BearGoggles said:
Bears2thDoc said:
golden sloth said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.
I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.
I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?
Dude, I'm reasonably confident you don't understand how this works.
To say its Alabama, it doesn't affect California is crazy.
Though I do not see this being the case to do it, the religious right wants to get a state law passed that is wrapped in such a way that John Roberts' SC will have no problem overturning Roe......and that will affect CA.
Not to mention the shear disregard for the rights of women, whether or not they live in CA.
Again, there is no middle ground here, One either supports the rights of women or one does't.
Clearly, you would rather support a football team access to money over the rights of your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter or any other woman for that matter.
I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.
Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters. It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.
Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.
I strongly agree with you in part and strongly disagree with you in part. The US Constitution very specifically takes its power directly from the people. This was an intentional response to the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation which took its power from the states. There is a clear division of rights. Over simplifying it, there are individual rights granted in the Constitution and those trump the rights of the federal and state governments. There are federal rights granted and those trump the rights of the state governments. The rest are reserved for the states. Effectively when a state enacts a law, no matter how democratically, the job of SCOTUS is to determine whether that law interferes with the rights of the federal government or with the rights of the individual.
Quote:
I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.
Very strongly agree with you here. The Supreme Court is charged with determining whether laws of the federal or state governments are constitutional or unconstitutional. In this case, it is determining whether there is a state law is interfering with individual rights protected by the Constitution. SCOTUS does not make any laws. It does not interfere with the rights of individuals. SCOTUS will never say abortion is illegal. SCOTUS will only say whether a state's restrictions on the actions of individuals is allowed. If SCOTUS overturns Roe, it will allow the states to act. Not mandate it. This is a key political point. As SCOTUS has turned more conservative, what that means for liberals is that they need to be more diligent in voting and pushing for policies they want their states to enact and not rely on SCOTUS as a back stop.
Quote:
Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters.
Very strongly disagree with you here. Yes, that is how our Republic is supposed to work IF THE LAWS THE STATE ENACTS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. If Roe was a bad decision (and I admit that I do not think that it was) it is a bad decision because it wrongly interpreted an individual right where there wasn't one. If SCOTUS correctly made THAT decision, the decision is correct. Taking a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of voters is absolutely irrelevant. Brown vs. Board of Education also took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of voters. If a law interferes with an individual's constitutional rights, that is SCOTUS' duty.
Quote:
It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.
Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.
Regarding claiming OP thinks it is a zero sum issue and anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable, I don't see an indication of that. Further, Roe does not eliminate the possibility for voters to decide where the line should be drawn. Of course the states can have some reasonable regulation on both guns and abortion. In this case, however, the Alabama law is barely pretending to do so. It would be the equivalent of a state saying you can own whatever gun you want, but all forms of ammunition are illegal. I guarantee you that such a law would be overturned. SCOTUS has upheld what it deems to be reasonable regulations on abortions. Rather than saying the states can't regulate abortion in the first or second trimester, SCOTUS has basically said state has a lot of liberty to regulate in the third trimester excepting abortions for medical issues. There is not a ban on all regulation in the first two trimesters. It is that regulations need to meet a higher standard as the decision tips more in the balance of the individual constitutional right. For instance, most states have laws requiring parental notification or consent before a minor can receive an abortion. What the current case law DOES do is essentially eliminate a state's ability to create regulations that are primarily designed to frustrate the individual's constitutional right. That is the same as with the right to bear arms or for any other constitutional right.
I would also say that I agree with you that it is not inconsistent to acknowledge there should be other considerations on abortion. Where I disagree with you is the implication that to think otherwise is a widely held belief. Yes there are people that think there should be zero regulation of abortion whatsoever. Just as there are people who think the second amendment gives individuals the right to rocket launchers or even nuclear warheads. Poll after poll shows that in both of these cases that those extreme views are not held by many.
There is absolutely a reasonable debate to be had whether abortion should be a constitutional right and as long as you make your arguments in that sphere, you are on stronger ground. However, case law on abortion is not interfering any more with states rights or the people's right to pass laws and regulations than it does with any other issue where a constitutional right has been determined to exist. Regulations can and do exist. SCOTUS has never said they can't