Last night’s NBC’s town hall in Miami with former Vice President Joe Biden was panned, to quote Politico’s Marc Caputo, as another “Biden Informercial” that protected the candidate from both tough questions and skeptical voters. There was not a single question on Biden refusing to answer whether he supports packing the Supreme Court, a move supported by his running mate Kamala Harris and various top Democrats in this election. However, Biden did make one notable comment about the Court and nominee Amy Coney Barrett. He said that, if Barrett helped reverse Roe v. Wade, he would make “Roe the law of the land.”
If Roe were overturned, Biden declared his “only response to that is pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”
The comment was notable in a number of respects. First, states could challenge such a move. As with Biden’s declaration that he will require mandatory mask wearing nationwide, there are serious questions over his authority to compel such action due to federalism limitations. If the Supreme Court struck down Roe, it would be presumably based on the position that it is not a constitutional right. Biden would then order states to guarantee something that is not constitutionally required. That would put the Biden Administration on a collision course with the Tenth Amendment:
“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.”
Making “Roe the law of the land” would require a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Yet, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, states could claim that this is no longer a right “delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.” The Framers were deeply concerned about precisely this type of federal encroachment as James Madison addressed in Federalist #46. They created a system to support the “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”
The alternative to simply tie federal funding for medical care and insurance to access to abortion services. That would also raise federalism issues and the question of “commandeering” states. In 1992, in New York v. United States, the Supreme Court invalidated part of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 as commandeering. In 1997, in Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot order states or cities to enforce federal law. In Independent Business v. Sebelius(2012), the Court held that the federal government could not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs. In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Court again warned that Congress could not take any action that “dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” in such policy or program disputes.
If the media is not going to press Biden on court packing, it is not likely to do so on these constitutional questions. However, it is also notable that, if successful, Biden’s action would support the view of many who oppose Roe v. Wade. It is possible to be in favor of the right to choose and still disfavor Roe. Some believe that this is a matter for the states and that voters can protect this right as a matter of state law. Biden’s reference to a legislative fix is clearly federal not state. However, it highlights that fact that, even if Roe were overturned, it would not mean the elimination of the right to choose. Most states would likely continue to protect the right as a matter of statutory law. Clearly, however, some would not. Moreover, if you view abortion as an individual constitutional right, such state authority over this decision is obviously unacceptable.
This is an area where experts can have good-faith disagreements. It is dependent on your view of federalism and related constitutional questions. It is worthy of debate and discussion. As with the court packing scheme, this new position raises questions over how Biden views fundamental constitutional values and powers. Unfortunately, the NBC event stumbled over a substantive exchange, but then promptly moved on. Like packing the Court, voters will have to wait to hear how such authority would be or could be used in a Biden Administration.
Jonathan: If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade Joe Biden says he will make “Roe the law of the land”. No big surprise. While Biden is a Catholic he supports a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions. The vast majority of Americans agree. But neither Trump nor Judge Barrett care about the views of most Americans. Judge Barrett’s conservative Catholic views on abortion are quite clear. In 2016 she signed and endorsed an ad by the St. Joseph County Right to Life that called abortion “barbaric”. But Barrett failed to disclose this on her Senate Judiciary Questionaire required of all S.C. nominees. That’s why Senators Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris have asked the DOJ whether Barrett failed to disclose other important information. What else does Judge Barret want to hide from the American people?
Now it’s not true, as you claim, that if Roe is overturned “most states would likely continue to protect the right [abortion] as a matter of statutory law”. If Roe were struck down the right would be legal in only 21 states. In 24 states, including the 3 territories, where abortion is banned or severely restricted pre-Roe and other of the many draconian abortion restrictions would no doubt be put back in place. This means millions of women would be denied the right to an abortion or have it so restricted as to be impossible to access. I guess that’s OK by you.
If the Court were to strike down Roe this would contravene international law–a subject you don’t teach and could apparently care less about. But the UN Convention on the “Elimination of Discrimination Against Women” (CEDAW) states that a state’s failure or refusal to provide reproductive services, including abortion, constitutes gender discrimination. In addition, the UN “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), a treaty ratified by the U.S., includes the right to abortion. If Barrett’s Supreme Court were to overturn Roe this would be a violation of international law. If Trump were to be re-elected he would no doubt ignore international law. As he has done with the Paris Climate Agreement he would simply ignore the CEDAW and withdraw from the CCPR.
The history of this country has been a struggle to expand our democratic rights. But a small oligarchy has sought to restrict those rights. From the fight to defeat slavery, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote to the current struggles to give civil rights to the LGBT community and give every American decent health care this oligarchy has fought to obstruct the will of the majority. Now Trump and his Republican allies want to turn back women’s rights that Justice Ginsburg fought for her entire life. This is the part you ignore when you talk about Ginsburg’s “legacy”. Trump is a racist reactionary because he wants to take away the right to vote for millions of Americans–particularly of blacks and other minorities .He wants to take away a woman’s constitutional right to decide whether to have a child. That’s the dictionary definition of “reactionary”. On November 3rd we will find out whether the American people want to move forward or backward with Trump.
Oh tell us about all the children you bore, David, thus conferring the knowledge on the topic you claim.
https://lacatholics.org/rosary-for-america/
Rosary
Join us in praying a #RosaryForAmerica
Join Archbishop José H. Gomez, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, bishops, priests, and Catholics across the country in praying a virtual rosary in a moment of unified prayer for America on Wednesday, October 7.
Together, we’ll pray a rosary for healing and unity in our country. Bishops from across the country will be leading us in time of unified prayer, and they invite you to participate.
When?
Feast of our Lady of the Rosary | Wednesday, October 7 at 12PM Pacific
Where?
Grab your rosary and your cell, computer or iPad and tune in here or join us on our LA Catholics Facebook page. We’ll share the rosary video at 12PM Pacific and look forward to praying with you.
Help us spread the word!
Prior to the rosary: invite at least one person to join you — share on your personal social media platforms using #RosaryforAmerica or pick up your phone to extend an invitation via call, text or email. (You can find graphics here!)
Leading up to the rosary: take a photo of our rosary and share it on social media. Be sure to use #RosaryForAmerica and let us know where you are praying from — how beautiful will it be when we flood the digital highways with images of rosaries on Our Lady’s feast day!
During the rosary: turn off social media and enter into prayer — we’ll be praying the Glorious Mysteries! As Pope Pius XII said, “We put great confidence in the Holy Rosary for the healing of evils which afflict our times.”
After the rosary: turn back to social media, and using the #RosaryForAmerica hashtag, leave a prayer intention for country and invite others to pray for that intention. Then be intentional about your use of technology and be present to those around you! One act of love flowed from the grace of prayer can change our world!
Reflection from Archbishop Gomez
We need to keep getting closer to Mary, we need to enter more deeply into her way of seeing and her way of living. This is the secret of the saints. Everything that Mary does points us to her Son — to his commandments, to the mysteries of his life, to giving up our own will to follow him and share in his mission. In every age, Mary’s maternal care is an expression of God’s providence, his plan of love for history and for every soul. And in the troubles of this present moment, we need to entrust ourselves even more to her care.
Most commenters here do not know enough basic reproductive biology to state anything sensible.
David, ‘most commenters’ is the same, aggressively stupid troll. Said troll keeps changing names because he knows his comments would be ignored if he stuck to one name.
You don’t need an intricate knowledge of reproductive biology to say something sensible and you’re not knowledgeable on that subject either. Take your Aricept.
Trust among Americans is, predictably, at an all time low. We don’t trust each other, which isn’t a surprise, but it doesn’t bode well…
all-time
The Dark Secret: Life After Abortion
An egg is not a baby. An embryo is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby.
I was born one month premature. Was I not a person just before I was delivered by Caesarian section?
According to the leftists on this blog you were a nothing or a disease that could be cut out at anytime. Instead you were born and are alive which probably makes a lot of leftists mad. They are a gruesome lot.
No, Allan, most liberals think that abortion should be illegal after viability unless the woman’s life is endangered.
viability does not mean what you fancy it to mean.
david benson, definitely not viable
What most democrats think and what their leaders are fighting for are two different things. Some have fought to enable those in charge to let a healthy new born die on the table if it occurred during an attempted late term abortion. There would be a lot less problem if the democrats weren’t pushing the envelope.
On the other hand a lot of those leftists who happen to be on this list follow their leaders and are hypocrites so one won’t know their position from one day to the next. They will even hide themselves in an anonymous grouping.
A liberal and a leftist are not the same.
But you are correct something like 80% of people are fine with a near absolute ban of abortions after 24 weeks, slightly smaller majority after 20 weeks.
That is near certain the result we will see if there are any adjustments to Roe as a result of ACB.
lysias — Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological one.
David, in what garbage dumpster did your legal concept non-persons find you?
Yes, it is a legal concept and has been since ancient times when newborns with defects were exposed on hillsides. The concept varies with culture. I do wonder how the newborn or an illegal on American soil instantly becomes a person and citizen but one born on an abortionists table does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act
Young, Anonymous the Stupid is flashing again. It is wearing its favorite suit.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a more egregious invasion of state powers. Unfortunately, the courts upheld it, because civil rights were the fashion, and national elites thought segregation was a national embarrassment that had to be ended as a Cold War measure.
The sad fact is that there was a way to end segregation in a perfectly constititutional way that was not followed: pass the Voting Rights Act first, and then let the power of black votes lead states to end segregation. The 15th Amendment explicitly gives Congress the power to pass something like the Voting Rights Act.
And the same goes for the very dubious Brown decision. The Supreme Court had the power to force states to hold honest elections where blacks really could vote. After all, that is what the 15th Amendment requires. That would have been a perfectly constitutional way to end segregation.
i agree lysias but you might as well put a kick me sticker on your back if you want to go around telling people brown was unconstitutional judicial legislation. it’s entirely valid assertion but DID YOU JUST SAY WHAT! and then the harassment and denunciations and firings begin.
America lacks freedom of speech at a cultural level. what is left as constitutional doctrine is mostly BS that just helps global mass media keep their grip on the electorate.
in this wayt i have found arguing about the fine details of constitutional law is generally a waste of time. people either do not understand or if they do, they are mostly like 80% corrupt and it wouldnt matter what was true or not
This is why we have to remember that all political conflicts subsist somewhere along a spectrum of violence between adversaries.
the less law matters, the more violence will matter in time to come.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment specifically gives Congress the power just like section 2 of the 15th amendment does.
What the 15th Amendment gives Congress and the courts the power to enforce is clear. What the 14th Amendment gives them the power to enforce is most unclear, and made still more unclear by decades of judicial precedent.
The 14th and 15th amendment give congress the power to make laws that require state governments to respect the rights and priviledges and immunities of their citizens.
The equal protection clause is specific to government.
Not part of the constitution or amendments empowers congress to bar private discrimination – it can’t. Discrimination is just another name for choice. Regardless fundimentally private discrimination laws are not enforceable – you can not know someone else’s motives unless they tell them to you and with the exception of equality before the law we are not equal – that should be obvious to everyone.
You can not through legislation change what is set by nature. You can not create private equality anymore than you can legislate the orbit of the earth.
Further private discrimination is effectively dealt with by free markets. If you discriminate against capable employees or specific customers you harm yourself.
There is a reason Jim Crow was a system of laws – because it required the force of government to compel private discrimination.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court gave a very narrow interpretations to the “privileges and immunities” protected by the 14th Amendment.
So ?
I would suggest actually reading the authors of the reconstruction amendments.
The entire purpose of the privileges and immunities clause was to restore the origianl meaning of the priviledges and immunities clause in the body of the constitution itself.
They were trying to make clear that not only did citizens have more rights than found in the bill of rights, but that many things that were not rights were still outside the domain of government interferance.
Your slaughter house reference just makes it clear that the courts rewriting the constitution to suit themselves is not a new game.
That may have been what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended. I’m not familiar enough with the history to have a firm opinion. (And note that the same Congress provided for segregated schools in D C.)
But the Supreme Court disagreed with you in the Slaughter Cases. And I have suggested a route to end segregation without violating stare decisis: use the 15th Amendment.
“But the Supreme Court disagreed with you in the Slaughter Cases. ”
Which they should not have done. Read the constitution as written. To the extent that is not perfectly clear, meaning must be determined by what it meant to those who ratified it relying on the explanations of those who wrote it.
That is BTW how we understand all other law. It is also the only means that meets the criteria necescary for the rule of law.
If SCOTUS is free to change the meaning of the constitution at whim – we are lawless.
Separately Stare Decisis is merely a rule for efficiency in the courts. It is NOT a principle.
Plessey is not the law of the land, nor is dread scott.
“and I have suggested a route to end segregation without violating stare decisis: use the 15th Amendment.”
The 14th and 15th amendments apply to the government – the entire constitution is the rules for government. The law is the rules for people. And the Law must fall within the powers of government.
Barring segregation by government falls within the constitutional powers of government. Barring private discrimination does not.
Ultimately it is rising standards of living that defeat predjudice and bigorty – not laws.
Barring segregation by government falls within the constitutional powers of government. Barring private discrimination does not.
Some private enterprises are natural monopolies so properly subject to mercantile regulation not ordinarily to be found in open markets.
“Some private enterprises are natural monopolies so properly subject to mercantile regulation not ordinarily to be found in open markets.”
There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. No company has ever dominated a market for decades without protection from government.
Where is the East India company today ? At one time – for a long time (and with government support) they were the largest compnay in the world by far – in todays dollars dwarfing Amazon, Microsft and Apple combined – they are not hear today.
Not one of the top 10 companies in the fortune 500 on the day I was born is still in the top 10. Most are defunct.
Were is AT&T for decades the beohemoth of US companies – today it is a player in the cell market.
Where is IBM once a giant that no one could compete with, now just another computer company.
Companies dominate markets for a time – but not that long.
Further absent government protection they still must actually compete with companies that do not even exist.
Within the market place the profitability of a company and its risk are very tightly correlated.
If any company makes excessive profits with low risks the free market will quickly produce competitors – because there are profits to be made. Every so called monopoly that exists today must keeps its profits high enough to attract investors and low enough to avoid competition.
The market regulates monopolies not just through competition – but even the threat of competition.
This is why big businesses fawn over government to create barriers to entry to competitors.
That is the equivalent to a quarantee of certain profit levels.
Please learn some economics.
Start with the laws of supply and demand – they are immutable, and you are arguing the wrong side of them
And what did the same Congress that established segregated schools in D.C. mean by the words of the 14th Amendment when it passed that amendment?
aw heck no here ya go again lysias asking mind bending questions in short form. how like lysias the ancient orator of greece known for his simple unadorned style
If Congress established segregated schools in DC they violated the constitution.
Did someone take a case before SCOTUS ?
Regardless, have I ever claimed that just because government did something that it was either moral, or constitutional ?
I do not accept that schools are the legitimate domain of government – federal or state.
If we got government out of them they would be affordable and cheap and property taxes would go away.
Dred Scott was not overruled by the Supreme Court but by the 14th Amendment. Constitutional amendments are a perfectly constitutional way to overrul Supreme Court decisions.
Plessey was indeed overruled by the Supre
You make my argument.
What is constitutional is not what 9 justices at some moment in time claim. But what is written.
Sometimes errors on the part of scotus are corrected by other courts, sometimes by ammending the constutiion.
Sometimes they are not corrected – or atleast have not been so far.
Error is still error.
The constitution says what it says regardless.
To be clear I am not imbuing the constitution with divine authority.
I expect that we will amend it when it is wrong.
But until then it says what it says. Not what we wish it says. We do not modify the constitution by legislation or court decree. We do so the same way we created it in the first place. By drafting what we want in the constitution, and getting it ratified.
Just like DOMA right? Such controversial federal laws are immediately subject to scrutiny, which might ultimately place all in jeopardy as unconstitutional. I followed Roe v. Wade very closely and although I then viewed it as a necessary evil, third trimester as the limits of my tolerance, I also believed their “right of privacy” was wholly contrived. If it were me I would not have approached the matter in that way, not at all. I still don’t believe that Roe v. Wade would hold up to reasonable constitutional scrutiny.
Roe was badly decided, But the problem was not the right to privacy.
Before the constitution it was part of common law that your body is your property to do with as you please.
The core problem with Roe is that it fixated on science rather than law.
Such opposites as Prof. Tribe and Prof. Block both arrived at the same place on abortion.
A women can remove a pregancy from her body at any time right up to the moment of birth.
But the right to remove is NOT the right to kill. If the death of the pregancy is the unavoidable consequence of removal – so be it. The woman’s rights to her own body are absolute.
But states can insist that without significantly increasing the risk to the woman the physicians must do everything possible to allow the pregnancy to survive.
Sticking to law results in a decision that will endure regardless of changes in medical technology.
All that said Roe is not being overturned. In fact the scientific foundations of Roe will be the basis for its being significantly narrowed.
Roe made a big deal of viability. Today 24week fetus’s are viable, and it is not likely to be very long before 20week ones will be.
Allowing states broad power to restrrict abortions after 20 weeks is near certain. Few states will enact such laws. But those that do will be upheld. Further it will not matter much, even PP’s data indicates that most late term abortions are just people procrastinating to the last minute. If the last minute is 20weeks that is when they will get an abortion.
Roe and Brown: two extremely unconvincing opinions based on alleged science of the time that has not weathered well.
The epitome of national achievement: Baby Killing.
America “must” take in every wandering invader illegally crossing the international border as it kills its own American babies – 60 million since Roe v Wade.
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral” as more Americans die than are born – America’s population is imported.
Adoption eliminates the need for murder.
On any level, in any aspect, abortion is deleterious.
hey george. they think we need to cut the world population in half to reach the blessed state of “carbon neutral emissions steady state” utopia
they are going to have to get moving on those abortions and plying the trade in America alone won’t cut it
thankfully, the Gates foundation is busy at work “advancing reproductive health” in the third world
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do/global-development/family-planning
The Harris-Biden Democrat Platform
_____________________________
– Make The Unequal Equal
– “Free Stuff” For Parasites From Around The World
– Baby Killing
Besides which Roe and a few other laws IS the law of the land.
Roe has two features of note. One Roe herself recanted the whole thing. Second Roe the law was added to since it first passed. Biden once to make Roe the law of the land does not that mean regress to the original roe or the current Roe. This one states viability is the point where a fetus becomes a citizen and has Constitutional protection. I distrust anyone who speaks like Biden since he quotes something that has been changed over the year too include the requirement for real Physician to certify fetus or viable..Start getting to close to the line of actual birth does that include premature birth? Or does it go beyond birth as Harris wants it. If so how far after birth.
Biden is trying for votes so he waffles but remember the Democrats are the party that have consistently supported victimizing women and protected those who are serial victimizers of Women naming both Ciintons. Can’t have it both way. I don’t trust them.
“One Roe herself recanted the whole thing”
You might want to read more:
Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, says she was paid by right-wing groups to publicly turn against abortion
https://www.businessinsider.com/norma-mccorvey-jane-roe-was-paid-to-publicly-campaign-against-abortion-2020-5
“This one states viability is the point where a fetus becomes a citizen and has Constitutional protection.”
Citizenship is determined at birth. You’re free to work on amending the Constitution if you want to change that.
she was a fool, a tool, and a turncoat then. some lady
Committed to Confusion:
“Citizenship is determined at birth. You’re free to work on amending the Constitution if you want to change that.”
*********************
So? Your rudimentary misunderstanding of law, prevents you from understanding that rights in this country aren’t premised on 14th Amendment citizenship. Rights belong to everyone residing in the country with the exception of voting and holding office, noncitizens enjoy all constitutional protections. We can define “reside” and “live” any way we choose. Quit pretending you know any law, when you merely are get talking points from Heir Soros. Opining above your intellect never ends well.
Bet you must have a heck of a social life to comment at all hours, every day. Date much?
Mespo, CTHD is correct. Citizenships is determined at birth. The constitution specifics states that those ALL persons *born* or naturalized within the jurisdiction thereof ARE citizens of the untied states.
Rights also belong to anyone BORN within the jurisdiction the constitution encompasses. Not before.
A more interesting question should be, is a fetus considered an individual or an entity belonging to the mother? Does the mother or the state has domain over the baby?
You used my handle to post comments authored by CTHD
pay attention to instructions
Mespo, I was addressing your post. Keep up.
Sevy:
You oughta keep up. Read my reply to “whatever her name is” post again. I specifically distinguished between 14th Amendment “citizen” definition and persons afforded constitutional protections. Hint: You don’t have to be a “citizen” to enjoy them. If you need flash cards, let me know.
Your remarks on citizenship are correct.
Fundimentally citizenship is arbitrary. It is a consequence of random chance.
But your claims about rights are obviously false.
You are not free to murder a pakistani in the US because they are not a citizen.
All natural rights belong to all humans, not merely citizens. Government created Rights like voting belong to citizens.
As to when does the union of a sperm and an egg gain the rights of a human ? I do not have the answer to that – no one really does.
Pretending it is at birth is ludicrously stupid and arbitrary. Further many natural rights have no value to even an infant. Many natural rights are not firmly possessed until adulthood. At the same time the legal assumption of a right to life preceded birth. In most states you can be charged with murder for killing a womans unborn child.
The point is that even though you/CTDHD are right about citizenship, you are totally off regarding rights.
The entire conflict over abortion is a reflection that not only do we disagree about when the right to life vests, but the vast majority of us really do not know – it is not clear.
We are appalled by abortion – especially late abortions, and appalled by bringing unwanted children into the world.
Abortion remains a political issue because most of us do not have an easy answer.
Like Bill Clinton we want abortion to be safe, legal and rare.
John say. “ Fundimentally citizenship is arbitrary. It is a consequence of random chance.”
No, citizenship is not arbitrary, not when the constitution specifically sets who is considered a citizen. Anyone born within the umbrella of the constitution’s powers (the country’s borders or territories) is a citizen. That’s not a random choice. It’s quite specific.
Natural rights are NOT guaranteed to anyone and they certainly don’t specify a right to citizenship.
A fetus, embryo, or anything not yet born has no legal rights. Until the moment of birth.
It is not correct to say they have no legal rights. You may not be aware of a few things.
1– Feticide laws. If a criminal kicks a pregnant women in the stomach and she miscarries, then a separate crime from the battery lies. In nearly every state, I think, at least most. This confers a special protection in law for the unborn victim
2. Medical malpractice. If a woman is attended by an obstetrician who negligently underperforms the standard of care and as a result, she loses the fetus, there are damages.
In these two ways, and possibly others. the law actually does provide protections to the unborn.
The fetus isn’t the one with rights in any of what you mention, Kurtz.
Feticide laws involve state rights, just like other criminal laws.
Medical malpractice involves the rights of the parents.
“The fetus isn’t the one with rights ”
Why not ?
What is it that imbues one with rights ?
You are attributing magical properties to passing through the birth canal.
Though Roe has many problems – it should have focused on law not science.
But one aspect of science it has right is that there is no real abrupt transition from a blob of cells to a fully human being with rights.
I do not accept that infants are fully human. But they are atleast human enough that we should not murder them.
Most of us also oppose the murder of dogs and cats.
Vegitarians oppose the murder of all animals.
“Feticide laws involve state rights, just like other criminal laws.
Medical malpractice involves the rights of the parents.”
Wrong and irrelevant. Either laws are arbitrary in which if the right gets sufficient political power they can legitimately change them in ways you do not like.
Or laws rest on solid moral foundations – in which YOU must identify those and explain why those foundations do not cover the unborn or do oddly.
Just saying “that is the law” is a cop out.
IT is what Republicans will say to you when Roe is reversed.
Mr. Kurtz, embryos or fetuses, don’t have rights at all. The mother does as she is the sole representative of her combined status as a pregnant woman.
Just as children don’t have a right to vote until they are 18.
A fetus is not legally a person or individual. Any harm it comes to it is not dependent on any individual right except the mother’s.
The mother does as she is the sole representative of her combined status as a pregnant woman.
Good, you acknowledge the moment a woman becomes pregnant that she takes on the status as a mother. Prior to that, she is a woman that is making a choice that might lead to becoming a mother. Responsible, rational mothers don’t kill their children at any stage of their development. Pro-life advocates fully support that pro-choice decision. But the pro-choice group needs to move the goalposts so that no one talks about the woman making a responsible choice before getting pregnant. Why is that?
Responsible, rational women may choose to have an abortion.
Lots of people talk about both the man and the woman making a responsible choice before they have sex. That’s the point of sex ed. They should use birth control. They should talk about it before they have sex.
Notice how you’re silent about the choice the man makes before having sex. Why is that?
Notice how you’re silent about the choice the man makes before having sex. Why is that?
You want to move the goalposts again? The last I checked, men don’t risk getting themselves pregnant. But regardless, they should have that conversation with their consensual partner before having sex.
CTHD, I could point you to numerous law reviews which make the point I related to you, that I did not originate, but there is no sane purpose in casting these pearls out more than I have. You had the information and you rejected it.
” embryos or fetuses, don’t have rights at all. The mother does as she is the sole representative”
Slaves didn’t have any rights either. My guess is as a slave owner you would have the right to kill anyone of them you chose. That seems to be your mentality.
We understand that the fetus is both biologically distinct in its dna from conception. And that it is alive.
The biological fact that is equally obvious is that it is a part of the woman’s body until it is out of the birth canal.
Herein lies the factual basis for the difficulties. We should accept that there can be a range of valid opinions about the law should be, without insulting each other too much over the subject of abortion one way or another.
Unless you can give a reasoned explanation for saying fetuses have no legal rights, that’s just an ipse dixit with no more justification than saying slaves have no legal rights unless and until they are freed. That used to be the law too, you know.
Most abortions take place in the embryonic stage, not the fetal stage. If you want to discuss it, why do you focus on fetuses instead of embryos?
As for why they shouldn’t have rights, I distinguish between (1) the period where they have no brain activity of the sort that is used in assessing brain death, and (2) the period when they do have that kind of brain activity, which develops around the same time as they become viable. I don’t actually have a problem with granting some fetal rights to that latter group, though the pregnant woman’s rights must still take priority, because the fetus is in her body, using her lungs to get oxygen, using her gastrointestinal system to get nutrition, etc.
With a person who has been born, if brain death occurs, that person has legally died and no longer has rights, even if his/her heart is still beating. That’s why it’s legal for organ transplant teams to kill those bodies by cutting them open and removing the organs: the person is already dead, so they’re not killing the person, only the body.
Basic brain activity is the most central feature of personhood. It’s why we call conjoined twins “twins,” but a newborn with extra limbs isn’t a twin: the difference is that in the former case, there are two independently thinking brains, and in the latter, there aren’t.
I don’t think an embryo or early stage fetus that has no brain activity should have rights. You may disagree, but the onus is now on your to argue why.
There is very little opposition to abortions done in the embryonic stage.
There is a great deal of opposition in the fetal stage.
If you wish to define human life based on brain activity – that is a debate we can have.
It is currently a standard in some places for death.
It is not to my knowledge a standard anywhere for life. If it were lots of abortions would be illegal.
I would note that most infants STILL get nourishment from their mother.
The dependence of the fetus on the mother is NOT relevant to its independent personhood.
In various ways numerous born humans are highly dependent on others.
At some times many of us are dependent on machines to preserve our lives.
The inability to survive independently is NOT central to the moral or legal definition of human life or to the existance of rights.
You are philosophically in way over your head.
The brain starts to develop at age 6 weeks continues to develop until age 25. Later in life the brain starts to shrink and some lose the knowledge of their own existence.
I guess we now know that we can abort a human from age 6 weeks to age 25. There is more to life than these constructs you create.
You noted that the brain declines when we age. If we make the brian the standard to allow abortion (which it does not) then we are giving our impramatur to euthanazia.
John, no where did I indicate that the brain should be used as a criteria? I only provided a short timeline of the brain’s development.
I did not say you did.
I pointed out the consequences – based on your own posts of doing so.
I understand that you did not use the brain as the criteria.
I was replying to you but advising others that there are bad consequences to using the brain as the criteria for life.
You make my case.
The constitution sets the criteria for citizenship.
It is ARBITRARY.
It is rooted in the OPPINION of our founders that those connected to the soil would be better citizens.
I am a strong supporter of birth right citizenship.
But I am not going to get sucked into some claim that citizenship is anything but arbitrary.
If it makes you feel better it is “necescarily” arbitrary.
There is nothing in your genes that dictates your citizenship.
“Natural rights are NOT guaranteed to anyone”
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
Sound like the entire purpose of government is to guarantee natural rights.
You seem to be at odds with our founders regarding natural rights.
“and they certainly don’t specify a right to citizenship.”
Correct.
“A fetus, embryo, or anything not yet born has no legal rights.”
Both false and irrelevant. Natural rights precede the law. Legal rights are whatever the law says they are and can be changed ARBITRARILY.
“Until the moment of birth.”
Not true in most states.
Sound like the entire purpose of government is to guarantee natural rights.
You seem to be at odds with our founders regarding natural rights.
The entire purpose for government is to secure these rights. If they were secure naturally, no government would be necessary. There is no guarantee that any government will secure these rights because of one self-evident truth: our human nature is the same today as it was in the beginning and it will be the same until the end of time. Our form of government is designed specifically to account for that nature in those we elect to govern. And it’s the people that are to reconcile that account. And generally, we suck at that job.
“The entire purpose for government is to secure these rights. If they were secure naturally, no government would be necessary. ”
Correct.
If you were actually trying to have a real discussion, Mespo, you’d have noticed that I was responding to someone who falsely claimed “viability is the point where a fetus becomes a citizen.” I was only pointing out that that’s false.
“Rights belong to everyone residing in the country”
*Persons* have rights. Embryos and fetuses don’t have rights, as legal personhood begins at birth.
All you’ve done is demonstrate once again that your primary interest here is insulting people.
Legal rights are determined by the law – your argument is circular – many states do confirm some rights on the unborn. In most states you can be prosecuted for murder if you assault a preganant women late term and she miscarries. It is false to say there are no legal rights for “fetus’s”.
But it is even more false – because as noted legal rights are determined by the law and are changeable.
Natural rights are not determined by the law. Fetus’s have natural rights, children have natual rights, and adults have natural rights – not identical ones but still rights.
If you are going to split legal hairs with someone else – you can expect to face the same legal hairsplitting yourself.
DOJ says the First Amendment does not protect noncitizens like Assange.
S. 1645, the Women’s Health Proection Act of 2019, is a pending bill that would generally codify Roe. The bill cites two constitutional provisions as congressional authority: (1) the so called commerece clause and (2) section 5 of the 14th amendment While Professor Turley analyzed the 10th amendment, he should have also anayzed those two provisions.
Citing something as an authority does not make it one.
The commerce clause was never intended to apply to instate commerce.
Filburn was wrongly decided.
SCOTUS is unlikelyh to reverse Filburn but they are also not likely to find new expansions of the commerce clause legitimate.
PPACA made clear that the commerce clause as used since Filburn can thwart all rights.
Regardless, while Roe was badly decided there is an actual right to ones body – the 9th amendment is one place to cite.
All the court needs to do to get this right is to get rid of the faux science in Roe and recognize the absolute right of each person to their body while noting that the pregnancy is NOT a part of the womans body but a tenent in it.
The woman can evict – even if that results in death, but she can not kill.
John say, “ Citing something as an authority does not make it one.”
Christians always cite the Bible as an authority. So it doesn’t make it one?
A pregnancy is not a part of a woman’s body? Your rationale is deeply flawed. If what your are implying is what I think it is your have made it a point that a fetus is a woman’s property and she can do what she pleases with it. So seeking and abortion is still a right.
“A pregnancy is not a part of a woman’s body?”
Technically it is not. If it was there would not be the concern of antibody responses.
Pregnancy in most animals – but even more so in humans is incredibly complex.
The body is designed to kill foreign invaders, and during pregancy it may well try to kill the pregnancy.
Most miscarraiges occur for pretty much that reason – for one reason or another the womans body is not able to supress the natural forces that drive it to kill the invader.
There are very complex systems at work during pregnancy to prevent the body from killing the pregnancy.
John say, your reasoning is not rational. You’re trying to conflate a pregnancy as of it were an infection.
A pregnancy means the process of it being a part of a woman’s body has begun. A pregnancy is not an independent process that is not reliant n the mothers’s body. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Not an independent one.
“John say, your reasoning is not rational. You’re trying to conflate a pregnancy as of it were an infection.”
It is pretty close to that. You should actually look into the biology and biochemistry.
The mother’s body most ACTIVELY supress immune responses or it will kill the child.
While at the same time protecting the mother from a fetus whose own immune system is trying to kill the mother.
“A pregnancy means the process of it being a part of a woman’s body has begun.”
Fairytale.
“A pregnancy is not an independent process that is not reliant n the mothers’s body.”
Not relevant. 2 months olds are reliant on their mothers body – you can not kill them.
” It’s a symbiotic relationship.”
Parasitic.
“Not an independent one.”
Correct but not relevant.
You are trying to force biology to meet your ideology. Does not work.
John, your comments are often filled with bunk like “Most miscarraiges occur for pretty much that reason – for one reason or another the womans body is not able to supress the natural forces that drive it to kill the invader,” where you pretend to be presenting facts but where you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Most miscarriages occur because chromosomal problems with the embryo’s DNA prevent it from developing properly.
“John, your comments are often filled with bunk like “Most miscarraiges occur for pretty much that reason – for one reason or another the womans body is not able to supress the natural forces that drive it to kill the invader,” where you pretend to be presenting facts but where you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Most miscarriages occur because chromosomal problems with the embryo’s DNA prevent it from developing properly.”
Correct as far as you go.
The failure of a embryo to develop properly prevents it from continuing the delicately balanced dance/war that is going on between the embryo and the womans body.
When the embryo is unable to do so the WOMAN’s body wins the war and there is a miscarraige.
Magic fairies do not come in and determine the embryo is not developing properly.
Throughout pregnancy the natural forces in a womans body are to KILL THE INVADER – I would further note that the fetus is also driven to kill the mother. There is a whole host of complex biological and biochemical processes that MUST supress both of those forces.
IF those processes fail – which occurs in most instances where development does not proceed normally, the most common result is the womans body succeeds in killing and expelling the invader. Though in some cases the fetus may actually kill the mother without medical intervention.
You can accuse me of error all you like, but you would look less foolish if you checked your facts first.
Allan, “technically” is not a viable proof of the assertion. A pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship. It HAS to be a part of a woman’s body. It’s not independent of the mother. It never has been.
“:Allan, “technically” is not a viable proof of the assertion.”
Actually that is pretty much exactly what technically means – that it IS proof of the assertion.
“A pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship.”
No it is parasitic. Regardless it is a separate being, It just depends on resources from the mother for life.
“It HAS to be a part of a woman’s body.”
Nope, symbiotic, parasitic, does not matter – not part of the womans body
“It’s not independent of the mother. It never has been.”
a 4 year old is not independent of its mother. It never has been.
“Allan, “technically” is not a viable proof of the assertion.”
When hunting for gold and my youngest grandchildren pick up fools gold telling me they found gold. I tell them that technically it isn’t gold, it’s pyrite. They understand what the word technically means ‘the exact meaning of something’. I am surprised that as an adult you don’t understand the meaning of the word technically.
“It’s not independent of the mother”
A tree growing in a mountain isn’t independent of the mountain but it is a separate individual living entity. Listening to you is very difficult. One expects so much more from an adult.
At least half the genes in any fetus come from an agent foreign to the mother, hence the concern for antibody responses.
“John say, “ Citing something as an authority does not make it one.”
Christians always cite the Bible as an authority. So it doesn’t make it one?”
No.
“A pregnancy is not a part of a woman’s body?”
A pregnancy is in a woman’s body not part of it.
IT does not share her DNA as the cells of every single other part of her body does.
A pregnancy is a tenant in her body.
“Your rationale is deeply flawed.”
Not at all, it is biology.
“If what your are implying is what I think it is your have made it a point that a fetus is a woman’s property and she can do what she pleases with it.”
I have tenants that live in an apartment building I own – they are not my property. I may not do as I please with them. I may not kill them.
I have children that live in my home – I can not do whatever I please with them, they are not my property I can not kill them.
I have dogs and cats that live with me – they ARE my property – I am STILL not free to kill them.
“So seeking and abortion is still a right.”
Nope.
Control of your own actual body is a right – a near absolute one.
If you wish to cut off your own arm – you may do so.
Even if you agree to give your kidney to another person, you are free to change your mind right up to the moment they wheel you into the operating room.
If you are pregnant and you want the pregancy removed from your body – you have an absolute right to do so – though no one else is obligated to do it for you. I do not care if you are about to give birth.
But you do not have the right to compel that the pregnancy be destroyed.
If that is the consequence of removal – so be it.
But if the state or others wish to intervene to save the pregancy – the the extent they are able them may.
They may also demand that the removal be done to increase the odds of survival – as long as they do not increase the risk to you.
And guess what else – should the pregnancy survive, just like the other biological parent you could be required to provide child support
A women has an absolute right to deny a pregnancy the use of her uterous.
Beyond that she has no more rights than the man who provided the sperm
John say, “ IT does not share her DNA as the cells of every single other part of her body does.”
Actually it does. The mother’s DNA IS very much part of it.
Your rationales are still seriously flawed.
A pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship with the mother. It’s not an independent process like that of being a tenant.
A tenant as you describe it is not entirely dependent on you for its survival.
Your pets are your property and if you decide to kill them it’s perfectly within your right. There is no law against killing your own pets if you decide to. Its entirely different if you abuse then and treat them cruelly. But killing one isn’t a crime.
The state should have no say in what a woman decides anymore than it shouldn’t have any say in your own decisions.
If you don’t care if a woman decides to end a pregnancy then you shouldn’t have an issue with abortion at all.
“Actually it does. The mother’s DNA IS very much part of it.”
Nope, every human in the world has about 99% of their DNA in common with every other human in the world.
Yet each of us still has unique DNA. Absolutely the child’s DNA has much in common with its mother – as well as with its father.
But similarities in DNA do not make it the same creature.
“Your rationales are still seriously flawed.”
And yet it isn’t.
“A pregnancy is a symbiotic relationship with the mother. It’s not an independent process like that of being a tenant.”
Still fixated on symbiotic. The relationship is parasitic not symbiotic.
And yes the relationship is very much like a tenant. The fetus has a tiny room inside the mother. There are multiple layers of biological barriers between them to both permit necescary exchanges and thwart the natural biological tendency of each to kill the other.
“A tenant as you describe it is not entirely dependent on you for its survival.”
You have not seen my tenants.
Regardless, that does not alter the argument.
“Your pets are your property and if you decide to kill them it’s perfectly within your right. There is no law against killing your own pets if you decide to.”
Tell that to the SPCA.
“Its entirely different if you abuse then and treat them cruelly. But killing one isn’t a crime.”
Killing pets is considered cruelty.
“The state should have no say in what a woman decides anymore than it shouldn’t have any say in your own decisions.”
Correct – with my body or my property. But the fetus is neither.
“If you don’t care if a woman decides to end a pregnancy then you shouldn’t have an issue with abortion at all.”
Bizzare argument.
First the distinction you keep missing is that there really are two sets of rights involved. Absolutely the one set is larger than the other.
But both still exist.
Not caring that a woman wishes not to be pregnant is not the same as not caring that she wishes to murder a fetus.
Further caring is NOT the standard. Everything is not about emotion.
We do not decide right and wrong by the number of tears we shed.
My daughter as an example is from China – I care a great deal about China, and about chinese orphanages and about children in conditions such as my daughters.
It is not likely that you care about those issues, and near certain you care more about others than I care about those.
That is perfectly fine – we are not all obligated to care about the same things. A massive philosophical flaw in modern progressivism.
I am watching as rioting goes on accross the country over the purported systemic racism in US policing.
US Racism is not vanished and it never will be, at the same time we live in the least racist country in the world at the least racist moment in its history. Do I care about racism – certainly. Do I care about thousands of other things much more ? Absolutely.
And there is nothing wrong with that. The modern left REQUIRES that each of us share the same values regarding whatever the left has decided is good or bad at the moment.
There are issues regarding minorities in this country I care about – but racism is tiny among those.
Where I choose to put my energy what I care about is different from what you do.
But you demand that I must be forced to care about what is important to you rather than what is important to me.
Each year I give my time, money and resources to things that matter to me. But you demand that I MUST give more to those things that matter to YOU instead.
Regardless, the point is that caring is NOT the standard for law or government.
So abortion of any kind is out of the question, but genocide of its workers to save the stock market is actually on the table?
Do you think your comment makes sense ?
What genocide is going on ?
How does the stock market have anything to do with this ?
Is FishWings a pseudonym for Biden ? Do you have dementia ?
There is no such thing as banning abortion. The only thing you can ban is legal and safe abortion.
The same can be said of burglary and fraud.
What is legal burglary and legal fraud?
FishWings — Safe abortion cannot be banned, only made illegal.