4 ms·

> I'm not quite sure what part of the constitution covers abortion, and I'm familiar with the ruling. You don't seem to be asking, but for Roe vs Wade it's the

> I'm not quite sure what part of the constitution covers abortion, and I'm familiar with the ruling. You don't seem to be asking, but for Roe vs Wade it's the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with it, if you're familiar with the ruling then you must know that much.

lliamander 4y ago
The constitutional case there is far weaker than the case for encryption (or firearms, for that matter).
- robonerd 4y ago
  You don't have to agree with a ruling to understand a ruling. In this case, understanding Roe vs Wade means understanding that it was argued using the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with Roe vs Wade is rather irrelevant.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    It's very relevant; the current public abortion debate is a direct consequence of the fact that the supreme court doesn't agree with the ruling. You don't have to agree with it to understand it, nor to understand that it is incorrect. When this future ruling comes down, I highly doubt you'll be citing it as justification for it's own existence and saying that disagreement is irrelevant. Those that are happy with it won't be either, they'll justify it by saying it is the correct one, in their opinion. Whether one agrees or not is at the core of the conversation.
usrn 4y ago
I'm not seeing it in there. Do you have a section number? All it says is: "everyone born here is a person" and "we don't recognize politicians or debt from rebellions."
- helpfulclippy 4y ago
  Basically, Roe’s logic goes like this: The 14th amendment gives everyone equal protection of the law, including from their state governments. SCOTUS historically took that to mean that there are federal restrictions on state law. A few relevant to the history of Roe: - States are bound by the bill of rights (eg. they can’t violate your free speech for instance) - States can’t tell you where your kid has to go to school, or what they can or can’t study - States can’t restrict access to contraceptives Since the 9th amendment acknowledges the existence of rights NOT enumerated in the constitution, the court decided that it has to look at rights that are historical and customary, or contained in the “penumbra” of enumerated rights. Since you have a right to be safe from searches and seizures, and to be free from having the government quarter troops in your home, and whatever unenumerated rights exist, they’d several years prior agreed includes “marital privacy” to protect couples’ rights to choose whether to use birth control. Shortly thereafter in Roe they decided that women have a right to choose to get an abortion prior to the first trimester. They chose that cutoff based on historical and customary treatment of abortion in English common law as well as older western legal traditions. That’s a pretty brief summary, but that’s how they got there.
honkdaddy 4y ago
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's the one people use, right?
betwixthewires 4y ago
I am aware, but anybody that takes even a cursory look at it knows that it was "legislating from the bench" as it were. And you might be OK with that, you might be happy about it because you think abortion should be enumerated. But it is plain as day that it isn't, and doesn't fall within the scope of any enumerated right, or within the direct purview of the federal government and therefore outside of that of the states.

lliamander 4y ago

The constitutional case there is far weaker than the case for encryption (or firearms, for that matter).

robonerd 4y ago
You don't have to agree with a ruling to understand a ruling. In this case, understanding Roe vs Wade means understanding that it was argued using the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with Roe vs Wade is rather irrelevant.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  It's very relevant; the current public abortion debate is a direct consequence of the fact that the supreme court doesn't agree with the ruling. You don't have to agree with it to understand it, nor to understand that it is incorrect. When this future ruling comes down, I highly doubt you'll be citing it as justification for it's own existence and saying that disagreement is irrelevant. Those that are happy with it won't be either, they'll justify it by saying it is the correct one, in their opinion. Whether one agrees or not is at the core of the conversation.

usrn 4y ago

I'm not seeing it in there. Do you have a section number? All it says is: "everyone born here is a person" and "we don't recognize politicians or debt from rebellions."

helpfulclippy 4y ago
Basically, Roe’s logic goes like this: The 14th amendment gives everyone equal protection of the law, including from their state governments. SCOTUS historically took that to mean that there are federal restrictions on state law. A few relevant to the history of Roe: - States are bound by the bill of rights (eg. they can’t violate your free speech for instance) - States can’t tell you where your kid has to go to school, or what they can or can’t study - States can’t restrict access to contraceptives Since the 9th amendment acknowledges the existence of rights NOT enumerated in the constitution, the court decided that it has to look at rights that are historical and customary, or contained in the “penumbra” of enumerated rights. Since you have a right to be safe from searches and seizures, and to be free from having the government quarter troops in your home, and whatever unenumerated rights exist, they’d several years prior agreed includes “marital privacy” to protect couples’ rights to choose whether to use birth control. Shortly thereafter in Roe they decided that women have a right to choose to get an abortion prior to the first trimester. They chose that cutoff based on historical and customary treatment of abortion in English common law as well as older western legal traditions. That’s a pretty brief summary, but that’s how they got there.

honkdaddy 4y ago

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's the one people use, right?

betwixthewires 4y ago

I am aware, but anybody that takes even a cursory look at it knows that it was "legislating from the bench" as it were. And you might be OK with that, you might be happy about it because you think abortion should be enumerated. But it is plain as day that it isn't, and doesn't fall within the scope of any enumerated right, or within the direct purview of the federal government and therefore outside of that of the states.