTUS with those kinds of balls, they could get it done, but not with Sleepy Joe.

It's going to depend on the midterms. What is 2/3rd vote by Congress to create an amendment? I should look up that process and refresh my memory. I think some Rs would come on board for some type of abortion right as Republicans aren't nearly as universally against abortion as the nation used to be. Even my Trump loving buddies aren't for a universal abortion ban. Some of them are heavily for abortion and the one religious guy even he isn't interested in restricting people based on his beliefs. So I think even a mild majority with some deal making could get something done.

You're thinking of a Constitutional amendment, which is out of the question. You're right, an amendment requires a 2/3's affirmative vote by Congress, but it also requires a 2/3 vote by the states, ie 34 states, which won't happen in our lifetimes.

But Congress can pass a law that protects abortion rights just like they did when they passed a law protecting civil rights. Granted, it, too, would be subject to SCOTUS's review, but it would be a whole different monster as they would have to find something in the Constitution to reject it rather than finding something in it to affirm it.

[Aseahawkfan]

You're thinking of a Constitutional amendment, which is out of the question. You're right, an amendment requires a 2/3's affirmative vote by Congress, but it also requires a 2/3 vote by the states, ie 34 states, which won't happen in our lifetimes.

But Congress can pass a law that protects abortion rights just like they did when they passed a law protecting civil rights. Granted, it, too, would be subject to SCOTUS's review, but it would be a whole different monster as they would have to find something in the Constitution to reject it rather than finding something in it to affirm it.

The State vote would be hard in the current environment. Sensible government left us some time back if it ever existed, but at least the politicians used to try to seem sensible. Now it's just blatant hypocrisy and political warfare and that pretense were all too stupid to see what they're doing.

[RiverDog]

You're thinking of a Constitutional amendment, which is out of the question. You're right, an amendment requires a 2/3's affirmative vote by Congress, but it also requires a 2/3 vote by the states, ie 34 states, which won't happen in our lifetimes.

But Congress can pass a law that protects abortion rights just like they did when they passed a law protecting civil rights. Granted, it, too, would be subject to SCOTUS's review, but it would be a whole different monster as they would have to find something in the Constitution to reject it rather than finding something in it to affirm it.

The State vote would be hard in the current environment. Sensible government left us some time back if it ever existed, but at least the politicians used to try to seem sensible. Now it's just blatant hypocrisy and political warfare and that pretense were all too stupid to see what they're doing.

Getting 2/3's of Congress, let alone 2/3's of the states, to agree on anything is virtually impossible in any environment, let alone this one. Amendments to the Constitution are rare and lately have involved administrative types of things, like the secession of power and salaries of Congressmen. We've had 2 in the past 50 years, the 26th, which was the 18-year-old vote and was ratified in 1971, and the 27th, that restricts Congress from voting pay raises for themselves until after the subsequent election, ratified in 1992. Those aren't politically charged issues like abortion.

The best option is for Congress to pass a law regulating abortion at the federal level.

[Aseahawkfan]

Getting 2/3's of Congress, let alone 2/3's of the states, to agree on anything is virtually impossible in any environment, let alone this one. Amendments to the Constitution are rare and lately have involved administrative types of things, like the secession of power and salaries of Congressmen. The last one before then, the 26th, was the 18 year old vote and was ratified in 1971. Those aren't politically charged issues like abortion.

The best option is for Congress to pass a law regulating abortion at the federal level.

It's funny that you mention this. It's why I love Lincoln so much. What kind of a Statesman do you have to be to convince enough people to Amend the Constitution to end slavery when the nation was raised on it? An absolutely amazing Stateman, orator, and politician.

We don't have that kind of leadership any longer.

And would a Federal law be possible given the current ruling of the Supreme Court that the States have power over abortion? I was thinking about this last night after your statement. If the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is the purview of the States, wouldn't any law that wasn't a Constitutional Amendment violate the right of the State to legislate abortion? Thus creating a need to Amend the Constitution for a reproductive right to supersede the Constitutional ruling? Otherwise the only other option is to wait for a more liberal Court to reverse the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

To simplify, do you think Congress can pass a law that would pass Constitutional muster when the States against abortion sue to resist a Federal law in the same manner they do when the Federal government attempts to limit gun rights or other Constitutional rights that the Federal government overreaches on?

I think there is sufficient female political power and perhaps enough males to really push hard to get an abortion Amendment passed in the modern day if it is not too extreme. But absent an Amendment, I think a Federal law might be ruled unconstitutional by the current court.

[RiverDog]

And would a Federal law be possible given the current ruling of the Supreme Court that the States have power over abortion? I was thinking about this last night after your statement. If the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is the purview of the States, wouldn't any law that wasn't a Constitutional Amendment violate the right of the State to legislate abortion? Thus creating a need to Amend the Constitution for a reproductive right to supersede the Constitutional ruling? Otherwise the only other option is to wait for a more liberal Court to reverse the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

To simplify, do you think Congress can pass a law that would pass Constitutional muster when the States against abortion sue to resist a Federal law in the same manner they do when the Federal government attempts to limit gun rights or other Constitutional rights that the Federal government overreaches on?

I think there is sufficient female political power and perhaps enough males to really push hard to get an abortion Amendment passed in the modern day if it is not too extreme. But absent an Amendment, I think a Federal law might be ruled unconstitutional by the current court.

You're right, there is the possibility that an abortion law passed by Congress could be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. But the big difference here is that in Roe v. Wade, they couldn't find specific language that inferred a Constitutional right to an abortion, so they essentially defaulted to the states and let them make the call. The opposite would be in effect if they were asked to pass judgment on a law passed by Congress. To justify their ruling against such a law, they would have to find or infer in the Constitution some sort of language that prohibits it or delegates it to the states.

Here's a link that notes recent SCOTUS decisions involving their ruling of laws being unconstitutional and which part of the Constitution it violated:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resou ... onal-laws/

It is possible that some justices, like Clarence Thomas, could find that a law allowing abortions are a violation of due process, essentially considering a fetus as a human being and that they are depriving it of life. But if you read Alito's majority opinion in overturning Roe v. Wade, it suggests that they would not stand in the way of a federal law that allowed the procedure:

"Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth...Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.'"

Alito is one of the most conservative members of the court, and if he indicated that they're not going to make a decision as to when life begins, which is what they'd have to conclude in any rationale that would overturn it, it's a slam dunk that the majority of the court will agree with him.

[Aseahawkfan]

You're right, there is the possibility that an abortion law passed by Congress could be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. But the big difference here is that in Roe v. Wade, they couldn't find specific language that inferred a Constitutional right to an abortion, so they essentially defaulted to the states and let them make the call. The opposite would be in effect if they were asked to pass judgment on a law passed by Congress. To justify their ruling against such a law, they would have to find or infer in the Constitution some sort of language that prohibits it or delegates it to the states.

Here's a link that notes recent SCOTUS decisions involving their ruling of laws being unconstitutional and which part of the Constitution it violated:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resou ... onal-laws/

It is possible that some justices, like Clarence Thomas, could find that a law allowing abortions are a violation of due process, essentially considering a fetus as a human being and that they are depriving it of life. But if you read Alito's majority opinion in overturning Roe v. Wade, it suggests that they would not stand in the way of a federal law that allowed the procedure:

"Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth...Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.'"

Alito is one of the most conservative members of the court, and if he indicated that they're not going to make a decision as to when life begins, which is what they'd have to conclude in any rationale that would overturn it, it's a slam dunk that the majority of the court will agree with him.

It will be interesting to see how it goes if the Dems win the necessary majority in the midterms. It will likely be some kind of fight for at least a few election cycles depending on how the Supreme Court rules on any laws Congress creates.

[RiverDog]

You're right, there is the possibility that an abortion law passed by Congress could be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. But the big difference here is that in Roe v. Wade, they couldn't find specific language that inferred a Constitutional right to an abortion, so they essentially defaulted to the states and let them make the call. The opposite would be in effect if they were asked to pass judgment on a law passed by Congress. To justify their ruling against such a law, they would have to find or infer in the Constitution some sort of language that prohibits it or delegates it to the states.

Here's a link that notes recent SCOTUS decisions involving their ruling of laws being unconstitutional and which part of the Constitution it violated:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resou ... onal-laws/

It is possible that some justices, like Clarence Thomas, could find that a law allowing abortions are a violation of due process, essentially considering a fetus as a human being and that they are depriving it of life. But if you read Alito's majority opinion in overturning Roe v. Wade, it suggests that they would not stand in the way of a federal law that allowed the procedure:

"Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth...Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that ‘theory of life.'"

Alito is one of the most conservative members of the court, and if he indicated that they're not going to make a decision as to when life begins, which is what they'd have to conclude in any rationale that would overturn it, it's a slam dunk that the majority of the court will agree with him.

It will be interesting to see how it goes if the Dems win the necessary majority in the midterms. It will likely be some kind of fight for at least a few election cycles depending on how the Supreme Court rules on any laws Congress creates.

The Dems have a numerical advantage in the Senate as they're having to defend fewer seats. In the House, the R's might have stubbed their toes by advancing so many Trump-endorsed candidates as it will drive the moderates into the Dems camp. I haven't seen any polling info, but I get the sense that the tide has been rolled back somewhat, especially with gas prices coming down. It's still a long ways to November and a lot can happen.

[I-5]

Federal abortion ban, anyone? And the childless senator proposing it has even decided for the nation that 15 weeks seems right to him. Can’t wait to see this red wave sweep the country.

[RiverDog]

Federal abortion ban, anyone? And the childless senator proposing it has even decided for the nation that 15 weeks seems right to him. Can’t wait to see this red wave sweep the country.

I wouldn't hold my breath. The abortion issue, as expected, has waned somewhat since the SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v Wade.

Surveys suggest that the top issue with independent/swing voters is inflation, and that doesn't bode well for the Dems. The Fed is scheduled to meet later this week, and it's widely expected that they'll raise interest rates by another 3/4 of a point, a reminder that inflation isn't going away anytime soon.

Gas prices, although much lower than they were in the spring, are still about 17% higher than they were at this time last year. Biden's job approval, although up a few ticks, from 38% to 41%, is still in the toilet, well below Trump's approval ratings ahead of the 2018 election (47%).

I'm not making any predictions, but those are bad signs for the Democrats.

[I-5]

What reasonable person expects gas prices to remain exactly the same from year ago, and is tracking it that way? Speaking for myself, I’ve cut down my mileage to about 1/4 to 1/3 of what it used to be due to changes in lifestyle and work from home options. I dont see gas prices as severe, and I dont see it as a driving force this time.

No one is holding their breath, and neither should you. I just find it entertaining after all this ‘states rights, states rights’ talk, and a leading republican senator blows it out if the water by putting his foot in his mouth and calling for a federal ban. I love it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'll be surprised if the Republicans win, especially with some talking about a Federal abortion ban. A Federal ban would throw women into a tizzy and some men.

[RiverDog]

What reasonable person expects gas prices to remain exactly the same from year ago, and is tracking it that way? Speaking for myself, I’ve cut down my mileage to about 1/4 to 1/3 of what it used to be due to changes in lifestyle and work from home options. I dont see gas prices as severe, and I dont see it as a driving force this time.

No one is holding their breath, and neither should you. I just find it entertaining after all this ‘states rights, states rights’ talk, and a leading republican senator blows it out if the water by putting his foot in his mouth and calling for a federal ban. I love it.

First off, we're not talking about "reasonable people". We're talking about the American voters, of which even you would agree are gullible and easily manipulated as evidenced by DJT's successes. Secondly, gas prices are a constant reminder of the state of prices in general. They are a factor that is intertwined with inflation, and just this morning and for the first time in 3 months, the nationwide price bottomed out and ticked up a tad:

A 99-day stretch of declines in the average U.S. national gasoline price came to an end Wednesday, a sign that the effect of falling fuel costs, which have recently helped temper overall inflation, might be waning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-gas-prices ... 16647.html

Lindsey Graham is an idiot. If I were the RNC chairman, I'd be furious. Abortion is a losing issue for the R's, it's less than two months before the mid terms, the issue had been fading, and now here comes Graham, re-igniting it and forcing a number of R's to come out and take a stand. Indeed, many R's have firmly opposed Graham's initiative. Politically, it was one of the stupidest moves I've seen by a member of either party for some time.

Having said that, we need to have a national discussion regarding what role the federal government should play, if any, in regulating abortion. Despite their majority, the Dems have not made any attempt whatsoever to propose a law that addresses abortion. They seem content to wring as much juice out of the issue as they can ahead of the elections. IMO it's more valuable to them as a political weapon than it is to solve the problem.

15 weeks would be a good starting point for conservatives and IMO is not at all unreasonable and can be supported by science. There is considerable medical evidence that shows that by that time, the fetus's brain has started controlling bodily functions like its heartbeat. It's also plenty of time for a woman to realize that she's pregnant and provides ample time for her to get medical and spiritual advice from people she trusts. Whether it be Graham that initiates a bill or someone else, one needs to be introduced and Congress needs to start holding public hearings on it, bringing in testimony from doctors, clergymen/women, representatives of the right to life/freedom of choice movements, etc, in an attempt to see if some sort of a consensus can be reached.

It's absurd for the states to have such widely varying laws regarding abortion. It begs a federal solution.

[I-5]

Just weeks ago we were talking about how reversing Roe vs Wade didn’t ban anything, and that it left the issue for states to decide for themselves. Fast forward to today, and Lindsey Graham is an idiot, yet 15 weeks is reasonable, and it begs a federal solution?

Regarding a national discussion, where do you suggest that would take place, and who would moderate it? Or is that just a rhetorical statement? Voting booths are probably one of the main venues for Americans to speak their mind, and 6 out of 10 americans do not agree what the SCOTUS did.

[RiverDog]

Just weeks ago we were talking about how reversing Roe vs Wade didn’t ban anything, and that it left the issue for states to decide for themselves. Fast forward to today, and Lindsey Graham is an idiot, yet 15 weeks is reasonable, and it begs a federal solution?

The reason I said that Graham was an idiot wasn't because he suggested 15 weeks as the line in the sand. The reason he's an idiot is due to the timing of his suggestion, ie 7 weeks before the midterms. He forced many of his Republican colleagues to take a position they may not have wanted to take. They would much rather be talking about gas prices and inflation instead of having to explain their positions on abortion. As you have noted, a clear majority of voters, including some R's and a lot of independents, are in favor of some type of abortion rights. It's a losing issue for the R's, so don't ask/don't tell would be in order.

15 weeks puts the pregnancy into the 2nd trimester. Science and medicine can show clear evidence of a human life form evolving during that time frame:

In the second trimester, the fetal brain begins to direct the compression of the chest muscles and movement of the diaphragm. These are kind of like practice breaths and are controlled by the brain stem. Sucking and swallowing begin around week 16, and by week 21, the fetus can swallow amniotic fluid.

During the second trimester, the fetus is still testing out movements, kicking and stretching. At some point between week 16 and week 20, the fetus should be large enough that you can feel the baby kick. These movements are directed by the cerebellum. At this point, the fetus develops the full range of specific fetal movements.

So long as we're doing a decent job of teaching sex ed, 15 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to discover that she's pregnant and get the medical and/or spiritual counsel she might need to make a decision. It isn't an outrageous point in which to draw that line in the sand. I'm not saying it's the point where life begins, but there are facts that would help support such an argument. It's not an unreasonable position.

Regarding a national discussion, where do you suggest that would take place, and who would moderate it? Or is that just a rhetorical statement? Voting booths are probably one of the main venues for Americans to speak their mind, and 6 out of 10 americans do not agree what the SCOTUS did.

My suggestion is that the Dems introduce legislation to establish federal protections for abortion rights then send it to committee. The Speaker then appoints a bipartisan group of Congressmen/women and a Democratic chairperson, ie the arbitrator. The committee would then hold public, televised hearings, calling doctors, scientists, leaders of advocacy groups, etc, to testify before their committee. Based on input from their constituents, they craft amendments or changes to the bill, send it to the full house, get it approved, then forward it to the Senate where a similar process occurs. It's as democratic of a process as one can devise without establishing some sort of nationwide referendum, of which we do not have a procedure for. It's the same way that civil rights legislation got adapted back in the 60's. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think the Dems will introduce legislation if they win in the midterms. I think that is part of their selling point for supporting Dems keeping the House and taking the Senate. Then they have the power to introduce legislation.

[Hawktawk]

Whacko left and Taliban right . One Fd up country . But the trumplican Taliban party is the whacko lefts best asset . Starting with 2015 my lifelong party and many of its idiot members have proven they have the ability to screw up a wet dream every time . I’ve really hoped I could have my party back this cycle but oh no .

I detest these people on either fringe that have torn this country apart , ruined it for normal people .