Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Women's Rights

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But your premise was what stops people from criminalizing the use of birth control and masturbation and what stops people from criminalizing sex except for pro-creation purposes. - This slippery slope argument is based on the fear of the absurd.

 

Yes, to your point, the regulatory state can and is being used to either limit abortions or guarantee them in any circumstance. States can regulate abortion clinics as to the health and safety and hygiene. That part I will agree with you on. However, to argue that this will cause the regulatory state to interfere with basic rights of privacy in the bedroom is not really a reasonable premise. These cases have been tried for much of the last 50 years and each time the Court has come out in favor of the individual right to privacy being ingrained in the Constitution. The scenarios you pointed out, from banning contraceptives to prohibiting sodomy and masturbation or recreational sex have been protected and it is not something Congress can even pass a law to regulate.

 

Well, I’m just not taking your word for it, sorry.   There were some idiots in the LGBT community who trusted Trump and Republicans that the laws were settled too. Never trust a conservative with personal rights.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jon81ohNot asking you to take my word for it. I have no power in the matter. I would take the precedence set by the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights. The thing about the Constitution is it cuts equally against the left and right who try and overstep their bounds to interfere with individual liberty.

 

Don't just look at a Court decision and decide if you like it or it is an abomination because the outcome is in your favor. Often the best decisions may seem adverse to your beliefs on the surface but in the big picture often results in the result you are looking for long term. It is akin to losing the battle but winning the war.

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's only 42, and up for a lifetime job....

 

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and
Edited by KJP

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 10:02 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

@jon81ohNot asking you to take my word for it. I have no power in the matter. I would take the precedence set by the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.

 

Except that the Republican Party has now appointed a lot of judges with anti-Roe views, including to the Supreme Court.  And it is no secret that the Republican Party is eager to overturn Roe.  So it's not a very convincing argument to say "you shouldn't be worried -- precedent protects you!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Except that the Republican Party has now appointed a lot of judges with anti-Roe views, including to the Supreme Court.  And it is no secret that the Republican Party is eager to overturn Roe.  So it's not a very convincing argument to say "you shouldn't be worried -- precedent protects you!"

 

First - I think the majority of people really do not understand what overturning "roe" actually does. Overturning Roe would not get rid of abortion. In the vast majority of states, it would be perfectly legal. In NY or CA, if Roe were overturned, people would still be able to get an abortion on demand at anytime.  So, let's be clear about that.

 

Second, these judges are not free to make up the law, they are bound by rules and past precedence in issuing an opinion. They can be overturned. In addition, for federal judges that are especially egregious, there are ways to keep them off certain high profile cases.

 

So ultimately, what you are saying is that it is ok for the judge to issue an opinion that agrees with your beliefs and those who disagree be damned?  Judges swing back and forth in each administration. It is designed to keep a bit of stasis in judicial opinions. So getting overly upset about this is a bit overblown right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So ultimately, what you are saying is that it is ok for the judge to issue an opinion that agrees with your beliefs and those who disagree be damned? 

 

Absolutely not.  Perhaps you mistake me for someone else.

 

Judges are supposed to follow precedent, but they are not bound to it.  The point I was trying to make was that the fact that Roe is precedential does not mean that it will be the law forever -- precedent is no guarantee for any law.  The Supreme Court once held that "separate but equal" was just fine and now it's not -- the law does change over time even in the face of precedent.  And given that there is a strong movement to overturn Roe, it's not inconceivable that the court is heading in that direction.  I was simply countering your contention that precedent would protect Roe from being overturned.

 

Personally, I don't think Roe is good law.  But not because of any personal dislike for abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

First - I think the majority of people really do not understand what overturning "roe" actually does. Overturning Roe would not get rid of abortion. In the vast majority of states, it would be perfectly legal. In NY or CA, if Roe were overturned, people would still be able to get an abortion on demand at anytime.  So, let's be clear about that.

What? You cannot legally terminate a viable fetus in CA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Absolutely not.  Perhaps you mistake me for someone else.

 

Judges are supposed to follow precedent, but they are not bound to it.  The point I was trying to make was that the fact that Roe is precedential does not mean that it will be the law forever -- precedent is no guarantee for any law.  The Supreme Court once held that "separate but equal" was just fine and now it's not -- the law does change over time even in the face of precedent.  And given that there is a strong movement to overturn Roe, it's not inconceivable that the court is heading in that direction.  I was simply countering your contention that precedent would protect Roe from being overturned.

 

Personally, I don't think Roe is good law.  But not because of any personal dislike for abortion.

Roe is a horrible decision and has been recognized by most legal scholars as such. The reasoning behind the decision is bad and does not really lend itself to much citation in other cases. Casey was the attempt to articulate a much clearer position on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Roe is a horrible decision and has been recognized by most legal scholars as such.

 

This suggests you know or have seen data that 50.01% of legal scholars recognize Roe as a "horrible decision."  Please cite.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal scholars cite that it is a bad opinion. Go ahead and google it yourself.

 

When I say bad opinion, it means nothing about the result of the case. It just means that the opinion is jumbled and poorly written and does not provide clear answers in the ruling. There are a lot of significant cases that are bad opinions because they do not have clarity. Roe is an example of this. Whether you agree with the result or disagree with the result is irrelevant to the quality of the opinion.

 

But please continue with your trite comments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Legal scholars cite that it is a bad opinion. Go ahead and google it yourself.

 

When I say bad opinion, it means nothing about the result of the case. It just means that the opinion is jumbled and poorly written and does not provide clear answers in the ruling. There are a lot of significant cases that are bad opinions because they do not have clarity. Roe is an example of this. Whether you agree with the result or disagree with the result is irrelevant to the quality of the opinion.

 

But please continue with your trite comments. 

 

Most implies more than 50%.  Again, please cite.  Googling a few examples does not constitute 50.01%.  If you had said "many," then that's fine.  But "most" is definitively more than 50% and if you're going to casually throw around a claim like that, you should be able to back it up.  You know, since you're here telling us how important words are.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Most implies more than 50%.  Again, please cite.  Googling a few examples does not constitute 50.01%.  If you had said "many," then that's fine.  But "most" is definitively more than 50% and if you're going to casually throw around a claim like that, you should be able to back it up.  You know, since you're here telling us how important words are.

While I certainly understand how someone in your position may not be able to grasp or have the ability to comprehend this, if you study legal scholars, and have an understanding on how the law works, most legal scholars take that position. No, you cant get a 50.01% statistic, but it is widely recognized in most case law books and footnotes as well as other articles from scholars on the right and left that the opinion in Roe v Wade was a poorly written opinion and not a strong opinion to cite from for future cases.

 

I don't expect you to be able to understand the details on this, but was just pointing out that this is widely accepted by most legal scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 10:22 AM, taestell said:

Ohio Republicans are not only attempting to ban virtually all abortion, but most popular forms of birth control:

 

Quote

The bill would ban nontherapeutic abortions that include "drugs or devices used to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum.” [...]

 

“Birth control pills, IUDs and other methods of birth control like that – the bill states that any birth control that could act to stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is considered an abortion under this bill," Miracle says.

 

Becker insists his bill does not target birth control.

 

“When you get into the contraception and abortifacients, that’s clearly not my area of expertise, but I suppose, if it were true that what we typically known as the pill would be classified as an abortifacient, then I would imagine the drug manufacturers would reformulate it so it’s no longer an abortifacient and is strictly a contraceptive," Becker says.

 

It's odd that Rep. Becker is playing dumb about whether or not birth control pills are abortifacients. Anti-choice groups have a crystal clear opinion about this:

 

Quote

The term “contraceptive” indicates that the results prevent a woman from being fertile at all. However,  all birth control pills on the market today function as abortifacients part of the time.   The Pill ends early pregnancies part of the time by preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg.

 

 

Unsurprisingly, the state rep who said "contraception and abortifacients, that’s clearly not my area of expertise" is back in the news for legislating things that he doesn't understand:

 

Quote

Lawmaker Says He Didn't Research Ectopic Pregnancy Procedure Before Adding To Bill

 

An Ohio lawmaker who proposed legislation extending insurance coverage to a procedure considered medically impossible as a way of fighting abortion worked closely on the bill with a conservative lobbyist, according to newly released emails.

 

State Rep. John Becker, a southwestern Ohio Republican, got help from Barry Sheets, a lobbyist for the Right to Life Action Coalition of Ohio, as he crafted a measure that's since drawn international scrutiny for its questionable medical grounding, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported Wednesday.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you have a political party that doesn't believe in science.  Pretty soon we will have laws banning electricity as witchcraft and globes as heretical!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Virginia legislature voted in favor of ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment today.  Making them the 38th state to do so. However, the congressional ratification had an expiration date that has since passed and 4 state legislatures voted to rescind their ratification. This brings up some interesting legal questions, first off, is the expiration date even valid to begin with and can that be rescinded with a simple majority and can a state legislature rescind a ratification vote from a previous legislature.  We will see where this goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely yes. A vote that took place 40 years ago that did not lead to ratification would probably need to be re-affirmed. It would make sense and you would hope it would, otherwise you could run into some really absurd results somewhere down the line.

 

For example, say the DOMA act was actually put forth as an amendment. If you received passage in Congress and 37 states voted on it in the 1990's the attitudes of society were very different than they are today. Now, in 2020, you have a few states that never moved on it. Let's call one of them Utah or Alabama. They could now pass it and there would be 38 states to enact the amendment. during the last 25 years, I think places like Ohio and say a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania who may have ratified the amendment in 1996 would ratify it in 2020. Is it reasonable to hold them to such a vote from over a generation ago?  Amendments may take years to pass but it should be wise to have an expiration date on them where the state and Congress can re-address the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Likely yes. A vote that took place 40 years ago that did not lead to ratification would probably need to be re-affirmed. It would make sense and you would hope it would, otherwise you could run into some really absurd results somewhere down the line.

 

For example, say the DOMA act was actually put forth as an amendment. If you received passage in Congress and 37 states voted on it in the 1990's the attitudes of society were very different than they are today. Now, in 2020, you have a few states that never moved on it. Let's call one of them Utah or Alabama. They could now pass it and there would be 38 states to enact the amendment. during the last 25 years, I think places like Ohio and say a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania who may have ratified the amendment in 1996 would ratify it in 2020. Is it reasonable to hold them to such a vote from over a generation ago?  Amendments may take years to pass but it should be wise to have an expiration date on them where the state and Congress can re-address the matter.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, I guess. The 27th amendment was ratified by the 1st Congress in 1789 and wasn't ratified by the states until 1992. So i think the issue of time lapse wouldn't be hard to overcome. But yes, the rescinding by 4 states might pose a challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely no implied expiration dates, as the story of the 27th Amendment testifies.  But this was an express expiration date.  In general, Congress has the ability to sunset any law or resolution it passes, so there would have to be some reason that Congress doesn't have the power to do this.

 

You could maybe parse Article V of the Constitution to say that Congress has done all it can do when it "proposes" an amendment.  I think that would be a stretch but I strongly doubt that's ever actually been litigated.

 

On the issue of rescinded ratifications, though, I find it nearly impossible to believe that a state would be unable to rescind a ratification before an amendment has actually become part of the Constitution.  Needless to say, you can't rescind it afterward.  But legislatures are basically never bound by the acts of previous legislatures, unless they have led to permanent changes in legal relationships.  I can't imagine a credible legal argument for why the rescissions would be ineffective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2019 at 10:43 PM, taestell said:

Unsurprisingly, the state rep who said "contraception and abortifacients, that’s clearly not my area of expertise" is back in the news for legislating things that he doesn't understand

 

Who wouldn't want this guy having more say over more people's health?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...