I am a fervent Tenth Amendment person -- I bow to no one in my support of the Tenth (or the Ninth.) But between Amendments 5 and 14, there is no doubt that any allowance of abortion is blatantly unconstitutional (not to mention completely immoral.)
Perhaps this is why they argue so about whether the “clump of cells” is a living human. That and possibly to absolve themselves of evil. I dunno.
Because the judiciary was granted NO authority to create rights. Harry Blackmun even said in his memoirs that he just wanted to make abortion legal.
That’s not law.
Roe had nothing to do with abortion, per se.
It assigned a right to privacy that did not exist.
If people understood that, arguing against it would be easier.
It was unconstitutional because the SCOTUS made a law from the bench.
And the wienies in the legislative branch sat back and let the judicial branch usurp a power only vested to them by the constitution.
Not surprising since ten years earlier the legislative branch let the executive usurp the power to declare war with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
The legislative branch has become WORTHLESS.
Real power is NO longer directly transferred at elections.
It is transferred at the confirmation hearings in the senate.
So-called Democracy doesn’t get any more down and dirty than the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
It understandable why the Marxists want to “pack” the court.
The Right to Life is enshrined in the document that gives We The People the right to form a government (2 so far) The Declaration Of Independence.
Of course, it was unconstitutional as well as seriously sinful.
To think that a constitution could give a woman and a Dr. Kevin K. Killer a right to kill an innocent child is absurd.
Quotes of 1856 Texas law:
[page 6]
Of offenses against the persons of individuals
[page 7]
Of abortion:
ARTICLE 531. If any person shall designably administer to a pregnant woman, with her consent, any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence, or any means whatever, externally or internally applied, and shall thereby procure and abortion, he shall be punished, by confinement, in the Penitentary, not less than two, nor more than five years ; if it be done without her consent the punishment shall be doubled.
Art. 532. Any person who furnishes the means for procuring an abortion, knowing the purpose intended, is guilty as an accomplice.
https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/statutes_and_codes/Penal_Code.pdf#page=112
Quotes of current Texas law:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.
(a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual
....
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
Amendment XIV, Section 1
“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
It was recognized even in ancient times that elective abortion was a wrong and not part of proper medical practice.
“I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
It’s the Personhood question that’s causes trouble with that argument.
Is a fetus a person?
If yes, can I claim my un-born child on my taxes?
Is it child abuse if a mother smokes weed, crack, or fenty?
And don’t use “Judeo-Christian in your argument, Torah states unborn ain’t a person.
Don’t depend on a court.
Convince your fellow citizens.
That’s how you change law.
It was a bad decision enshrined for decades as truth and Constitutional. It took decades to reverse that absurdity.
To my mind, if PP et al want federal abortion legislation they’d better get ready for an Amendment for such because normal Federal Statute would likely be unconstitutional, IMO
Yes, but the ruling party mostly hates the creator and think the founding documents are old-fashioned without modern relevance, and which only belong in museums, not in courtrooms.
The Founding Fathers didn't put in anything about abortion and perverted "marriage" because it was so unthinkable in those days that they didn't think it was necessary.
You can have that attitude about abortion and I can even agree with you, but if this issue isn’t handled with nuance and grace we will get slammed at the polls.
Better to make incremental progress than no progress at all. When we come off as heavy handed morons thumping bibles we get leaders like Hillary Clinton and more democrats in congress like AOC and terrible Supreme court justices. Be smart.
There is nothing wrong with defending the lives of babies.
If angry old ladies are mad at President Trump for defending the lives of babies then maybe, just maybe, the problem is with the angry old ladies.
Excellent points.
Roe v. Wade was the worst decision SCOTUS ever made. The Dobbs decision was the second worst.
Instead of ruling that abortion should be left up to the states, they should have reinforced the 14th.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(see tagline)
Very simple answer found in the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
10th amendment states rights were also in court. Do I recall right?
I’d wager that no poster to this thread read Roe v. Wade.