Texas vs Roe vs Wade

[Berkut]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Well, there is my answer I guess.

[Barrister]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

[Berkut]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Do you think they should?

[Jacob]

In related news, Oklahoma woman sentenced to four years in prison for having a miscarriage: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

[The Brain]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Surely the next step for these people (on this issue) is making abortion unconstitutional (through SCOTUS) and NOT up to individual states.

[Barrister]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Do you think they should?

I have long adopted the Bill Clinton abortion formulation - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

[Berkut]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Do you think they should?

I have long adopted the Bill Clinton abortion formulation - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Fair enough.

It is odd that you argue that it should be legal, but that it is Constitutional to deny someone the right to make that decision.

Are there any other medical procedures you think people should only be allowed if their particular state thinks they ought to be allowed?

[Berkut]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Surely the next step for these people (on this issue) is making abortion unconstitutional (through SCOTUS) and NOT up to individual states.

Trivially easy to accomplish with this Court.

If you look at Texas and say "Yep, that is fine! Having private citizens enforce "law" as a means of skirting a specific Constitutionally recognized right of an individual!" then you can claim the Constitution says anything you like.

Abortion is murder, hence the basic COnstitutional protection of "life" easily covers that.

[Barrister]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Do you think they should?

I have long adopted the Bill Clinton abortion formulation - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Fair enough.

It is odd that you argue that it should be legal, but that it is Constitutional to deny someone the right to make that decision.

Are there any other medical procedures you think people should only be allowed if their particular state thinks they ought to be allowed?

The state frequently regulates what kinds of medical behaviours can and can not be used.  Typically that's to prevent quackery, but procedures like euthanasia is also often forbidden.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think I basically agree with Barrister here - but in the context of the US with this Supreme Court and politics as they are, absolutely not.

[Berkut]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Do you think they should?

I have long adopted the Bill Clinton abortion formulation - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Fair enough.

It is odd that you argue that it should be legal, but that it is Constitutional to deny someone the right to make that decision.

Are there any other medical procedures you think people should only be allowed if their particular state thinks they ought to be allowed?

The state frequently regulates what kinds of medical behaviours can and can not be used.  Typically that's to prevent quackery, but procedures like euthanasia is also often forbidden.

That is not w

Roe v Wade was a bad decision that deserves to be overturned.  Come fight me.

Roe v Wade was a not-atypical mess of a decision with three concurring opinions and a decision-by-committee style opinion of the Court.  It may appear to be a bad decision, except for all the alternatives.

The notion that the word "abortion" appears nowhere within the Constitution, and it should be within the power of the states to regulate abortion as they see fit, seems like an entirely defensible alternative.

As I said though - just because the states can do a thing like ban abortion doesn't mean they should...

Do you think they should?

I have long adopted the Bill Clinton abortion formulation - that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Fair enough.

It is odd that you argue that it should be legal, but that it is Constitutional to deny someone the right to make that decision.

Are there any other medical procedures you think people should only be allowed if their particular state thinks they ought to be allowed?

The state frequently regulates what kinds of medical behaviours can and can not be used.  Typically that's to prevent quackery, but procedures like euthanasia is also often forbidden.

So abortion and euthanasia?

I was thinking more of an apples and apples comparison. Medical procedures that are not quackery or specifically designed to end the life of the person getting the procedure.

[Barrister]

Abortion is designed to end the life of the fetus.

[Berkut]

Yes, we are aware of that.

Are there any other medical procedures that you feel that states ought not to ban, but you think they have the power to ban for women? Procedures that are not quackery or designed to end the life of the person getting the procedure?

Maybe there is abetter way of asking this question.

Do you think there is a general right of people to have final say it what choices they make for their health, or does the same principle that (in your opinion) says that the State ought to have the power to decide if women can have an abortion apply to any other medical procedure?

Would it be constitutionally ok for the state to tell women they cannot get a hysterectomy, for example?

Note that I am not asking you if you think the state SHOULD do such a thing, I am asking of it is within the power of the state to do such a thing, regardless of whether they ought to...

[Barrister]

Okay, a recent one is conversion therapy - it's being banned in lots of places.  Even if you want to receive conversion therapy you can't get it.

Regulating medical procedures is certainly one of the powers of the state.

[Jacob]

Just for the record here, Beeb, your take in this thread cements why I would never trust the Conservative Party of Canada on abortion, conversion therapy, medical rights, or women's rights.