“Let the states decide.”

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That's not true.

The word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the 14th Amendment establishes that no State shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and gives Congress the power to enforce this provision.

Denying the right to bodily autonomy to pregnant people violates this equal protection clause. This was acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

[SalixIncendium]

“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.

As a libertarian, I'm inclined to "Let me decide."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Total cop out answer.

Nope. A totally relevant and applicable answer.

 

[Kathryn]

Works for the baby part.
Not the fetus part.

Oh it works fine for some people.

 

[Kathryn]

That's not true.

The word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the 14th Amendment establishes that no State shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and gives Congress the power to enforce this provision.

Denying the right to bodily autonomy to pregnant people violates this equal protection clause. This was acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade decision.

I guess baby be damned.

 

[Kathryn]

Here's the deal: For people who believe that the fetus is a person, they cannot be convinced otherwise, For the people who do not believe this, they cannot be convinced otherwise. It's a unique situation!

 

[fantome profane]

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.

But what it if is the Federal Government that is enslaving you? Wouldn't it be much much better if it was a State Government enslaving you?

Let the States decide!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess baby be damned.

Nope. Babies are people who are born already.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Agreed on both.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's the deal: For people who believe that the fetus is a person, they cannot be convinced otherwise, For the people who do not believe this, they cannot be convinced otherwise. It's a unique situation!

It's almost like we should let everyone decide for themselves.

 

[Balthazzar]

But what it if is the Federal Government that is enslaving you? Wouldn't it be much much better if it was a State Government enslaving you?

Let the States decide!

Local politics aimed to address local needs seems more so appropriate than the broad brushed strokes applied by federal mandates. I do wonder how this might affect travel aims and the prospect of setting down roots in communities more apt to accommodate our personality types moving forward.

 

[crossfire]

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.

All the same, women's health care has been thrown into disarray by the Dobbs decision, and has very much become a matter of interstate commerce by the Dobbs decision with the absence of Federal standards. The evidence for that is very much abundant, and cannot be dismissed by hand waving and minimization. The problem is not going to go away without some major policy changes either.

 

[crossfire]

Local politics aimed to address local needs seems more so appropriate than the broad brushed strokes applied by federal mandates. I do wonder how this might affect travel aims and the prospect of setting down roots in communities more apt to accommodate our personality types moving forward.

Take a look at the Senate report regarding the fallout from this in post #62

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess baby be damned.

Rights still apply even when other people might die from the right being exercised.

For instance, you still have property rights... no matter how many lives would be saved by the government commandeering your home to get homeless people out of the cold.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It did. It's called the 14th Amendment.

 

[fantome profane]

Local politics aimed to address local needs seems more so appropriate than the broad brushed strokes applied by federal mandates. I do wonder how this might affect travel aims and the prospect of setting down roots in communities more apt to accommodate our personality types moving forward.

Exactly what I am saying. Local governments know how much their State needs slave labour and therefore they should make that decision.

And as for travel, I suspect that will be strictly curtailed for some people.

 

[Shaul]

That's not true.

The word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the 14th Amendment establishes that no State shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and gives Congress the power to enforce this provision.

Denying the right to bodily autonomy to pregnant people violates this equal protection clause. This was acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Federalist Papers, in particular paper 45, described which power were reserved for the States and which were for the Federal government. Stare decisis also agrees that States have the power to legislation health matters, which includes abortion law. That is the truth. Your fantastical misunderstanding notwithstanding.

 

[Shaul]

All the same, women's health care has been thrown into disarray by the Dobbs decision, and has very much become a matter of interstate commerce by the Dobbs decision with the absence of Federal standards. The evidence for that is very much abundant, and cannot be dismissed by hand waving and minimization. The problem is not going to go away without some major policy changes either.

Not really. Nobody is going to the courts to circumvent state abortion laws using this reasoning. Because it isn't correct.

 

[Balthazzar]

Exactly what I am saying. Local governments know how much their State needs slave labour and therefore they should make that decision.

And as for travel, I suspect that will be strictly curtailed for some people.

Curtailed for what reason? I would the think the point would be, specifically aimed to create communities able to accommodate the needs of the many, as state assemblies of like-minded citizens. It would help increase the overall ability to cooperate and get along as a body who represents the respective State of residence.

 

[fantome profane]

Curtailed for what reason? I would the think the point would be, specifically aimed to create communities able to accommodate the needs of the many, as state assemblies of like-minded citizens. It would help increase our ability to cooperate and get along as communities.

I don't know how much you know about slavery, but it is my understanding that the slaves were not allowed to travel freely.