The problem with this law, as Faust9 has rightly pointed out, is that it establishes precedent which could be used to overturn Roe. When you confer upon something that isn't born yet certain enumerated rights, you then have a legal basis for ending abortion, since only people can have rights, and if it has rights it must be a person. Even if it doesn't breathe air yet.
not to be crass...but a fetus is basically a parasite till a certain point...a cute little parasite, but a parasite all the same...it feeds off the host and gives little to nothing back...rights would be problematic...who would have the superior rights? the mom or the fetus?? we really have to work on a method of sucking a fetus out alive and then we can end all this debate...let the government pay for and decide what to do with the 1.5 million extra children each year
The problem with this law, as Faust9 has rightly pointed out, is that it establishes precedent which could be used to overturn Roe. When you confer upon something that isn't born yet certain enumerated rights, you then have a legal basis for ending abortion, since only people can have rights, and if it has rights it must be a person. Even if it doesn't breathe air yet.
Cheers
Scott
No it doesn't. That's FUD. Roe is a Supreme Court decision. You can't legislate that away.
No it doesn't. That's FUD. Roe is a Supreme Court decision. You can't legislate that away.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but it would seem that you think supreme court decisions don't get overturned from time to time or that precedents established in the courts aren't used to determine whether or not laws passed by congress are constitutional.
Brown v Board of Education overturns Plessy v Ferguson, for example.
Roe, on the other hand, comes out of (the case is escaping me at the moment) another case that essentially established a right to privacy (since it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution). Roe privileges the woman's right to control her body over the needs of the fetus, and so just as a woman (or a man) cannot be compelled by law to undergo a medical procedure to save the life of someone else (say, donate a kidney), neither can a woman be forced to carry a baby to term by rendering the medical procedure illegal.
This law calls into question that privilege (established in Roe) and thus threatens the core of the decision.
It's basic government. The bill of rights supersedes all laws. But the problem you outlined is the real slope that RvW is on. RvW crafted a new right that didn't explicitly exist before. A future court may decide that that was wrong.
No it doesn't. That's FUD. Roe is a Supreme Court decision. You can't legislate that away.
Moreover, every piece of legislation that even remotely affects a fetus finds its way before the supreme court. The supreme court HAS reversed decisions in the past, so any time abortion or fetus rights go before the SC, there's a chance the pro-lifers will win thus ending abortion.
Recognition that a fetus has rights is the first step. Deciding when those rights begin is the next. Slowly moving the time when the rights begin is the third step. Deciding that conception could lead to a human baby thus the zygote has rights is the forth and final step to ending abortion.
As others have pointed out the line in the sand about viability is shifting as technology improves and once a fetus has rights, the idea that a fetus is a human will be tied to that line.
PS, remember a couple of months when Jeb Bush tried to assign a guardian to the fetus of a severely retarded girl in Florida? That is what anti-abortionists want, and pro-choicers are fighting so hard to prevent. The idea that the needs of the fetus in that case could have overrode the health of the girl is what the pro-choicers are fighting.
It's basic government. The bill of rights supersedes all laws. But the problem you outlined is the real slope that RvW is on. RvW crafted a new right that didn't explicitly exist before. A future court may decide that that was wrong.
Exactly. By your argument, though, there would be no constitutionally protected right to privacy, which was established shortly before RvW.
That's what's at stake here. It's more than abortion.
Don't forget that the case in Salt Lake (about the woman refusing to get a c-section) is the other prong in this attack on R v W.
That case is slightly different. The woman in that case had had a C-Section during a previous child birth. She chose (at least this is what the prosecutor is using to try the case) not to have another C-Section for cosmetic reasons. I personally find what she did reprehensible and I foresee this case working its way to a higher court be it the Utah SC, or the US SC. If she refused the C-Section for cosmetic reasons I don't see too many juries exonerating her. Its another chance to define when the mothers rights end and the child's (fetus) rights begin.
That case is slightly different. The woman in that case had had a C-Section during a previous child birth. She chose (at least this is what the prosecutor is using to try the case) not to have another C-Section for cosmetic reasons. I personally find what she did reprehensible and I foresee this case working its way to a higher court be it the Utah SC, or the US SC. If she refused the C-Section for cosmetic reasons I don't see too many juries exonerating her. Its another chance to define when the mothers rights end and the child's (fetus) rights begin.
Actually, all of the news around here says that there's no real reason for her to be found guilty. Morally bankrupt? Yes. But the core of the case is whether or not a mother (or anyone) can be compelled to undergo a medical procedure. Most folks say no. To answer otherwise would mean that people could be compelled to donate a kidney to a dying relative if they change their mind at the last minute.
But in the end, we're on the same page. What's going on here is the enumeration of fetal rights that then trump the rights of the mother.
All of this stuff should be let up to the states. A "real" conservative court would conclude that.
Didn't all of this wind its way through the state courts first, anyway? As Faust pointed out, the case in SLC will no doubt go through the Utah SC or the 4th Circuit rather than go right to the SCOTUS.
The question is whether the laws on the books are unconstitutional. The states decide. Then those decisions are challenged through the circuit courts and finally to the SCOTUS.
I'm not sure how you want this to work differently.
That's a very good question- and one I intend to answer shortly. It seems that women's rights organizations are dead-set against the bill. So I'm inclined to agree with them at this point. We'll see.
Equating "women's rights" with abortion is I don't have the word for the injustice it does to women. All "prochoice" does is put all the weight on women, give the man his way out. "Hey, it's your body, you decide. It's not my problem.
Equating "women's rights" with abortion is I don't have the word for the injustice it does to women. All "prochoice" does is put all the weight on women, give the man his way out. "Hey, it's your body, you decide. It's not my problem.
It's such a sick and cruel lie.
I hate to break it to you, but unless you're walking around with your d**k stuck in a woman for 9 months, it is her body.
Didn't all of this wind its way through the state courts first, anyway? As Faust pointed out, the case in SLC will no doubt go through the Utah SC or the 4th Circuit rather than go right to the SCOTUS.
The question is whether the laws on the books are unconstitutional. The states decide. Then those decisions are challenged through the circuit courts and finally to the SCOTUS.
I'm not sure how you want this to work differently.
When it gets to the federal level the courts there should kick it back down as not being a federal issue. The Framers never envisioned the federal government having so much blanket control over what goes on in the states.
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 ...
That way the people in California can do it their way. The people in Texas can do it their way. Comply with the Constitution, respect the Bill of Right and there's no reason for the feds to get involved.
When it gets to the federal level the courts there should kick it back down as not being a federal issue. The Framers never envisioned the federal government having so much blanket control over what goes on in the states.
But it *is* a federal issue when it involves limiting the rights of the mother. As for what the framers never envisioned... anything west of the Mississippi River. The late 18th century was a long time ago. Times change.
Quote:
That way the people in California can do it their way. The people in Texas can do it their way. Comply with the Constitution, respect the Bill of Right and there's no reason for the feds to get involved.
That's all well and good, but the problem is that sometimes states don't comply with the constitution. Mississippi circa 1964 comes to mind. If Utah didn't have to, it'd legalize all kinds of things and outlaw even more--many of which would infringe on individual liberties in all kinds of ways.
We're a federation of states. There must be oversight.
Comments
Cheers
Scott
g
Originally posted by midwinter
The problem with this law, as Faust9 has rightly pointed out, is that it establishes precedent which could be used to overturn Roe. When you confer upon something that isn't born yet certain enumerated rights, you then have a legal basis for ending abortion, since only people can have rights, and if it has rights it must be a person. Even if it doesn't breathe air yet.
Cheers
Scott
No it doesn't. That's FUD. Roe is a Supreme Court decision. You can't legislate that away.
Originally posted by Scott
No it doesn't. That's FUD. Roe is a Supreme Court decision. You can't legislate that away.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but it would seem that you think supreme court decisions don't get overturned from time to time or that precedents established in the courts aren't used to determine whether or not laws passed by congress are constitutional.
Brown v Board of Education overturns Plessy v Ferguson, for example.
Roe, on the other hand, comes out of (the case is escaping me at the moment) another case that essentially established a right to privacy (since it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution). Roe privileges the woman's right to control her body over the needs of the fetus, and so just as a woman (or a man) cannot be compelled by law to undergo a medical procedure to save the life of someone else (say, donate a kidney), neither can a woman be forced to carry a baby to term by rendering the medical procedure illegal.
This law calls into question that privilege (established in Roe) and thus threatens the core of the decision.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Scott
No it doesn't. That's FUD. Roe is a Supreme Court decision. You can't legislate that away.
Moreover, every piece of legislation that even remotely affects a fetus finds its way before the supreme court. The supreme court HAS reversed decisions in the past, so any time abortion or fetus rights go before the SC, there's a chance the pro-lifers will win thus ending abortion.
Recognition that a fetus has rights is the first step. Deciding when those rights begin is the next. Slowly moving the time when the rights begin is the third step. Deciding that conception could lead to a human baby thus the zygote has rights is the forth and final step to ending abortion.
As others have pointed out the line in the sand about viability is shifting as technology improves and once a fetus has rights, the idea that a fetus is a human will be tied to that line.
PS, remember a couple of months when Jeb Bush tried to assign a guardian to the fetus of a severely retarded girl in Florida? That is what anti-abortionists want, and pro-choicers are fighting so hard to prevent. The idea that the needs of the fetus in that case could have overrode the health of the girl is what the pro-choicers are fighting.
Originally posted by Scott
It's basic government. The bill of rights supersedes all laws. But the problem you outlined is the real slope that RvW is on. RvW crafted a new right that didn't explicitly exist before. A future court may decide that that was wrong.
Exactly. By your argument, though, there would be no constitutionally protected right to privacy, which was established shortly before RvW.
That's what's at stake here. It's more than abortion.
Don't forget that the case in Salt Lake (about the woman refusing to get a c-section) is the other prong in this attack on R v W.
Originally posted by midwinter
Faust:
Don't forget that the case in Salt Lake (about the woman refusing to get a c-section) is the other prong in this attack on R v W.
That case is slightly different. The woman in that case had had a C-Section during a previous child birth. She chose (at least this is what the prosecutor is using to try the case) not to have another C-Section for cosmetic reasons. I personally find what she did reprehensible and I foresee this case working its way to a higher court be it the Utah SC, or the US SC. If she refused the C-Section for cosmetic reasons I don't see too many juries exonerating her. Its another chance to define when the mothers rights end and the child's (fetus) rights begin.
Originally posted by faust9
That case is slightly different. The woman in that case had had a C-Section during a previous child birth. She chose (at least this is what the prosecutor is using to try the case) not to have another C-Section for cosmetic reasons. I personally find what she did reprehensible and I foresee this case working its way to a higher court be it the Utah SC, or the US SC. If she refused the C-Section for cosmetic reasons I don't see too many juries exonerating her. Its another chance to define when the mothers rights end and the child's (fetus) rights begin.
Actually, all of the news around here says that there's no real reason for her to be found guilty. Morally bankrupt? Yes. But the core of the case is whether or not a mother (or anyone) can be compelled to undergo a medical procedure. Most folks say no. To answer otherwise would mean that people could be compelled to donate a kidney to a dying relative if they change their mind at the last minute.
But in the end, we're on the same page. What's going on here is the enumeration of fetal rights that then trump the rights of the mother.
Originally posted by Scott
All of this stuff should be let up to the states. A "real" conservative court would conclude that.
Didn't all of this wind its way through the state courts first, anyway? As Faust pointed out, the case in SLC will no doubt go through the Utah SC or the 4th Circuit rather than go right to the SCOTUS.
The question is whether the laws on the books are unconstitutional. The states decide. Then those decisions are challenged through the circuit courts and finally to the SCOTUS.
I'm not sure how you want this to work differently.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That's a very good question- and one I intend to answer shortly. It seems that women's rights organizations are dead-set against the bill. So I'm inclined to agree with them at this point. We'll see.
Equating "women's rights" with abortion is
It's such a sick and cruel lie.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Equating "women's rights" with abortion is
It's such a sick and cruel lie.
I hate to break it to you, but unless you're walking around with your d**k stuck in a woman for 9 months, it is her body.
Originally posted by midwinter
Didn't all of this wind its way through the state courts first, anyway? As Faust pointed out, the case in SLC will no doubt go through the Utah SC or the 4th Circuit rather than go right to the SCOTUS.
The question is whether the laws on the books are unconstitutional. The states decide. Then those decisions are challenged through the circuit courts and finally to the SCOTUS.
I'm not sure how you want this to work differently.
When it gets to the federal level the courts there should kick it back down as not being a federal issue. The Framers never envisioned the federal government having so much blanket control over what goes on in the states.
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 ...
That way the people in California can do it their way. The people in Texas can do it their way. Comply with the Constitution, respect the Bill of Right and there's no reason for the feds to get involved.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i just don't understasnd the idea that your physical location is what designates you as either human or fetus.
How about "currently breathes air"? That make it better?
How about "currently breathes air"? That make it better?
not really. how is that a valid criteria for whether or not you're a person?
Originally posted by Scott
When it gets to the federal level the courts there should kick it back down as not being a federal issue. The Framers never envisioned the federal government having so much blanket control over what goes on in the states.
But it *is* a federal issue when it involves limiting the rights of the mother. As for what the framers never envisioned... anything west of the Mississippi River. The late 18th century was a long time ago. Times change.
That way the people in California can do it their way. The people in Texas can do it their way. Comply with the Constitution, respect the Bill of Right and there's no reason for the feds to get involved.
That's all well and good, but the problem is that sometimes states don't comply with the constitution. Mississippi circa 1964 comes to mind. If Utah didn't have to, it'd legalize all kinds of things and outlaw even more--many of which would infringe on individual liberties in all kinds of ways.
We're a federation of states. There must be oversight.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by alcimedes
not really. how is that a valid criteria for whether or not you're a person?
I take it you know a lot of people who don't breathe air?