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.

 

San Francisco puts 22 states on blacklist for restrictive abortion laws

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

LOL, ok makes me a lefty, I dont even live in the US or even believe any politician has a brain between them, nice way to devalue the argument though, back to basics as they say, right is right and left is wrong

Have you been drinking


originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776

Btw you assuming only women can have babies is very transphobic, as we all know in these modern times men can have babies too so now we get to have a say as well.

If you lefties are going to constantly make up new rules then we all get to play by them.


far as I know thats how it works take one man and one woman add a sperm and egg, not sure a trans will have the neccesary innards.





edit on 21-10-2019 by UpIsNowDown because: typo

edit on 21-10-2019 by UpIsNowDown because: dam new page




posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad
We got enough crazy here in Florida as it is, so Cali can keep theirs. Does this ban them only on work related stuff, or is the city employee also banned from using their PTO to take a vacation in that state? Seems unconstitutional if that is the case.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UpIsNowDown




But I still believe it is a procedure women should have the final say on.


I differ on that, personally. I suppose it really depends on the situation. Was it an accident (haha sure)? Married couple? Dating? There could be factors involved in this that would change my view on who has more authority. I mean, being half of a married couple, I believe the husband should have equal say and the factors be the decision maker but still... who would make that choice is really difficult.

For me.... Honestly, I'll know 100% when I cross that bridge but I could never live with myself if I had any choice at all and not fight till the bitter end to keep 'it'.

On the fault side (rape and similar situations excluded), both parties are at fault and it would only seem fair that both have an equal say in the matter. Men can wear protection but women can also protect themselves.

It's a very stipulating conversation that's way over my head. I'll figure these matters out when I'm faced with the choices and situations. So till then, I honestly couldn't make a rational thought on what I believe. In the end, I am simply against abortions but glass houses and all so I can't be that judge.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Off-topic really, but, increased availability of prophylactics would be a start. I'd rather pay a nickel from every one of my dollars to prevent a pregnancy than to pay a nickel to have to end one.
edit on 21-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's entirely dependent on the court's current mood as far as the ICC is concerned. It's a clause which has seen a lot of variation over the years in relation to the court's interpretation of it. Prior to FDR, it was largely used as a blockage against the federal government involving themselves in local matters, but FDR's action in the Great Depression forced the court to reverse course on the clause tremendously and since then it has generally been used as a blockage against local governments and states passing ordinances and acts that are detrimental to the economies of other states and locales.

I do not have the time to search it out, but an example would be the case a couple of years ago with CA trying to force non-Californian corporations to have a minimum percentage of female board members under threat of disallowing California from doing business with noncompliant corporations headquartered outside California. The ruling from the state supreme court of Delaware found the law unconstitutional and the SCOTUS declined hearing (or reversing) that ruling.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Interesting. I usually see folks here arguing AGAINST the applicability of the Commerce Clause in a wider sense than is literally stated with an eye to a smaller Federal government. Here you seem to be arguing by setting the Commerce Clause against Tenth Amendment rights of the States and local governments (which depend from their given State in reality.)

The bill you referred to passed into law was Senate Bill 826 (link).

This summary provides a decent link to legal challenge points with the CA law

Seems like the major problems in most legal opinions with that law are the establishment of gender quotas which are fairly clearly non-constitutional.

The Commerce Clause doesn't seem to apply to the San Francisco municipal code in this sense because the code doesn't try to impose any requirements on other States or penalties etc. It just says the City is not going to do business with these groups.

Their Constitutional right under the Tenth as far as I can see. However, my opinion is that denial of trade is just dumb, even if California is the world's sixth largest economy.
edit on 21-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

SF received $253 Million in intergovernmental federal funds FY 2016-2017... between the commerce clause and some manner of equal protection clause as it relates to the court determining whether the tax payers who support anti abortion laws are equally represented by any law that punishes states with dissenting opinions from SF, I think the end result here will either be SF losing that federal money or the court tossing out the law.

Refusal to do business with a state based on their internal laws is a penalty. I am fairly sure that portion of any court challenge will be agreed to even by the most liberal of courts.
edit on 21-10-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

San Francisco received funds? For what?

It really doesn't matter.

The Commerce Clause regards the regulation of interstate commerce and gives Congress the power to make laws in that regard. I'm 99.9% certain you and I have discussed this in the past and you were very much a strict constructionalist at that time.

San Francisco can make whatever laws they wish regarding their employee's work travel as well as what companies will have contracts with the City. There is nothing in any recent SCOTUS case that addresses that right. This municipal law does not seek to apply any interstate penalties as the CA State law did, but only regulates the business of San Francisco itself.

By your logic, any city and or State that has Federal grants can lose that money merely because of the tax-payers who DON'T agree with "anti-abortion laws"???

I don't think so Burd.


edit on 21-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Nope



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Guess we'll see when it goes before the court, ya?



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

IF it does.

Thanks for the convo man.



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 10:58 PM
link   
So they have put restrictions on their own trade
Surely that will cost them more money and effort long term

What makes them Californians so different




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join