A Kentucky woman Friday filed an emergency class-action lawsuit, asking a Jefferson County judge to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. It’s the first lawsuit of its kind in Kentucky since the state banned nearly all abortions in 2022 and one of the only times nationwide since before Roe v. Wade in 1973 that an adult woman has asked a court to intervene on her behalf and allow her to get an abortion.
The other side thinks abortion is not a right.
Your side wants it to be a right so states can’t decide for themselves.
As the constitution is written right now, tying abortion to an amendment is a stretch. This is why the ruling that gave constitutional protection of abortion was overturned.
The only good faith argument I’ve seen is that democrats should’ve tried harder to explicitly add it to the constitution. That way they don’t have to contort the interpretation of amendments to suit their agenda.
But, as tribalists go, it’s okay when your tribe does it (14th amendment) but bad when other tribes do it (2nd amendment.) And the worst people of all are the ones who call it out.
You 160 years ago.
That’s completely true. Good thing we amended the constitution to ban slavery so it can’t be overturned as easily as Roe v. Wade.
So you’re saying we can’t amend the Constitution to codify abortion rights but it’s a good thing we amended to Constitution to ban slavery?
No. What makes you think I’m saying that?
Is the nation more or less divided than when slavery was banned?
The nation was more divided during slavery, hence why we had a civil war over it.
We were only able to outlaw slavery because of who won that war.
Huh. So it was more divided then but it is less likely that we can amend the constitution now due to how divided we are? That doesn’t make much sense.
What part of having a civil war determining the fate of slavery do you not understand?
We’re not discussing a civil war to add abortion protections to the constitution. We’re talking about passing it using measures that would not have worked when trying to outlaw slavery.
You’re conflating two marginally related causes as though they are identical. Try to stay on topic and you’ll be less confused.
An interesting argument. So law is only credible if people go to war over it and is an expression of millitary superiority. Also the Constitution is the only level of federal law that is binding and the only thing that determines what is both ethical and a human right and any attempt to change that is made right only by an expression of deadly force… Hmm.
There are a lot of non-constitutional federal laws that protect rights however. The FDA for instance enforces the rights of the public to not be subjected to food and drug adulteration, the Americans with Disabilities Act protects the rights of disabled persons guaranting them reasonable accommodation to fully participate in society. Are those laws valid as they are extra constitutional?
As for abortion specifically, the 14th amendment was invoked heavily during the original Supreme court case as the support for the original Roe v. Wade but the document that court decision was based on has not changed, nor has the medical procedure that case was based on. The original court case featured heavily that private citizen rights were nessisary to individually made health decisions based on the established principles outlined in the document. The progression of the court case attempted to follow a series of logic to determine if the constitution was being applied.
It’s repeal was through Dobbs v Jackson and it’s precedent over turned for reasons “Abortion not being deeply rooted in this Nation’s history or tradition”, nor considered being a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868… This is a note for note description of a fallacy - the appeal to tradition. That for something to be true it must be revered as a cultural norm dating back to usually unspecified periord. It also has the component of the genetic fallacy - rejecting or accepting something based on the origin of it rather than it’s content.
Following that logic you can dismiss basically all of US law that has been codified after the original constitution. Food and drug adulteration was a huge problem during the period of the signing of the Constitution so obviously the US has no tradition to protect the health of it’s citizens based on those grounds. Nothing in the constitution that specifically stops companies from doing that! Disabled people aren’t obviously mentioned and we had a long history of basically telling them that they had no right to participation in anything. Basically the entire naturalization process was codified after the original signing so bye bye citizenship rights slavery is legal.
Your argument is essentially that what is codified into law is what is ethical but also that modifying an expanding the protections of those laws are an expression of “tribalism”… But they shouldn’t be. The original court that saw Roe v. Wade were majority Conservatives. They held themselves to completely different ethical principles than the modern Conservatives on the court. They MADE this and all constitutional laws a matter of tribalism by discarding logic and greater ethics to the side. Your freedoms and protections are all fundamentally compromised by these fallacies based on exploitation of the system. If one can simply reject the rules, letter and spirit of the law in favour of putting forward the imaginary intentions of a bunch of dead people then all of the laws you have are based only on a complete flight of fancy. They are just hoping you are too wound up in your own tribalism to notice.
Ever noticed that any change made post Confederacy isn’t supported by an originalist argument? That’s actually by design.
I didn’t read the rest of your wall of text because you clearly misunderstood my point in the first 2 sentences.
The law was passed through constitutional amendment because the nation went to war over slavery.
The US did not amend the constitution to protect abortion. It really is that simple. No mental gymnastics, walls of texts, or analogies required.
Too bad it’s effectively impossible to amend the Constitution anymore.
Yes. In an ideal world we would be able to add abortion protections to the constitution.
Unfortunately, in the world we live in, I feel it’s up to the states to prove their way is better. Just like with marijuana.
Meanwhile on the other side States are trying to make it illegal to pass through them on the way to get an abortion, and to ban the abortion pill Federally.
Sounds less like “letting States decide for themselves” and more like “letting these states decide for everyone else.”
How about letting people decide for themselves?
“letting states decide for themselves” is the narrow end of the wedge. just like how the confederacy wanted to “let states decide for themselves” about slavery, then insisted the federal government override free states, tried to militarily annex territories that wanted to be free states, and put it in their constitution that no member could be a free state. they’ll “let states decide for themselves” as long as they make the right decision, then they’ll decide federally for the states that “decided for themselves” wrong.
conservatives only respect two freedoms: the freedom to do what they want, and the freedom to force you to do what they want.
A factual correction: the Confederacy did not want to let states decide for themselves whether to allow slavery. The main difference between the US and Confederate constitutions was that the Confederate one explicitly denied states the right to ban slavery.
that seems to be what I said
I’m all for that.
Of course, they’re not above that. They absolutely want to push the needle so they can push it further. Overturning Roe v. Wade was just another step along that path.
One of these is to allow women to terminate a life threatening pregnancy or one that they don’t want, perhaps from rape, or because they can’t afford to have a child and it would be living in poverty.
The other one is an effort to stop people machine gunning children in schools, shooting people for using their driveway to turn around or shooting people though thier front door when they knock on it.
If you think those two stances are comparable and both should be cancelled out because of technicalities then you need to get your head examined.
Okay.
only republican doublethink can cast police jailing people for receiving basic healthcare as “freedom”.
“Basic healthcare.”
There you go obscuring your arguments to make it seem like there is no opposition.
What is that healthcare? See what I mean about arguing in bad faith?
I’m sure people in Egypt will argue Female Genital Mutilation is “basic healthcare.”
that healthcare is abortion. basic healthcare agreed upon worldwide outside of a tiny sliver of americans in a child genital mutilation cult that has established minority rule.
No, it really isn’t.
Healthcare that’s needed to prevent someone from funny sounds pretty fucking basic to me.
Oh let’s discuss the second amendment. Tell me, who is your commanding officer in your well-regulated militia? What rank do you hold? Where is your uniform? How much compensation are you given for your service? I hope you are not engaged in stolen valor.
Where does the 2nd amendment specify any of that as being necessary?
You can argue it’s a poorly written amendment, but trying to argue it means things that it clearly doesn’t just to support your agenda is playing right into my arguments of tribalism and hypocrisy.
Thank you for proving my points.
It’s not a poorly-written amendment unless you ignore the context of the Articles of Confederation, which is where the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ came from and in which it was explicitly defined:
That was unambiguously what ‘well-regulated militia’ meant when the Constitution was drafted, and was its intended meaning. That context has been lost and/or deliberately obscured in recent years – specifically since the 2008 Heller decision that reinterpreted the 2A to ignore that context and how grammar works in order to include the rights of individuals.
Most people today are fine with that reinterpretation (or are simply unaware it happened), but my point is a core amendment was reinterpreted recently in much the same way you’ve been arguing against.
Why was it fine for the 2A but bodily autonomy is a bridge too far?
Well regulated militia.
Those words are not there by accident. You claim that you have a right to a murder machine because of the text, the text says your murder machine is for the purpose of a well regulated militia. So please describe your militia to me.
Wtf do you think “well regulated” means?
It means “functioning as expected”.
Who do you think is in the militia?
(edit: source https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm )
Name one other context where anyone uses “well regulated” to mean that. You can’t, because it’s a bad faith argument based on pretending words mean something other than what they plainly do.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regulate#:~:text=To control or direct according,for accurate and proper functioning.
Definition 3. Remember, the English you speak isn’t the exact same as English spoken over 2 centuries ago, in this context the obvious and predominant meaning at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment is that “well-regulated” didn’t mean “regulation” as you imagine it now, it was more along the lines of well-functioning/trained/maintained/whatever.
But the meaning isn’t even relevant because the “right to bear arms” isn’t bound by it:
From a linguistically unbiased standpoint, it’s clear that the first half, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is a reasoning for the directive, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The usage of commas has changed over time, which is where a lot of the confusion comes from nowadays, a more modern reconstruction would only use one comma.
The term for it would be “absolute clause” – it serves many purposes, and in this case it gives reasoning for a something, but doesn’t lock that something to the reasoning.
Politics has seeped deep into peoples’ view of the linguistics of the amendment, but it’s really simple, this is basic grammar. It doesn’t say nor imply “The right of a well-regulated Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, they specifically wrote it as “the right of the people” for a reason.
Making it an argument of the 2nd Amendment only applying to militias is arguing in bad faith – it’s clear that the amendment was written for everyone to have the right to bear arms, regardless of militias (although motivated by the security of the state, which well-armed militias can supply).
The only argument is whether the 2nd Amendment is suitable for the modern day, whether we should repeal/overwrite it, or at the very least to what extent protecting the “right of the people to bear arms” can be applied – obviously prisoners/felons can’t bear arms, there are a lot of regulations on who can bear arms and which arms you can bear (not even “the militia” can just bear any arms they like). And of course other first world countries are faring much better without a “2nd Amendment”, and with much tighter gun control.
Ah yes, the old “half the amendment is just there for decoration” argument. That’s where I stopped reading. You’re a lost cause.
Not my fault you didn’t pay attention in English classes when you were in school :/
Also I clearly stated why it was there – as a good reasoning for the amendment existing and emphasising the amendment’s importance to the security of the state. It’s right next to the most important freedom (to the writers), the freedom of speech, it’s important to explain why they find it so essential.
Listen, you can have whatever stance you want on gun rights or whatever, but you can’t just make up your own reality and twist linguistics to fit your perception. I’m very pro-strict-gun-control, as already stated, I’m extremely left-leaning, if anything interpreting the 2nd Amendment factually and accepting it not only applying to militias is more of a detriment to my political goals, but I’m not going to take that and decide that it’s better to twist basic grammar to my liking. You can’t just treat the 2nd Amendment syntactically differently from any other sentence for no reason. Linguistics isn’t a political tool, it’s a science (unless you’re a prescriptivist).
Whatever you want it to mean.
I want it to mean no one. Hand in your gun to the nearest police department as you are by definition no longer in the well-regulated militia
Okay.
The rule was overturned because the Pope told Roberts and the other Catholics to overturn it.
I’m not so sure about that. Can you share more information? It sounds interesting.