It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Rolls Back Obama’s Birth Control Coverage Rule

page: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

viable does not mean "potential life", it means that if it was delivered today, it would have a decent chance at survival.
which means that at that point, if the women chose to evict it from her womb, an abortion isn't necessary, one could just induce labor and deliver the baby premature and provide the necessary care needed till it finished it's development and could survive on it's own.
but, it's quite possible that the courts could decide that yes, the women could still evict..




posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Viable does not equal born. It means that an UNBORN baby has the viability to live IF it is born. That is NOT what the constitution says about constitutional rights.

And guess what.... The SC made their ruling on viability WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. That is undeniable unless you want to dance around reality.

You are now CHANGING what the constitution says in order to fit your silly argument that the constitution has to be changed to repeal Roe vs Wade. Jeez.


Rand Paul's bill, if successful, would make it impossible for the SC NOT to overturn Roe vs Wade, but it does not mean they can not repeal it anyway without such a bill becoming law, so your reliance on this proposal to support your argument is moot.

For clarity, there are THREE often discussed ways of repealing Roe vs Wade.

1) Changing the Constitution - i.e. Rand Paul's bill that would all but guarantee a SC reversal
2) Getting the SC to reverse the decision on their own (2 does not require 1)
3) Congress passing a LAW that restricts the SC authority to rule on abortion - as per ARTICLE III, section 2 of the constitution. (e.g Sanctity of Life Act 2005)
www.thenewamerican.com...
edit on 13/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Good luck with #1. It's more complicated than you think. But, they certainly are trying their hardest.

As far as #2, I've asked you before, please give me an example of a hypothetical case that can be brought before SCOTUS that would compel them to reverse their decision. What kind of argument would be presented that doesn't require them to see the unborn as "people", which would violate the 14th Amendment.

#3, good try. Desperate try.


Court from hearing abortion cases, stated:
The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof:
(1) Protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2)   Prohibits, limits, or regulates —
(A) the performance of abortions; or
(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.:


I've seen this. It's outrageous and needs its own thread. (maybe someone should make one)

This proposed law will never happen. It doesn't overturn Roe V Wade, it ignores it, and grants state authority over its women's autonomy.

It violates the Constitution and would be struck down by SCOTUS, not because of the subject matter of "abortion", but because its very core violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment, inserting opinion over law, that the unborn have rights above and beyond those of the woman.
This is pie in the sky, that will not fly in the USA as we know it!

In fact, this thread isn't about the repeal of Roe V Wade. It's about a 20 week "pain capable" pseudo science bill that would prevent women who have had a dire medical diagnosis after 20 weeks, but before viability to opt for abortion.

It's unconstitutional.

edit on 13-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




This proposed law will never happen.


Any such law only requires a majority vote in Congress (assuming no filbuster).
In other words it CAN happen, which would make the SC powerless against moves in lower courts to overturn Rowe vs Wade.
Will it happen? - I don't think so, but the point is it COULD and would NOT require a constitutional amendment.

Ergo - a constitutional amendment is not required to overturn Rowe vs Wade.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


It could happen that Congress votes for something that gets struck down by SCOTUS down as unconstitutional. It's happened before. That is exactly what would happen should something like this get through Congress.

But hey, anything could happen. The Hand Maiden's Tale could become reality, IF there is a nuclear holocaust and IF there is a military/religious coop and a theocratic government is installed. Imagine all you want, but I'm dealing with reality, not fascist, misogynistic: fantasy about enslaving women for breeding purposes.



Ergo - a constitutional amendment is not required to overturn Rowe vs Wade.


It's the only Constitutional route.
edit on 13-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear oh dear - you made a silly statement about the Constitution needing an amendment to change a law on abortion and now you're bleating on about facism and mysogyny.

Probably best not to entrench yourself in stupidity in the first place.

If you meant that the constitution MIGHT need to be changed for Roe vs Wade to get repealed, that would be true... but to claim it HAS to be the case is pure bunk.




edit on 13/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I stand by what I've said. It would require a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe V Wade.

The idea that Congress can pass a law that forbids SCOTUS jurisdiction, while states regulate female citizen's bodies for breeding purposes is pure fantasy. The law itself, forget the subject matter, will not stand up to constitutional scrutiny, and would be struck down by even the most conservative SCOTUS.

And, like I said, the proposed hypothetical law doesn't overturn Roe V Wade, it ignores it. Roe V Wade wasn't decided on the rights of the unborn. It was decided on the rights of women. That issue still remains under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

You can gloat a victory when such a law is introduced, passed and stands up to SCOTUS review. Until then, it's hypothetical, fascist, theocratic doom and gloom fantasy, that only has a chance in Hell.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Roe V Wade wasn't decided on the rights of the unborn. It was decided on the rights of women. That issue still remains under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.



2nd time you destroyed your own argument.
They had no need to consider the rights of the unborn when they ruled on viability - i.e. the UNBORN. No consideration of a constituional amendment needed. Precedent. Easy.

Moreover, in Roe vs Wade the SC stated:


"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."




"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


Absolute clarity that the SC did not even consider the word 'born' in the 14th Amendment in their ruling - or if they did they rejected it.
Note: NO change to the 14th amendment required - they are saying that if personhood is established for the unborn then an UNCHANGED 14th Amendment ends abortion.

More:

Life at Conception Act Follows the High Court's Instructions by Defining When Life Begins

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over. Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

A simple majority vote in both houses of Congress is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution. Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right. Instead the Supreme Court said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Life at Conception Act Would Dismantle Roe Using the Supreme Court's Own Language

Then the High Court made a key admission: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure. National Pro-Life Alliance members have led the fight to end abortion-on-demand by passing a Life at Conception Act. They have generated over 2 million petitions to Congress to date urging lawmakers to cosponsor and fight for passage of a Life at Conception Act.


The Life at Conception Act is a more recent attempt to do the very thing I had to inform you of.
www.congress.gov...


edit on 13/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




2nd time you destroyed your own argument.


No. I don't think you understand my argument. Roe V Wade doesn't protect the rights of the unborn.


Justice Blackmun's majority opinion explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument. The Court instead recognized the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of personal privacy.



At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."
en.wikipedia.org...


The viability timeline is not based on fetal rights, but on the right of the states to protect potential life.

These are facts. If they weren't, you wouldn't need Rand Paul to write a law that bypasses SCOTUS, granting rights to the unborn that the constitution doesn't.

It seems that you can't grasp the Roe V Wade decision.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It seems you can't.
I edited my above post to help you. ^

Finally to end your argument - Rand Paul's bill (amongst others) is following the exact option I told you about. It is NOT trying to amend the constitution.

From YOUR link.

Paul's legislation wouldn't amend the Constitution

thehill.com...

I've adequately demonstrated that your claim of a constitutional amendment being required to overturn Roe vs Wade is nonsense, whether you want to entrench yourself or not.

Thanks

edit on 13/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth





"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


But, SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't established.

Again, this proposal doesn't overturn Roe V Wade, it ignores the Constitution and bypasses it.

The only way to overturn Roe V Wade is to either ignore the Constitution or change it.

On another note, if they did change the 14th Amendment to read "All person's conceived in the USA or naturalized are subject to US jurisdiction", we would have a much bigger anchor baby problem than we have now! We'd have anchor embryos!



edit on 13-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth





"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


But, SCOTUS ruled that it didn't.

Again, this proposal doesn't overturn Roe V Wade, it ignores the Constitution and bypasses it.

The only way to overturn Roe V Wade is to either ignore the Constitution or change it.

On another note, if they did change the 14th Amendment to read "All person's conceived in the USA or naturalized are subject to US jurisdiction", we would have a much bigger anchor baby problem than we have now! We'd have anchor embryos!




Ah so now its IGNORE or bypass, eh? That is not what you said.

The route I have shown you does not ignore the constitution either - it involves passing a law that results in an UNCHANGED constitution applying to the unborn and follows up on, and takes advantage of, the exact wording used by the SC in Roe vs Wade.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


How's that Bill's progress?



I've adequately demonstrated that your claim of a constitutional amendment being required to overturn Roe vs Wade is nonsense, whether you want to entrench yourself or not.


It don't care what you think or what you say.


14th Amendment. Section 1. 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.


That's what the Constitution of the United States says. There is no ambiguity.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Until they succeed in their unconstitutional schemes, your arguments are moot. The Constitution says what it says, PERIOD.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

it seems to me that to grant "personhood' to unborn fetus, giving them the constitutional rights of the born citizens, would require stripping those rights from those born citizens if they happen to become pregnant or at least put the gov't in a position where it's deciding who's rights should be held above the other?
if someone is harassing me, threatening me, assaulting me, I can go through the legal process, have them arrested or obtain a restraining order, but if it's a few cells in my body that's doing the assaulting, threatening my health... well, it's not so easy to separate us is it?? if the life inside me is causing enough problems that I cannot care for my children properly, or that it means I need to be hospitalized for a few months, just who's rights should dominate?? should mother and born children's rights be laid aside be held lower than that of the unborn fetus?
do you really believe that this would only be confined to the abortion issue? got news for you, when lawyers and judges can imprison women for causing a miscarriage by having car accident or falling down the stairs, if they can force a women to have a c-section even when her doctors are claiming she would,'t survive the surgery... it's already gone beyond that!!!

and considering that this long discussion is found in a thread about birth control, I think I will take it into the twilight zone... ya see, most pregnancies averted by birth control are averted by preventing conception, that is one unborn baby that will never be allowed to be conceived, but yet, does it have rights as an unborn baby??? can this protection for the unborn be extended outward to the point where we can meddle with the actions of the little girls, as well as THE LITTLE BOYS, ya know to protect those babies yet to be born... I only ask because it's been found that the drugs used by MEN have some rather upsetting effects on their offspring, even when that offspring is born years after the drug usage!!!

if you are telling yourself that this will never happen, you are probably right, but consider just how much they try to push the idea of the healthy diet, the healthy living, ect onto us, half the time, just for us to find out a few years later they didn't know what they were talking about. even if they have to use the pseudoscience and make up a few facts, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a way to link the health and lifestyle of the males to the health of the babies they may produce later in life.. and well, if they can strip the rights of females for the unborn's sake, they will be able to with the males and intrude on them also...



edit on 13-10-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Lol, bury your head in sand if you like.
That's where you end up when you back yourself into a corner trying to defend an indefensible statement.

Whatever. Seems to me, and anyone else that can read, it's clear that the constitution does not require an amendment to overturn Roe vs Wade.

edit on 13/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Yeah, I get your point. You might be surprised to know I am pretty good with the Roe vs Wade decision in terms of my position on abortion. It's a good balance in my view.

I just also understand that certain ideologies - if they gain enough positions of power - can overturn Roe vs Wade without amending the constitution. That's all.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




Whatever. Seems to me, and anyone else that can read, it's clear that the constitution does not require an amendment to overturn Roe vs Wade.


What's clear is there are people willing to subvert the US Constitution in order to control women and their bodies.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: dawnstar

I just also understand that certain ideologies - if they gain enough positions of power - can overturn Roe vs Wade without amending the constitution. That's all.



The only "position of power" would be a favorable SCOTUS and a case that challenges Roe v. Wade.

Because the SCOTUS, in its Roe v. Wade ruling, says that the right to abortion is covered by the 14th Amendment (right to privacy, read: it's Constitutionally convered), it would therefore take either a Constitutional Amendment or another SCOTUS decision to overturn it.
edit on 13-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: windword




This proposed law will never happen.


Any such law only requires a majority vote in Congress (assuming no filbuster).
In other words it CAN happen, which would make the SC powerless against moves in lower courts to overturn Rowe vs Wade.
Will it happen? - I don't think so, but the point is it COULD and would NOT require a constitutional amendment.

Ergo - a constitutional amendment is not required to overturn Rowe vs Wade.



I'm not saying that process itself is illegal. I'm saying that the justification for needing to bypass SCOTUS, in this case, won't meet constitutional scrutiny. Like Pres Trump's "Muslim Ban", while he was within his presidential rights, his motive for doing so violated the Constitution, and so was blocked.

They need another justification, other than just "we are looking for a way around the Constitution to ban abortion".


edit on 13-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join