Abortion Outlawed

[Mjcpr]

I'm no legal expert but how can a state say something is illegal that has been ruled legal by the US Supreme Court? I don't get it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185991,00.html

[Fugue]

are you pregnant?

they can always make the law, whether or not it ends up flying will again be decided in court.

[Okla-homey]

I'm no legal expert but how can a state say something is illegal that has been ruled legal by the US Supreme Court? I don't get it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185991,00.html

Its a lot more complicated than that, but Fugue's right...looks to like they're trying to force SCOTUS to take up the issue with the goal of giving them a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade.

IOW, they're betting on the come.

[Mjcpr]

IOW, they're betting on the come.

Counselor, I believe that is the cause of this whole mess in the first place.

[JohnnyMack]

Thread reported.

[12]

ok, that was funny

[Mjcpr]

So if you don't like a SCOTUS decision, you can keep passing a law that contradicts that decision in hopes that one day, they'll change their mind?

[Fugue]

So if you don't like a SCOTUS decision, you can keep passing a law that contradicts that decision in hopes that one day, they'll change their mind?

Yes

[Mjcpr]

Sweet!!

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

http://www.wormsrus.co.nz/canoworms.jpg

[crawfish]

I fully support the legalization of retroactive abortion.

[Fugue]

Sweet!!

It's actually a good example of how things are supposed to work. The Sup. Ct. doesn't make law but decides if the laws that are made jive with the Const. They are like a goalie only they let some through on purpose.

[Mjcpr]

It's actually a good example of how things are supposed to work. The Sup. Ct. doesn't make law but decides if the laws that are made jive with the Const. They are like a goalie only they let some through on purpose.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea you actually had any sense.


:D

[Fugue]

Thanks for the info. I had no idea you actually had any sense.


:D

I've got everyone fooled. I'm only pretending to be a slow-witted jacka5s.

all of the time
on nearly every subject
:O

[85Sooner]

I don't believe that the court says abortion is legal, I believe the law was in regards to privacy. Some lawyer here may be able to shed some light. All I know is that alot of folks that I know are pro choice (heh) whatever that is, but still think that roe vs. wade was bad law. A little help out there.

[slickdawg]

Yes, this will work its way to the SCOTUS in the next few years.

I like crawfish's retroactive idea. :D

[Fugue]

Yes, this will work its way to the SCOTUS in the next few years.

I like crawfish's retroactive idea. :D

the scary thing about that though is that the topic has been breached in serious discussion. :eek:

[yermom]

up to the 40th trimester should be legal

[Fugue]

the scary thing about that though is that the topic has been breached in serious discussion. :eek:

check that, already being done. :(

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't believe that the court says abortion is legal, I believe the law was in regards to privacy. Some lawyer here may be able to shed some light. All I know is that alot of folks that I know are pro choice (heh) whatever that is, but still think that roe vs. wade was bad law. A little help out there.

yep, which is why the man has no say in whether it happens or not. if were legal under any other clause many rock stars wouldn't owe so much in child support.

[crawfish]

Yes, this will work its way to the SCOTUS in the next few years.

I like crawfish's retroactive idea. :D

I'm thinking we can get the left on board with the death penalty if we start referring to it as "retroactive abortion"... :D

[mdklatt]

I'm no legal expert but how can a state say something is illegal that has been ruled legal by the US Supreme Court? I don't get it.


Another complication: States can make things illegal even if the federal government doesn't consider it illegal. But, the federal government has specifically said abortion is legal, so a-courtin' they will go.

From what I've read about this the SD peeps want to see if they can get Roe v. Wade overturned by the new Supreme Court.

[Taxman71]

Ironic how this issue came about the same day as Homey's thread.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63176

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

what i don't understand is this - a child can go in for an abortion without notifying their parents, but if they go in for a broken arm they have to have a legal guardian there to get treatment.

as a cynic, i see the only difference between the two is who is paying the bills

[mdklatt]

what i don't understand is this - a child can go in for an abortion without notifying their parents, but if they go in for a broken arm they have to have a legal guardian there to get treatment.


You get an abortion to hide a condition for which there may be a legitimate reason to hide from your parents. There's no way to and not much use for hiding a broken arm.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but that's a difference.

[jeremy885]

what i don't understand is this - a child can go in for an abortion without notifying their parents, but if they go in for a broken arm they have to have a legal guardian there to get treatment.

as a cynic, i see the only difference between the two is who is paying the bills

That's one part that I don't understand in the law. Also, can anyone explain to me how the SCOTUS was able to turn an amendment made right after the civil war for black rights into something supporting abortion? I've read it and still don't understand it.

[jeremy885]

You get an abortion to hide a condition for which there may be a legitimate reason to hide from your parents. There's no way to and not much use for hiding a broken arm.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but that's a difference.


But you need parental consent to visit a dermatologist for acne, but not for an abortion.

[Okla-homey]

That's one part that I don't understand in the law. Also, can anyone explain to me how the SCOTUS was able to turn an amendment made right after the civil war for black rights into something supporting abortion? I've read it and still don't understand it.

I could, but its now 4:28pm on a Friday and I've started drinking. Check with me tomorrow afternoon.;)

[mdklatt]

But you need parental consent to visit a dermatologist for acne, but not for an abortion.

Pregnancy brings up issues that go far beyond acne or a broken arm. There are differences.

[Taxman71]

You get an abortion to hide a condition for which there may be a legitimate reason to hide from your parents. There's no way to and not much use for hiding a broken arm.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but that's a difference.

By that rationale on one's right to privacy, the POTUS (i.e. Clinton) should be impeached for lying about something not legitimately worth hiding (e.g. - calling Hillary a cankled ridden shrew). However, lying about something legitimately worth hiding (getting nonmarital hummers in the oval office from a nasty heifer) should not give rise to impeachment since it is own private business.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You get an abortion to hide a condition for which there may be a legitimate reason to hide from your parents. There's no way to and not much use for hiding a broken arm.

the privacy laws state that you can do what you want with your body as long as it doesn't force you to have a disability. why would notification be needed for stitches or whatever? my thinking is it comes down to $$$, both payment and liability. i mean is it even legal to sue an abortion clinic for a botched abortion because it is paid by the feds?

[yermom]

i think in some states pregnancy emancipates a minor

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

you have one of those "big word a day" calendars, don't you...

[Fugue]

you have one of those "big word a day" calendars, don't you...

but with a twist, one side is English, the other is :dolemite: .

[yermom]

you have one of those "big word a day" calendars, don't you...

you don't know "pregancy"?

i just watch a lot of ER :O

[proud gonzo]

i think it's because it's a lot easier to come up with a lie to explain a broken arm than a pregnancy.

[FaninAma]

the privacy laws state that you can do what you want with your body as long as it doesn't force you to have a disability. why would notification be needed for stitches or whatever? my thinking is it comes down to $$$, both payment and liability. i mean is it even legal to sue an abortion clinic for a botched abortion because it is paid by the feds?

I think it's just another issue the left uses to attack parental rights. And I'm not sure any funds from the federal government pay for abortions.

[lexsooner]

I don't believe that the court says abortion is legal, I believe the law was in regards to privacy. Some lawyer here may be able to shed some light. All I know is that alot of folks that I know are pro choice (heh) whatever that is, but still think that roe vs. wade was bad law. A little help out there.

Roe v. Wade was a very poorly written decision. Legal pundits on both sides tend to agree on this. Harry Blackmon, I think, wrote it. Pro-choice is probably on much stronger legal grounds if state laws prohibiting abortions were legally challenged as equal protection violations rather than privacy.

[mdklatt]

By that rationale on one's right to privacy, the POTUS (i.e. Clinton) should be impeached for lying about something not legitimately worth hiding (e.g. - calling Hillary a cankled ridden shrew). However, lying about something legitimately worth hiding (getting nonmarital hummers in the oval office from a nasty heifer) should not give rise to impeachment since it is own private business.

That wasn't a rationale of anything. The question came up of why a broken arm or acne are different than abortion. There are obviously differences, so it's conceivable that abortion would be treated differently from other medical procedures.

[Jimminy Crimson]

i think it's because it's a lot easier to come up with a lie to explain a broken arm than a pregnancy.

I fell in the garden and landed on what I thought was a carrot! :eddie:

[mdklatt]

I fell in the garden and landed on what I thought was a carrot! :eddie:

I forgot to wipe down the toilet seat in a public bathroom.

[mdklatt]

You know, if the Republicans outlaw abortions they'd better give second thoughts to gay adoption and/or birth control education that goes beyond wishful thinking.

[Jerk]

I can't believe this thread has been so civil.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, it will not outlaw abortion. It will become what it should be: a state issue.

Roe v Wade is bad law because the SCOTUS simply created new law...which they aren't entitled to do- this is the legislature's job.

[Jerk]

You know, if the Republicans outlaw abortions they'd better give second thoughts to gay adoption and/or birth control education that goes beyond wishful thinking.

Well, yes, but it works both ways. Maybe people realize that since they're now accountable for poor decisions, they'll be more responsible, and they'll be less "unwanted pregnencies" in the future.

[Jimminy Crimson]

I think you should have to apply to have a kid. Everyone on birth control unless you get a green light.

That takes care of the unwanted pregnancies. :texan:

[AlbqSooner]

Well, yes, but it works both ways. Maybe people realize that since they're now accountable for poor decisions, they'll be more responsible, and they'll be less "unwanted pregnencies" in the future.
There was a guy with 9 kids who asked his doctor what to do to stop having kids since he could not afford any additional. The Doc told him to practice "coitus interruptus".

When the guy asked what that was the Doc told him, "When you get to that magic moment, pull out."

9 months and 2 days later the guy's wife delivers the 10th child. Doc asked why the guy didn't take his advice.

Guy said, "Doc, when I get to that magic moment, I feel like I can support the whole freakin world."

I doubt outlawing abortion would be any more effective.

[mdklatt]

Well, yes, but it works both ways. Maybe people realize that since they're now accountable for poor decisions, they'll be more responsible, and they'll be less "unwanted pregnencies" in the future.

I doubt there are even 1/1000 women who have unprotected sex thinking they'll just get an abortion if things don't work out. On the other hand, not all unwanted pregnancies are because of "poor decisions". There are accidents. The increase in unwanted births will be a helluva lot greater than any decrease in unwanted pregnancies in states where abortion is illegal.

What is the ultimate goal? Punishing women for "immoral" behavior or ensuring that every child born in this country has a loving home? First and foremost, unwanted pregnancies need to be reduced. Just telling teenagers not to have sex isn't going to get the job done. Parents whose children have sex just because they learned how to use a condom at school should blame themselves, not the school. Because we don't live in a perfect world, we need to have a way of dealing with unwanted pregnancies when they do happen. If abortion gets outlawed, where are those extra kids going to go?

[OUthunder]

If you can't afford to pay, don't go out and play.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If abortion gets outlawed, where are those extra kids going to go?

i don't think that would be the issue, it would be "where are all those extra kids in china going to go?"

[mdklatt]

If Roe v Wade is overturned, it will not outlaw abortion. It will become what it should be: a state issue.

My libertarian side agrees that abortion should be a state or local issue, but my practical side wonders about all the poor people (who seem to have the most kids) who couldn't necessarily get to somehwere else for an abortion.

What if abortion was legal in Missouri but illegal in Kansas? Would it be okay for groups in Missouri to arrange "abortion caravans" to take poor people in Kansas across the state line for an abortion? You just know some states would try to outlaw that.




Roe v Wade is bad law because the SCOTUS simply created new law...which they aren't entitled to do- this is the legislature's job.

How did this create new law? It simply overturned existing laws.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

My libertarian side agrees that abortion should be a state or local issue, but my practical side wonders about all the poor people (who seem to have the most kids) who couldn't necessarily get to somehwere else for an abortion.

What if abortion was legal in Missouri but illegal in Kansas? Would it be okay for groups in Missouri to arrange "abortion caravans" to take poor people in Kansas across the state line for an abortion? You just know some states would try to outlaw that.

hey, then it would be legal under the interstate commerce provision ;)

[Vaevictis]

Roe v Wade is bad law because the SCOTUS simply created new law...which they aren't entitled to do- this is the legislature's job.

Actually, if you read the Constitution, you'll find that the Constitution practically invites EVERYONE to claim unlisted rights in the 9th Amendment, basically saying that just because a right isn't enumerated it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the court erred in Roe v. Wade by saying that the prohibition violated the 14th Amendment; I think it would have been correct to say that it violates the 9th.

Keep in mind that women had the right under the law to abort a fetus until "quickening" (first movement, circa 16 weeks) until the middle 1800's. That's sufficient justification for an argument (even if you don't agree with it) advancing the theory that the right to an abortion existed at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and thus falls under the 9th as an unenumerated right.

[JohnnyMack]

I've always said I'd love to live in a world where abortion wasn't a necessary evil. Outlawing abortion won't stop it from happening. Lots of things are illegal, yet they continue to happen.

[Stitch Face]

Roe v. Wade was a very poorly written decision. Legal pundits on both sides tend to agree on this. Harry Blackmon, I think, wrote it.

So it was poorly written because a black mon wrote it? You make me sick.

[49r]

My theory why minors don't need parental consent to have an abortion is this. Imagine a young girl who is sexually abused by her father, and her mother is aware of the situation and does nothing to protect the daughter from her father. The girl gets pregnant, and since her father is abusing her, and her mother is (by her actions) doing the same basically, she does not want to have the child. She also knows that her parents won't consent to an abortion because it would open a can of worms that they don't want to open. Should she be able to abort the pregnancy without their consent? Probably.

If abortion was illegal, and the same thing happens to the girl, will she seek out a back-alley abortion? Or use a coat hanger to abort the fetus herself? Probably. Should the girl have to risk her own well-being because the people who are supposed to be protecting her are neglecting her? No, probably not. IMO, South Dakota is telling this girl that it is her own fault that her father is raping her, and that her punishment will be to have this child. Abortion is horrible, but there are lots of things that happen to women that are worse.

[Jimminy Crimson]

Or use a coat hanger to abort the fetus herself? :eek:

So what's for dinner? ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm thinking we can get the left on board with the death penalty if we start referring to it as "retroactive abortion"... :D

Similarly, I think that the right would probably be cool with "Pre-emptive appeal-streamlined death penalty."

[mdklatt]

My theory why minors don't need parental consent to have an abortion is this. Imagine a young girl who is sexually abused by her father, and her mother is aware of the situation and does nothing to protect the daughter from her father. The girl gets pregnant, and since her father is abusing her, and her mother is (by her actions) doing the same basically, she does not want to have the child. She also knows that her parents won't consent to an abortion because it would open a can of worms that they don't want to open. Should she be able to abort the pregnancy without their consent? Probably.


Instead of giving blanket permission for all minors to get an abortion without consent couldn't there be a special mechanism for cases like this? Like a court order or something? I'm reluctanct to remove the parents from loop altogether because most minors aren't mature enough to fully appreciate a decision like that.

I would hope that abortion providers do all they can to encourage a minor to tell her parents unless it's a situation like your example.

[49r]

couldn't there be a special mechanism for cases like this? Like a court order or something?

Two reasons.
1). If a girl needs to have consent for an abortion except for in special cases how are we to determine if it is legitimately a case of abuse or rape? Ask her?

Nurse/Judge: "Debbie, we can perform an abortion for you but you have to have a parent's written consent. Unless your parents are abusing you. Are your parents abusing you, Debbie?"

Debbie: "Uhh, yeah...whatever."

2). If Debbie isn't lying, which we can't tell for sure, how do we find out if she really is being abused? We ask the parents? Can't do that because it amounts to consent. Besides, the parents would basically be incriminating themselves in the process.

[49r]

Not that I really give much of a rat's *** about these political threads, but this one's an interesting one to think about.

[Octavian]

This has been a very civil thread and I think its b/c everyone realizes this is the one really tough issue in which there are morally sound reasons on both sides. This is JMHO on what will happen:

Roe---> questionable law ---> challenged ---> overturned by W Court

A few state legislatures immediately enact laws to counter SCOTUS ruling--->W Court refuses to hear new objections--->becomes state issue across the board.

By 2020, Red&Blue America is more than just a term for Presidential electoral seperation...

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/6238/split3lr.th.png (http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=split3lr.png)

Blue States: anyone who wants to marry anyone else is able... females have "autonomy over their own bodies." United States of Canada jokes continue.

Red States: traditional marriage is protected and sanctified..."unborn victims are protected". Young girls sneak across imaginary lines for more than tatoos.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm no legal expert but how can a state say something is illegal that has been ruled legal by the US Supreme Court? I don't get it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185991,00.html

Because a Supreme Court decision doesn't mean that a state legislature or Congress for that matter can't turn right around and pass the exact same law again. Or in this case a totally different one. And at any rate, South Dakota is simply doing what every state should do whether they ban or allow abortions. It's best that the states have their abortion statutes updated for when Roe is overturned.

[Octavian]

Because a Supreme Court decision doesn't mean that a state legislature or Congress for that matter can't turn right around and pass the exact same law again. Or in this case a totally different one. And at any rate, South Dakota is simply doing what every state should do whether they ban or allow abortions. It's best that the states have their abortion statutes updated for when Roe is overturned.

agreed.

[John Kochtoston]

As a purely practical matter for the anti-abortion camp, this move seems poorly timed. There are still five justices on the Court likely to uphold Roe v. Wade (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer - though Kennedy did go against the grain in 2000, methinks this is a one-time exception), and I don't think it's a slam dunk that Roberts will vote to overturn either. So, this would give Roe yet another decision in support.
FWIW, the Gov. of South Dakota, who plans to sign the bill, and one of the legal foundations supporting the new bill also think that this may not be the best strategy.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11542260/

"Gov. Mike ROUNDS (R-S.D.): The existing Roe v. Wade will be upheld; it will move to the next court. It will be upheld. And the only place that it could make an impact or go into effect is if the court at the time that this law were to reach it were to say first of all that they would even consider it, which is to a lot of people highly unlikely. "

[Jerk]

Actually, if you read the Constitution, you'll find that the Constitution practically invites EVERYONE to claim unlisted rights in the 9th Amendment, basically saying that just because a right isn't enumerated it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the court erred in Roe v. Wade by saying that the prohibition violated the 14th Amendment; I think it would have been correct to say that it violates the 9th.

Keep in mind that women had the right under the law to abort a fetus until "quickening" (first movement, circa 16 weeks) until the middle 1800's. That's sufficient justification for an argument (even if you don't agree with it) advancing the theory that the right to an abortion existed at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and thus falls under the 9th as an unenumerated right.

Nice reply. I've always seen the 9th as kind of the people's wild card. For instance, say the SCOTUS says the 2nd should not apply to individuals, yet there are 80 million gun owners, so "gun rights" should be protected by the 9th. But what is the threashold of determining when the 9th should apply? Public opinion polls? Stats? I really don't know.

[Okieflyer]

My libertarian side agrees that abortion should be a state or local issue, but my practical side wonders about all the poor people (who seem to have the most kids) who couldn't necessarily get to somehwere else for an abortion.

Poor people aren't one's getting all the abortions. They are they one's having children.

[mdklatt]

If a girl needs to have consent for an abortion except for in special cases how are we to determine if it is legitimately a case of abuse or rape? Ask her?



Yes, ask her. Have her interviewed by a social worker or counselor. Make her sign an affidavit. Make her aware that this is something she'll have to live with forever. Teenagers aren't known for their judgement; if the parents can't be involved in the decision another adult should be.

[mdklatt]

Poor people aren't one's getting all the abortions. They are they one's having children.

This is why abortion shouldn't be isolated from issues like birth control education.

[Vaevictis]

Nice reply. I've always seen the 9th as kind of the people's wild card. For instance, say the SCOTUS says the 2nd should not apply to individuals, yet there are 80 million gun owners, so "gun rights" should be protected by the 9th. But what is the threashold of determining when the 9th should apply? Public opinion polls? Stats? I really don't know.

The 2nd amendment is a good example of this. IMO, the intent of the second amendment was to provide for a well-organized, locally administered militia. (Keep in mind that a big issue back then was that the Brits had tried to illegalize local military forces, but had failed to provide troops sufficient to protect against hostile natives and the French). In order to do this, a militia's members -- the citizenry -- needs to be armed.

Of course, the intent is for the well-organized militia, so I think that the militia itself could provide restrictions on what kind of weapons its members owned and used; in other words, IMO, the second amendment probably permits restrictions on weapon ownership *IF AND ONLY IF* the restrictions promote the existance of a well-organized militia. I'm not sure I know of a situation that this would actually work out in reality, but I think the basis is there.

That said, I also think that the 9th Amendment provides for private ownership of firearms, because it was considered a historical right and duty under British common law -- historically, individuals were not only permitted to keep weapons in the home, they were REQUIRED to do so so that they would be able to respond to the local lord's call to arms.

I'm not sure what all of the possible qualifications would be for a right to exist under the 9th amendment -- keep in mind, that the concept of "natural rights" were only recently invented at the time of the Revolution, so we do have a history of accepting "invented" rights -- but I would argue that one of the simpler qualifications is that it is sufficient (but not necessary) that the right existed at the time of the adoption of the 9th.

[yermom]

Yes, ask her. Have her interviewed by a social worker or counselor. Make her sign an affidavit. Make her aware that this is something she'll have to live with forever. Teenagers aren't known for their judgement; if the parents can't be involved in the decision another adult should be.

on the other end of that issue... why make it easier to sweep parental abuse under the rug?

[mdklatt]

on the other end of that issue... why make it easier to sweep parental abuse under the rug?

Right. If a teenager has to sign an affidavit or otherwise testify to the abuse you've got reasonable grounds to start an investigation.