More abortion insanity

[jc456]

Then there should be no issue with the government getting access to your phone records for instance

they do it today. Are you naive?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But if you say there is no privacy right in the constitution, .... what kind of sexual contact you have, what birth control you can use or not use, what gender you marry, and whether you can divorce or not, your own medical decisions are up for grabs again, by the radical, over reaching State Governments...?

fundamental right​

Primary tabs​

Overview​

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.

Non-Exhaustive List of Fundamental Rights​

Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include:

• marriage
• privacy
• contraception
• interstate travel.
• procreation
• custody of one's child(ren)
• voting

Virtually all of those things have been dealt with through legislation

 

[Care4all]

Virtually all of those things have been dealt with through legislation

I'll have to check it out and research it, is this at the federal level?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Erm, nope. Men and women have choices, the problem is, they're not making the choice BEFORE sex. No one is being forced an unintended pregnancy. Anyone who fails to place the choice at the right time, they win a prize, a baby.

And yes, both should be 50/50 accountable for the kid.

Not for you to decide. Mind your own fucking business.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Virtually all of those things have been dealt with through legislation

Better check that, my man. The right to use contraception was addressed by the SCOTUS. Not laws. The laws prevented people from using it. The SCOTUS provided relief from that religious horseshit.

 

[bendog]

I'll have to check it out and research it, is this at the federal level?

contraception was not dealt with through legislation. See Comstock. Sodomy, not legislation. Gay marriage, certainly not - but states without gay marriage had to enforce divorce decrees and child support, and even allow gays to divorce if they moved in state.

The Alito Court is "selective" in it's application on non-enumerated fundamental rights.

 

[jc456]

Not for you to decide. Mind your own fucking business.

then leave it out of the public forums! otherwise squeeze your unit a little tighter for us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

contraception was not dealt with through legislation. See Comstock. Sodomy, not legislation. Gay marriage, certainly not - but states without gay marriage had to enforce divorce decrees and child support, and even allow gays to divorce if they moved in state.

The Alito Court is "selective" in it's application on non-enumerated fundamental rights.

And now Roberts's ass is puckered, because Thomas said the quiet part out loud.

 

[jc456]

contraception was not dealt with through legislation. See Comstock. Sodomy, not legislation. Gay marriage, certainly not - but states without gay marriage had to enforce divorce decrees and child support, and even allow gays to divorce if they moved in state.

The Alito Court is "selective" in it's application on non-enumerated fundamental rights.

then why are they giving the products away in highschools?

 

[jc456]

And now Roberts's ass is puckered, because Thomas said the quiet part out loud.

I see you are looking for barbaric times again. You should invest in a time machine and go back in time and enjoy the parties.

 

[dblack]

I don't. See the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But also, see the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even if you buy into the all-encompassing interpretation of the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause (which are completely overbroad interpretations) Congress has made NO LAW concerning abortion, so there can be no federal preemption.

Right. But that ignores the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Admittedly, that's kind of a vague mess. I'd suggest we re-write the Constitution, but with the utter retard circus of modern politics, I wouldn't want to risk it. We'd almost certainly do worse.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right. But that ignores the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Admittedly, that's kind of a vague mess. I'd suggest we re-write the Constitution, but with the utter retard circus of modern politics, I wouldn't want to risk it. We'd almost certainly do worse.

We need another constitutional convention.

 

[dblack]

We need another constitutional convention.

The problem is that the founders were far closer to my values than most leaders today. From my perspective, we'd almost certainly end up with something worse. But it does seem like what the country needs. I'd just need to move somewhere else.

 

[jc456]

The problem is that the founders were far closer to my values than most leaders today. From my perspective, we'd almost certainly end up with something worse. But it does seem like what the country needs. I'd just need to move somewhere else.

I think it's time to punish those who violate the constitution and stop the judges from turning blind eyes. That wasn't why they were hired, or maybe it was. hahahhahahahaha

Oh and Term limits.

 

[bodecea]

A

Ohio bill would allow pregnant people to sue over unintended pregnancies - WOUB Public Media

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Statehouse News Bureau) — With Ohio’s new six-week abortion ban in place, a Democratic state lawmaker says it’s time for the Ohio Legislature to give consideration to her... Read More

woub.org

Sen. Tina Maharath (D-Canal Winchester) said her bill would allow anyone who becomes pregnant to file a civil suit against the person who impregnated them — even if it happened as a result of consensual sex.
“Regardless of the circumstances. I felt it was important to have that vague language due to the fact that abortion is now banned here in the state of Ohio,” Maharath said.

So much reactionary bullshit going on, NO ONE is thinking.
So does this mean males can sue birth control providers for not stopping the pregnancy?
WTF is wrong with people SMH

An excellent idea.

 

[jc456]

A

An excellent idea.

the very first question in court will be, did you use protection? Did you make your partner where a rubber? Once those two questions are answered, the case will be tossed. What a waste of money.

 

[bendog]

Right. But that ignores the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Admittedly, that's kind of a vague mess. I'd suggest we re-write the Constitution, but with the utter retard circus of modern politics, I wouldn't want to risk it. We'd almost certainly do worse.

Through birthrite citizenship, the Fourteenth intentionally makes it impossible for the South (or anyplace) to create an indentured workforce. We cannot legally allow non-citizens to come here and become a class of citizens without a vote. OF course we COULD allow people to legally immigrate, and as we discussed on other threads, we could not only make it harder to come here on visas and overstay, and we could harden the borders, and make it harder to work here illegally

 

[Lesh]

they do it today. Are you naive?

Without complaint?

Without a warrant?

 

[Care4all]

SCOTUS doesn't write law, they offer opinion based off constitutional law. Is there an abortion law? no, then they had no authority to do what the did 50 years ago. Just didn't. You choose to ignore the facts isn't my problem.

So we do not have a constitutional right to privacy??? Really????

 

[Ralph Norton]

A

An excellent idea.

That you think so is not surprising in the least.