Why and how is abortion a state's rights issue?

[Dribble]

There’s nothing democratic about the Supreme Court’s decision, or indeed its current composition.

Exactly right

Fascism must be stopped by any...and all means necessary.

 

[Dribble]

No where in the Constitution does it say the States cannot impede the ownership of guns. The Constitution applies only to the Federal Govt. The use of the word "State" in the 2nd Amendment refers to the Federal State...not an individual or collective of States. If States want to walk this path...we will. And the Country will break up. Dissolve. Progressive States will build barriers on their borders assuring their security and they will be armed by their Militias. Choice is simple. Progressive States account for an insane amount of the US GDP. They will be fine. The Fascist States...will have to rely on the generosity of Texas. Sounds perfectly fair and just.

A woman 's right in one State...must exist in all States. Just as a man's right. This IS IN the Constitution.

 

[adrina]

Ehm...no. I think you do not grasp the decision re qualified immunity (whether or not police action was unlawful). There is no federal law on qualified immunity or on police standards, or on any number of acts that could be unlawful, so it is up the the states (and, in Brennan v Dawson, local). The court said the police actions weren't unlawful in the case. However, the parameters of lawful conduct/qualified immunity vary wildly from locale to locale. Somewhat similar to Roe

In the Roe decision, SCOTUS swept away all state and local laws restricting abortion. There was no federal law, just state laws. With Roe overturned, the 'old laws' are back on the books.

You either misspoke or don't know what you're saying. SCOTUS swept no state or local laws away. What they did was sweep away the right of a citizen of the United States to an abortion on the federal level. They did exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

Again qualified immunity is a right enshrined by this very supreme Court - protected on a federal level by a federal court. Just as roe granted abortion rights on a federal level by a federal court.

There is no federal law at all regarding qualified immunity. If you want to try to lecture me about qualified immunity as it relates to abortion then you will need to be more specific. Nothing you said changes the reality that we are operating under two different standards, which do not seem to be based on actual law.

Your argument was that abortion has never had a federal law is irrelevant. Scotus has granted several rights that are not in the Constitution. Everything from qualified immunity to campaign finance to corporations are people.

So far this entire discussion has only convinced me that the anti-abortion folks latched on to the states right argument regardless of its validity. I am point blank asking for the validity of states rights regarding abortion to be spelled out in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the laws of the land. Because as far as I can tell the overwhelming vast majority of legislation regarding abortion comes from a place of hysteria as opposed to a sound legal basis.

Simply telling me no is not an answer. Just like I told another, show your work. Don't lean on platitudes. If you feel so strongly that abortion is a state right then it should be very easy to demonstrate with very little ability to push back on it.

 

[jaF0]

If HIPAA is Federal and usurps state laws regarding privacy, how is a medical procedure not covered by that?

How are medical rights not covered under Federal Civil Rights laws and/or ACA?

There are a number of religious based challenges to the ruling saying that it impinges on their religious freedom. How can religious rights be states rights now?

How/why did the courts rule for Hobby Lobby and similar cases if medical issues are state's rights?

 

[jaF0]

Roberts makes a jackass of himself again....

Chief Justice John Roberts defends Supreme Court's legitimacy

Sept. 10 (UPI) -- In his first public comments since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, Chief Justice John Roberts defended the court's legitimacy, saying that its job is to interpret the Constitution.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/09/10/Supreme-Court-John-Roberts-abortion/2521662823778/

---

Given some of the contradictions mentioned above, it's clear to me that the Court is NOT ruling based on the Constitution and Law, but rather on their personal and partisan beliefs and simply wording their rulings using the Constitution as a justification.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So how do you justify qualified immunity? There is no federal law regarding it, yet it was granted as constitutional by the very same court who struck roe down because of this lack of federal law.

Consistency.

Again how and why is abortion a state's right issue?

The late justice Scalia and current justice Thomas agree with you on qualified immunity. Both justices have sharply criticized the doctrine. Scalia described it as “legislative crafting” by the courts.

 

[Dribble]

The late justice Scalia and current justice Thomas agree with you on qualified immunity. Both justices have sharply criticized the doctrine. Scalia described it as “legislative crafting” by the courts.

But they didn't vote it that way huh? So...they are just hot air like all Republicans?

 

[jaF0]

This is the same kind of double standard:

Ted Cruz Shares Tweet Calling Bipartisan Same-Sex Marriage Bill a Threat​

The Texas senator shared a tweet by a conservative activist who said that passing a bill that protects same-sex marriages would threaten religious freedoms.


They want to say something infringes on their rights and enact bans that infringe on the rights of others.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

But they didn't vote it that way huh? So...they are just hot air like all Republicans?

Neither of them were on the Court when the doctrine was established in the 1967 Pierson v Ray decision. Scalia opposed it in a dissenting opinion in the Crawford v Britton case as did Thomas in Ziglar v Abbasi.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Again how and why is abortion a state's right issue?

Again, because 10A says so. Until the feds codify those rights with some legislation, it's up to the states. That's how the system works.

You can not like that all you want, and say the Constitution is no justification, but in the world where laws exist, it is.

Unfortunately for pro-abortion folks the Democrats will NEVER do anything to codify abortion rights federally.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

There’s nothing democratic about the Supreme Court’s decision, or indeed its current composition.

It's not meant to be democratic. That's what the legislature is for.

 

[adrina]

Again, because 10A says so. Until the feds codify those rights with some legislation, it's up to the states. That's how the system works.

10A says no qualified immunity and that corporations aren't people?

Further why does my medical insurance work in another state?

Again, consistency.

Life liberty and pursuit of happiness means nothing against 10A? 14A means nothing against 10A? Further how exactly does 10A apply to medical situations? Additionally, "the people" does not mean "the individual state governments".

Saying 10A says so is juvenile and incomplete. At best.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

10A says no qualified immunity and that corporations aren't people?

Further why does my medical insurance work in another state?

Again, consistency.

Life liberty and pursuit of happiness means nothing against 10A? 14A means nothing against 10A? Further how exactly does 10A apply to medical situations? Additionally, "the people" does not mean "the individual state governments".

Saying 10A says so is juvenile and incomplete. At best.

10A actually doesn't say that.

Because federal regulations exist allowing it to. Insurance industry is rigged and protected by SHIT TONS of regulations. That's a fact.

Consistency isn't the problem, you just don't seem to understand that without federal regulations of some kind on abortion, to supersede state laws, 10A says that states can regulate. That's how our system works.

Of course they do, they just don't have any current relevance to abortion, much less supersede it. Which is why if pro-abortion folks want to protect abortion rights in states that want to restrict it, you need federal legislation to protect those rights. Call your congress critters, e-mail your senators.

No, saying 10A is why most abortion regulation is occurring at a state level is understanding the law. Just like saying "2A" is why you can't ban semi-auto rifles or saying "1A" is why you can't throw Christians in prison is also understanding the law. The ONLY reason it's at the state level is because there is no federal regulation, federal regulation would take regulatory power away from the states as soon as it was signed into law. (D) controlled congress and WH could change that TODAY, they could regulate and protect abortion right now, but they wouldn't dare give up that golden carrot before the midterms. Not an ice cubes chance in hell.

 

[adrina]

10A actually doesn't say that.

Because federal regulations exist allowing it to.

Consistency isn't the problem, you just don't seem to understand that without federal regulations of some kind on abortion, to superweed state laws, states can regulate abortion. Because the Constitution says so.

Of course they do, they just don't have any current relevance to abortion, much less supersede it. Which is why if pro-abortion folks want to protect abortion rights in states that want to restrict it, you need federal legislation to protect those rights. Call your congress critters, e-mail your senators.

No, saying 10A is why most abortion regulation is occurring at a state level is understanding the law. Just like saying "2A" is why you can't ban semi-auto rifles or saying "1A" is why you can't throw Christians in prison is also understanding the law. The ONLY reason it's at the state level is because there is no federal regulation, federal regulation would take regulatory power away from the states as soon as it was signed into law. (D) controlled congress and WH could change that TODAY, but they wouldn't dare give up that golden carrot before the midterms.

Again there is no federal law whatsoever regarding qualified immunity or the status of corporations as people, however both have been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.

You can try to circle your way around that all day long, but you need to explain the differences.

So it's constitutional to have a set of behaviors and practices for one thing without federal laws and regulations, but not the other. According to your "logic".

And again, "the people" does not mean "the individual state governments".

I don't think you know what you are saying.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Again there is no federal law whatsoever regarding qualified immunity or the status of corporations as people, however both have been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.

You can try to circle your way around that all day long, but you need to explain the differences.

So it's constitutional to have a set of behaviors and practices for one thing without federal laws and regulations, but not the other. According to your "logic".

And again, "the people" does not mean "the individual state governments".

I don't think you know what you are saying.

You can keep bringing up whatever other cases you want. They don't matter.

I don't need to explain the differences nor does SCOTUS. Again, they don't matter, QI and corporate structures and legal status aren't abortion and the cases that made them so had nothing to do with 10A. You're just putting up random strawmen.

With regard to the abortion argument, you need to show the federal regulation of abortion of codification of it as a legal right.

If you can't do that, then the regulation of abortion belongs to the states, because 10A says so.

As for your argument "the people" not meaning "the individual state governments" bit, 10A has that specifically covered.

10A text for reference.

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

The reality is that federal legislation is needed to take that power from the states, according to 10A.

It's a pretty straight forward thing. The feds need to either regulate abortion, or codify it as a right....otherwise the states will. That's how our system works.

 

[ll74]

You can keep bringing up whatever other cases you want. They don't matter.

I don't need to explain the differences nor does SCOTUS. Again, they don't matter, QI and corporate structures and legal status aren't abortion and the cases that made them so had nothing to do with 10A. You're just putting up random strawmen.

With regard to the abortion argument, you need to show the federal regulation of abortion of codification of it as a legal right.

If you can't do that, then the regulation of abortion belongs to the states, because 10A says so.

As for your argument "the people" not meaning "the individual state governments" bit, 10A has that specifically covered.

10A text for reference.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

The reality is that federal legislation is needed to take that power from the states, according to 10A.

It's a pretty straight forward thing. The feds need to either regulate abortion, or codify it as a right....otherwise the states will. That's how our system works.

Which law was codified that makes corporations people?

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

No where in the Constitution does it say the States cannot impede the ownership of guns. .

That is rather explicitly what the 2nd amendment says.... and why it's been such a terrible time for the anti-2A crowd.

As soon as an amendment saying "A woman's right to an abortion SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!" is ratified, abortion will have the same legal protection as AR-15's.

 

[adrina]

You can keep bringing up whatever other cases you want. They don't matter.

I don't need to explain the differences nor does SCOTUS. Again, they don't matter, QI and corporate structures and legal status aren't abortion and the cases that made them so had nothing to do with 10A. You're just putting up random strawmen.

With regard to the abortion argument, you need to show the federal regulation of abortion of codification of it as a legal right.

If you can't do that, then the regulation of abortion belongs to the states, because 10A says so.

As for your argument "the people" not meaning "the individual state governments" bit, 10A has that specifically covered.

10A text for reference.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

The reality is that federal legislation is needed to take that power from the states, according to 10A.

It's a pretty straight forward thing. The feds need to either regulate abortion, or codify it as a right....otherwise the states will. That's how our system works.

A lot of words to say that you can't explain it and there is no rational basis for allowing QI and corporations as people but for abortion it's a-okay, regardless of one's insistence of a basis in federal legislature.

Yes. The states. Or the people.

Once again, I am seeking an explanation founded in consistency. You are saying that it's okay for states to legislate abortion because there are no federal regulations (and actually there are, but that's a convenient bypass for you go fig). You are saying that QI and corporations as people are not relevant in their legitimacy, even though there are zero, none not a one regulation on either of those subjects. In fact, federal regulations serve to shield personal responsibility.

It's not straightforward at all. You haven't demonstrated anything except that you have scripted responses without any consistency.

Or do you think the law functions best when it is inconsistent?

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Which law was codified that makes corporations people?

You would have to read up on the citizens united decision for those details.

 

[ll74]

You would have to read up on the citizens united decision for those details.

Yes. And the answer is that there isn't one.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

A lot of words to say that you can't explain it and there is no rational basis for allowing QI and corporations as people but for abortion it's a-okay, regardless of one's insistence of a basis in federal legislature.

Yes. The states. Or the people.

Once again, I am seeking an explanation founded in consistency. You are saying that it's okay for states to legislate abortion because there are no federal regulations (and actually there are, but that's a convenient bypass for you go fig). You are saying that QI and corporations as people are not relevant in their legitimacy, even though there are zero, none not a one regulation on either of those subjects. In fact, federal regulations serve to shield personal responsibility.

It's not straightforward at all. You haven't demonstrated anything except that you have scripted responses without any consistency.

Or do you think the law functions best when it is inconsistent?

Why should I have to explain stuff that isn't relevant to the argument?

Yes, that covers the states, rather explicitly so.

No, you put up strawmen that have nothing to do with 10A or abortion seemingly in a bid to try and deflect from the fact you can't show any federal regulations that codify abortion rights.

It's very straightforward. 10A says what it says.... if you can't show us the federal abortion regulations or name the amendment making it a legal right.... states get to regulate, that's what the Constitution says, very explicitly. There is no inconsistency here. You just seem mad Roe got overturned and Democrats REFUSE to regulate or codify abortion as a right. Again, call your congress critters. There is nothing stopping congress and the WH from protecting abortion federally RIGHT NOW.....except those midterms!!! But they don't dare, roe getting overturned is the best thing that could have happened to them for the midterms.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Yes. And the answer is that there isn't one.

I'm sure you like to think so, fortunately for people who set up corporations, SCOTUS says otherwise.

 

[ll74]

I'm sure you like to think so.

Lol. No, I know there isn't one, which is precisely the argument you're ignoring because you assume things that aren't true.

The CU (SCOTUS) case actually negated a law that said the opposite.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Lol. No, I know there isn't one, which is precisely the argument you're ignoring because you assume things that aren't true.

The CU (SCOTUS) case actually negated a law that said the opposite.

Sure, I didn't assume anything, I said you would have to look into the CU case for details.

Seems that corporate "personhood" had nothing to do with any of it after a wiki look.... making it an idiots talking point, and again, nothing to do with OP or thread topic.

If you would like to discuss 1A rights applying to corporations, non-profits, unions and charities in another thread that would be fantastic but I'll not discuss it here any further out of respect for OP.

 

[ll74]

Sure, I didn't assume anything, I said you would have to look into the CU case for details.

Seems that corporate "personhood" had nothing to do with any of it after a wiki look.... making it an idiots talking point, and again, nothing to do with OP or thread topic.

I have read the decision.

You haven't. Else you wouldn't be making the argument you're making. And certainly where you're missing the "corporations are people" statement

Maybe wikipedia isn't sufficient in your legal reviews. (We'll, certainly without reviewing the footnotes)