This Is Federalism: Overturn Roe
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-06-13 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 136 references Ignore this thread
This Is Federalism: Overturn Roe
[Comments enabled]

There is no longer a defense possible for Roe.

The bill, effectively immediately, repeals a 1975 Illinois abortion law. It eliminates spousal consent, waiting periods, criminal penalties for abortion providers and restrictions on abortion facilities, such as licensing requirements and health and safety inspections. It also repealed the state's Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act and establishes "that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under the law, of this State."

Ok.  Incidentally that's not much more than NY passed, but it is more-broad.

The point is simply this: There is no longer any reason for Roe to exist on the books; overturn it now.

We are supposed to be a nation of 50 state political laboratories.  If you want an abortion you can now have one at any time up to and including while being in labor.  Just go to Illinois; that law has taken effect immediately.

Note that unlike every state that has gone the other way there was no instantaneous lawsuit filed seeking an immediate injunction to stop this from going into effect.  It's law, here and now, in Illinois.

Here you have it folks; this is Federalism in all its glory.

The Justices should immediately overturn Roe and return this issue to the states.  Those states such as Alabama that wish to criminalize abortion at any point can do that.  Georgia can have its "heartbeat" bill, as can others.

Both New York and Illinois can permit abortion at any time, for any reason, up to the moment of a baby drawing its first breath.  The Constitution clearly says all born persons are entitled to protection, so therefore you have a hard, bright white line.

Do I think Illinois is nuts?  Yep.

Do I really care?  Nope.

I left.  I knew Illinois was nuts.  But that's fine; the entire point of Federalism is that if I think a state and its government is nuts I can move to a different one; I have 49 more to choose from.  I can keep doing this if I must and there are fairly decent odds that I'll die before I run out of states, should they continue down paths I personally consider to be crazyland.

State laws constraining or even banning abortion outright are no real concern of people who believe in personal autonomy and accountability.  Everyone has the right to travel for personal reasons on an unrestricted basis between states.  Bus tickets are cheap -- cheaper than abortions, by far.  There's no barrier to any woman who wishes to procure an abortion from getting on a bus, in a car, in a train or on a plane and going where she can have one.  There are now two states that have made them available right up until labor begins, and one that allows abortion even after labor begins so long as the child has not drawn a breath.

The left has what they want in Illinois; unrestricted abortion at whim and at any time.  What they can't have, and Americans should be willing to risk death if it becomes necessary to stop them, is forcing their radical views down every other state's throat.  This applies not only to abortion but also to Illinois' -- or California's -- belief that they can spend money they don't have, including on things like health care for illegal invaders, and then force the Federal Government to bail them out.

Federalism is worth going to war over, in short, and if we cannot have Federalism in peace because the left will not allow it then I'm up for the other, sadly necessary, alternative.  In point of fact our Constitution demands exactly that of each and every one of us.

This isn't, at its core, really about abortion at all.

It's about the founding principles of this nation and the binding contract between the States and Federal Government -- a contract that the people have every right to enforce by whatever means may be necessary.  One cannot both believe the American Revolution was just and produced a valid result and that the people do not retain the right to enforce the limits of Federalism and The Constitution as written including enforcement via the means the Colonists employed.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info This Is Federalism: Overturn Roe in forum [Market-Ticker]
Vernonb
Posts: 2401
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Everyone has the right to travel for personal reasons on an unrestricted basis between states. Bus tickets are cheap -- cheaper than abortions, by far. There's no barrier to any woman who wishes to procure an abortion from getting on a bus, in a car, in a train or on a plane and going where she can have one.


This is going to get even stranger if persons voluntarily travelling for medical tourism then expecting "medical insurance" in USA to pay for such services "out-of-network" in other states find themselves with bills that bankrupt them. Looks like justice is going to play a very heavy hand for this abominable "convenience."

I hear so much of this "not having the child because of economic reasons because it will ruin the life of the mother". Well the medical industry is going to make sure women/families stay destitute for the rest of their lives unless they happen to be a welfare/medical care recipient of that state.

Later these murder-at-will states will try and pry those dollars out of the hands of the Federal government to sanction murder of innocents when they find they aren't being "properly" paid to become a meat grinder.

I see an uptick in medicade funds for abortions in these such states coming.

The law effectively also makes men second class citizens in the life/death of their own children.

----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Mangymutt
Posts: 1014
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
This isn't, at its core, really about abortion at all.


I wish more people could see that.

This next statement is not making light of anyone's moral stance on abortion only it's medical.

Abortions are such a trivial procedure, with much more humane (for the woman) ways available than the mechanical method. Yet we are all corralled into a small pen and told to fight to the death over the two extremes.

Never Abort vs After live Birth Abort.

Just like Gay marriage or a ton of other hot button topics, we are forced to only consider the extremes of these issues. Of course you got your zealots on either end of any issue that will fight to the death for their cause, but 90% of people really do not care too much about these issues. And will be satisfied with the middle.

So why go to such extremes about a medical procedure and process that has been around for millennia?

Quote:
It's about the founding principles of this nation and the binding contract between the States and Federal Government -- a contract that the people have every right to enforce by whatever means may be necessary. One cannot both believe the American Revolution was just and produced a valid result and that the people do not retain the right to enforce the limits of Federalism and The Constitution as written including enforcement via the means the Colonists employed.
Mangymutt
Posts: 1014
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Vernonb -
Quote:
This is going to get even stranger if persons voluntarily travelling for medical tourism


People made a big deal out of "tourism" when pot was legalized in some states.

Colorado was known as the Mile High State.

Maybe Illinois can come up with a catchy phrase too.

"Got a belly bump? Well come to Illinois where we guarantee to suck the life right out of you"
Mopoco
Posts: 16
Incept: 2011-08-23

Arizona
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Illinois laws basically state that the personhood of an unborn child is solely determined by the opinion of the mother of that child. Illinois homicide statute says that if someone kills an unborn child is guilty of murder:
Quote:
(720 ILCS 5/9-1.2) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-1.2)
Sec. 9-1.2. Intentional Homicide of an Unborn Child.
(a) A person commits the offense of intentional homicide of an unborn child if, in performing acts which cause the death of an unborn child, he without lawful justification:
(1) either intended to cause the death of or do great bodily harm to the pregnant woman or her unborn child or knew that such acts would cause death or great bodily harm to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(2) knew that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; and
(3) knew that the woman was pregnant.
(b) For purposes of this Section, (1) "unborn child" shall mean any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth, and (2) "person" shall not include the pregnant woman whose unborn child is killed.
(c) This Section shall not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, as defined in Section 2 of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as amended, to which the pregnant woman has consented. This Section shall not apply to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
(d) Penalty. The sentence for intentional homicide of an unborn child shall be the same as for first degree murder,
This law applies irrespective of the gestational age of the child (it does not use the word 'fetus'). But then it has an exception for those who perform abortion. Are people unable to see the inherent contradiction in this? The whole reason that murder is wrong is because it is assumed that human life has inherent worth. Does that worth change after a baby takes a 7" trip down the birth canal? Am I missing something here?

----------
"Governments create nothing and have nothing to give but what they have first taken away." Churchill
Bagbalm
Posts: 5723
Incept: 2009-03-19

Just North of Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Watch them prosecute for abortion in another jurisdiction just like sex tourism.
Jal
Posts: 706
Incept: 2009-03-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Life
Birth
Euthanasia


I'll take a different road.

Do no harm.
Do what you want with your life, its not my business, as long as you do not harm another person.


Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Roe was wrongly decided on 4th Amendment grounds, and they arbitrarly created the trimester system.

A proper ruling would be based on if the 13th Amendment Involuntary Servitude Clause applies to holding a woman is required to take the risk of carrying a child to term and give birth or if she has the right to terminate for her own protection.
Jfms99
Posts: 327
Incept: 2009-10-06

Msumelle, Ar
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well this works out nicely for the California Actors crowd, now they can film in Illinois, New York, and California, all high tax states. Perhaps they can get the same generous Tax benefits Georgia gave them and they will all feel fine now.
Inline
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Amused -
Quote:
Roe was wrongly decided on 4th Amendment grounds, and they arbitrarly created the trimester system.

A proper ruling would be based on if the 13th Amendment Involuntary Servitude Clause applies to holding a woman is required to take the risk of carrying a child to term and give birth or if she has the right to terminate for her own protection.

Uh, nope, with the exception of forced insemination (e.g. rape.)

The 13th Amendment does not prohibit signing up on a voluntary basis to serve someone else. In this case the voluntary act of sexual congress comes with a known risk of pregnancy which renders any argument on the 13th Amendment void except in cases of rape.

You can't get there from here; that's fantasy-land bull**** (although such a ruling would also instantly void any attempt to impose child support obligations on men, I would note.)

----------
Winding it down.
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well, I mean sure, you could make that argument, that only in the case of Rape, since there was no consent, but that blows the doors wide open for the Feds to overturn all of the laws recently passed in the Southern States that didn't include an exception for rape/incest.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Incest is consensual; funny how you lumped that in.....

Roe was quite-carefully considered; few people who argue for it being "wrongly decided" (on either side of the debate) have actually READ the entire decision. I doubt you have from your comment above; I suggest you go do so to avoid arguing from ignorance, which frequently ends poorly around here.

----------
Winding it down.
Thomdd1959
Posts: 37
Incept: 2013-02-17

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", unless you're a baby in Illinois.

That is the opposite of a self-evident truth.

----------
Government only works for the benefit of the people when it is conducted in the full light of day. -- Karl Denninger
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Sure, forget I said incest. I mean, I was thinking of statutory******of a parent/uncle, where it may be 'consensual' but is still basically rape, even if the teenager consented or not.

It just seems to me that even if Roe is thrown out, the Supreme still have ground under the 13th to start tossing these new abortion laws that don't provide any******exclusion. That is all.

I've read it but it has been a day or two since I reviewed it, but the sticking point of medical privacy implicit in the 4th has always bothered me, as has the trimester system which if I recall the justices even said was an arbitrary decision. That they had to draw lines somewhere, and it was basically the best they could do.

If I remember (and please if I am wrong mea culpa) I believe that the discussion was of fetal viability so lines had to be drawn somewhere, so trimesters were chosen as where to draw lines, but since medical technology has improved and viability is now sooner and sooner, and maybe even one day include like a gestation chamber, those lines no longer make much sense to the opposition.

I remember back in the 70s they were accepted by my Church (Southern Baptist), they had a plank that even supported it in those cases, but as lives have been saved sooner and sooner, those arguments became more and more unattainable.

It has been a lot of years since those early debates in Church so maybe I am mis-remembering.
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Oh I forgot to add, the reason I said 'wrongly decided' was because while it found an implicit right to privacy for the mothers, it didn't give any consideration to fathers that are willing to carry responsibility and don't like the idea of their kid being killed.

I just meant they could have come to the same sort of ruling under the 13th and created their hand-waving with the trimester system, without further screwing over good men.

I've seen far too many women pop up after 9months to an unprepared boy and say: 'Sign it over or you are on the hook for 18 years'
Stee_man
Posts: 21
Incept: 2011-12-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It used to be the medical community had some ethical standards. How to you kill a baby as it's being born? How do you disfigure a mentally ill person who doesn't know what gender he is?

Society has really gone off the rails with political extremists making policy for the rest of us.

Perhaps it's time to eliminate the federal gov't and it's taxes. The states and locals already duplicate most fed agencies/services. We cannot seem to live with each other depending on which party controls DC.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Amused -
Quote:
Sure, forget I said incest. I mean, I was thinking of statutory******of a parent/uncle, where it may be 'consensual' but is still basically rape, even if the teenager consented or not.

Rape is rape. Some cases of incest can also be rapes, but many are not.
Quote:
It just seems to me that even if Roe is thrown out, the Supreme still have ground under the 13th to start tossing these new abortion laws that don't provide any******exclusion. That is all.

Well, maybe. But there's a problem in that rape has medical mitigation available against the risk of pregnancy that doesn't implicate abortion (e.g. the "Morning After" pill) and is extremely effective.

It could (and will be) be quite-cleanly argued that unless said******also includes imprisonment (e.g. kidnapping) for a sufficient period of time to preclude the use of said "morning after" pill that by refusing to avail oneself of it after being assaulted you've given consent.
Quote:
I've read it but it has been a day or two since I reviewed it, but the sticking point of medical privacy implicit in the 4th has always bothered me, as has the trimester system which if I recall the justices even said was an arbitrary decision. That they had to draw lines somewhere, and it was basically the best they could do. If I remember (and please if I am wrong mea culpa) I believe that the discussion was of fetal viability so lines had to be drawn somewhere, so trimesters were chosen as where to draw lines, but since medical technology has improved and viability is now sooner and sooner, and maybe even one day include like a gestation chamber, those lines no longer make much sense to the opposition.

Except that the trimester division with regard to fetal viability turns out to be a lot more-solid than you'd have thought at the time.

That is, that third-trimester division line and its relation to fetal viability is pretty stark; there is a near-vertical increase in survival rate from just a couple of weeks before the third trimester (where the LD50 point is) to >99% in a surprisingly short period of time -- within about 3 weeks you're there. So while that third trimester point SOUNDS arbitrary it has turned out not to be. I doubt very much that in 1968 the Justices knew that despite all our technological advances we wouldn't be able to move the needle on that by more than a week or two, but it is what it is.

The bigger issue really is this: At what point do we stop treating women as children only when they want it that way? No man gets to do that and there is utterly no excuse for a woman who has been having sex and has ANY reason to suspect pregnancy to not check for that, especially considering that you can buy tests over the counter for less than the cost of a condom. There is simply no argument to be had -- other than gross negligence -- for getting past a couple of months into a pregnancy without knowing it, and thus being able to act on that information.

----------
Winding it down.
Mangymutt
Posts: 1014
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Amused - To say the least, I am....Amused that is.

First in an ideal unicorn filled world, we would not even be having this discussion. And all married people would be able to decide the sex, hair color and skill level of their children.

But we live in a world where people can chose not to control their animal impulses. When 2 people of the opposite sex choose to dionk, they run the risk of having a child. Nature in Her unsermountable wisdom, has offered us herbs and other plants that can terminate a pregnancy....up to the beginning of the second trimester. After that the side effects out way the supposed benefits. The Supreme Court Justice didn't create **** as far as trimester.

Nature did.

WTF does, "consensual but still basically rape" even mean?

If someone I am close to gets raped, the person responsible better hope the police find them before I do. On the other hand if someone I am close to had drinks with someone, went back to their place and then claims******they will probably get a smack in the back the head from me for being so stupid as to get drunk and then be alone with the person. Children are non consenting. Oh sure people can make children believe all kinds of stuff, but that doesn't mean the child knew the consequences of their actions.

We have given our rights to marriage to the state, we have given our rights to our safety to the state, we have even given our genders over to the state. NONE of these things should be granted to us by "The State". And now they want us to believe they have the right to claim when a life is a life. How long will it be before they decide 80 is just too damn old...then 70? How about if you are bound to a wheel chair, have a 85 IQ, too short too tall, to fat too small.

Nature set the boundaries for when a pregnancy can be safely and "naturally" terminated. Yet we sit here and argue semantics. Why?

Go read the last paragraph of this Ticker again. That is why!


Hot-dog-guy
Posts: 33
Incept: 2019-04-03

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Rather than take 5 seconds to be an instant expert ala wikipedia, I thought Roe came down to a privacy issue rather than a ruling on when life begins.

I'm kinda glad about that because my up-bringing is intentionally muddy on this issue.

A lot of people are surprised to find out that not everybody on the Hopi reservation is Hopi. Hopi is the priesthood. Not everybody is a priest. The majority of people are just kinda hanging out taking up space.

In my tradition, you aren't a human being until you get your adult name and you are "made" into the tribe. Until then you are just kinda...a place holder.

My childhood name was Little Deer. It would take me many years to become what I am named which is Trevor and I'm told that Trevor is a name of Nordic derivation and it literally means "Quick Tempered Warrior".

But until then, in the old ways, I was potentially blood money. If my father killed one of your sons, the way of peace says that you can demand me. I am sent to live with you as a replacement. And somehow that's supposed to make it good. We didn't kill a human, we killed a place holder. I might grow up to be a mighty warrior and have a name and a place and status but this is purely speculative.

You guys have a biological and scientific definition of where life begins. You guys say life begins at conception.

That's fascinating. I prefer to think of it as INTENTION. Ala vis-a-vis YOU IMPREGNATED THIS GAL AND THE RESULT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.So responsibility begins as the act of copulation.

We conveniently skirt this issue because it turns human life into a commodity that can be bought, sold and traded. But there was utility to it. Sometimes children come at the wrong time. Born under a dark cloud or in time of famine there was a "last in first out" policy. Your newborn ass got left out as coyote food because the people, the Oyate, must live. But not to worry, you will probably get reincarnated into a tribal role. You didn't have a name but you had POTENTIAL.

My greatest hero, the Chiricahua Apache warrior Geh-Hron-Im-Aho, the man who could not be killed? The man who's name in English (Geronimo) literally translates to Death From Above? His childhood name was Goyanthley which translates to "One Who Yawns". In other words his name was "Sleepyhead" or "Lazy Boy". Or "Stupid Loser" or "Steal-His-Lunch" or "Wedgee-In-The-Locker-Room."

Nobody ever expected him to become the greatest warrior this continent has ever known. He was a total loser until he was IN-SPIRED, until the holy message of God was literally breathed into him. Otherwise he would have just been Goyanthley, the sleepyhead and not the greatest warrior ever known on this continent.

As a putative representative of Native American beliefs I find the act of ****ing to be the moment of conception, otherwise, why the hell are you under a moose hide with that young doe? What else did you want to happen besides the obvious? Ducks? It's the moment of intent. And it might have something to do with the protective and generous aspects in our male psychology. But to hell with that. The best of us just do what we do.

Some of the rest of us are Karl Denninger who calms us and soothes our nerves with logic.

For the record I had a daughter. She was aborted by her mom. Her name is Eillonwy after a favorite character in Welsh mythology. I can't wait to meet her.
Kareninca
Posts: 281
Incept: 2011-08-23

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"There is simply no argument to be had -- other than gross negligence -- for getting past a couple of months into a pregnancy without knowing it, and thus being able to act on that information."

Here's an anecdote. I have an acquaintance who, 30+ years ago, was a grad student. She was from Podunk; really sheltered. She dated another student; a guy from a sophisticated foreign culture. She got pregnant; it was an accident. He stopped answering his phone. She kept trying to reach him; he didn't return her calls. He was around; he knew; he just didn't want to deal with it. She couldn't believe it. She was from a family who had raised her with a sense of responsibility, and she thought this guy would be responsible. She called and called, and time passed and passed. Finally, in total rage and despair, at the last moment legally possible, she got an abortion.

This has affected her whole life. She ended up marrying the nicest guy in the world, someone the polar opposite of the evil *******. She never had kids. She made sure that the evil ******* never got the jobs he most wanted, since she told other women what he had done. Did I mention that he is a professor of Ethics? Did I mention that he still goes around and sleeps with anyone he can, in any setting he can? Probably producing loads more abortions. He's scott free in his own mind; I don't think she goes a single night without this haunting her.

So, this is not meant as a refutation of the point about the ability to tell if one is physically pregnant. But sometimes it seems as if people think that the man's side is all about money. This woman could have gone home to her parents and raised the kid (there was not the same state money in those days as now). But she wanted a partner; someone who was with her. She just couldn't imagine raising the kid without him; it was unimaginable to her; everything that was happening was unimaginable to her.

A lot of abortions are due to a woman getting pregnant and being willing to have the kid and raise it if the man would be there for her - but he disappears. It is really, really, common. In that case the woman keeps hoping and trying to get him to be willing, and that takes up time, all the while the fetus is developing. She just can't believe that he has no interest. But he has no interest. Saying "oh, she can just live off the state" doesn't mean anything to a woman who wants to raise the child with the man she had it with.

So, women need to have a set notion of how late in pregnancy they would be willing to get an abortion (per their ethical sense; per the applicable laws). They need to test before that time. Having gotten the information, they also need to be willing to give up on convincing the man, within that time frame. But they always think that one more phone call will get through to him. I'm not saying that this delay makes sense. But to fix a problem you need to look at all of the things that are causing it.

I personally think the answer to all of this is the Giant Meteor.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Rather than take 5 seconds to be an instant expert ala wikipedia, I thought Roe came down to a privacy issue rather than a ruling on when life begins.

Well, not really.

Roe was, if you will, a "scale of competing interests" issue. There's quite a chronology of the history of abortion in the actual opinion, for those who bother to read it. It's rather thorough too.

Roe attempted to play Solomon with a very difficult issue, which devolves down into "when do basic human rights appear?" It placed the "bright line" test at the point of fetal viability; where separation from the mother left you with an independent creature that could be cared for and reared by anyone -- not just the one singular person to which it had previously been attached. It likewise confirmed that even beyond that point one is not obligated to commit seppuku to protect another no matter the blood relationship, which is also consistent with the rest of western jurisprudence.

The privacy aspect is the most-controversial; it was literally made up out of whole cloth, and applied ONLY THERE. The problem isn't the finding; it's that it DOESN'T apply anywhere else! That's clear bull****, but it was also unnecessary to go there, and for all intents and purposes THAT aspect of it is a dead letter as the Court has NEVER reconfirmed that in any other aspect despite being poked repeatedly to do so in subsequent years.

The foundation of Roe is that beyond fetal viability the States have every right to prohibit, on a BLANKET basis, abortion except where a severe impact to the health of the mother will result from not performing one. The court also found that the States can restrict the procedure in the 2nd Trimester where they can cite a colorable claim of protecting the existing person -- and there are many such entirely-reasonable arguments to be made.

Note that there are all sorts of implications here that leave the 50 State Political Lab environment alone. What's a "severe impact", for example? Death is an obvious bright line that the States cannot compel (e.g. if the woman will die carrying the child) but "severe impact" isn't defined in the Roe at all and is left to the states. One state can rationally conclude that if you learn the fetus has Downs, for example, that the impact of bearing and raising that child is "severe" while another can find the other direction. This is not as clear as it might first seem; is deciding to have children by definition acceptance of POTENTIAL personal and financial costs that exceed your capacity to provide if a very unlikely -- but possible -- bad outcome results? Note that an awful lot of what used to be universally fatal to an infant or young child no longer is, but frequently DOES exceed an ordinary person's capacity to provide AT ALL (unless you happen to be Bill Gates or similar.) Some of those risks we can now determine fairly early in a pregnancy -- but not all.

This leaves the first three months during which Roe found what amounts to the right to choice -- which is more than enough time for anyone who is acting in an adult fashion to know they in fact are pregnant.

If men can be compelled to not "****-and-run" through child support and similar then it's entirely reasonable to demand that women ALSO behave as adults and exhibit a reasonable degree of care when it comes to the single greatest power -- the creation of new life -- that humans possess.

The crazies on the left, however, have REFUSED to accept this; they instead have demanded an unrestricted right to abortion up to first-breath (and some beyond that), along with trying to codify into medical practice that born alive children from botched abortions can be treated as nothing more than medical waste -- and have claimed that Roe said this was protected. That's a damnable lie. The other side has responded to the left's horse**** with attempts to get Roe thrown out ENTIRELY, and with good justification; if you're not going to abide the lines of the previous decision then toss the whole ****ing thing and leave it to the States to do what they wish with the issue.

I was reasonably sure Roe wouldn't get tossed until Illinois and New York passed their laws. Now I'm not at all sure. I still think the more-likely outcome is that the USSC remands with a "Roe set bright lines now go **** off to the extent you exceeded them" order aimed at BOTH states such as Alabama AND Illinois, striking BOTH sets of laws. But I also think there's a decent chance that the justices now look at it, analyze it as "Greyhound ticket is $100, second or third trimester abortion costs 10x or more that, the bus ticket is no burden of materiality, go **** yourself crazies on both sides of the issue" and toss Roe entirely.

----------
Winding it down.
Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't disagree with any particular point raised with the disagreements on the Medical Privacy Argument, I agree with your assessment of it, such as it's amazing that it is never found elsewhere in my choices as to what drugs to buy.

But I'm rambling.

My point was that Roe didn't say they had to be banned in the second or third trimester, it just shifted the scales of competing interests so that any medical privacy arguments from the first were overrode by the overwhelming need to preserve life in the third.

My point was that Illinois or some other States decision to allow it in the third trimester is abhorrent, it is not incompatible with the State having the plenary power to not pass a law restricting it or creating a regulatory framework for them to still happen in the third.

Conversely, the Alabama law seems to flat out go against the decision on all accounts.

You may be right, that they just toss it and throw it back to the States and say Roe is no longer valid, the States can do whatever they want.

My question was as a separate issue outside of Roe and its findings, to my knowledge no one has made a 13th amendment case or if they have no court has ever ruled on it. I just don't see how the laws without exceptions for******can stand in it's context since there wasn't consent, that is all I was saying.

The original idea was that the Feds would kick it back to the States as Laboratories of Democracy and outside of that question I think we will see this issue decided on that ground by the court in the future, one way or another.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Amused
Quote:
My question was as a separate issue outside of Roe and its findings, to my knowledge no one has made a 13th amendment case or if they have no court has ever ruled on it. I just don't see how the laws without exceptions for******can stand in it's context since there wasn't consent, that is all I was saying.

Ah, except, as I pointed out, there are two forms of consent -- explicit and implicit. Since there is a non-abortion choice available to someone that is sexually assaulted and which is extremely effective in preventing pregnancy if used in a timely manner post-assault implied consent can certainly exist. Of course this leaves out the corner case in which someone is additional kidnapped for a long enough period of time for that choice to no longer work, but again that's an extreme corner case that rarely occurs in real life -- and corner cases nearly always make bad law.

I would expect a 13th Amendment attempt to fail for this reason.

----------
Winding it down.

Amused
Posts: 22
Incept: 2019-04-22

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't disagree on any particular argument, except that if we are supposed to expect women to act like women (and men for that matter) then they should have to make their own medical choices without needing a permission slip that can be denied.

Women ought to be able to get RU-486 over the counter and birth control pills, and all of this becomes a non-issue. There is no more Planned Parenthood Factory abortion industry.

I know people who have to struggle every three to six months to get a doctor to not screw with and renew medication that shouldn't ever be messed with like Metformin, Zoloft, Propranolol, where once the patent is stable, they should never need permission or review if they don't want a rent-seeking doctor raping them.

It has gotten so bad the Rent-seeking revolving door scam has worked its way down to pet medications for ***ing flea meds.

I think it we can address this, we have the moral high-ground to tell Plan Parenthood to go pound sand since any woman could walk in to a 7/11 and be protected or deal with it a few weeks after if she finds herself pregnant and there would be no excuse for waiting months and months for an abortion.
Tickerguy
Posts: 157528
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Agreed on all counts; there's utterly no reason to not be able to buy birth control pills OTC. In MOST nations you in fact can do exactly that.

The two-drug cocktail for medical abortions can be had right now online for about $100 in the US; Planned Parenthood charges TEN TIMES that much which is a flat-out******job.

----------
Winding it down.

Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last