5 ms·
The U.S. should pass a law rather than relying on a court decision. Roe v Wade was a poor decision from a legal standpoint. For example, why were abortions in t
by danity 4y ago
The U.S. should pass a law rather than relying on a court decision. Roe v Wade was a poor decision from a legal standpoint. For example, why were abortions in the first trimester considered due process under the 14th amendment but in the last 2 trimesters they were not? The court should not be creating the law, the legislature should be doing that. Pass a law in the U.S. legislature and that will take precedence over state law (see the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution).
- nickff 4y agoIt would be difficult to pass a pro-choice (or pro-abortion) federal law which complied with the constitution, as the 'right' doesn't fall under any of the enumerated powers, and seems to be clearly within the power of the states. It seems like the only way to have a federal right to abortion is to have a constitutional right (like Roe v. Wade).
- dahfizz 4y ago> It seems like the only way to have a federal right to abortion is to have a constitutional right (like Roe v. Wade). A constitutional amendment would be ideal, but seems very unlikely. I don't see why the Congress couldn't write laws guaranteeing access to abortion, though. We have laws in that vein, like the ADA.
- heretogetout 4y agoThe way I see it the courts are there to ensure our civil rights are not violated by laws. A law that "allows" abortion doesn't really make sense in that light. Unless the law is a prohibition on passing laws restricting this right, I guess, although that would be silly.
- _justinfunk 4y agoThe way you see it, unfortunately, does not make it so. The constitution limits how the government can infringe on the rights of the people. If the courts say that a right to abortion is not in the constitution, then amend the constitution to add it. Until that point, it is up to the representatives of the people (i.e. the legislature at the state or federal level) to make laws.
- heretogetout 4y agoI think we're in agreement on the core concepts here. We may disagree on what specific rights the constitution protects, but I'm not certain.
- vlovich123 4y agoSCOTUS has now said both things actually at different points in time without any constitutional changes. Shouldn’t decisions generally be considered durable unless there’s some kind of obvious injustice being perpetrated? There’s a reason overturning this particular law is so bad. It’s a cultural flashpoint and SCOTUS has just lit the match and blown up any semblance of them being an apolitical body. Not just with this one decision but the gun control case too. Another commenter pointed it out. This particular bench is picking and choosing fairly inconsistently and extremely ideologically about how they want to rule and then trying to find some justification for it. Consider this. All the evidence to date suggests that abortions (generally) are extremely rare, extremely safe, and generally difficult choices. This is the government getting involved in YOUR healthcare which is very much a privacy issue so dismissing it as “it’s not constitutional” is tone deaf because the argument had been made that it is and been the law of the land for half a decade. Another example was when they didn’t sustain the lawsuit against Texas’ abortion law. Wanna bet they’ll ban any similar legislation aimed at gun seller and manufacturers? Why does the 14th amendment warrant less protection than the 2nd? Not to mention that the 2nd at no point was about personal gun ownership. Well-regulated militia is about states being able to regulate their own armed forces outside of federal control, not implicitly deputizing every citizen of a state as part of a militia the state can’t regulate (one of the rare cases where textualism and living document should be in agreement and they’re not).
- remarkEon 4y ago>There’s a reason overturning this particular law is so bad. It’s a cultural flashpoint and SCOTUS has just lit the match and blown up any semblance of them being an apolitical body. Not just with this one decision but the gun control case too. SCOTUS does not concern itself with the angered mob (paraphrasing Dobbs and a few other cases). It exists to read and interpret the law. Do you want a Court that bends its rulings to the "match and blow up"? I certainly don't.
- bashinator 4y agoIt’s not silly at all - that’s how e.g. the first amendment works. “Congress shall pass no law limiting the freedom of …”
- heretogetout 4y agoThe silly part is passing a law that would basically say "don't do something unconstitutional".
- acchow 4y agoThe courts back then couldn't find in the constitution a way to make a solid case. They were hoping that the legislative branch would be able to get this done in a few decades. They did not.