13 ms·

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. S

I`m not american, but lets be honest. Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. States can now do their onw diligence about the subject. So it`s not the end of the word for pro-choise people.

invokestatic 4y ago
It's actually written in the Constitution that we as Americans enjoy many rights that aren't explicitly written in the text. It's in the 9th amendment and 14th amendment due process clause. The 14th, to me, encompasses everything that it means to be American: self-autonomy. The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  The issue there is the reactionaries who claim to be 'textualists' and 'originalists' have all but decided the ninth amendment is meaningless. Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people". Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    How does this relate to this issue? I don't see that the SCOTUS has contradicted the 9th by saying what isn't in the constitution.
- lesstyzing 4y ago
  If the constitution is so vague that different judges will interpret it completely differently (and it "encompasses everything that it means to be American"), you need to fix the constitution. Having judges interpret vague things the way the people of the day want is a recipe for...exactly what's happening now.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  - Sparkle-san 4y ago
    Abortion wasn't made illegal in most states until the mid 1800s. Benjamin Franklin even published information on what can be used to perform an abortion in one of this books.
    - _dain_ 4y ago
      Wrong, this is refuted at length in the Dobbs ruling. >That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule. Hale and Blackstone explained a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child” a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given “unlawfully to destroy her child within her.” 1 Hale 429–430 (emphasis added). As Blackstone explained, to be “murder” a killing had to be done with “malice aforethought, . . . either express or implied.” 4 Blackstone 198 (emphasis deleted). In the case of an abortionist, Blackstone wrote, “the law will imply [malice]” for the same reason that it would imply malice if a person who intended to kill one person accidentally killed a different person: >“[I]f one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B, this is murder; because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other. The same is the case, where one lays poison for A; and B, against whom the prisoner had no malicious intent, takes it, and it kills him; this is likewise murder. So also, if one gives a woman with child a medicine to procure abortion, and it operates so violently as to kill the woman, this is murder in the person who gave it.” Id., at 200–201 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).29 >Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be “with quick child”—only that she be “with child.” Id., at 201. And it is revealing that Hale and Blackstone treated abortionists differently from other physicians or surgeons who caused the death of a patient “without any intent of doing [the patient] any bodily hurt.” Hale 429; see 4 Blackstone 197. These other physicians—even if “unlicensed”—would not be “guilty of murder or manslaughter.” Hale 429. But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an “unlawful” one. >In sum, although common-law authorities differed on the severity of punishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common-law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. >In this country, the historical record is similar. The “most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 594 (2008), reported Blackstone’s statement that abortion of a quick child was at least “a heinous misdemeanor,” 2 St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 129–130 (1803), and that edition also included Blackstone’s discussion of the proto-felony-murder rule, 5 id., at 200–201. Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion, and some manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication “unlawfully to destroy the child” would be guilty of murder if the woman died. See, e.g., J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 220 (1788); 2 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 221–222 (7th ed. 1762) (English manual stating the same).30 >The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. See generally Dellapenna 215–228 (collecting cases). In Maryland in 1652, for example, an indictment charged that a man “Murtherously endeavoured to destroy or Murther the Child by him begotten in the Womb.” Proprietary v. Mitchell, 10 Md. Archives 80, 183 (1652) (W. Browne ed. 1891). And by the 19th century, courts frequently explained that the common law made abortion of a quick child a crime. See, e.g., Smith v. Gaffard, 31 Ala. 45, 51 (1857); Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 55 (1851); State v. Cooper, 22 N. J. L. 52, 52–55 (1849); Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 264–268 (1845). Ben Franklin could publish what he liked; that didn't make it legal, or a right.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  > The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.
- the_solenoid 4y ago
  I thought we have inalienable rights, and the constitution is there to carve out where we DONT have them. http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-rights-defining-a-negative-rights-constitution/ http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-r...
- tshaddox 4y ago
  > The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. Lest they be accused of inconsistency, this Supreme Court likely intends to remove any existing protections for those rights as well.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
It's not the end of pro-choice nor is it the right-wing victory that people think it is.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  Thomas literally wrote in concurrence that this decision also implies that Lawrence, Obergefell, and Griswold are on the chopping block next.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Until it actually happens I don't care. Almost anything can happen. There is not enough time in the day to get worked up over everything that can happen.
    - fuzzer37 4y ago
      > This doesn't affect me therefore I don't care about my fellow citizens.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Wild speculation about the future doesn't affect anybody.
        rhinoceraptor 4y ago
        Exactly how is it wild speculation when they are outright admitting that they want to do it, and they have enough far-right reactionaries on the court to do it?
    - generj 4y ago
      You do realize this exact same argument was made for decades as the Federalist Society worked to make today’s ruling happen?
  - polski-g 4y ago
showerst 4y ago
The problem is that it just exacerbates an already major problem in America: access to healthcare is based on where you live and how wealthy your parents are. Wealthy republicans can just fly their teenage daughters to a blue state, while poor people will inevitably end up getting back-alley abortions.
- juve1996 4y ago
  You're kidding yourself if you think the fundamentalists will stop at the states.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Wealthy people will have access even under a federal ban.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
curiousllama 4y ago
>Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, in its entirety. In other words: there is an entire Amendment specifically dedicated to refuting this argument. People have rights, even if they're not specifically written in the Constitution.
- xdennis 4y ago
  Yes, the argument is bad, but he's right. The 9th amendment says some rights aren't mentioned. But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states.
  - curiousllama 4y ago
    > But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states. Abortion was not, in fact, banned when that amendment was written. The first full ban was in New York in 1829. [1] Besides, the legal issue is not whether abortion is one of those rights per se, but rather whether privacy is an implicit right (almost certainly), and whether family planning (abortion, yes, but also contraception & choice of sex partner) is a sufficiently private decision that the government is restrained from regulating it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Connecticut%20was%20the%20first%20U.S.,abortions%20a%20misdemeanor%20in%201829 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#....
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    The preceding amendments are examples of the types of freedoms given the people, and the types of limitations imposed on the governments. Then it goes on to say, this is not an exhaustive list of rights for people, but is an exhaustive list of rights to the federal government. The right to potentially life saving treatment sounds an awful lot like those enumerated in the first amendment, and the right to not have the government force you to go through an potentially deadly and avoidable situation sounds in the spirit of the eighth amendment.
foodforthots 4y ago
This is an accurate viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of states permit abortion and are not going to backtrack. The federal government has not banned abortion, and their legal ability to do so would be Constitutionally sketchy at best. There is a clear democratic path to settling the abortion issue in the states. The news here isn’t a Supreme Court overriding voters, but devolving the decision of abortion rights to voters in the states and their elected representatives.
AlexandrB 4y ago
See you in ~2.5 years when the Republican president signs a federal abortion ban.

invokestatic 4y ago

It's actually written in the Constitution that we as Americans enjoy many rights that aren't explicitly written in the text. It's in the 9th amendment and 14th amendment due process clause. The 14th, to me, encompasses everything that it means to be American: self-autonomy. The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause.

newaccount2021 4y ago
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
The issue there is the reactionaries who claim to be 'textualists' and 'originalists' have all but decided the ninth amendment is meaningless. Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people". Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  How does this relate to this issue? I don't see that the SCOTUS has contradicted the 9th by saying what isn't in the constitution.
lesstyzing 4y ago
If the constitution is so vague that different judges will interpret it completely differently (and it "encompasses everything that it means to be American"), you need to fix the constitution. Having judges interpret vague things the way the people of the day want is a recipe for...exactly what's happening now.
_dain_ 4y ago
- Sparkle-san 4y ago
  Abortion wasn't made illegal in most states until the mid 1800s. Benjamin Franklin even published information on what can be used to perform an abortion in one of this books.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    Wrong, this is refuted at length in the Dobbs ruling. >That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule. Hale and Blackstone explained a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child” a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given “unlawfully to destroy her child within her.” 1 Hale 429–430 (emphasis added). As Blackstone explained, to be “murder” a killing had to be done with “malice aforethought, . . . either express or implied.” 4 Blackstone 198 (emphasis deleted). In the case of an abortionist, Blackstone wrote, “the law will imply [malice]” for the same reason that it would imply malice if a person who intended to kill one person accidentally killed a different person: >“[I]f one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B, this is murder; because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other. The same is the case, where one lays poison for A; and B, against whom the prisoner had no malicious intent, takes it, and it kills him; this is likewise murder. So also, if one gives a woman with child a medicine to procure abortion, and it operates so violently as to kill the woman, this is murder in the person who gave it.” Id., at 200–201 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).29 >Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be “with quick child”—only that she be “with child.” Id., at 201. And it is revealing that Hale and Blackstone treated abortionists differently from other physicians or surgeons who caused the death of a patient “without any intent of doing [the patient] any bodily hurt.” Hale 429; see 4 Blackstone 197. These other physicians—even if “unlicensed”—would not be “guilty of murder or manslaughter.” Hale 429. But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an “unlawful” one. >In sum, although common-law authorities differed on the severity of punishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common-law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. >In this country, the historical record is similar. The “most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 594 (2008), reported Blackstone’s statement that abortion of a quick child was at least “a heinous misdemeanor,” 2 St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 129–130 (1803), and that edition also included Blackstone’s discussion of the proto-felony-murder rule, 5 id., at 200–201. Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion, and some manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication “unlawfully to destroy the child” would be guilty of murder if the woman died. See, e.g., J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 220 (1788); 2 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 221–222 (7th ed. 1762) (English manual stating the same).30 >The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. See generally Dellapenna 215–228 (collecting cases). In Maryland in 1652, for example, an indictment charged that a man “Murtherously endeavoured to destroy or Murther the Child by him begotten in the Womb.” Proprietary v. Mitchell, 10 Md. Archives 80, 183 (1652) (W. Browne ed. 1891). And by the 19th century, courts frequently explained that the common law made abortion of a quick child a crime. See, e.g., Smith v. Gaffard, 31 Ala. 45, 51 (1857); Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 55 (1851); State v. Cooper, 22 N. J. L. 52, 52–55 (1849); Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 264–268 (1845). Ben Franklin could publish what he liked; that didn't make it legal, or a right.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.
the_solenoid 4y ago
I thought we have inalienable rights, and the constitution is there to carve out where we DONT have them. http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-rights-defining-a-negative-rights-constitution/ http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-r...
tshaddox 4y ago
> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. Lest they be accused of inconsistency, this Supreme Court likely intends to remove any existing protections for those rights as well.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

It's not the end of pro-choice nor is it the right-wing victory that people think it is.

rhinoceraptor 4y ago
Thomas literally wrote in concurrence that this decision also implies that Lawrence, Obergefell, and Griswold are on the chopping block next.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Until it actually happens I don't care. Almost anything can happen. There is not enough time in the day to get worked up over everything that can happen.
  - fuzzer37 4y ago
    > This doesn't affect me therefore I don't care about my fellow citizens.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Wild speculation about the future doesn't affect anybody.
      - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
        Exactly how is it wild speculation when they are outright admitting that they want to do it, and they have enough far-right reactionaries on the court to do it?
  - generj 4y ago
    You do realize this exact same argument was made for decades as the Federalist Society worked to make today’s ruling happen?
- polski-g 4y ago

showerst 4y ago

The problem is that it just exacerbates an already major problem in America: access to healthcare is based on where you live and how wealthy your parents are. Wealthy republicans can just fly their teenage daughters to a blue state, while poor people will inevitably end up getting back-alley abortions.

juve1996 4y ago
You're kidding yourself if you think the fundamentalists will stop at the states.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Wealthy people will have access even under a federal ban.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

curiousllama 4y ago

>Is not a constitution right because is not in the constitution. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment, in its entirety. In other words: there is an entire Amendment specifically dedicated to refuting this argument. People have rights, even if they're not specifically written in the Constitution.

xdennis 4y ago
Yes, the argument is bad, but he's right. The 9th amendment says some rights aren't mentioned. But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states.
- curiousllama 4y ago
  > But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states. Abortion was not, in fact, banned when that amendment was written. The first full ban was in New York in 1829. [1] Besides, the legal issue is not whether abortion is one of those rights per se, but rather whether privacy is an implicit right (almost certainly), and whether family planning (abortion, yes, but also contraception & choice of sex partner) is a sufficiently private decision that the government is restrained from regulating it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Connecticut%20was%20the%20first%20U.S.,abortions%20a%20misdemeanor%20in%201829 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#....
- mywittyname 4y ago
  The preceding amendments are examples of the types of freedoms given the people, and the types of limitations imposed on the governments. Then it goes on to say, this is not an exhaustive list of rights for people, but is an exhaustive list of rights to the federal government. The right to potentially life saving treatment sounds an awful lot like those enumerated in the first amendment, and the right to not have the government force you to go through an potentially deadly and avoidable situation sounds in the spirit of the eighth amendment.

foodforthots 4y ago

This is an accurate viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of states permit abortion and are not going to backtrack. The federal government has not banned abortion, and their legal ability to do so would be Constitutionally sketchy at best. There is a clear democratic path to settling the abortion issue in the states. The news here isn’t a Supreme Court overriding voters, but devolving the decision of abortion rights to voters in the states and their elected representatives.

AlexandrB 4y ago

See you in ~2.5 years when the Republican president signs a federal abortion ban.