Do liberals understand that the SCOTUS is not debating whether to ban abortion?

[SavannahMann]

This would be a good discussion, but I think you should start a separate thread. But briefly, the founders wanted to make sure that citizens of the new country would not be oppressed under a forced religion, such as was experienced in England. My guess would he there was similar oppression regarding free speech, but perhaps someone else can speak to that.

And to your question as to why religious expression and free speech is specifically given on the individual basis, and not abortion, the answer is obvious to me: it was seen as a positive to allow freedom regarding religion and speech, but the founders did not consider the ability to to abort one’s own baby as so fundamental to freedom that the same right was not granted. The same could be said as to why freedom to smack people’s heads onto rocks was not granted as an individual right.

The founders didn’t make it individual. They specifically limited the restriction to Congress. We can’t have a National Religion. But using the originalist Text Wyoming could outlaw Scientology. Or Michigan could make Islam the only approved religion in the State.

It was a later Supreme Court decision that made the right individual. The Supreme Court struck down state laws which punished among other things speech. The Blue Laws that were found in nearly every state.

If you go by the original intent as written by the founders. The Supreme Court created the individual right to freedom of speech and religion out of thin air.

So what is the difference between Roe and Free Speech? The individual right was created out of thin air in both cases.

 

[colfax_m]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

Because we know that many states are going to ban abortion once the SCOTUS allows them.

It's a distinction without a difference.

It's like saying I didn't let the cows out. I just opened the gate and they walked out on their own.

 

[occupied]

Are you kidding?

No I am not kidding. There are hundreds of women rotting in jail down in El Salvador because it is impossible to tell a miscarriage from a chemically induced abortion. Now they know how to make Jesus happy. Lock them bitches up and throw away the key.

El Salvador's abortion ban jails women for miscarriages and stillbirths – now one woman's family seeks international justice

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

No I am not kidding. There are hundreds of women rotting in jail down in El Salvador because it is impossible to tell a miscarriage from a chemically induced abortion. Now they know how to make Jesus happy. Lock them bitches up and throw away the key.

El Salvador's abortion ban jails women for miscarriages and stillbirths – now one woman's family seeks international justice

Sniff test.

 

[Lisa558]

Because we know that many states are going to ban abortion once the SCOTUS allows them.

It's a distinction without a difference.

It's like saying I didn't let the cows out. I just opened the gate and they walked out on their own.

Some states might ban it. Most states won’t.

And that’s as it should be: the state decides.

 

[colfax_m]

Some states might ban it. Most states won’t.

And that’s as it should be: the state decides.

The irony in this statement is astounding.

 

[Lisa558]

The irony in this statement is astounding.

What’s ironic? States get to decide whether or not to ban abortion totally (which will be very few), have reasonable restrictions (like up to 16 weeks unless the health of the mother is at stake), or very liberal states that will allow abortion doctors to pull viable fetuses out of the birth canal, limb by limb.

 

[colfax_m]

What’s ironic? States get to decide whether or not to ban abortion totally (which will be very few), have reasonable restrictions (like up to 16 weeks unless the health of the mother is at stake), or very liberal states that will allow abortion doctors to pull viable fetuses out of the birth canal, limb by limb.

The state decides.

As if conservatives are cool with letting the state decide for people.

 

[Lisa558]

The state decides.

As if conservatives are cool with letting the state decide for people.

And liberals are?

 

[occupied]

The supreme court decision will be an overbroad travesty of jurisprudence that will make all sorts of official meddling in reproduction constitutional. These jerks have been dreaming of this chance for their entire careers and they are not going to waste it.

 

[Unkotare]

No I am not kidding. There are hundreds of women rotting in jail down in El Salvador because it is impossible to tell a miscarriage from a chemically induced abortion. Now they know how to make Jesus happy. Lock them bitches up and throw away the key.

El Salvador's abortion ban jails women for miscarriages and stillbirths – now one woman's family seeks international justice

Do you live in El Salvador?

 

[Unkotare]

Because we know that many states are going to ban abortion once the SCOTUS allows them.

...
.

And?

 

[Dragonlady]

1) Because there are different degrees of Murder.

2) Why equate book burning with taking a life? You libtards always make such false and extreme comparisons.

3) And then of course...you end up with a swipe against religion.

SUCH a libtard!

Abortion is not and has never been murder. No living being is involved.

No one equated book burning with taking a life.

Religion teaches us that life begins with the first breath - the "Breath of life", and until someone breathes on their own, they are not deemed alive. It's right there in Genesis.

We should be taking swipes at religion. It has no place in the law of the land. What you believe is your business, and none of mine. You should be the same. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't try to force your religious beliefs on others.

The anti-abortion movement has no interest in the babies. This is a movement built entirely on hatred of women.

 

[Unkotare]

Abortion is not and has never been murder. No living being is involved.

No one equated book burning with taking a life.

Religion teaches us that life begins with the first breath - the "Breath of life", and until someone breathes on their own, they are not deemed alive. It's right there in Genesis.

We should be taking swipes at religion. It has no place in the law of the land. What you believe is your business, and none of mine. You should be the same. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't try to force your religious beliefs on others.

The anti-abortion movement has no interest in the babies. This is a movement built entirely on hatred of women.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

I swear, every time I talk to a liberal, I SMH at how misinformed they are - and how deceitful the liberal media is. Just yesterday I spoke to a liberal, and in addition to her usual moaning about Republicans (to me, knowing I am a Republican), she bemoaned the “fact” that “Trump’s Republican Supreme Court” (her words) may ban abortion. When I corrected her, she said that MSNBC made it sound as though all abortions would be banned.

Listen up: for any of you libtards getting your news through MSNBC, the SCOTUS is not debating a ban. It doesn’t even have that right, just as it didn’t have the fight to force states to make it legal. It is merely debating whether the decision in Roe v Wade was constitutional, and if not, THE DECISION GOES TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

Precedent after 50 yrs will be hard to nullify

My libturd sister still thinks Trump is tied to Russia.....Yes she is that damned dumb so nothing should surprise

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Abortion is not and has never been murder. No living being is involved.

No one equated book burning with taking a life.

Religion teaches us that life begins with the first breath - the "Breath of life", and until someone breathes on their own, they are not deemed alive. It's right there in Genesis.

We should be taking swipes at religion. It has no place in the law of the land. What you believe is your business, and none of mine. You should be the same. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't try to force your religious beliefs on others.

The anti-abortion movement has no interest in the babies. This is a movement built entirely on hatred of women.

What??

 

[Lisa558]

Precedent after 50 yrs will be hard to nullify

My libturd sister still thinks Trump is tied to Russia.....Yes she is that damned dumb so nothing should surprise

Yeah, it never ends. Another libtard I know insists that Florida had the worst COVID cases. That was because MSNBC was dumping on him non-stop, since they fear he could be the nominee.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You hate Christians. Point taken.

It's amazing how many of these halfwits are convinced that "only Christians want abortion to be illegal", but don't have the brain wattage to realize THEY are the only ones that ever bring up religion in this debate.

 

[Coyote]

Abortion is not and has never been murder. No living being is involved.

No one equated book burning with taking a life.

Religion teaches us that life begins with the first breath - the "Breath of life", and until someone breathes on their own, they are not deemed alive. It's right there in Genesis.

We should be taking swipes at religion. It has no place in the law of the land. What you believe is your business, and none of mine. You should be the same. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but don't try to force your religious beliefs on others.

The anti-abortion movement has no interest in the babies. This is a movement built entirely on hatred of women.

19% want no exceptions for abortion, not even to save a woman’s life. That is a sizable minority that feel a pregnant woman doesn’t even have the right to save her own life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok. Awesome. Now help me out. The First Amendment clearly states that the Congress is prohibited from passing any law. Why is the Rights protected by the First Amendment an individual right in which the States are prohibited from violating?

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Section 1​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Maybe you should help yourself out and actually READ the Constitution, instead of just chanting, "Constitutional right! It is, IT IS!" for everything you want.

Also, every STATE Constitution also has free speech protections in it. So states would be obligated to protect free speech even without the 14th Amendment.

State Constitutional Provisions on Expressive Rights

All states have provisions in their constitutions that protect individual rights and in some cases offer greater protection for First Amendment rights than the U.S. Constitution.

mtsu.edu

Next time, try making your arguments from FACTS, instead of whatever it is you've decided to "know" for your agenda.