The Roe V Wade Protests are Coming

Alwaysa reply to: Ahabstar

Always the ability to move out of state? Have you ever been poor? Have you ever been the caretaker to someone it would be hard to up and move?

How the heck is someone barely making it supposed to have money to find a new place? First month and last month as a security deposit, and first month rent due before you can move in? Can pass the credit check?

Then let's say a college student just goes to another state for one, in some of these new laws she could be sued or imprisoned if found out.

Great options!

a reply to: Annee

I did not say work was bad. I said it would get you disqualified from government assistance.

But -- the Catch 22 -- government assistance is not enough for quality of life.

OK, I didn't pick up on the catch 22. Thank you for clarifying.

The amount of money being spent to deny a woman's right to her own body (which is no one else's business) -- could feed every child in this world.

Well, I have to point out that we are talking about the child's body, not just the woman's. But I also think you are underestimating the amount it would take to end child hunger.

Not to mention, a great deal of that money is going to drugs, booze, or other vices for the mother instead of to feed the baby. That's another aspect of the problem. I've known several fathers who worked hard to pay child support, then had to break down and buy essential needs for the child because the mother was spending the child support on herself.

How about free school breakfast and lunch.

We have that here, too.

TheRedneck

a reply to: frogs453

Then let's say a college student just goes to another state for one, in some of these new laws she could be sued or imprisoned if found out.

I don't think those laws will pass Constitutional muster. It's not a matter of Interstate commerce, and a state cannot outlaw what is legal in another state for its residents. I think the 14th Amendment would be applicable in that case.

That one is only an opinion, but I'd like to think it is an educated and accurate one.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ahabstar

Okay, let’s say it is prohibited to the states and rests solely in the hands of the people. You just lost rape and incest and any detriment to health that isn’t determined to be fatal. It would exist under the right of self defense.

One would think so. Abortion as a self defense mechanism in preserving life and liberty [and happiness] should be enough to keep the right to an abortion a constitutional right, coupled with the 14th and 4th Amendments.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

I did not say work was bad. I said it would get you disqualified from government assistance.

But -- the Catch 22 -- government assistance is not enough for quality of life.

OK, I didn't pick up on the catch 22. Thank you for clarifying.

The amount of money being spent to deny a woman's right to her own body (which is no one else's business) -- could feed every child in this world.

Well, I have to point out that we are talking about the child's body, not just the woman's. But I also think you are underestimating the amount it would take to end child hunger.

Not to mention, a great deal of that money is going to drugs, booze, or other vices for the mother instead of to feed the baby. That's another aspect of the problem. I've known several fathers who worked hard to pay child support, then had to break down and buy essential needs for the child because the mother was spending the child support on herself.

How about free school breakfast and lunch.

We have that here, too.

TheRedneck

Stereotyping????

Money from both sides of the ridiculous abortion debate is in the billions. That would feed a lot of children.

Well great -- you have free lunches where you are. Have you read the thread on ATS? Do you think it was Pro School lunches? Who do you think was anti-school lunches?

Bringing an unwanted child into this world -- just so you can "pat yourself on the back" -- then move on with no concerns is insane.

SUPPORT LIVING CHILDREN

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah we will see, although the states with the strict bans are trying to figure a way to this. I do hope it would not pass muster.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No he addressed it.

Other than in his footnotes, nowhere did Alito address the applicability of the 9th Amendment. Please correct me with a citation if I'm mistaken.

a reply to: Annee

Stereotyping????

Who am I stereotyping?

Money from both sides of the ridiculous abortion debate is in the billions. That would feed a lot of children.

I can't argue there. Of course, the money train started with Roe v. Wade. One has to spend to counteract the others' spending. Of course, in a month or two that will be a moot point; Roe v. Wade will be gone and the issue will finally be settled.

Well great -- you have free lunches where you are. Have you read the thread on ATS?

No, I haven't. I must have missed that one.

I do have a question for you, Annee: why are your posts coming across to me as so hostile? I don't know where I have been hostile to you in this thread... yet. If you start attacking me I will attack back; you should know that by now.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I do have a question for you, Annee: why are your posts coming across to me as so hostile? I don't know where I have been hostile to you in this thread... yet. If you start attacking me I will attack back; you should know that by now.

TheRedneck

Can't get personal - go after the ball not the player.

Your posting style is very direct -- as is mine. How do others perceive?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I found a reference on page 9 of this copy:

The Court's discussion left open at least three ways in which some combination of these provisions could protect the abortion right. One possibility was that the right was “founded ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people.”

The 9th Amendment says

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That indicates that the lack of any mention in the Constitution of any abortion rights (or really, anything to do with abortion) is not an automatic indication that such rights do not exist. But then, the 10th Amendment says that any action to legislate those rights which are not included in the Constitution are reserved to the states. So either way, the opinion is sound. The fact that Alito does mention the 9th amendment and the argument based on it means he did consider it.

Re-read the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So even if we accept that abortion is a right not enumerated and therefore covered by the 9th amendment, the United States is still forbidden to legislate that right. That would have to be done by the states. if a state were to enact a law that denied abortion and it could be proven that doing so was the denial of a specific right, then the Supreme Court could still overturn it.

However, the right to abortion would have to be shown to exist. Based on the number of states that restricted abortion during the early history of the United States, I don't think that would be an easy thing to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

Can't get personal - go after the ball not the player.

Touché.

We do both speak quite bluntly and directly, agreed. I am just hoping that, just this one time, we can have a civilized conversation.

Now, who did you think I was stereotyping?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, high in turn lead to the Articles of Confederation…you do not want the Articles.

Property is in the Constitution. Life, Liberty and Property specifically outline in the Fifth for the Federal and Fourteenth for the states. Abortion is not enumerated so Federal is out. And the Fourteenth actually prevents it to the States…unless you want the unborn to be considered Property…now there would be a legal morass better left unexplored. Because the the States can claim Eminent Domain and leave you out of the decision and force an unwanted abortion or force a broodmare situation based on the State’s needs. Hope you like the 30 pieces of silver or whatever they pay you as a fair wage/compensation for loss.

Sending Roe v Wade back to the States is blessing. Because it could be far, far worse. And I am not particularly “legally creative” when using the law to screw people over.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, I saw that, but your link is broken. The document's search function that I used is funky, and only the paragraph is shown, and it looked like it was identified as a footnote. Whatever....

At any rate, I'm not seeing where Alito refutes the applicability of the Ninth Amendment, just that he mentions it as one of the paths the court utilized.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence

Point taken.

Property is in the Constitution. Life, Liberty and Property specifically outline in the Fifth for the Federal and Fourteenth for the states.

How can the 14th Amendment protect the unborn when Section 2 doesn't require they be counted as "persons"? It's as if they don't even exist!

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Could, in theory, be a whole ten years before they are counted as per the census. Although given compliance rates, they may never actually be counted.

Is it twins in the womb? Will one miscarry before birth? My sister was a twin. How do you count that? Best to wait and see what happens. She did have wins of her own. Fraternal, but both boys and look an awful lot alike to me even in their teens now.

a reply to: frogs453

Reminds me of a discussion of the best Bugout Vehicle…the two feet express wins every time.

Bare minimum public assistance up to $841/mo. It can be less based on participation in other programs. But with $650/mo for Section 8, paid utilities, SNAP, etc that number can be much higher.

But even if you have none of that, and work a minimalist job (up to $30/hr with no experience is out there) but might be unlucky. It can be done, homeless shelters are fairly prevalent in cities. Some churches have meal and shower deals. Lots of pantries can be found as well. It isn’t as rough as it was just ten years ago with available assistance. Just have to ask around.

There is basically a whole other America when it comes to help. Not a great lifestyle as sometimes you sleep under the stars with dew as a blanket. But you would be amazed how far $20 can be stretched even with gas over $4/gal if you learn how.

Liberal Democrats at work:

""The Pro-Choice Caucus members of the House of Representatives were ridiculed after posting "taking points" on abortion.

One of the talking points included was that using the word "choice" is considered "harmful language.""

More at: www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Choice implies freedom and independence…bad juju introducing such concepts.

My prediction is Congress will do nothing but use it as a wedge issue because abortion is not the hill the US wants to die on. The final transformation into socialism is where that final stand happens.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Look for a bill from the left that will outline how much profit a company or individual will be allowed to make.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: frogs453

Then let's say a college student just goes to another state for one, in some of these new laws she could be sued or imprisoned if found out.

I don't think those laws will pass Constitutional muster. It's not a matter of Interstate commerce, and a state cannot outlaw what is legal in another state for its residents. I think the 14th Amendment would be applicable in that case.

That one is only an opinion, but I'd like to think it is an educated and accurate one.

TheRedneck

Agree. And I am quite certain that, if nobody else does, Oregon will become an abortion sanctuary state. She can come here and do it.

It only takes one state to invalidate the anti abortion laws of all the states.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah we will see, although the states with the strict bans are trying to figure a way to this. I do hope it would not pass muster.

Congress might be able to regulate it if it is considered "interstate commerce".

If a murder takes place across state lines, the FBI can claim jurisdiction. I would be really amazed if Congress ever got the will to pass a law like that, though.

However, states can't outlaw it. Texas can't tell a hospital in California what to do.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
I'd be happy to be on your side if you saw fit to make sure new Moms had everything they need to bring up that child.


So far, ain't seeing it. And Republicans seem to be the first to have their heads explode when someone poor gets help from the government to raise their kids. Fix that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There is a difference between being poor and being lazy. I'll help the poor but don't like helping the lazy. If the only reason you are getting an abortion is you can't afford the child, then you have bigger issues and should abstain from sex.

What if they had the money at the time of conception, but don't have it now 2 months later?

Or the guy they conceived with was scamming them, and never had it, but she didn't know that?

As great as it would be to make it illegal to be stupid or gullible......... I think people would still be stupid and gullible anyway.