Missouri gop-led senate passes 8 week abortion ban

Pshhh...8 weeks?

 

These probably need to me merged eventually I would think.

More will do this. They are designed specifically to challenge the flaws in abortion law that were cited in the Roe case. I know people are up in arms about the no exceptions for rape and incest part, but even that is specifically designed to remove obstacles that the court has previously pointed to. They want the court to rule on the fundamental issues of abortion and not get bogged down in any other legal issues.

 

I hear you, but if you are trying to challenge Roe why hand your opposition the argument that these particular laws have no exception for rape or incest? Couldn't Supremes punt on overarching issue and just strike down these laws based on the lack of such exceptions intrudes on some constitutional right? I may not be thinking about this right but why would making the laws purposefully overreaching help their cause?

 

What are they going to take away next the right to get tattoos or piercing.

 

Hopefully. Tattoos are tacky and lame.

 

Some are i was using that as a example rights are being taken away at a rapid pace seen 45 has been in office.

 

Yea, I got your point.

I was just taking the opportunity to bash on tattoos.

 

An argument that has been made by legal people is that they are removing impediments to the issue of personhood. They are targeting the portion of the decision where Justice Blackmon wrote that personhood would undermine the right to abortion all together. They don't want the court to say that Alabama can't define a fetus as a person logically if they are willing to let you kill that fetus if it was born of rape/incest. They want a clean shot at the personhood issue.

 

They purposely make no exception for rape and incest because the position they are taking is that a fetus IS a human life under the Constitution and accordingly should be granted all the protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is strategic.

If the pro-life attorneys can get the SC to label a fetus as actual life, and not potential life (like under Roe v. Wade and Doe) then that will pave the way for making abortion in most cases as unconstitutional. There is an exception for medical emergency because they would otherwise run afoul of the rights of the mother.

Assuming that the Court does declare that a fetus is actualized life and not potential life, it will have wide ranging effects. It will potentially make abortion illegal in almost all cases, it will also open the door for changed law on embryos and other associated issues.

This isn't a coincidence, this is a coordinated effort (which proponents have the right to do) to change the basic Constitutional definition on what human life is, when it begins and what protections it entails.

I have a variety of concerns that go well beyond a Supreme Court ruling. There have been 55,000,000 unwanted pregnancies terminated since Roe was handed down in 1973. That would mean that each year in the United States over 1,000,000 unwanted children would be born, many of them to parents that either are not capable of caring for them or that do not want to care for them. This will be a large problem in the USA.

I have heard some people saying that Plan B will save them. I would not count on that if the SCOTUS rules that life begins at conception. If that is the ruling then having an abortion or using medication to induce an abortion would be murder under the criminal statute.



To all the Democrats, pro choice advocates and young women that are flipping out............ elections have consequences.......... the election of Donald Trump has consequences........ no, not all politicians are the same or seek the same outcomes...... there are differences.... If it bothers you, then get organized and vote........ because at the end of the day, the voters have the power to shape policy.

 

They have wanted life to be defined at inception for a long time..... and they do have an argument that is credible. Even Roe says there ruling is based on the knowledge and science of the time.

I think that they will get their definition of a fetus as life and not potential life..... however in 5 years there is a good chance that the issue is reevaluated if one of the conservative Justices die and a liberal replaces them.

This isn't going to be something written in stone for nearly 50 years like some seem to think.

 

Meaning they want to win on a fetus is a person under that analysis. Couldn't Court sidestep issue by finding something unconstitutional about forcing a victim of rape/incest to carry to term? And then hold their ruling is limited to that? I see the strategy, but it seems like setting up an argument over what many would view as a more difficult law to justify than one with the exceptions.

 

Got it. But help me out with one issue:

If the fetus is a person upon conception, who decides that in the case of medical risk to mother, her life is more valuable than the fetus? Clearly, if mother's death causes "death" of both, I get it.

But what if issue arises later when fetus is viable?

Does constitution put one life over another?

 

LOL i have cause i want not some are ok just not for me .

 

Yes, rape is so much better when it's someone you know.

As for consensual rape? What? WTF?

 

New CF meme: would you like a consensual ride ride for a rape rape?

 

What happen to it’s between the dr and the patient ?

 

Missouri is a wonderful place.......