June 25, 20223 yr There's a very simple solution, for those that are on the side of unfettered abortion. Propose a Constitutional Amendment that protects it as a basic right. If there is a large enough majority of support, it becomes cemented in the fabric of the Constitution.
June 25, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Wouldn't a federal law protecting abortion simply be deemed unconstitutional by this SC? Though I'd be curious to see this court make a ruling if Roe was argued for under some of the sounder arguments that have been floated as opposed to the flawed original ruling. I think you could splinter some off at least some of the Republican justices if you had actual legislation. Frankly, I think the Democrats would actually win in the court that federal legislation is legal. The ruling here is that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, which is just a fact. But that doesn’t mean they would rule against a law passed by Congress at the federal level. Democrats are using projection here when they see this as a blind partisan ruling. That’s their game. RvW was a ruling of convenience, not a sound legal ruling. The Republican justices simply made the judgement on if there is a constitutional right to abortion, which of course there isn’t. A federal law passed by Congress is a different matter entirely than SCOTUS inventing constitutional rights from nothing.
June 25, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: There's a very simple solution, for those that are on the side of unfettered abortion. Propose a Constitutional Amendment that protects it as a basic right. If there is a large enough majority of support, it becomes cemented in the fabric of the Constitution. Popular support does not translate to political support. A constitution amendment in this era is virtually impossible even in issues where there is general consensus, it would be impossible on an issue where the minority opinion is as politically powerful as it is. Most people believe abortion should be left between the woman and her doctor. Enough that if there was a national referendum it may well be 2/3 of the nation. But that's not how it works.
June 25, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, TEW said: I think you could splinter some off at least some of the Republican justices if you had actual legislation. Frankly, I think the Democrats would actually win in the court that federal legislation is legal. The ruling here is that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, which is just a fact. But that doesn’t mean they would rule against a law passed by Congress at the federal level. Democrats are using projection here when they see this as a blind partisan ruling. That’s their game. RvW was a ruling of convenience, not a sound legal ruling. The Republican justices simply made the judgement on if there is a constitutional right to abortion, which of course there isn’t. A federal law passed by Congress is a different matter entirely than SCOTUS inventing constitutional rights from nothing. In this ruling the court atypically went beyond the specific question before the court and expanded into complete elimination of constitutional protections for abortion. It's almost certain that personal politics played a role here.
June 25, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: "You have to be a woman to have a valid opinion on abortion" might just be the dumbest thing I've heard in this entire thread. Doesn't shock me when even a female pro-life protestor was tackled to the ground and pepper sprayed in Seattle.
June 25, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: There's a very simple solution, for those that are on the side of unfettered abortion. Propose a Constitutional Amendment that protects it as a basic right. If there is a large enough majority of support, it becomes cemented in the fabric of the Constitution. Given how firmly divided things are I'm curious how long it will be before we have any amendments going forward, let alone on something this contentious. 27th was in 1992 and is just about regulating congressional pay raises (meh). 26th was 1971 was about preventing age as being used to exclude people from voting for anyone 18+. Certainly seems as if we were already stagnating on adjustments to the constitution even before the recent party line entrenchments. Not that frequent changes to the constitution are necessarily a good thing, but it wasn't supposed to be a completely static document either. I think it was Jefferson who threw out updating it every 20 years or so? I'm sure someone can correct me on that if it's wrong, I'm sure there's much more to it than that.
June 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Popular support does not translate to political support. If most people want something and their politicians refuse to approve it, those politicians get voted out and replaced with politicians that will approve it. So if most people in this nation believe that abortion should only be between a woman and her doctor, then there will be enough political pressure to ratify an amendment. I tend to think that it's more closely divided though. I also think that there should be a definition of exactly what's supported. If a woman, with all but the baby's head 'born', during labor, decides she wants an abortion, should it be granted and the baby's life ended, since the baby isn't actually fully born yet? Would two thirds of the nation be behind that?
June 25, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Popular support does not translate to political support. A constitution amendment in this era is virtually impossible even in issues where there is general consensus, it would be impossible on an issue where the minority opinion is as politically powerful as it is. Most people believe abortion should be left between the woman and her doctor. Enough that if there was a national referendum it may well be 2/3 of the nation. But that's not how it works. Most people do not want unfettered abortion, so saying the majority think it should be between a doctor and the mother is simplistic and not actually true. For example, the majority of people favor a 15 week ban on abortion, even as the majority think it should be legal.
June 25, 20223 yr Just now, TEW said: Most people do not want unfettered abortion, so saying the majority think it should be between a doctor and the mother is simplistic and not actually true. For example, the majority of people favor a 15 week ban on abortion, even as the majority think it should be legal. You got a source on that?
June 25, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: In this ruling the court atypically went beyond the specific question before the court and expanded into complete elimination of constitutional protections for abortion. It's almost certain that personal politics played a role here. Again, projection. RvW was an important legal matter because it allowed the court to invent constitutional rights that don’t exist. If you want to say this was a partisan ruling, the partisanship is most likely based on legal theory rather than moral ideology.
June 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: You got a source on that? WSJ poll — 48% to 43%. https://www.wsj.com/articles/support-for-15-week-abortion-ban-outweighs-opposition-wsj-poll-finds-11648821601
June 25, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Popular support does not translate to political support. A constitution amendment in this era is virtually impossible even in issues where there is general consensus, it would be impossible on an issue where the minority opinion is as politically powerful as it is. 7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Given how firmly divided things are I'm curious how long it will be before we have any amendments going forward, let alone on something this contentious. Let's also remember... Congress isn't the only 'authority' that can propose amendments to the Constitution. A 'Convention of States' can be convened to propose amendments. Any proposed would still need to be ratified, but we the people, don't have to rely on a 'do nothing congress' to do something. Quote Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Right now, 19 states have passed legislation calling for a Convention of States. So, that means that only 15 more states need to pass legislation, and then Congress will have to call a convention.
June 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, TEW said: WSJ poll — 48% to 43%. https://www.wsj.com/articles/support-for-15-week-abortion-ban-outweighs-opposition-wsj-poll-finds-11648821601 Interesting. Contradicts what I've seen in other polls before about second trimester but obviously the wording and methods make a big difference. Looks as if this is discussing elective abortions but there's a paywall too.
June 25, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Let's also remember... Congress isn't the only 'authority' that can propose amendments to the Constitution. A 'Convention of States' can be convened to propose amendments. Any proposed would still need to be ratified, but we the people, don't have to rely on a 'do nothing congress' to do something. Right now, 19 states have passed legislation calling for a Convention of States. So, that means that only 15 more states need to pass legislation, and then Congress will have to call a convention. Getting to 2/3 through that route is a tough ask. 3/4 to ratify in anything remotely partisan will be next to impossible too. At least in our current political climate.
June 25, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Getting to 2/3 through that route is a tough ask. 3/4 to ratify in anything remotely partisan will be next to impossible too. At least in our current political climate. If that threshold can't be met for a proposed amendment, then it doesn't have a majority of support and shouldn't be ratified. I know that TV news and Social Media can make things look like the vast majority of the population wants something, but the news and social media can be manipulated to make it look that way... whichever side you're on. So, what if, the actual majority of the population does not support something (whatever the proposal is)? The media (TV and social) makes you think it's supported, but just what if you're being manipulated into a position that only a minority of the population supports? You have no real way to easily know that, one way or the other. So, we have the amendment process (both methods). If the majority of support for an issue is there, then it's there. If it's not there, it's not.
June 25, 20223 yr 59 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: In this ruling the court atypically went beyond the specific question before the court and expanded into complete elimination of constitutional protections for abortion. It's almost certain that personal politics played a role here. No constitutional protection ever existed
June 25, 20223 yr 33 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Interesting. Contradicts what I've seen in other polls before about second trimester but obviously the wording and methods make a big difference. Looks as if this is discussing elective abortions but there's a paywall too. Right. There’s nuance to this when we talk about public opinion. Most people want abortion legal safe and rare. Most people want it confined to some arbitrary time period because most people, deep down, recognize that a fetus is a human being at some point before it exits the womb. So most people don’t actually want abortion to be a decision between a mother and their doctor. What most people want is a framework inside of which the decision is between a mother and her doctor.
June 25, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, Ipiggles said: If only I valued your opinion.... hmmm too bad, so sad, I dont. In fact, it's clear I think even less of you, than you do of I. You clearly have a mental problem and are in love with me.
June 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, TEW said: WSJ poll — 48% to 43%. https://www.wsj.com/articles/support-for-15-week-abortion-ban-outweighs-opposition-wsj-poll-finds-11648821601 The problem with a 15 week limit is that often the first ultrasound is around week 20, and there can be problems with the pregnancy revealed after that. Most of the abortions that take place after 15 weeks - which is only 5% of abortions - are the ones that are performed because of a problem with the fetus or a threat to the mother's life. I wouldn't necessarily have a major issue with elective abortions limited to the first 15 weeks, but there has to be an allowance where if a doctor determines significant issues with the fetus or the mother's life is in danger an abortion can be performed.
June 25, 20223 yr Just now, JohnSnowsHair said: The problem with a 15 week limit is that often the first ultrasound is around week 20, and there can be problems with the pregnancy revealed after that. Most of the abortions that take place after 15 weeks - which is only 5% of abortions - are the ones that are performed because of a problem with the fetus or a threat to the mother's life. I wouldn't necessarily have a major issue with elective abortions limited to the first 15 weeks, but there has to be an allowance where if a doctor determines significant issues with the fetus or the mother's life is in danger an abortion can be performed. If we are talking about popularity, most people make an exception if the mother’s life is at risk. I am unaware of the popular view on abortion for eugenics purposes, but I would imagine it’s case specific in most peoples eyes.
June 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Interesting. Contradicts what I've seen in other polls before about second trimester but obviously the wording and methods make a big difference. Looks as if this is discussing elective abortions but there's a paywall too. WASHINGTON—More American voters favor the idea of a 15-week abortion ban than oppose it, according to the latest Wall Street Journal poll, as the Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling that could alter the nation’s abortion landscape. With lawmakers in several states pushing forward with bills that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, 48% of voters said they would strongly or somewhat favor such restrictions, with exemptions to protect the health of the mother, while 43% were in opposition. At the same time, the survey found a majority of voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, underscoring the complicated views many Americans hold on the issue. A total of 31 percent of voters said they strongly support a 15-week ban, while 17 percent were somewhat in support. Another 34 percent said they strongly opposed such a ban, and 10 percent said they were somewhat opposed. I only included the parts about the numbers. Because I'm lazy and on a mobile device.
June 25, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, TEW said: If we are talking about popularity, most people make an exception if the mother’s life is at risk. I am unaware of the popular view on abortion for eugenics purposes, but I would imagine it’s case specific in most peoples eyes. It's not about eugenics. If a fetus has a condition that would result in a short painful existence with no chance of long term survival, many opt to terminate. And that's an incredibly difficult decision to make.
June 25, 20223 yr The Western Euro models all work off of the max # of weeks principle plus special situations thereafter. That setup seems to work well enough for the vast majority of people. Poland is an exception.
June 25, 20223 yr 33 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: The Western Euro models all work off of the max # of weeks principle plus special situations thereafter. That setup seems to work well enough for the vast majority of people. Poland is an exception. If only we were. Not that I'm knocking the arrangement but you have to understand that politicians were merely milking this particular situation for as long as possible. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been raised and given to the political class in this country on this topic alone.
Create an account or sign in to comment