“Let the states decide.”

[Copernicus]

And what happens when the states decide to return to legalize the practice of slavery. Or to treat women as chattel?

The Constitution explicitly prohibits slavery. It does not explicitly prohibit abortion. Even Benjamin Franklin had a recipe for inducing abortions. Slavery wasn't prohibited then either at the national level. It was for over half a century after the Roe v Wade decision. Nothing in federal law prohibits the government from decriminalizing it. The current SCOTUS might try to rule otherwise, but they will have to stretch their argument as outrageously as they did in the Dobbs decision.

 

[crossfire]

Senate report of the effect of Dobbs:

https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024_dobbs_anniversary_national_report_final.pdf

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree with the slavery part and obviously that's why it's now a federal issue because it's a common cause.

Abortion is a state issue unlike what you want to believe, it is most certainly not a common cause , which means it isnt a federal matter , but a states matter.

They're pretty similar if you ask me.

If you're a slave and someone owns you as property, you have no bodily autonomy.
If your bodily autonomy is taken away from you and put into someone else's hands, you have no bodily autonomy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, that's the only feasible way to handle the issue. You'll never get Congress to pass a nationwide abortion law that Dems and Reps will agree on.

Roe v. Wade seemed to work quite nicely.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe the states would eventually ban privatized slavery altogether anyways, but this entire country is still a slave nation and don't make any bones about that fact.

The plantation masters just moved from private to governmental and all political parties still allow it.

Total cop out answer.

 

[Shaul]

“Let the states decide. (e.g. on abortion)” is often said by Republicans. Big government bad they say, so we should let the state governments as opposed to the federal government dictate many things of our lives.

To those who say that, why don’t you say “Let the counties decide.”? And if you say that, why don’t you say “Let the cities decide.”? And if you say that, why don’t you say “Let the individual decide.”?

Normally, I like to shoot spitballs at both sides of the aisle. But when conservatives say something along the lines of “big government bad therefore let states dictate everything” it makes me chuckle. That is all.

This shows a profound misunderstanding of the structure of the United States of America. It is a union of STATES. The Constitution specifically mentions states. Not counties nor cities. The Constitution identifies the Federal, States and the People as each having specific powers. It also specifically states that those powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the States or the People as stated in Amendment X. The power to regulate abortion is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Roe v. Wade seemed to work quite nicely.

Apparent not, as it's gone.

 

[crossfire]

This shows a profound misunderstanding of the structure of the United States of America. It is a union of STATES. The Constitution specifically mentions states. Not counties nor cities. The Constitution identifies the Federal, States and the People as each having specific powers. It also specifically states that those powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the States or the People as stated in Amendment X. The power to regulate abortion is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

Interstate commerce is specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, and this patchwork of state by state laws and resulting interstate medical tourism has totally disrupted women's healthcare. Check out the senate report in post #62,

 

[SkepticThinker]

Apparent not, as it's gone.

Apparently, yes. When it was in place.

Now you've got a giant *********** that's getting worse by the day.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Apparently, yes. When it was in place.

Now you've got a giant *********** that's getting worse by the day.

Well, that's what happens when you use faulty Constitutional arguments. The Dems should've taken the chance to codify it in law when they controlled both houses of Congress if they were so concerned about it.

 

[Copernicus]

This shows a profound misunderstanding of the structure of the United States of America. It is a union of STATES. The Constitution specifically mentions states. Not counties nor cities. The Constitution identifies the Federal, States and the People as each having specific powers. It also specifically states that those powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the States or the People as stated in Amendment X. The power to regulate abortion is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation was our first attempt at a union of states, and it quickly became untenable. The federal Constitution was adopted to "create a more perfect UNION". Still, it was a compromise between Free and Slave states that took us into a civil war, which resulted in the end of the Confederacy of states. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments advanced federalism over "states' rights" in the sense that states cannot overrule federal law. The Constitution allows for the establishment of national systems for all sorts of things that Republicans would like to pretend are supposed to be delegated to the states, including especially health care. A national pro-choice law could easily overrule state laws that attempt to criminalize abortion, just as national laws can standardize other rights and privileges in the US--e.g. voting rights. There is also the matter of interstate commerce regulating the distribution of healthcare services across state borders to shore up such a law.

The power to regulate abortion may not be explicitly granted to the federal government in the language of the Constitution, but the Constitution does grant powers that give it the right to regulate it. We have a national government, not a confederacy of states. The federal government is not as toothless as you think it is, nor should it be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, that's what happens when you use faulty Constitutional arguments. The Dems should've taken the chance to codify it in law when they controlled both houses of Congress if they were so concerned about it.

It stood up pretty well for about 50 years.

The problem is, the Republicans did everything in their power during that time to get it overturned and finally succeeded, after at least two Supreme Court nominees lied on the stand.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It stood up pretty well for about 50 years.

The problem is, the Republicans did everything in their power during that time to get it overturned and finally succeeded, after at least two Supreme Court nominees lied on the stand.

Again, if the Dems were so concerned, they should've passed a law codifying it when they controlled both houses of Congress.

I don't believe justices should be making promises about how they will rule in cases or subjects beforehand, anyway.

 

[Balthazzar]

State decisions and self-governance seems to be the common denominator in today's policies. It equates to less government control over our small state minority, majorities. I'm viewing it as if we're becoming more like townships as states, and our communities are becoming more like households. Either way, it appears to be giving each state more liberty in how we decide the policies we adopt as a township, or rather a more Sovreign entity than federal regulation imposes on the lot of us. MJ reform and State approval, etc for example. I think they are giving us what we wanted all along, and many of us appear to resist the effort due to our ...

 

[Kathryn]

They're pretty similar if you ask me.

If you're a slave and someone owns you as property, you have no bodily autonomy.
If your bodily autonomy is taken away from you and put into someone else's hands, you have no bodily autonomy.

Sort of like a fetus or baby. See what I did there?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sort of like a fetus or baby. See what I did there?

Works for the baby part.
Not the fetus part.

 

[Balthazzar]

Guns are arms and you conveniently left out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". There's nothing implied about it.

In the scenario that it is left up to state legislature to determine whether gun sales and/or ownership is permitted in any given State, how many of us would run to a state who decides "no guns" for greater safety and security, to get away from the dangers that guns pose to us as citizens?

the Supreme Court. They make good rulings and bad ones.

Sometimes ... or is it always?

 

[Shaul]

Interstate commerce is specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, and this patchwork of state by state laws and resulting interstate medical tourism has totally disrupted women's healthcare. Check out the senate report in post #62,

No, that argument is rubbish. But let's suppose for argument's sake it isn't. That would mean that the Congress would need to pass legislation authorizing abortions. It hasn't. It would also mean that the Supreme Court would disallow States from legislation on abortion and all health matters too as not being a power of the States. That obviously hasn't happened and is ridiculous to suggest.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In the scenario that it is left up to state legislature to determine whether gun sales and/or ownership is permitted in any given State, how many of us would run to a state who decides "no guns" for greater safety and security, to get away from the dangers that guns pose to us as citizens?

Um, I don't know.

Sometimes ... or is it always?

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Balthazzar]

Um, I don't know.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

It was humor.