NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to start this off by saying I do not want this to be one of those; is abortion right or wrong, immoral or not threads. Thats been done enough. What I want to know is why abortion is not a state issue, because after all if roe were overturned abortion wouldn't be banned everywhere, it would just be left up to the states. Things like education, marriage, crime and punishment and many other important issues are handled by the states. So why is it that abortion is not one of them. I'm not saying ban abortion, I'm just saying get rid of roe and let the states decide. So should the US get rid of roe v. wade?

I think it's one of those things the SC has to decide. It's not on very strong legal footing to begin with; personally, I think it would make more sense to leave it up to the states and enable them to determine their own policy without the federal government forcing a ban or legalization of abortion on a state that doesn't want it.

See, but there is a difference here. Yes, education is state run, but a state can not ban education outright. Yet, were they given the power you suggest, they could indeed ban abortion outright, and that is not a power, in my opinion, that the individual states should have.

I want to start this off by saying I do not want this to be one of those; is abortion right or wrong, immoral or not threads. Thats been done enough. What I want to know is why abortion is not a state issue, because after all if roe were overturned abortion wouldn't be banned everywhere, it would just be left up to the states. Things like education, marriage, crime and punishment and many other important issues are handled by the states. So why is it that abortion is not one of them. I'm not saying ban abortion, I'm just saying get rid of roe and let the states decide. So should the US get rid of roe v. wade?

Because some states would get rid of it in a heartbeat (a lot more than would keep it) and that would be a trampling of one of our precious "civil rights"

I want to start this off by saying I do not want this to be one of those; is abortion right or wrong, immoral or not threads. Thats been done enough. What I want to know is why abortion is not a state issue, because after all if roe were overturned abortion wouldn't be banned everywhere, it would just be left up to the states. Things like education, marriage, crime and punishment and many other important issues are handled by the states. So why is it that abortion is not one of them. I'm not saying ban abortion, I'm just saying get rid of roe and let the states decide. So should the US get rid of roe v. wade?

I think that the little things should be handled by the little people and leave the important things to people on the federal level. Hey, it works in Canada; and what do you know? We don't have couples who are married in only 2% of the country.

Well, you can't just "get rid of" a court case, without overturning it on constitutional grounds. In general I think most things should be left up to the states, but I doubt that will be happening with abortion.

IMHO, abortion can and should be left up to the individual states to decide.

Because the US Constitution trumps certain states' rights.

See, but there is a difference here. Yes, education is state run, but a state can not ban education outright. Yet, were they given the power you suggest, they could indeed ban abortion outright, and that is not a power, in my opinion, that the individual states should have.

Well, there would only be one or two states that would do that, and they'd only ban education relevant to reality.

It wouldn't allow equal access to abortions (even now it's not equal, but at least it's better than having to hop the state line). Also, given that some laws would remove abortions even for health reasons, it could be argued that it was an undue burden on women in some states, but not in others.

Because the US Constitution trumps certain states' rights.

Yes, but it also protects the rights that are delegated to the states. That's the question here, and it's one that determines the validity of Roe. If the SC were to overturn that decision and grant the power to the states, it would be completely valid.

Ah yes... the eternal perplexing question, do we row the sucker, or wade through?

I think that the little things should be handled by the little people and leave the important things to people on the federal level. Hey, it works in Canada; and what do you know? We don't have couples who are married in only 2% of the country.

Yeah, I'm not totally clear on the division of powers in the US, but in Canada, we would consider this an issue of national importance, and only deal with it at the federal level. Edit: yup, criminal law power, federal only.

Well, there would only be one or two states that would do that, and they'd only ban education relevant to reality.

If could could forever prevent the graduates of such systems from leaving those accursed states and spreading their ignorance, then your suggestion might have merit;)

Yes, but it also protects the rights that are delegated to the states. That's the question here, and it's one that determines the validity of Roe. If the SC were to overturn that decision and grant the power to the states, it would be completely valid.
Therein lies the question, do states' rights trump a woman's right to privacy and her right to chose her own medical options?

Therein lies the question, do states' rights trump a woman's right to privacy and her right to chose her own medical options?

The question then becomes:

Which is more important, the 'rights' of the government, or the rights of the populace?

Therein lies the question, do states' rights trump a woman's right to privacy and her right to chose her own medical options?

Or in the larger form, does a state's right to first control medical safety and later provide for the safety of a human being (eg, late in pregancy) trump a woman's right to privacy and medical options.

Therein lies the question, do states' rights trump a woman's right to privacy and her right to chose her own medical options?

Well, it depends on whether or not the issue can be dealt with by the Federal government. If this issue isn't in its domain, then states' rights to determine their abortion laws do trump the right of that woman to have an abortion.

Yes, but it also protects the rights that are delegated to the states. That's the question here, and it's one that determines the validity of Roe. If the SC were to overturn that decision and grant the power to the states, it would be completely valid.

And also protects the rights that are protected and held by the people. In order to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would need to overturn the precedent that led to it - the precedent of recognizing a human being's right to privacy and making her own medical decisions.

If it is up to the individual states to put bans on abortion, it is also up to them to ban birth control or restrict it to only married couples (laws that were overturned in the precedent cases), or, really, to ban any type of medical procedure they come up with if they decide to do so.

See, but there is a difference here. Yes, education is state run, but a state can not ban education outright. Yet, were they given the power you suggest, they could indeed ban abortion outright, and that is not a power, in my opinion, that the individual states should have.

Well, education is being banned in a way (and no, I'm not talking about 'inteligent design'). The one place where the public sector still dominates is in education. But now public schools are getting their funding cut more and more every year, where lot's of schools are beginning to just throw their hands up and say 'what's the use? We'll just have to privatize'. So, states are banning education in the same way they are doing away with abortion right now. Abortions used to be covered by medicaid (if you can believe it), not so anymore. For decades and decades individual states have placed all sorts of qualifiers required to actually get an abortion performed within state limits that abortion has been effectivly banned in these states. It's a backdoor (backhanded) way of doing it, but it's the same way that the underfunding of public schools is having the intended effect of doing away with public education.

Or in the larger form, does a state's right to first control medical safety and later provide for the safety of a human being (eg, late in pregancy) trump a woman's right to privacy and medical options.
Ah, but that deals only with late term abortions (which are very rare) as opposed to the more common first trimester ones.

The medical safety thing confuses me a bit because AFAIK, as a medical clinic they are heavily regulated (Unless you mean the illegal ones back in the day and all that).

Well, it depends on whether or not the issue can be dealt with by the Federal government. If this issue isn't in its domain, then states' rights to determine their abortion laws do trump the right of that woman to have an abortion.

No, they don't. If certain rights are held by the people, then neither the states nor the federal government have the right to trump said rights.

Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion a federal issue. The federal government can't up and ban it any more than the states can. Roe v. Wade determined that abortion is a personal issue that, up until the government can demonstrate a state interest, the government cannot interfere with.

Well, it depends on whether or not the issue can be dealt with by the Federal government. If this issue isn't in its domain, then states' rights to determine their abortion laws do trump the right of that woman to have an abortion.

It isn't a federal matter (per se). States just aren't allowed to do what they want because they are bound by the Constitution. There really isn't a question of jurisdiction here

No, they don't. If certain rights are held by the people, then neither the states nor the federal government have the right to trump said rights.

But ultimately those rights can be changed by the government. If the SC decides that abortion, for whatever, reason, is not protected in the manner it currently is, then that right will be changed or lost.

Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion a federal issue. The federal government can't up and ban it any more than the states can. Roe v. Wade determined that abortion is a personal issue that, up until the government can demonstrate a state interest, the government cannot interfere with.

Well, it did make it a Federal issue by applying it nationwide, but that's not really relevant to what you're saying.

However, if the court decides that it is not a personal issue, it will be overturned and will go back to the states. The point is that abortion was previously a state issue until the SC decided that it was personal and was not able to be controlled by the states in the manner that the case was originally based upon.

It isn't a federal matter (per se). States just aren't allowed to do what they want because they are bound by the Constitution. There really isn't a question of jurisdiction here

Well, there kind of is. The main challenge to Roe is that the Federal government overstepped its boundaries and so that decision is not valid; if the SC were to be more aligned with the strict-interpretation side and adhered to precedent less often, this decision would be vulnerable.

No, the US should not get rid of Roe v. Wade.

The majority does not have the right to violate the human rights of females.

Well, there kind of is. The main challenge to Roe is that the Federal government overstepped its boundaries and so that decision is not valid; if the SC were to be more aligned with the strict-interpretation side and adhered to precedent less often, this decision would be vulnerable.

That's not truely jurisdiction, sorry, I'm being a pedant. Yes, you're right from a loosely defined definition of jurisdiction, but there is no real argument that the court does not have the authority to rule on the validity of aborition laws (well, there is, it just isn't really relevent anymore - any case would be rendered moot because of the time it takes for abortion cases to work their way through the courts, well over nine months, and courts were loath to allow cases by doctors seeking injunctions against laws).

But ultimately those rights can be changed by the government.

Not if they are reserved to the people. In that case, they can only be changed by amending the Constitution itself.

If the SC decides that abortion, for whatever, reason, is not protected in the manner it currently is, then that right will be changed or lost.

If the SC decides that privacy and the right to make one's own medical decisions are not guarranteed to the people (highly unlikely), then either the states or the federal government could make whatever laws they want in regards to it.

Well, it did make it a Federal issue by applying it nationwide, but that's not really relevant to what you're saying.

No more than the "right to vote" is a federal issue or the "right to equal treatment" is a federal issue. Any decision based on the US Constitution is going to hold nationwide.

Not if they are reserved to the people. In that case, they can only be changed by amending the Constitution itself.

Which is why no one is trying to overturn the right, they're trying to overturn the decision that established it formally as such. If you can overturn the legal basis to the right, the right itself doesn't matter.

If the SC decides that privacy and the right to make one's own medical decisions are not guarranteed to the people (highly unlikely), then either the states or the federal government could make whatever laws they want in regards to it.

It's highly unlikely, but chances are any attempt to overturn Roe is going to be based on the validity of the decision rather than trying to overturn the right to privacy or personal control over medical decisions.

No more than the "right to vote" is a federal issue or the "right to equal treatment" is a federal issue. Any decision based on the US Constitution is going to hold nationwide.

Well, ever since the 14th Amendment was ratified, that's been the case.

Screw the states...we need to shed this whole federation bullcrap and fully unite...

Screw the states...we need to shed this whole federation bullcrap and fully unite...

When your powers combine, I am Captain...America? God, we are so sued.

I want to start this off by saying I do not want this to be one of those; is abortion right or wrong, immoral or not threads. Thats been done enough. What I want to know is why abortion is not a state issue, because after all if roe were overturned abortion wouldn't be banned everywhere, it would just be left up to the states. Things like education, marriage, crime and punishment and many other important issues are handled by the states. So why is it that abortion is not one of them. I'm not saying ban abortion, I'm just saying get rid of roe and let the states decide. So should the US get rid of roe v. wade?Here's the short version--if abortion is a personal right, then it can't be left to the states. It is, by definition, a federal matter under those conditions.

Here's why the whole "leave it to the states" argument is a big smokescreen. Opponents of Roe v Wade talk like they want a return to the states while simultaneously pushing federal legislation to ban abortion. Partial-birth abortion ban anyone? It's a federal ban. If they're honest about wanting it to be a state's rights issue, they should stay consistent. The fact is, they're in favor of forced pregnancy and determining what women can do with their bodies--nothing less than that will be satisfactory for them.

I want to start this off by saying I do not want this to be one of those; is abortion right or wrong, immoral or not threads. Thats been done enough. What I want to know is why abortion is not a state issue, because after all if roe were overturned abortion wouldn't be banned everywhere, it would just be left up to the states. Things like education, marriage, crime and punishment and many other important issues are handled by the states. So why is it that abortion is not one of them. I'm not saying ban abortion, I'm just saying get rid of roe and let the states decide. So should the US get rid of roe v. wade?

Roe vs Wade is one of the most egregrouis examples of Federal overstretch in the post-W11 era.Many states by this time had laws on the books stating abortion was banned in their state.Then,a unelected Supreme Court steps in and elevated abortion to a constitutional right,tearing the Constitution to threads with this very tenous reading.No matter what your opinion on abortion is,whether you believe it is right or wrong,you cannot deny it is not a constitutional right.Nowhere in the Constitution does it say abortion is a right,and I believe noone should say so unless a constitutional amendment is ratified.The problem with all this is that many people incorrectly believe that Roe v Wade legalized abortion,which it didnt.It stated that abortion was a untouchable right,and all state laws were void just because.Whats annoying about all this is that many of these laws were passed by popular referendum,and by landslide margins.If the advocates of "choice" truly believed in choice,they would want Roe overturned.If Roe was to be overturned(and it should be)states that are opposed to abortion could ban it.The fact is this-if Roe was struck down,NOTHING would happen to prohibit abortion.It would simply open up the possibility.Blue States that belive in abortion rights could go on practicing it unhindered WITHIN THIER OWN BORDERS.Who is shoving whos beliefs down others throats?It would solve the problem completely to let the states decide,which is what we had and was working fine until said Supreme Court decision.There would no longer be a contreversy,because the Red and Blue States would jsut leave each other alone on the issue.

I want to start this off by saying I do not want this to be one of those; is abortion right or wrong, immoral or not threads. Thats been done enough. What I want to know is why abortion is not a state issue, because after all if roe were overturned abortion wouldn't be banned everywhere, it would just be left up to the states. Things like education, marriage, crime and punishment and many other important issues are handled by the states. So why is it that abortion is not one of them. I'm not saying ban abortion, I'm just saying get rid of roe and let the states decide. So should the US get rid of roe v. wade?

Yes.

snip
By that "logic," there's no right to marry because there's no such right in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court found such a right in Loving. Trust me--you don't want to go down this argumentative road. There are thousands of things that we consider rights that are not explicitly laid out in the Constitution--they're understood to be covered by the abstract language the Framers used and the penumbras created by overlapping Amendments. If you can't see that, it's a failing on your part, not on the Court's.

When your powers combine, I am Captain...America? God, we are so sued.
Psst! Uncle Sam! Make him Uncle Sam and we'll escape the threat of lawsuits.

First of all. Spaces are your friend - even between sentences.

Roe vs Wade is one of the most egregrouis examples of Federal overstretch in the post-W11 era.

Really? Interesting. How is it a "federal overstretch" to reserve rights to the people?

Many states by this time had laws on the books stating abortion was banned in their state.Then,a unelected Supreme Court steps in and elevated abortion to a constitutional right,tearing the Constitution to threads with this very tenous reading.

Actually, no Supreme Court case has ever listed abortion itself as a constitutional right. Abortion, like any medical procedure, falls under the right to privacy and the right to make one's own medical decisions.

Would you be in favor of allowing the states to ban appendectomies? Transplants? Antibiotics?

No matter what your opinion on abortion is,whether you believe it is right or wrong,you cannot deny it is not a constitutional right.

It falls under several.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say abortion is a right,and I believe noone should say so unless a constitutional amendment is ratified.

Read the 9th Amendment.

It is exceedingly clear that there are rights retained by the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If this were not true, you'd actually lose many, many legally recognized rights.

If you want every right that a citizen has to be expressly spelled out in the Constitution, you better get to writing. Eventually, when the document is so long that it needs several bookcases to hold it, you might be close.

The problem with all this is that many people incorrectly believe that Roe v Wade legalized abortion,which it didnt.It stated that abortion was a untouchable right,and all state laws were void just because.

It stated no such thing. In fact, once the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting abortion, it can do so. There are many state laws regarding abortion that are perfectly constitutional.

Whats annoying about all this is that many of these laws were passed by popular referendum,and by landslide margins.

Slavery was once popularly approved, as was segregation. At one time, popular opinion held that homosexuals should be arrested if they have sex and that no one but married couples should have access to birth control. At one time, popular opinion held that interracial marriage should be legally banned.

And so on and so on.....

Luckily, the US government has never been based in absolute democracy. There is a limit to what can be voted into law, even if it is popular.

If the advocates of "choice" truly believed in choice,they would want Roe overturned.

Not at all. The choice being advocated is that of the individual, not the choice of a tyrranical majority to remove the rights of the individual.

Who is shoving whos beliefs down others throats?

One who attempts to ban abortion is shoving their own belief down others' throats. One who is pro-choice shoves nothing. A person who is opposed to abortion is not going to be forced to have one.

It would solve the problem completely to let the states decide,which is what we had and was working fine until said Supreme Court decision.

Sure, if by "working fine", you mean, "women were often treated as subhuman and were likely to die seeking under-the-table treatment."

Sure, if by "working fine", you mean, "women were often treated as subhuman and were likely to die seeking under-the-table treatment."
Let me just add the word "poor" to your construction there, because abortion was readily available to women who could afford it, no matter what the state laws said, and should Roe v Wade be overturned, we'll return to precisely that situation. Rich and upper middle class women will get abortions, and poor and working class women will be enslaved to pregnancy by the state.

Let me just add the word "poor" to your construction there, because abortion was readily available to women who could afford it, no matter what the state laws said, and should Roe v Wade be overturned, we'll return to precisely that situation. Rich and upper middle class women will get abortions, and poor and working class women will be enslaved to pregnancy by the state.

Indeed.

....Who is shoving whos beliefs down others throats?It would solve the problem completely to let the states decide,which is what we had and was working fine until said Supreme Court decision.There would no longer be a contreversy,because the Red and Blue States would jsut leave each other alone on the issue.

The people who oppose abortion would be unaffected, as they wouldnt have them anyway, regardless of the legality. The only people having anyones beliefs shoved down their throats would be the ones who needed/wanted abortions, but lived in states which banned them. If course they could just travel to another state, assuming they could afford to....

Also well done Soviestan for starting a sensible and intelligent debate.

Abortion rights should be preserved and fuck what the states decide.

And, again, this brings up my point: if the states were to require women to have babies, why don't they pass laws requiring unwanted babies to be adopted? Until every pro-lifer out there pledges to adopt these children who were "saved" by refusing this procedure, and does, then they're big asshole hypocrites. They should also be required to attend funeral services for women who died in child-birth because they were denied an abortion.

Therein lies the question, do states' rights trump a woman's right to privacy and her right to chose her own medical options?
I'd have to say no.

And, again, this brings up my point: if the states were to require women to have babies, why don't they pass laws requiring unwanted babies to be adopted? Until every pro-lifer out there pledges to adopt these children who were "saved" by refusing this procedure, and does, then they're big asshole hypocrites. They should also be required to attend funeral services for women who died in child-birth because they were denied an abortion. Hmm, I need to make a poll about this.

By that "logic," there's no right to marry because there's no such right in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court found such a right in Loving. Trust me--you don't want to go down this argumentative road. There are thousands of things that we consider rights that are not explicitly laid out in the Constitution--they're understood to be covered by the abstract language the Framers used and the penumbras created by overlapping Amendments. If you can't see that, it's a failing on your part, not on the Court's.

No.That is not what I said.What I said is that abortion is not a CONSTITUTIONAL right,which it isnt.The problem with all this is that once you move outside the boundaries of the constitution,there is no constitution.It is no longer suscepitalbe to any definition.Government can take any shape it wants and the paper becomes largely symbolic.Even if you think so,why not just allow state votes,which is what my point was?