The odd thing Justice Kennedy noticed about abortion in Texas

TheIceman · Mar 13, 2016

Scrabaholic said:
As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for the most consequential abortion case in a generation, new criticism of state rules that shrink access to clinics came from the justice widely predicted to cast the swing vote.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations.

“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tice-kennedy-noticed-about-abortion-in-texas/

=============================================================================

It is good to see that, while he is opposed to abortion, he is keeping an open mind about the undue burden placed on women in Texas. Hopefully, that will reflect in his ruling.

Apparently, Justice Kennedy was able to see the obvious zealotry and ignorance of the right-wing theocrats in Texas. Now that there is no longer at right-wing bias in the SCOTUS, I foresee both sides having to work together... at least in the short term.

Republicans hate this because it ends their ability to be corrupt and serve big business and its special interests.

TheIceman · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
How a judge feels or what social situations or realities exist surrounding this issue (any issue really) should have 0% bearing on their ruling. Their ruling should be based strictly on the original intent of the Constitution. That is literally the job of judges for these types of rulings. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blind-folded and carries a scale.

Until the right-wing learns to separate their religious beliefs from the law, this will never truly happen.

prometeus · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
Their ruling should be based strictly on the original intent of the Constitution.

Tell you what, you live your life by the intent of some dead slave holders, I will live mine by the spirit of the Constitution which first and foremost is based on self determination no by the the ignorance of some people.

minnie616 · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
How a judge feels or what social situations or realities exist surrounding this issue (any issue really) should have 0% bearing on their ruling. Their ruling should be based strictly on the original intent of the Constitution. That is literally the job of judges for these types of rulings. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blind-folded and carries a scale.

It is clear the authors of the Constitution did not regard fetuses as persons.

A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so.

Roe v Wade - edited text

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

TheIceman said:
Until the right-wing learns to separate their religious beliefs from the law, this will never truly happen.

Kind of a meaningless platitude seeing how this isn't anything that effects religious individuals more than any other ideology.

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

prometeus said:
Tell you what, you live your life by the intent of some dead slave holders, I will live mine by the spirit of the Constitution which first and foremost is based on self determination no by the the ignorance of some people.

We aren't talking about living lives. We're talking about judicial rulings, which is based off of a document that was, yes, written by dead slave holders.

prometeus · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
We aren't talking about living lives.

But we are and that you fail to realize that only proves ignorance.

We're talking about judicial rulings

Which affect real lives.

which is based off of a document that was, yes, written by dead slave holders.

In order to give them their self determination and now it is our turn and how we want to live our lives.

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

minnie616 said:
It is clear the authors of the Constitution did not regard fetuses as persons.

Absence of a specific declaration does not automatically mean the negative. That's flawed logic.

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

prometeus said:
But we are and that you fail to realize that only proves ignorance.

Which affect real lives.

In order to give them their self determination and now it is our turn and how we want to live our lives.

I'm not ignorant of anything. You're conflating two different things. Living your life is your own personal choice. Judicial rulings have to follow original intent of the Constitution. That's literally their job. Your personal feelings or beliefs have absolutely zero to do with anything, as well as anyone else's. Since you can't seem to figure out that simple fact, the only ignorance being displayed on on your part.

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

minnie616 said:
It is clear the authors of the Constitution did not regard fetuses as persons.

Roe v Wade - edited text

Fishking said:
Absence of a specific declaration does not automatically mean the negative. That's flawed logic.

In fact, the closest thing we have to anything regarding the Constitution not specifically saying something it automatically is a state matter, per the 10th Amendment. The SCOTUS basically had no standing to rule on this topic, in reality.

prometeus · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
Absence of a specific declaration does not automatically mean the negative.

There is no absence of declaration but specific instruction that makes it clear that fetuses are not counted as persons.

That's flawed logic.

No just flawed knowledge on your part.

prometeus · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
I'm not ignorant of anything.

Clearly you are.

You're conflating two different things.

I am not conflating anything, SCOTUS decision affect every day lives, that is an indisputable fact.

Judicial rulings have to follow original intent of the Constitution.

No, that is just you misguided understanding.

minnie616 · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
Absence of a specific declaration does not automatically mean the negative. That's flawed logic.

From Roe V Wade:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [Footnote 55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa.1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.E.2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. at ___, 285 N.E.2d at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

minnie616 said:
From Roe V Wade:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

Still sits at the feet of the 10th Amendment. The SCOTUS had no standing to even hear it.

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

prometeus said:
Clearly you are.

I am not conflating anything, SCOTUS decision affect every day lives, that is an indisputable fact.

No, that is just you misguided understanding.

Oh, I see, you believe the judiciary is there for political activism. How quaint.

minnie616 · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
Still sits at the feet of the 10th Amendment. The SCOTUS had no standing to even hear it.

I disagree. The right to privacy dates back to 1800s.
Legal abortions before quickening dates back to the Early Colonial days.

UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods.

Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

minnie616 said:
I disagree. The right to privacy dates back to 1800s.
Legal abortions before quickening dates back to the Early Colonial days.

The right to privacy doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion anymore than it does to kill your born children. Regardless of when legal abortions where done, it still doesn't rule out a state making a law about it. We have plenty of laws prohibiting behavior now that were not in times past.

"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."

minnie616 · Mar 13, 2016

Fishking said:
The right to privacy doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion anymore than it does to kill your born children. Regardless of when legal abortions where done, it still doesn't rule out a state making a law about it. We have plenty of laws prohibiting behavior now that were not in times past.

"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."

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

Fishking · Mar 13, 2016

minnie616 said:
Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

Yes, yes...I realize it's a SC decision. I knew that before you repeated that fact multiple times. Nix v Hedden was was a SC decision as well, and so was Citizens United (which you probably don't like).

minnie616 · Mar 14, 2016

Fishking said:
Yes, yes...I realize it's a SC decision. I knew that before you repeated that fact multiple times. Nix v Hedden was was a SC decision as well, and so was Citizens United (which you probably don't like).

That was not the point. The point is states can not violate the woman's due process which is a part of the 14th amendment.

There are several Zones of privacy precedents that go back to the 1800s.
Right to privacy zones include but are not limited to marriage, child rearing, access to contraception and legal elective abortions before viability.

prometeus · Mar 14, 2016

Fishking said:
Oh, I see, you believe the judiciary is there for political activism. How quaint.

How did you come up with this idiocy?

TheIceman · Mar 14, 2016

Fishking said:
Kind of a meaningless platitude seeing how this isn't anything that effects religious individuals more than any other ideology.

It became related when the right-wing theocrats attempted to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the population.

TheIceman · Mar 14, 2016

Fishking said:
The right to privacy doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion anymore than it does to kill your born children. Regardless of when legal abortions where done, it still doesn't rule out a state making a law about it. We have plenty of laws prohibiting behavior now that were not in times past.

"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."

Roe V. Wade rules out making a state law on abortion. Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law. No matter how mad this makes the right-wing theocrats, it IS THE LAW. They can follow the law or they can be branded seditionists and be treated accordingly.

JayDubya · Mar 14, 2016

TheIceman said:
Roe V. Wade rules out making a state law on abortion. Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law. No matter how mad this makes the right-wing theocrats, it IS THE LAW. They can follow the law or they can be branded seditionists and be treated accordingly.

What Harry Blackmun did was make up **** not based on any federal law or any part of the Constitution.

So in this case, state law is being trumped by literally nothing. If you respect the rule of law, then you don't support the nonsense that is Roe. It's not complicated.

TheIceman · Mar 14, 2016

JayDubya said:
What Harry Blackmun did was make up **** not based on any federal law or any part of the Constitution.

So in this case, state law is being trumped by literally nothing. If you respect the rule of law, then you don't support the nonsense that is Roe. It's not complicated.

Roe V. Wade is FEDERAL CASE LAW.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] The federal government possesses the supreme authority accorded it by the Constitution. The scope of this authority is very broad, as the federal government is tasked with providing for the general welfare of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I am sorry the south has such a hard time understand this concept.

The odd thing Justice Kennedy noticed about abortion in Texas

Struggler