oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

Miranda Rights are pretty consistent with the 5th and 6th amendments. Again, no right to marriage. The rest is equal protection, which is pretty settled. Do you suppose only white or black babies be aborted?

---

So in other words, the Court took a vague concept like "equal protection" and interpreted it so that it applied to things like marriage and school segregation, things that are not directly mentioned in the Constitution. Previous versions of the Court have interpreted the exact same language differently. Seems like this supports my idea that the Court can interpret the text and find rights where they please.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roe decision was wrong or poorly supported, fine. Legal scholars have debated this for some time. I just don't think anyone should rest on simplistic points like: "The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to an abortion, so it's correct to overturn Roe!" That's not how the Supreme Court has ever worked.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

Miranda Rights are pretty consistent with the 5th and 6th amendments. Again, no right to marriage. The rest is equal protection, which is pretty settled. Do you suppose only white or black babies be aborted?

---

So in other words, the Court took a vague concept like "equal protection" and interpreted it so that it applied to things like marriage and school segregation, things that are not directly mentioned in the Constitution. Previous versions of the Court have interpreted the exact same language differently. Seems like this supports my idea that the Court can interpret the text and find rights where they please.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roe decision was wrong or poorly supported, fine. Legal scholars have debated this for some time. I just don't think anyone should rest on simplistic points like: "The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to an abortion, so it's correct to overturn Roe!" That's not how the Supreme Court has ever worked.

---

Equal Protection based on immutable characteristics is a much more settled area of the law (and more directly derived from Constitutional text) than the right of privacy and what specifically arises out of it. I sincerely hope that Congress can compromise on some basic but minimal abortion protections. Outlawing abortion altogether is insane. Contrary to what the people in the waaaaaaaaay back assert, the court did not outlaw abortion, despite trigger laws that do so.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

Miranda Rights are pretty consistent with the 5th and 6th amendments. Again, no right to marriage. The rest is equal protection, which is pretty settled. Do you suppose only white or black babies be aborted?

---

So in other words, the Court took a vague concept like "equal protection" and interpreted it so that it applied to things like marriage and school segregation, things that are not directly mentioned in the Constitution. Previous versions of the Court have interpreted the exact same language differently. Seems like this supports my idea that the Court can interpret the text and find rights where they please.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roe decision was wrong or poorly supported, fine. Legal scholars have debated this for some time. I just don't think anyone should rest on simplistic points like: "The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to an abortion, so it's correct to overturn Roe!" That's not how the Supreme Court has ever worked.

---

Equal Protection based on immutable characteristics is a much more settled area of the law (and more directly derived from Constitutional text) than the right of privacy and what specifically arises out of it. I sincerely hope that Congress can compromise on some basic but minimal abortion protections. Outlawing abortion altogether is insane. Contrary to what the people in the waaaaaaaaay back assert, the court did not outlaw abortion, despite trigger laws that do so.

---

The Court did not outlaw abortion (I don't think they would have the ability to do so). They simply removed the thing that was blocking multiple states from outlawing abortion.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

Miranda Rights are pretty consistent with the 5th and 6th amendments. Again, no right to marriage. The rest is equal protection, which is pretty settled. Do you suppose only white or black babies be aborted?

---

So in other words, the Court took a vague concept like "equal protection" and interpreted it so that it applied to things like marriage and school segregation, things that are not directly mentioned in the Constitution. Previous versions of the Court have interpreted the exact same language differently. Seems like this supports my idea that the Court can interpret the text and find rights where they please.

Now, if you want to argue that the Roe decision was wrong or poorly supported, fine. Legal scholars have debated this for some time. I just don't think anyone should rest on simplistic points like: "The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to an abortion, so it's correct to overturn Roe!" That's not how the Supreme Court has ever worked.

---

Equal Protection based on immutable characteristics is a much more settled area of the law (and more directly derived from Constitutional text) than the right of privacy and what specifically arises out of it. I sincerely hope that Congress can compromise on some basic but minimal abortion protections. Outlawing abortion altogether is insane. Contrary to what the people in the waaaaaaaaay back assert, the court did not outlaw abortion, despite trigger laws that do so.

---

The Court did not outlaw abortion (I don't think they would have the ability to do so). They simply removed the thing that was blocking multiple states from outlawing abortion.

---

Agree, but for clarification...

They simply removed the EXISTING thing that was blocking multiple states from outlawing abortion

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

That sounds pretty simple specially with the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats.

And, some here have repeatedly stated that the majority are for it. Some even have said that the vast majority are for it.

So, why not do this and make it a law rather than all the belly aching about Supreme Court's decision?

Go Bears!

---

The U.S. Senate: The Most Unrepresentative Body

Relevant portion:

Quote:

---

The current 50-50 Senate provides us with very clear evidence of this bias. With this even partisan split, you might expect that the parties in the Senate would represent about equal numbers of Americans. But this is not so. Aside from the six states that have a senator from each party, 57 percent of the country live in states with two Democratic senators, while only 43 percent live in states with two GOP senators. In other words, with 43 percent of the population, the Senate GOP has 50 percent of the representation.

---

---

I think it's much worse than that. See here.

Quote:

---

The 2020 census showed that more than half of the 330 million Americans live in just nine states. That means upwards of 50% of us have 18 US senators, while the smaller half has the other 82. (By 2040, according to a University of Virginia forecast, half of the nation could live in only eight states, with just 16 senators.)

Let's break that down even further. Two-thirds of all Americans some 219,073,534 of us, to be exact live in the largest 15 states, according to census data. They're represented by 30 senators 22 Democrats and eight Republicans.

The other third? They have 70 senators. These smaller states aren't only whiter than the nation at large, they tilt decisively to the Republican party, represented by 42 Republicans and 28 Democrats. That's more than enough to filibuster any legislation that cannot be passed through the reconciliation process including voting rights effectively granting veto power over even popular proposals to a tiny minority of voters from the smallest and whitest states. (As the Maine senator Angus King noted on the Senate floor last week, 41 senators representing just 24% of Americans can block legislation with the filibuster.)

---

---

Come on guys, this is like 7th grade civics stuff. Small states were concerned the big states would have too much power. The big states thought the small states deserved less power. Senate = 2 each, House = per population. And let's not forget Dems rigging the system to get more seats in the House through illegal immigration and middle of the night resettlement flights.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

The fact you call me hyper-partisan simultaneously makes me question your credibility and/or the extent to which you are actually reading and participating in these threads.

Of course I have core beliefs. That does not make me hyper-partisan. In this and other threads I have acknowledged when others made good points, applauded the Dobbs dissent for making assorted good points, recognized some virtue of Robert's Concurrence, recognized the football case dissent made persuasive arguments, called forcing a women to carry a pregnancy to full term barbaric, etc., etc., etc. That is literally the antithesis of being partisan (unless you claim I am partisan about being open minded, listening to others to understand and being willing to introspectively assess my own positions and opinions).

Your labeling in fact says a great deal about you and in a curious way highlights the exact problem with those who advocate for the end of the filibuster - they are too close mindedly obsessed with winning to look for common ground, see opportunity when it is in front of them and narrow mindedly resort to vilifying those who they deem "other".

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

---

Do you know what stare decisis means?

dajo9 said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

If we all agree that there is nothing in the Constitution or the Federal laws that grant right to abortion, then logic would indicate that the US Supreme Court got it right to state that there is noting in the Constitution that grants right to abortion.

---

---

For days now you have asked where the Constitution mentions abortion. And for days now, people have genuinely tried to answer you and help you increase your knowledge base. But you just dont seem to be operating from a very robust knowledge base when it comes to the Supreme Court and the history of this topic as it applies to Roe v Wade.

This is the reality of what SCOTUS did in the Dobbs Decision . . .

Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey were foundational decisions of substantive due process rights in our country. So those decisions exist beyond the realm of abortion and in the realm of Right to Privacy, - - - specifically the right to sexual privacy. And the right to sexual privacy encompasses a whole host of rights like the right to use birth control.

Interestingly enough and in similar vein, you may not be aware that while the Supreme Court said in 1968 in Griswold v Connecticut that married couples could use contraception, it wasnt until 1972 that the Court said that single people could have the right to contraception.

So this is not a hypothetical.

Even more removed from that is the fact that it was in 2016 that the Supreme Court recognized the right to marriage equality in Obergethal vs Hodges.

So when Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas talk about looking at the long rooted history and traditions of liberty in this country, they are telling you very explicitly that they do not think that large swaths of this Nation belong in the Constitution.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

---

Do you know what stare decisis means?

---

I am not an attorney and do not have legal expertise. Please educate me.

Go Bears!

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

calbear80 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

---

Do you know what stare decisis means?

---

I am not an attorney and do not have legal expertise. Please educate me.

Go Bears!

---

One doesnt have to be an attorney to understand the concept of stare decisis:

It is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
In other words, it is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions.

Roe v Wade is an example of stare decisis when it comes to abortion.

I REPEAT:

For days now you have asked where the Constitution mentions abortion. And for days now, people have genuinely tried to answer you and help you increase your knowledge base. But you just dont seem to be operating from a very robust knowledge base when it comes to the Supreme Court and the history of this topic as it applies to Roe v Wade.

This is the reality of what SCOTUS did in the Dobbs Decision . . .

Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey were foundational decisions of substantive due process rights in our country. So those decisions exist beyond the realm of abortion and in the realm of Right to Privacy, - - - specifically the right to sexual privacy. And the right to sexual privacy encompasses a whole host of rights like the right to use birth control.

Interestingly enough and in similar vein, you may not be aware that while the Supreme Court said in 1968 in Griswold v Connecticut that married couples could use contraception, it wasnt until 1972 that the Court said that single people could have the right to contraception.

So this is not a hypothetical.

Even more removed from that is the fact that it was in 2016 that the Supreme Court recognized the right to marriage equality in Obergethal vs Hodges.

So when Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas talk about looking at the long rooted history and traditions of liberty in this country, they are telling you very explicitly that they do not think that large swaths of this Nation belong in the Constitution.

I cant emphasize this enough.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

---

Do you know what stare decisis means?

---

I am not an attorney and do not have legal expertise. Please educate me.

Go Bears!

---

One doesnt have to be an attorney to understand the concept of stare decisis:

It is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
In other words, it is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions.

Roe v Wade is an example of stare decisis when it comes to abortion.

---

Thank you. However, if we accept that logic, then Supreme Court's decision in Plessy (separate but equal), which was the law of the land since 1896 (for over 50 year), should not have been overturned in 1954 in the Brown vs. Board of Education case which made "separate but equal" laws illegal.

Of course, today we all as the Cal alums strongly disagree with Plessy decision and are happy that Supreme Court overturned it in Brown vs. Board of Education decision, even though it had a 50+ year precedence.

That is just one example of the Supreme Court overturning a previous decision that they consider erroneous, disregarding stare decisis.

Remember, we cannot say Supreme Court should not overturn a previous decision in 2022 when we don't like the outcome if we agreed with Supreme Court overturning a decision in 1954 when we liked the outcome.

Go Bears!

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

---

No, it doesn't take years.

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

---

Do you know what stare decisis means?

---

I am not an attorney and do not have legal expertise. Please educate me.

Go Bears!

---

One doesnt have to be an attorney to understand the concept of stare decisis:

It is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
In other words, it is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions.

Roe v Wade is an example of stare decisis when it comes to abortion.

---

I don't think that is correct. I think the judges translate it from the original latin which means, "I'm the star. I decide."

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

---

No, it doesn't take years.

---

It doesn't? How long did the Dobbs case take? Let me help you, Jackson Women's Health Org. filed their case in March 2018.

So tell me, why doesn't it take years?

In all seriousness, I think stare decisis is stupid for the same reason originalism is stupid. Our Founders were racist, sexist, and classist. I certainly hope we judge things by a 21st century standard and not an 18th century standard.

On the other hand, I believe if you swore under oath that you believe something is settled law and then you rule in the opposite direction - you have probably committed perjury and should be arrested and prosecuted.

The settled law crowd.
For the people sitting waaaaaaay in the back.

dajo9 said:

---

In all seriousness, I think stare decisis is stupid for the same reason originalism is stupid. Our Founders were racist, sexist, and classist. I certainly hope we judge things by a 21st century standard and not an 18th century standard.

On the other hand, I believe if you swore under oath that you believe something is settled law and then you rule in the opposite direction - you have probably committed perjury and should be arrested and prosecuted.

---

The questions they were asked were softballs. Look at what DW posted above - no perjury there. They merely commented on the state of affairs at the time the question was asked.

Roe was settled law when the questions were asked. These were dumb questions and didn't really imply that they wouldn't completely blow up settled law. As we've seen, this radical group of clerics is willing to throw away all precedent to further the theocracy.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

---

No, it doesn't take years.

---

It doesn't? How long did the Dobbs case take? Let me help you, Jackson Women's Health Org. filed their case in March 2018.

So tell me, why doesn't it take years?

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/louisiana-other-state-judges-block-laws-meant-to-trigger-abortion-bans-shortly-after-the-supreme-court-decision

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

---

No, it doesn't take years.

---

It doesn't? How long did the Dobbs case take? Let me help you, Jackson Women's Health Org. filed their case in March 2018.

So tell me, why doesn't it take years?

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/louisiana-other-state-judges-block-laws-meant-to-trigger-abortion-bans-shortly-after-the-supreme-court-decision

---

Don't some cases get expedited to get to the Supreme Court faster? For Example, didn't the Texas abortion law get expedited and got to Supreme Court very quickly?

Go Bears!

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

---

No, it doesn't take years.

---

It doesn't? How long did the Dobbs case take? Let me help you, Jackson Women's Health Org. filed their case in March 2018.

So tell me, why doesn't it take years?

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/louisiana-other-state-judges-block-laws-meant-to-trigger-abortion-bans-shortly-after-the-supreme-court-decision

---

Temporary restraining orders in certain states isn't the same thing.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.

---

Unfortunately in some states, women who terminate pregnancies caused by rape are likely to suffer more severe criminal consequences than their rapist.

Now that we know the consequences of being raped, how would you suggest they address that?

---

Rule those laws unconstitutional under rational basis or a legislative compromise in Congress. This is easily extracted from what I've already said.

---

Cool, when is that going to happen?

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

Can you direct me to the language in the constitution that speaks to helping and supporting victims of crimes?

Unfortunately, the foreseeable consequences of this opinion are horrible, as you acknowledge.

Quote:

---

Three states have statutes that do not include exceptions to save a patient's life. Eighteen of the laws (from 15 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of rape, while 20 of the laws (from 16 states) do not allow for abortion in cases of incest. Moreover, nine states have statutes that, though not explicitly authorizing prosecution of a person seeking care, also do not explicitly preclude such prosecutions in the same manner other states do. In the context of those states' full legal schemes, these statutes should not provide grounds for criminalizing a person for her own abortion, but a politically motivated prosecutor could try to argue they doarguments that courts should soundly reject. source

---

Fortunately most states that have these regressive laws focus their criminal penalties on the providers of abortions but some states to actually propose prison time for the patient. For example, a patient could face 2 years of prison in South Carolina. There are other bills working their way through the legislative process in some states.

But on the bright side, you will continue to ask whether everyone agrees that the constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it, so we have that going for us.

---

This isn't relevant to the decision. You can't criminalize something that is constitutional or legal under the law, which is what I replied. The court is not addressing these laws because the question is presented to them.

---

The very real and foreseeable consequences of replacing a developed and fairly well understood standard that has been around for 50 years with a "rational basis" standard with no meaningful guidance is going to be felt by women for years to come. Of course it's relevant.

---

And it should therefore either be

A) brought to the courts; or
B) legislated.

Nothing in the Supreme Court decision prevents this so that your concerns can be addressed.

---

You understand this takes time yes? And by "time" I mean years, if not decades, for new precedent to be interpreted and refined. We've gone back to absolute square zero on women's reproductive rights. We know that this will embolden states to pass draconian laws (and there are already draconian laws that have sprung into effect).

Justice delayed is justice denied. For how many years will women have to suffer before they obtain some measure of justice that they just lost?

---

No, it doesn't take years.

---

It doesn't? How long did the Dobbs case take? Let me help you, Jackson Women's Health Org. filed their case in March 2018.

So tell me, why doesn't it take years?

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/louisiana-other-state-judges-block-laws-meant-to-trigger-abortion-bans-shortly-after-the-supreme-court-decision

---

Temporary restraining orders in certain states isn't the same thing.

---

Interesting observation, Mr. Unit2Sucks.

Should Federal HHS and/or states be paying for the out of state abortion expenses?

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

If this is true, do you think this child is being helped and supported? Do you think she feels empowered? Do her parents feel empowered? This story and many more like it were foreseeable by the court.

Pregnancy is the #1 killer of girls 15-19 worldwide. Forced pregnancy, like those Republicans would impose on rape victims, kills girls.

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) June 29, 2022

Forcing a girl or woman to give birth after she was forced into sex are fundamentally inseparable cruelties. They are related violations: In both, a more powerful person tells a girl that the most intimate parts of her body are not hers; that she is a vessel for someone else.

— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) June 29, 2022

Do you believe the constitution allows the government to force birth?

calbear80 said:

---

Should Federal HHS and/or states be paying for the out of state abortion expenses?

Go Bears!

---

We should really be paying for everyone's medical treatment, so yes.

calbear80 said:

---

Should Federal HHS and/or states be paying for the out of state abortion expenses?

Go Bears!

---

California isnt.
Next question.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/california-won-apos-t-covering-011416207.html

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

That would be horrible. Victims of crimes need to be helped and supported.

Go Bears!

---

If this is true, do you think this child is being helped and supported? Do you think she feels empowered? Do her parents feel empowered? This story and many more like it were foreseeable by the court.

Do you believe the constitution allows the government to force birth?

---

I'm most interested to learn of Calbear80's answer to such an insightful question!