If the constitutionalists on the court thought the same way as the leftist justices do, except in reverse, I would likely agree with you. But they do not. It is not their goal to oppose and take the other side. It is their goal to repair the damage that has been done over the last 50 years or so to our federalist system and the balance of powers in the US Constitution, which if you read it, clearly is intended to favor the states. They will not take the position that you say. In fact, the possibility that SCOTUS would take this position that you have described had honestly never seriously occurred to me until you mentioned it just now. But I take it this will be the basis for the activist P.R. campaign by the activist pro-abortion crowd leading up to this decision, should the SCOTUS accept the case. Just like we were told the internet would be turned off, or our bandwidth would be restricted, or websites would be blocked if the Obama administration's Title II internet regulation regime was overturned. Of course that was not based in reality, either. It was just a bunch of hysterical scaremongering tactics, which with all due respect, your assertions are also.
I just want to understand your argument. Are you saying the Supreme Court will refuse to take up the Alabama law or that they'll take it up and just refuse to address the law itself and issue a ruling on a strawman version of the law? And lol at your view of the "constitutionalists"
Another weird line I don't understand. If I think a fetus is a life, you're saying it's hypocritical for me to oppose killing it unless I also give my tax dollars to provide healthcare and education. This is silly. Someone can absolutely 100% reasonably say "I oppose killing innocent life but I also don't believe education is a right."
I think there is a serious possibility that they take up the case. If they take up the case, which is by no means certain, there is a serious possibility that they overturn Roe. But that is not a certainty either. If they overturn Roe and do nothing else, that will return the responsibility for legislation regarding abortion to the 50 states. I am not speculating about this. In fact, a great deal has been written on this subject. What you seem to be suggesting is that the strict constructionist leaning justices will write an opinion that is as dysfunctional as Roe, just in reverse. There is effectively no chance of this happening. If it is somehow possible here on this board, I would like to try to have an intelligent, rational, well informed discussion of this subject with some of the posters here. I am not trying to be condescending, but it appears that you are going to need to read up on this subject a bit more before you are going be ready to do that. I am not trying to offend you and I hope you will read up on this subject. I also hope that you will take these recommendations in the spirit that I am trying to offer them.
I'm sorry but you aren't really focusing on what I'm saying and you are creating a theory as to what you think I believe. The Alabama law specifically defines personhood. It was written that way SPECIFICALLY to get a ruling on it. The Roe decision specifically referenced the lack of recognition of a fetus as a person and went on to say if that were to change this ruling would change. Alabama drafted this law specifically to get a challenge on personhood. So again, are you saying the SC will take up this law THAT SPECIFICALLY DEFINES PERSONHOOD and simply not rule on it and just use as a way to rule on Roe without addressing the Alabama law itself?
You are right. They can say that. That's daily life in Alabama. "Spit em' out and keep em' dumb and sick" would be an apt state motto. I do find it incredibly hypocritical, though...that someone would feel that the fetus has rights just up until the moment they're born.
I think they have rights well after they are born. Someone in Alabama thinks so as well. Doesn't mean they have to think they have the right to a publicly funded education (as an example). YOU think (and I agree by the way) that something like that should be guaranteed by the state, but that's debatable. I don't find it hypocritical to say "I think it's wrong to kill someone even if I don't want to give them an education."
Under our federalist system, there is room for different laws and different values across the 50 states. That is part of the beauty of our constitution and our federalist system. So when the SCOTUS rules on a law passed by a state, it can and periodically does rule on whether that state is functioning within its authority under the constitution. It does not have to follow that every other state has to now have laws that match the state law that they just ruled on and allowed. Again, this is part of the beauty of federalism. Roe has restricted the states ability to pass their own laws regarding abortion for almost 50 years now. This has caused extreme tension and strife across our society which it is not necessary for us to have. The way to significantly alleviate that tension and strife is to allow each of the states to pass their own abortion related laws and regulations. To again use the example of capital punishment, just because the SCOTUS allows capital punishment, it does not follow that all states MUST have capital punishment. It is the choice of each state and many states have decided that they do not want to practice capital punishment. If Roe is overturned, the states will again be able to craft their own laws regarding abortion, and also definitions of personhood. If the SCOTUS were to rule to allow the states to define personhood in the particular way that Alabama is doing, it would not automatically extend THAT definition to the other 50 states.
Did segregation end after the Civil War and the ratification of the 14th Amendment? Nope. Went on for another full century with the main argument being "States Rights".
Eh? They're very clearly telling them what they can/can't do with a part of their body that happens to be exclusively female. The reason I choose "j*zz" instead of "penis" in my hypothetical is because 1) j*zz is exclusively male and 2) using the fuzzy arithmetic where we arbitrarily say "life begins" can be taken further to include j*zz as something that should be protected and laws written to punish those whom abuse j*zz. (probably the strangest sentence I've ever typed on CF.net but here we are) I'm less comfortable with women voting on anything that exclusively affects men only. The same way I am less comfortable with people from Louisiana voting on an issue that exclusively affects Texans. Does that mean I'm unfit to live in a representative democracy, or I'd rather we throw out the whole government? No. This subject is unique in that it's one of the only ones we have that exclusively affects one gender over another. There's nothing stopping us as a society from constructing new rules or standards in our representative democracy to further increase the representation it is supposed to affect. For example, a rule that places certain issues into "gender voting" blocs, wherein only people of a certain gender may influence the vote. Will that happen? Probably not anytime soon of course. But we don't have to simply throw our hands up and say "that's representative democracy for ya". That's certainly true, but it's beside my point. You're talking about the way things are, I'm talking about the way things could or ought to be to maximize human well-being and the effective representation of government. Secondly, I thought it was quite clear this discussion had transcended Alabama and we're speaking very broadly now. FWIW I still say it's worth taking a moment to go through the thought exercise of being a man under a woman-controlled government. If you say that male-only legislation from a female-dominated congress doesn't sting just a bit more than normal, then you're a better person than I am.
OK now we are having a better conversation. I guess I disagree that the SC would rule that a state can define personhood. Wouldn't that create weird issues? If a mother in Alabama drives across state lines to have an abortion, would Alabama have any recourse for what they would perceive to be the murder of one of their citizens?
So should all men recuse themselves from any vote regarding abortion or female health issues? What about a situation where the voters have selected exclusively male representatives in their state? Is that state's legislature just paralyzed from dealing with any issues regarding women?
When Pat Robertson is against this, you know something's gone off the rails... Televangelist Pat Robertson said he thinks Alabama went "too far" with a controversial abortion bill that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison. "I think Alabama has gone too far," he said Wednesday during an episode of "The 700 Club.""There's no exception for rape or incest. It's an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe v. Wade." He continued: "But my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one will lose." The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday, only allows exceptions "to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother," for ectopic pregnancy and if the "unborn child has a lethal anomaly." The law carries stiff penalties for those caught violating it. For example, doctors could face up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion in the state.
Wouldn't that lead to another lawsuit though? Equal protection issues. Forget abortion for a moment...if a citizen of Alabama drove across state lines and murdered his wife in George where it was not illegal to murder your wife (I know it's dumb lol) wouldn't Alabama have grounds to sue Georgia? Genuine question. I can tell you that a lot of the legal eagles I know who have worked closely on this issue and have consulted on drafting of bills like these have said they are trying to provoke a federal ruling on personhood.
There are obvious logistic concerns but I'm sure there are ways to navigate it that people much brighter than I am could come up with.
