The bottom line about this whole thing is how in the *ell can they tell someone what they can do with there body SMH these so called law makers don't own women is this some new form of slavery where the state owns every womens body.This has got to be a Civil rights matter.
I don't think State can define personhood, at least in term of a natural person. It's already defined by federal law. They could try to define other type of personhood and grant them rights (fetal rights), but that's not what the Alabama bill is doing. The Alabama bill specifically wanted to define a person to include the unborn, so that it can have all rights of a natural person. I guess the Court could ignore that particular portion. However, we can't simply ignore the intend here and it is clear and this go way above overturning Roe. This shouldn't even reach the Court, but who knows anymore. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8 (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
But the religious freedom rulings essentially codifies discrimination. Gays are the new blacks! Need someone to look down your nose at.
Sorry, you've jumped in to our convo. I was saying that they I don't think they would ignore that portion of the law in Alabama, just like you are saying. This bill was written specifically to force them into addressing this issue. If the court takes up this law at some point I expect them to address it. I then think it's unlikely they would leave a situation where each state could define who is a person. I think they would take the opportunity to rule on that one way or another.
The groundwork is being laid for the Supreme Court to rule on the definition of person hood when it relates to a fetus. That is the groundwork that has been laid by pro-life proponents on this issue and it is something that has been being brought up even on the issue of frozen embryos. The only way I can see the Court avoiding a proclamation that a fetus is a protected life, is if a Justice like Roberts or Cavanaugh refuse to go to that extreme and the Court adopts something similar to what Mojo is discussing. Having said that, I do not think it is likely because there are a lot of attorneys that have the sole job of following and filing briefs at the state and federal level on the topic. I am friends with a lady that is an attorney that only files briefs on behalf of the pro life agenda. They have a pretty good idea (gossip exists in those circles) about the position of the Justices on the topic.
Yeah this is what I'm saying. These laws were designed to provoke a ruling on personhood. These aren't backward hillbillies writing archaic anti-abortion laws. These are well thought out bills that are designed to challenge specific aspects of Roe and fill legal gaps that Roe claimed existed. It does not seem likely to me that the court will take up these cases and sidestep the overarching issue. I know for a fact that the people who have put these bills together are confident they'll get a definitive ruling. (either up or down) The only question really seems to be whether Roberts will go middle of the road.
I'd argue that it is in fact backward hillbillies writing archaic anti-abortion laws designed to challenge Roe.
Backward hillbillies implies they are stupid and just doing something to do it.. There bills are being written by highly sophisticated lawyers who have been working for years on a strategy to challenge Roe. But I get it. You are pro-abortion so you feel justified insulting anyone who isn't.
This was started when kavanaugh was nominated then confirmed as ussc. Folks knew he was put on the court for this purpose, and all the BS about respect for precedence was just that, BS. One reason the support from senator collins will be spotlighted by women's choice supporters.
I mean the drafting of these bills didn't start with Kavanuagh. Legal consultants have been working on this for awhile. But yes, when Trump got elected that was the green light to move forward. It didn't have to be Kav, it was going to be someone like him no matter what.
Yea, we agree. I didn't meant otherwise. I was trying to make a point, and maybe it's not a valid one - no lawyer here - that since there is already established law on what is a person, the SC can't simply avoid the issue unless they completely ignored it to craft something they wanted. And if they don't ignore it, they have to make a judgement one way or another and once they do, there is no room left for the State to have their own definition of what is a person. Yes, it's possible for them to ignore it and .... pardon the language, legislate from the bench.
And there it is. I'm against stripping women of the ability to make a choice of how they manager their own bodies on their own...regardless of my own personal beliefs...so I'm the evil one. Cute. I can play that game, too! You are anti-women's rights, anti-civil rights, pro-rapists rights, pro-incest, etc. etc., etc. Doesn't matter if it's true or not (I'm sure it's not). But I can make up s***, too, based on how well I know you personally (I don't). I hereby apologize for calling the legislators from the state that is 50th in education, 47th in number of insured, and 1st in being anti-civil rights backwards hillbillies.
I didn't call you evil nor make any personal insult on you whatsoever. You are the only who has lobbed an insult and you continue to do it in this post. Blah blah blah. Not even worth responding to you but I'm curious as to what you think I made up about you? All I did was quote you. The bill, and bills like it around the country, are being written by legal scholars who have been working their entire professional life to get to this moment. You can mock the people of Alabama all you want, but your wasting your breath. The left continually thinks these are just morons and it always bites them.
I'm sure you're correct about testing/provoking/challenging Roe. To my mind, here are the interesting and important things about all this: 1) Roe does not have popular support in the country. How big is the "pro-life" orientation? Hard to tell, but it's at least as big, and likely bigger, than the pro-choice crowd, who are increasingly losing the debate. (phrases like "clump of cells," "parasite" do not work in their favor.) 2) It is very arguably the role of the courts to defend individual liberties against the "tyranny of the majority." So, if a majority opposes Roe, the court(s)could still be justified in maintaining that ruling. But that's the question, isn't it? Whose rights are being abridged here? The pregnant woman's? Or the baby's?
The lawyers on both sides are very bright and versed, the problem is that often times the court isn't. For example one of the biggest issues is where a fetus is potential life or it is fulfilled life. It sounds simple but there are profound consequences. For example, if an embryo a life? Is an embryo property? In a sense the outcome will likely be beneficial for the pro life side. The court can define an embryo as life, and use the language in Roe and the Doe decision and say science is better now and under Roe; life does begin shortly after conception and accordingly is actually protected under Roe. The other possibility is that Roberts steers the Court towards not even hearing the Alabama case. If that happens, it is still a win for the pro life side, because it will open the door for other states to follow suit. One thing about the Alabama law........ I believe it does make an exception for protection of the mother's life. That is open to many different interpretations. Doctor's do not want to be stuck in the middle, but they may be. We could have a situation where different doctors have different definitions.
All of this is already happening, and has been for years. There are many men in jail for failure to pay child support. Never mind that some of child support amounts are ridiculous, and that's there no way of policing the spending of that money. Here's a better idea: if a woman has the right to choose, so should the man. If the man does not want to support the child he did not want, there is an option for "paternal surrender." That is "equality."
Good points. Moreover, it is my understanding that a woman can have the baby, and leave it at the police station/fire station. No negative legal ramifications. Why this isn't more widely known, and disseminated, is mystery to me.
Can't find the quote where I said I was pro-abortion. You have no idea what my personal stance on the matter is because I've never posted it here. Being pro-choice does not have any bearing on what decision I'd make given the choice. Being a married man in my 40's with children, I've luckily never had to and never will. Except it doesn't. As I mentioned before, it's not coincidental that the states that are pushing these laws and the ones that fought tooth and nail against ending segregation...using many of the same arguments.
