5 ms·

Abortion isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution, aside from perhaps a right to life? Are you referring to Roe v. Wade? If so, that's a court decision.

Akronymus 4y ago
roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right. But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up. Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      The constitution doesn’t grant rights to the people but sets down the restrictions on what the federal government can and can not do. Anything and everything not specifically outlined in it is either retained by the people or governed by the states. If the Supreme Court says the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction they are simply returning the responsibility to the states or default legal status. They literally can’t strip away a right by returning it to the people.
    - leephillips 4y ago
      The Supreme Court upholds a proud tradition of pretending that the 9th and 10th amendments don’t exist. I believe I remember Judge Bork pointing out, to general outrage, during his “confirmation” “hearings” that these amendments essentially don’t mean anything. He was just calling attention to the sad truth of the matter.
  - everforward 4y ago
    Their argument about trimesters isn't terribly bad. The basic gist is that there are competing interests: that of the woman and control over her body, and that of the state in its interests in protecting humans. They basically ignore the question of whether a fetus is alive or a citizen. It's the state's interest in protecting a potential person/citizen vs the woman's right to privacy. The trimester system allows the controlling interest to shift as the fetus becomes closer to a citizen (and thus increasing the validity of the state's interest). In the first trimester, it's not at all close to a citizen and the woman's rights reign supreme. There are some concessions for the state in the second trimester, and by the third trimester, it's close enough to a citizen that the state has a compelling interest in preventing harm. They explicitly call out that the right to privacy is not absolute, which is basically par for the course. The 1st Amendment doesn't let you incite violence, the second doesn't guarantee your right to buy a tank and ammunition, felons can't vote, prisoners can be slaves, etc. Basically none of our rights are absolute. It's a balance between preserving the rights of the people and the interests of the state. It's an arbitrary framework, which the SC acknowledged, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Without a consensus on when life begins, that's always going to be an arbitrary line.
jaywalk 4y ago
According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is covered by the 14th Amendment. Which is ludicrous regardless of how you feel about abortion.
sophacles 4y ago
The 9th amendment certainly covers it. It says: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The upcoming court ruling, denies and disparages a right that was retained by the people for the last 50 years. In fact, it leads me to believe that the very reasoning used by the SC according to the memo is unconstitutional (they argue that since the word abortion doesn't appear in the constitution that it can't be considered by the court, a position that goes against the text and spirit of the 9th amendment)
- hn_version_0023 4y ago
  The Supreme Court has been stacked with ideologues and possibly criminals (given Mr. Kavanaugh’s history). I’ve even read that getting Gorsuch on the court required a huge payoff to Mr. Breyer — open corruption. I’m not well versed enough in its history to know if this is abnormal. I find it unacceptable, but given the state of government in the US, I don’t have any solutions.
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  Abortion is absolutely not covered in the Constitution and Roe v Wade was a one of the most twisted bits of logic I've ever seen out of the court. We need real legislation rather then trying to stretch amendments to cover things that they clearly don't.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I was tempted to see it that way, but the general right to be left alone by the government is most certainly in the founding character of the country. That right to be left alone most certainly applies to medical care. The only thing novel about Roe v Wade was applying the newer standard of gender equality to extend the right to be left alone to women. Since we're talking about abortion, let's restate what should be abundantly clear - nobody is using abortion as a substitute for birth control. "Pro-choice" is an utterly stupid term that plays right into the political tempest-in-a-tea-pot, completely on-brand for the Democratic party. An appropriate label would be pro-medical-care. This whole topic is akin to debating whether individual states should be able to prevent their residents from receiving blood transfusions.

Akronymus 4y ago

roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.

robonerd 4y ago
Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right. But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up. Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.
- sophacles 4y ago
  You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    The constitution doesn’t grant rights to the people but sets down the restrictions on what the federal government can and can not do. Anything and everything not specifically outlined in it is either retained by the people or governed by the states. If the Supreme Court says the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction they are simply returning the responsibility to the states or default legal status. They literally can’t strip away a right by returning it to the people.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    The Supreme Court upholds a proud tradition of pretending that the 9th and 10th amendments don’t exist. I believe I remember Judge Bork pointing out, to general outrage, during his “confirmation” “hearings” that these amendments essentially don’t mean anything. He was just calling attention to the sad truth of the matter.
- everforward 4y ago
  Their argument about trimesters isn't terribly bad. The basic gist is that there are competing interests: that of the woman and control over her body, and that of the state in its interests in protecting humans. They basically ignore the question of whether a fetus is alive or a citizen. It's the state's interest in protecting a potential person/citizen vs the woman's right to privacy. The trimester system allows the controlling interest to shift as the fetus becomes closer to a citizen (and thus increasing the validity of the state's interest). In the first trimester, it's not at all close to a citizen and the woman's rights reign supreme. There are some concessions for the state in the second trimester, and by the third trimester, it's close enough to a citizen that the state has a compelling interest in preventing harm. They explicitly call out that the right to privacy is not absolute, which is basically par for the course. The 1st Amendment doesn't let you incite violence, the second doesn't guarantee your right to buy a tank and ammunition, felons can't vote, prisoners can be slaves, etc. Basically none of our rights are absolute. It's a balance between preserving the rights of the people and the interests of the state. It's an arbitrary framework, which the SC acknowledged, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Without a consensus on when life begins, that's always going to be an arbitrary line.

jaywalk 4y ago

According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is covered by the 14th Amendment. Which is ludicrous regardless of how you feel about abortion.

sophacles 4y ago

The 9th amendment certainly covers it. It says: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The upcoming court ruling, denies and disparages a right that was retained by the people for the last 50 years. In fact, it leads me to believe that the very reasoning used by the SC according to the memo is unconstitutional (they argue that since the word abortion doesn't appear in the constitution that it can't be considered by the court, a position that goes against the text and spirit of the 9th amendment)

hn_version_0023 4y ago
The Supreme Court has been stacked with ideologues and possibly criminals (given Mr. Kavanaugh’s history). I’ve even read that getting Gorsuch on the court required a huge payoff to Mr. Breyer — open corruption. I’m not well versed enough in its history to know if this is abnormal. I find it unacceptable, but given the state of government in the US, I don’t have any solutions.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
Abortion is absolutely not covered in the Constitution and Roe v Wade was a one of the most twisted bits of logic I've ever seen out of the court. We need real legislation rather then trying to stretch amendments to cover things that they clearly don't.
- mindslight 4y ago
  I was tempted to see it that way, but the general right to be left alone by the government is most certainly in the founding character of the country. That right to be left alone most certainly applies to medical care. The only thing novel about Roe v Wade was applying the newer standard of gender equality to extend the right to be left alone to women. Since we're talking about abortion, let's restate what should be abundantly clear - nobody is using abortion as a substitute for birth control. "Pro-choice" is an utterly stupid term that plays right into the political tempest-in-a-tea-pot, completely on-brand for the Democratic party. An appropriate label would be pro-medical-care. This whole topic is akin to debating whether individual states should be able to prevent their residents from receiving blood transfusions.