Alito confirmed!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Aren't there still 5 pro-Roes on the Court?

[DRoseDARs]

One can hope there are when the next case directly challenging Roe vs. Wade comes before the bench...

[Q Classic]

Just out of curiosity, can someone quote to me where in the constitution it states a right to privacy? TIA

Well, according to Libertarian Harry Browne, it's in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

According to Cornell Law, it's in in Amendments 1, 4, and 5.

Largely, the "Right to Privacy" is an extension and interpretation of the Constitution based on rulings by the Supreme Court; it's not something that has been written into the Constitution at all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Just out of curiosity, can someone quote to me where in the constitution it states a right to privacy? TIA

Let's go down the list, dumbass.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government can't tell you what to think or say or stop you from thinking or saying anything. Your private thoughts are your own.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The government can't put soldiers in your house, without your consent, except in war.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government can't search you or your belongings just because it wants to.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

See 1st Amendment. In addition, they can't just take your property, liberty, or life.

Amendment IX

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

Just because a right to privacy isn't explicately stated doesn't mean we don't have it.

Amendment XIV

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The government can't take our rights away by legislating them away.

Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

We have a right to put alcohol in our bodies.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Aren't there still 5 pro-Roes on the Court?

4 definate pro,3 definate con,and the 2 justices will have to show where they stand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Whoha
4 definate pro,3 definate con,and the 2 justices will have to show where they stand.

What? I think you are a little confused.

5 pro:

Ginsburg
Stevens
Souter
Breyer
Kennedy

2 con:

Scalia
Thomas

2 yet to be determined:

Roberts
Alito

Where are you getting your numbers?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually, overturning Roe would sweep the Dems into Congress in such numbers that FDR would be jealous.

then we should see the 28th amendment explicitly stating out a right to privacy, all good.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What? I think you are a little confused.

5 pro:

Ginsburg
Stevens
Souter
Breyer
Kennedy

2 con:

Scalia
Thomas

2 yet to be determined:

Roberts
Alito

Where are you getting your numbers?

you are right I messed up.

[Zkribbler]

Che -- You forgot 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.

[Jon Miller]

I care about life at all times, before birth as well as after.

That is why I am a socialist, and anti-abortion.

Jon Miller

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I'm being cynical at this moment, so here's my contribution: Thank God I'm not an American woman. Ha! You ladies don't know what you got — UNTIL YOU LOSE IT.

Now for a less hysterical view:

The problem with these calculations is that they tend to include pre-Roe abortion bans still on the books. Roe superseded these laws in practice. In theory, some bans would immediately become law if Roe were overturned. But this theory implies that legislators and voters in these states wouldn't be able to debate and pass laws saying otherwise.

Given the split in U.S. politics, many would do just that. Of the 21 states the Center for Reproductive Rights claims are most likely to ban abortion after Roe, seven have Democratic governors. These governors would not be able to preside over new post-Roe abortion bans without risking a party revolt. Of the other 14 states, one (Rhode Island) votes consistently Democratic in presidential races. Though not all Democrats support abortion, it's unlikely that the 60% of Rhode Island voters who chose Sen. John Kerry last fall would be inspired to support a ban.

Another state, Ohio, is too much of a political tossup to count in the ban camp. Colorado might vote "red," but the state's recent election of a Democratic senator and new Democratic majorities in its statehouse implies that the politics are pretty split.

That leaves us with 11 states. According to data from The Alan Guttmacher Institute, these states had 122 abortion providers in 2000. That's less than 7% of the 1,819 abortion providers — a fluid number, to be sure — in the USA. Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas. If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36. Spread across eight vast states, that's low enough to be useless to an average woman seeking an abortion.

In Mississippi, Kentucky and the Dakotas, 98% of counties have no abortion providers; in Missouri and Nebraska, 97% lack them. In these Roe-unfriendly states, women already have to travel hours to obtain abortions; in a post-Roe world of crossing state lines, that story wouldn't change.

Even if all three of the only "somewhat likely" states with Republican governors, legislatures and voting tendencies (Indiana, Idaho and Georgia) banned abortion, that would affect just 48 providers. In a "worst-case scenario" (for pro-choice types) that included a Texas ban, overturning Roe would affect a maximum of 170 providers, less than 10% of the U.S. total.
...
Yet in the end, a post-Roe world will look a lot like a Roe world — except we'll like each other a lot less, thanks to the battles.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-26-forum-roe_x.htm

[GePap]

Why can't the abortion debate be a simple health care policy debate, instead of this idiotic "rights" and "God" debate we have in this country?

More important that the abortion issue in the long term (because legalized abortion is here to stay), are rulings on executive power.

[Ben Kenobi]

When the legislation makes sense, yes.

That's a strange standard. I should think that if you believe states have the right to make their own decisions, that this right would happen regardless of whether the legislation makes 'sense' or not.

Why doesn't it make sense to allow each state to decide for themselves on the issue of abortion?

While I don't approve of abortion - except for cases of rape, the mother's life in danger, or the fetus being severely unfit (wretched deformations or diseases that will shorten its life considerably or make life an endless stream of misery) - I approve of even less the consequences of banning abortion outright.

So let me get you straight. You believe that those who are wretchedly deformed and suffer pain should be allowed to live after they are born and not before? If we truly believe that these people are better off dead, why shouldn't we be permitted to put them out of their misery?

Women who want abortions will still get them, leading to more needless deaths.

Okay. So you believe then that there will be over 1 million women and children dying every year from illegal abortion?

Women who decide to carry to term but didn't want the child in the first place will abandon them more frequently, leading to more babies-in-dumpsters and kids waiting to be adopted, many of whom will never see a stable family life.

As opposed to today where we put the babies in dumpsters, who have not a hope of seeing a stable family life, let alone any life whatsoever? What's the difference between trashing a fetus and trashing an infant?

And what of the mothers who wanted an abortion because they simply couldn't support the child financially? You going to "adopt" the mother, Ben? Help her pay the bills? The state ain't going to do it, and the Christian fundies aren't going to do it either because they don't care what happens AFTER the child is born.

And this is why there are crisis pregnancy centres, most of them started by the same Christians who do not care one whit about the children and the women after they are born? I guess they should throw out all their stocks of baby clothes, eh?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's a strange standard. I should think that if you believe states have the right to make their own decisions, that this right would happen regardless of whether the legislation makes 'sense' or not.

Why doesn't it make sense to allow each state to decide for themselves on the issue of abortion?

Again, the legislation DOES NOT take into consideration that these aren't cars or produce. These are real mothers and real fetuses. There are consequences to interfering with the woman's right to choose and if the state isn't prepared or even interested in dealing with those consequences then the legislation is bad and will make matters worse.

So let me get you straight. You believe that those who are wretchedly deformed and suffer pain should be allowed to live after they are born and not before? If we truly believe that these people are better off dead, why shouldn't we be permitted to put them out of their misery?

Gee, how'd I know you'd through a lame strawman out like that? A fetus is a blob of cells. It hasn't been born yet and as such hasn't been exposed to Human experience. In the womb it is no different from the fetus of a pig, chimpanzee, dolphin, elephant etc. While it is heart-wrenching that the already-born have to suffer through their ailments, they've already been born and already have exposure to Human experience. They are no longer blank slates waiting to be painted upon. A fetus can be spared the misery of a handicapped life, the already-born cannot; killing them is just killing them, not sparing them. Their souls are already scarred from pain and suffering, killing them only serves to darken your own soul. All we can do for them is aleviate some of the misery. As a Christian, some among you believe in justifiable murder. In my view, sparing a fetus from a life of medically-determined misery is enough justification to terminate if the mother and father choose that course. It's a matter of how much support they can give or others willing to step up to the plate for them can give. I don't see any evidence of mass-adoptions by the pro-life crowd to take care of these kinds of pregnancies.

Okay. So you believe then that there will be over 1 million women and children dying every year from illegal abortion?

Apparently, you have a different standard of how many needless deaths are necessary before you personally think the cost in womens' lives is high enough. You, 1,000,000. Me? I think 1 backalley botched abortion death is enough.

As opposed to today where we put the babies in dumpsters, who have not a hope of seeing a stable family life, let alone any life whatsoever? What's the difference between trashing a fetus and trashing an infant?

You seem to being missing the meaning of the word "more" as in it's a problem now, outlawing abortion will compound the problem.

And this is why there are crisis pregnancy centres, most of them started by the same Christians who do not care one whit about the children and the women after they are born? I guess they should throw out all their stocks of baby clothes, eh?

And yet, there are still thousands upon thousands of already-born children waiting for homes. Funny, I still don't see any evidence of mass adoptions by the pro-life crowd. Maybe that will happen after abortion is outlawed and we have many thousands more children whose mothers (for whatever reasons) don't want them...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Why can't the abortion debate be a simple health care policy debate, instead of this idiotic "rights" and "God" debate we have in this country?

Simply because people have a right to think differently than you and they have a right to speak out about it?