Does the Public Understand Roe v Wade?

[Danzig]

here's an excerpt from an article regarding the unenumerated 'right to privacy':

The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause).

The judicial concept of "Substantive Due Process," holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is intended to protect all unenumerated rights considered fundamental and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," among these the right to privacy. Use of Substantive Due Process is considered judicial activism, in that it seeks to limit the scope of laws that undermine personal liberty, even if the law doesn't address a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

In the past, (Lochner Era: c.1897-1937, second industrial revolution) Courts used Substantive Due Process in a way that reduced individual protection from exploitation by businesses and the government, such as protecting the "right" of the individual to negotiate contracts with an employer by holding minimum wage and work conditions laws unconstitutional.

Today, Substantive Due Process is used to protect the individual against exploitation or legislation that creates an undue burden on individuals, or on an identifiable group or class of citizens.

The Supreme Court first declared an individual's right to privacy in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting doctors from counseling married couples on the use of birth control. The Court held the state had no legitimate interest interfering in communication between a doctor and patient, that the nature of the discussion was private.

Griswold set the precedent used to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade, (1973) and to decriminalize intimate sexual practices between consenting adults in Lawrence v. Texas, (2003).

[Danzig]

as for 'unenumerated rights' i turned to madison (just finished reading a new book just out about him, and i knew he'd discussed unenumerated rights. he was against a bill of rights, as he didn't want people to think only those rights explicitly stated were to ever be considered, and that the federal and state governments could then abridge other rights):

here's this:

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.


and keep in mind, the same 14th amendment was used in several other cases, yet not once can i remember anyone coming out against those rulings.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would estimate that well over 95% of people in this country do not even understand Roe v Wade. If Roe v Wade was overturned, that does not outlaw abortion.

For those of you that don't know what a reversal of the Roe v Wade decision would mean, it would simply leave the decision up to each individual state. So it is quite possible that some of the really conservative states might ban abortion. But it would remain legal throughout the vast majority of the country.

I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue. But if Roe v Wade was overturned and abortion was made illegal in a few conservative states, I don't think that would be the end of the world.

Idiotic lawmakers like Paul Ryan and Todd Akins have zero right to insert their opinions between a woman and her doctor.

Stop worrying about controlling other people's personal reproductive lives, Rupert. You do have an opinion, that "it wouldn't be the end of the world for states to choose to ban abortion"

If you are so against other people having the freedom to make the personal decision to have an abortion, you should at least be fighting for sex education and free birth control for all.

The only reason to encourage overturning of Roe v Wade is to prevent women from having rights to control their own reproductive lives.

[Clip-Clop]

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

taxes paying for what? abortions?

rest easy:

For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Another shiny distraction from real life. This is never really going to change, no matter who is in the white house. Some are OK with taxes paying for it and others are not.

You tax dollars have never paid for one abortion, and they do not pay for any abortions. That's illegal. Get the facts straight

[Danzig]

and what do you know, on my home page, a headline to this story:

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae6...eae5026c58605f

which is a crystal clear illustration of why roe v wade must be left alone.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Not for people who believe in "original understanding" of our charter.

oh, i get them and the point. but many don't. it tends to only be mentioned in things like re-arguing the civil war, and in roe v wade. not regarding ss, medicare, obamacare, medicaid, other federal mandates sent out and meekly accepted over the years. it seems that the ppuca ruling is the first time in i can't remember how long that states powers were re-affirmed. and what have states done with it? nothing right now, and probably won't do anything with roberts' gift. remember drinking age requirements sent down from dc, tied to federal highway funding? what's with all these grants that are applied for, for 'free money' from the feds? why was it ever allowed, and why has it ever been tolerated, to have the fed be the clearing house of tax money? to collect and then re-distribute as it willed? people talk about romney not being for 'revenue redistribution' but the fed has been engaged in just that for decades.
it's going to be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. that's why i said what i said about that 'hollow ring'.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Idiotic lawmakers like Paul Ryan and Todd Akins have zero right to insert their opinions between a woman and her doctor.

Stop worrying about controlling other people's personal reproductive lives, Rupert. You do have an opinion, that "it wouldn't be the end of the world for states to choose to ban abortion"

If you are so against other people having the freedom to make the personal decision to have an abortion, you should at least be fighting for sex education and free birth control for all.

The only reason to encourage overturning of Roe v Wade is to prevent women from having rights to control their own reproductive lives.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "I am so against other people having the freedom to make the decision to have an abortion." If I was against it, I would simply state that I think abortion should be illegal. I have never said that I thought abortion should be illegal.

My comment that "it wouldn't be the end of the world if a few states banned it" was made in the context that there are people out there who may vote for Obama/Biden based on this one issue alone. I think that is ridiculous because it is unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned, and even if it was overturned that would not ban abortion in the US. Some conservative states may ban it but that would not be the end of the world. If you are a woman in one those states, it would be a little bit of an inconvenience. You would have to drive to a bordering state to have the procedure. As a one-time deal, if you had to drive to a bordering state, that would not be the end of the world.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

taxes paying for what? abortions?

rest easy:

For more than 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions. The Hyde Amendment is a rider which has been annually included in the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services

As soon as the first woman who has her insurance subsidized by an exchange in IL receives an abortion public money (mine)will be used, Henry Hyde be damned again.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

In retrospect this was a great call.

Really? What was so inflammatory? I didn't call anybody names.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Really? What was so inflammatory? I didn't call anybody names.

Don't play dumb.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Don't play dumb.

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

when you call people who have abortions murderers....you're going to aggravate people.

When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people.

In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

As soon as the first woman who has her insurance subsidized by an exchange in IL receives an abortion public money (mine)will be used, Henry Hyde be damned again.

BTW come to think of it my tax dollars have already paid for abortions just not Federal tax dollars. Unless Cook County Hospital/Stroger wasn't actually performing abortions they say they do and bill for?

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49362203...-get-abortion/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not trying to. Would you consider taking an unpopular stand on a controversial subject to be inflammatory, even if the purpose was not to actually aggravate anyone?

it's not taking a stand for your beliefs that's the problem. it's not inflammator to explain why you feel how you do.
calling people murderers, trying to make others live by your rules-that's inflammatory. you see, having a right is one thing....you can choose whether or not to engage in whatever right you are free to exercise. a right being in existence doesn't mean a single person will ever be forced to exercise that right.
take that right away-well, you're potentially affecting a lot of people, aren't you? and you're trying to take away that right because of your opinion. how does your opinion hold more weight than mine, or anyone's?
as for calling people murderers, how does that further your argument? what do you hope to gain by that? who made you the arbiter?

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Does the executed individual get a vote?

I had an abortion when I was 17.

This is a hard thing for some women to talk about, very easy for me though.

I'd like to suggest that if you are so horrified you open your home and become a foster parent. Or, better yet, adopt.

I killed no one. I was 17 and wasn't about to drag a baby to go and buy pot and wait in line for concert tickets and run off to God knows where at the drop of a hat.

It was not anyone elses business what i chose to do with my own body...the government, the church, pro-life individuals... no one has this right.

I have never regretted it for a second, never felt bad about it. I have 2 kids and had them when I was ready to and apologize to no one.

I was raised Catholic but more importantly to think for myself. Compassion, forgiveness and love. Those are what I was taught.

I would never presume to tell you what to do or judge you for such a personal choice.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

when you call people who have abortions murderers....you're going to aggravate people.

When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people.

In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.

I focused on the argument and did not try to insult anyone. Is the terminology incorrect? How else do you classify the action, except by calling it murder, if life does begin at conception?

If life does not begin at conception - no murder has occurred. The door of course swings both ways. Do you have a counter-argument, devoid of insults, upon which to prove this point?

I would suggest that the aggravation stems from an emotional reaction to the possibility, however remote, that maybe I'm right. That means that abortions those people know of might have been murders after all. That's a tough thing to accept.

The insult didn't win the argument for you - you didn't expect it to I'm sure.

[Dahoss]

We've gone over this before. And everytime we do I try and remind you that it is not the black and white issue you try and make it. There is a lot of gray area to look at.

I guess my question is why does it matter to you what someone else does with their body if you aren't impacted by it financially?