Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2733521 Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade +4/-3     
Author:Old Guy
6/24/2022 10:40:13 AM

What a great day, a decision that the constitution does not give the right to an abortion!

That this is a states right to regulate!

One more awesome thing Trump has given us, judges on the Suprime Court that read it, understand it and do not make law from the bench!



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733523 "Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade" Why is that right/wrong? +4/-0     
Author:TheCrow
6/24/2022 10:49:05 AM

Reply to: 2733521

Whichever opinion you hold, why do you think it justified?

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is privacy.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733533 "Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade" Why is that right/wrong? +1/-2     
Author:Old Guy
6/24/2022 11:22:36 AM

Reply to: 2733523

As I implied it is the correct decision.

Two main reasons.

    1.     We all know that abortion is not mentioned in the constitution.  It is not a right given by the constitution To the federal government to regulate.

      2.    We should all know that if something is not mentioned in the constitution as something the federal government does, then it is a state right to do!

it Is totally justified to give this issue to the states,



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733536 "Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade" Why is that right/wrong? +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
6/24/2022 11:45:07 AM

Reply to: 2733533

    1.     We all know that abortion is not mentioned in the constitution.  It is not a right given by the constitution To the federal government to regulate.


      2.    We should all know that if something is not mentioned in the constitution as something the federal government does, then it is a state right to do!

 

Do you have a right to privacy? That is not in the Constitution.

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733542 What does the right of privacy got to do with abortion  +1/-3     
Author:Old Guy
6/24/2022 12:13:56 PM

Reply to: 2733536

You do have the right that if you did or didn't get a abortion, that talking about it is a private issue.

It is a real reach to think that the actual abortion is a right of privacy!

Maybe you should read the constitution! Try the 4tth amendment.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733543 What does the right of privacy got to do with abortion  +4/-0     
Author:TheCrow
6/24/2022 12:17:31 PM

Reply to: 2733542

Abortion is protected by the right to privacy.

 

Abortion and Privacy

  • Supreme Court views abortion as a "privacy right" and a "liberty claim"
  • Abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, informed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments

 

We hate to disappoint you, but we won't be talking much here about the right to life or the right to choose. We won't be talking about murdering the unborn or a woman's inviolable right to control her body. As much as this sort of language and these sorts of claims fill the abortion debate, they are not really central to the way the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of abortion. For the Court, abortion is a "privacy right" and a "liberty claim." It is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which is informed, in this case, by the FirstThirdFourthFifth and Ninth Amendments. You may find this evasive—some have argued that this approach only obscures more fundamental moral or philosophical questions—but this is the way the Court has ruled. If you want to understand the state of abortion law in America, this is the way you have to think.

The Supreme Court established this position in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. But before we can discuss that ruling we need to back up a bit.

 

The Origins of a Legal Right to Privacy

 

  • Supreme Court cases dating back to late nineteenth century have established an implied right to privacy in the Constitution
  • In 1923 case Meyers v. Nebraska, Court ruled that privacy was a "liberty claim" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
  • 1920s court cases Meyers v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters established that families' decisions regarding how to raise children fell within a zone of privacy not subject to government interference

 

Since the late nineteenth century, legal scholars have argued that there is a legal right to privacy. In 1890, Louis Brandeis, who was later named to the Supreme Court, defined this right as "the right to be let alone." Brandeis's interest was in the damage done by an intrusive and sensational press, and he looked for remedies in the common law. But the broader discussion of privacy led some to find a right to it in the Constitution. While conceding that the word "privacy" did not appear in the Constitution, they argued that it was implicit within other expressed guarantees. The Fourth Amendment offered, many suggested, perhaps the most concrete privacy guarantee in protecting "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." But the First and Fifth Amendments were equally important, if more subtle, is suggesting zones of belief, activity, and information that were closed to government intrusion.

The Supreme Court eventually embraced and even expanded this privacy right by holding that, in addition to the implicit guarantees of the Bill of Rights, privacy was a "liberty claim" protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment, passed in 1868, declared that no state could deny a person life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and in a series of cases the Court held that privacy was one of the fundamental liberties subject to this protection.

The Court advanced this argument first in 1923 in Meyer v. Nebraska, a case prompted by a 1919 Nebraska law that forbade children younger than high school age to be taught a foreign language. Inspired by the anti-German sentiments of World War I, the law was challenged by Robert Meyer who taught German in a Lutheran grammar school. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the law violated the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. And in explaining its decision, the Court drew more fully the connection between privacy and liberty, between the implicit protections of the Bill of Rights and the explicit demands of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court recognized that it was heading into new territory here; it had "never attempted to define, with exactness, the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." But "without doubt," the Court continued, "it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733546 There is NO right to privacy that includes a abortions (NT) +1/-2     
Author:Old Guy
6/24/2022 12:40:02 PM

Reply to: 2733543


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733951 There is NO right to privacy that includes a abortions  +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
6/28/2022 3:06:36 PM

Reply to: 2733546

You forget HIPAA.

You forget doctor-patient confidentiality.

Why is anybody's/everybody's health information any of your business?



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733544 Here's another question for you: does the government have the right to  +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
6/24/2022 12:24:18 PM

Reply to: 2733542

Maybe you should read the constitution! Try the 4tth amendment.

 

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Where is the right to privacy in the Amendment?



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733565 Here's another question for you: does the government have the right to  +3/-3     
Author:Shooting Shark
6/24/2022 2:55:52 PM

Reply to: 2733544

A semantic argument, and a foolish one at that! 
the Bill of Rights was specific concering powers granted to the federal government 

those rights not granted to the federal government are 

Reserved to the states 

( or to individuals respectively)

the USSC followed that reasoning to a T in this decision 

Disgusting RINO! 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733524 It's A Dark Day For American Women, Supremes Support Males Having Power... +4/-0     
Author:Jett
6/24/2022 10:50:32 AM

Reply to: 2733521

The Supremes packed by the Extreme Right have told American Women that they have no control over their own bodies, they will be told what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

Now we are just like Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently announced that all women must wear the burka again. 

Soon it will probably be legal to beat our women if they don't do as we say, conservatives are a disgrace...   



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733613 Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade Yhank you president Trump! ! (NT) +3/-2     
Author:Shooting Shark
6/24/2022 11:08:41 PM

Reply to: 2733521


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2733732 "Yhank you president Trump! !" Pooty, you "yhanking" yourself as you post? +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
6/26/2022 11:09:55 AM

Reply to: 2733613

"Yhank you president Trump! !" Pooty, you "yhanking" yourself as you post?

Are you offering to, uh- 'yhank' Trump?

 

Why should Roe v Wade be overturned? No voice in your head answers, please.

Is a zygote a person? 

If not, how many cells make it a "person"?

Must the pregnancy be intentional to make it a person?

Are "Plan B pills" abortions? One does not need to be aware of a pregnancy, does that eliminate applicability of the term 'abortion"?

Does the father have right in the decision to terminate?

 

PS Trump will be reelected because of this. Oh, wll- I hope he takes his pills...



Return-To-Index