US Supreme Court overturns abortion precedent

Discussion in 'World Events' started by James R, Jun 27, 2022.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,100
    It wouldn't be about stopping travel. It would just be about making going to another state for that purpose illegal. It wouldn't stand up in court however but then again if it makes it up to this Supreme Court...all bets are off.

    If this continues, the Democrats will be forced to add more justices to the Supreme Court. Having a conservative interpretation is one thing, what they are currently doing is quite another.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,369
    but traveling to another state to buy a bag of chips is legal and a right
    and
    traveling to consult about a medical procedure is also not illegal
    im fairly sure they can not demand a reason for travel across a state line
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,850
    It would not be classed as a "demanding a reason"

    It would be filed under "suspected of travelling to commit a act which is illegal in Texas"

    Think none of this speculations will occur but crazy Americans are up for anything

    Another aspect of Roe vs Wade is the legal definition of LIFE and of PERSON

    Abortion is removal of a POTENTIAL human being and there are so so many hazards (natural) along the way that (Australia) (just looked it up) 10% to 15% fail

    I am betting the extreme god bothers will be asking for those persons who miscarry be investigated to check if they did anything to bring on the miscarriage

    You frequently hear the pro-life call abortion as the killing of a PERSON

    Not so. If it were so autopsy rooms would be of festal remains and courts full of homicidal killers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,143
    Just responding to all 3 of you, since it's essentially the same answer. Kavanaugh addressed traveling to another state to obtain an abortion in Dobbs:

    In Bigelow v Virginia (1975), Justice Blackmun:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The decision in Dobbs was clear, the only issue they were addressing was the Constitutional right to an abortion, which they determined does not exist (which I think is utter bollocks, btw) and was thrown back to the states to determine on an individual basis - in other words, they determined that the right to access an abortion is not a Constitutional right. What is a Constitutional right is the right to travel freely between states and this has been addressed multiple times. So while Texas may be trying to appease the wackjobs in the state by writing a law that would make it illegal for anyone to travel to another state to access an abortion, such a law would, by every definition, be absolutely Unconstitional.

    While they may be going by civil recourse, any laws passed that would impede the freedom of movement of citizens and residents, would and should be challenged in court. I imagine they are already looking to do so if such laws come into existence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
    candy, Quantum Quack and sculptor like this.
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,447
    this is the same man who under oath told congress that roe was settled law and than voted to undo it. the promises of a perjurer mean nothing. the mans a liar through and through. Kavanaugh's reassurances are worth less than a cow patty.
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,850
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,143
    This is different though in that it was part of a decision he was party to.

    I don't doubt that the man is a slime and should not be trusted. But short of testing every woman who intends to travel interstate, to see if they are pregnant, or stopping or barring people from travelling interstate while pregnant and/or delving into their internet searches, listening to their phone calls of every person who could theoretically fall pregnant, or expect doctors, hospitals, pharmacies to report pregnancies to the government, they can't really know or determine if someone has had an abortion. And if they are going with the bounty system, where someone reports women to the authorities, then they will have a gigantic mess on their hands.

    And while they may try to implement the law, it will be challenged and I suspect there's an army of lawyers waiting to challenge it.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  11. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    And they will be willing to take it all the way up to the supreme court, where, oh wait... they already decided last year that the bounty system was constitutional. So then what??

    I would like to hope that you are correct, but I gave up long ago on the idea that we have any kind of properly functioning justice system in the US, especially at the SCOTUS level.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2022
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,305
    I am not sure about what I am about to suggest but hasn't the supreme court just given people the right to vote on the issue of family planning/abortion in every state? A right to vote that they didn't have before?
     
    sculptor and candy like this.
  13. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    SCOTUS giving the power back to the states just means the individual state legislatures can make their own laws about it, without any concern that their laws may be found unconstitutional at the US Supreme court in the future. The people elect state legislators in their state (actually by district), but we do not get to vote on the legislation, as the legislators vote on that themselves. Some states (maybe all, I'm not sure) allow referendums with enough signatures garnered to be placed on the ballot, and the people get to vote on the referendums. However, even if a referendum is passed by a vote of the people, the state legislature can still delay implementing it, or find reasons why it cannot be implemented fully in practice.

    Why, what did you have in mind?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2022
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,100
    That's a bit like suggesting that overturning the 13th amendment (repealing slavery) would be just giving people the right to vote on this issue in every state which would be a right to vote that they didn't have before.

    It's true enough but is this what we want?
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,305
    Are the legislator's voted into and out of office?
    If so this would mean that the issue becomes one of popular opinion and not decreed for or (implied) against, as a "beyond the collective" right by some god-like constitutional court.
    To me this issue goes well beyond any legal or other jurisdiction as the right to self determine is inherent with in all human beings and is not subject to popular vote, constitutional court or other human machination.
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,100
    The right to self-determine was taken away by the court. Your argument makes no sense (to me).
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,305
    Of course not...
    I was merely seeking clarification concerning: Now that the Federal right to abortion has been struck down the only avenue for the population to manage this issue is via the various State polls.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  18. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,411
    The problem is that there are many states which tend to elect, and have already elected, a majority of anti-abortion legislators. People in those states will not have access to any abortion services, or the other health care needs related to it, because of their state's elected legislature.

    Before Roe v. Wade was reversed by this SCOTUS, those states had to take some care not to infringe on what was then considered to be a human right. Not that they cared about that -- they purposefully infringed time and time again hoping eventually the SCOTUS would not find their laws unconstitutional, and now they have what they wanted all along.

    The question we have moved on to now is whether the freedom to cross state lines for such health care needs would come under attack. Bells mentioned that SC Justice Kavanaugh had stated in his Roe v Wade opinion that there is still a constitutional right to cross state lines. However, some of us are not convinced that means it is safe. Consider that there are states planning to pass laws modeled after Texas' bounty hunter system specifically to chill the movement of people over state lines for that purpose.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,850

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    NT News newspaper 15 July 2022

    Think there will be a few more cases like this. Keep lawyers busy

    Some rewriting laws to eliminate loop holes, others exploiting loop holes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor and sideshowbob like this.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,143
    The states that attempt to pass laws that will prevent people from crossing state lines will be challenged and should be challenged. If they are going to prevent pregnant women from traveling out of state, then that will absolutely be unconstitutional, as that will have a knock-on effect as they will have no way to police it. Unless they are going to be stopping women at airports and borders within the country, effectively turning each state into a prison if one is a woman of child bearing age. I'm not saying they won't try to pass such a law, but it would be impossible to police and it has the potential to come back to bite them on their proverbial backsides. At least, one would hope.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,224
    Would it be "impossible" though? I mean, prosecuting women intending to get an abortion would undoubtedly prove difficult, but prosecuting those who have already gotten an abortion would be considerably less so. It's impossible to say how much of a deterrent that might be.

    And seeing as nearly half of this Supreme Court perjured themselves under oath, the likelihood that they will strike down even the most egregiously unconstitutional of laws seems slim.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,782
    Unfortunately there is a precedent - the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required other states to return escaped slaves to the state they originated from. And while one state's supreme court (Wisconsin) declared it unconstitutional, it survived challenges in several other states, and the US Supreme Court decided to not hear it. It was the law of the land until 1864 when it was formally repealed.

    Thus there is precedent for other states to demand the return of people suspected of committing crimes, even though they did not commit the crime in their original state. (If they had committed crimes in their origin state, the agreements on extradition cover that.)
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,369

    additionally
    they cant make a state law to force other states to obey it
    so they cant make a state law to make other states have a law.
    or it negates the state legal boundary.
    so they cant make it illegal to have an abortion in another state because they are not in control of the other states laws.

    any law which they try to create that comes into effect once a state boundary is crossed would be a federal law and involve the FBI
    are they going to start asking the FBI to arrest women crossing state borders on the off chance they may have an intention to get an abortion ?

    what businesses cross state borders to evade laws in those states ?
     

Share This Page