Ruth Bader Ginsburg Disagreed With Roe vs Wade

[Subduction Zone]

How?

The Supreme Court Judges at least have to pretend to be following the Constitution. It would not sit well with the public if the Supreme Court openly ruled that women do not have legal control over their own bodies. It probably would not even sit well with the female member that Trump put in. The fact that Roe v Wade was passed on the wrong principles gave them an out.

 

[Ponder This]

I think that time has shown that Roe vs Wade was a poor decision. The Supreme Court has already had to make multiple decisions to revise the Roe vs Wade ruling.

Roe vs Wade did not age well and has done little except to foment political divisions and be an obstacle to any real discussion. With Roe vs Wade being officially overturned, I think that discussion will be able to move forward: I think this debate necessitates a 2/3rds supermajority decision in legislative bodies - not a coin flip in courts.

If the two sides of the general public can't come to 2/3rds agreement, then they need to keep talking until they reach an agreement or a compromise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think that time has shown that Roe vs Wade was a poor decision. The Supreme Court has already had to make multiple decisions to revise the Roe vs Wade ruling.

Roe vs Wade did not age well and has done little except to foment political divisions and be an obstacle to any real discussion. With Roe vs Wade being officially overturned, I think that discussion will be able to move forward: I think this debate necessitates a 2/3rds supermajority decision in legislative bodies - not a coin flip in courts.

If the two sides of the general public can't come to 2/3rds agreement, then they need to keep talking until they reach an agreement or a compromise.

As abortion is a medical procedure and medical information is sealed tighter than Fort Knox, it is my understanding it is a Constitutional right under the 9th and 14th amendments.

 

[Revoltingest]

Excuse the ignorance, me no know TLTR....

Too long to read.
It's the most important initialism on RF.
BTW, I propose a new one...
NWAFV
It means I'm not watching any ******* videos.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then one can not honestly debate the question if one does not listen to the other side of an argument does one.

Actually, I listen to the other side, unlike so many
liberals....like the ones I heard on NPR today.
They claim that conservatives just want to control
women, entirely ignoring the issue of whether the
fetus has a right to life.
Are that blind & dumb that they're unable to see the other side?
Or are they lying to whip up their base into hysteria?

 

[esmith]

Are you opposed to how Roe was written? Or are you opposed to the rights for women it established?

We know you are right wing. So I am suspicious of your real motive here. It is corrupt and dishonest to present an argument here that suggests there is trouble with the opinion (from a republican justice, btw) and that it is somehow invalid as IF you are interested in legal opinions. But I suspect your actual motive is the net legal sabotage that would occur if the Roe opinion is overturned on procedural grounds.

Am I right to assume your real motive is the overturn of the Roe opinion because it will mean abortion is by default illegal in 23 states?

Am I right to assume your interest here isn't really how the opinion was argued, reasoned, and written?

Seems you have a problem of reading all of the post in the thread. Try Post #5 and #21, before you make claims.
Oh, by the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed Bill Clinton and I do believe he is a Democrate.
So, how about try reading for once.

 

[esmith]

Yeah, on this one we can. It's shameful and embarrassing Conservatives are so damn eager to drag America down on the freedom index, all to force others to live in accordance to their own personal religious beliefs.

So you disagree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

 

[esmith]

She essentially said that it was the right decision, but for the wrong reasons. In other words the Supreme Court should have made abortion legal based upon women's rights.

No she did not. From the linked article
She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you disagree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

No, we agree with her. The decision was right, but for the wrong reasons. Why is that so hard to understand. You seem to be the one that disagrees with her.

By the way, quote mining is usually done as a form of lying. Please do not quote out of context. You can't cherry pick just part of her statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No she did not. From the linked article
She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

You almost had it. So close.

 

[esmith]

Why do you think that should matter to anybody not on the Supreme Court? They're making judgments of constitutionality. I assume that I am not alone when I say that I am making a moral judgment. For one making moral judgments, if the Constitution doesn't support it, then the Constitution should be changed. That's a different kind of assessment than those who are not trying to decide what is right or wrong, but what is already supported by the Constitution.

Also, religious judgments don't matter to humanists making moral judgments. What the faithful believe a god wants is not part of the moral calculus outside of those circles. Neither the Constitution nor any religious dogma factor into moral theory or making moral judgments. For me, the issue is simply one of deciding who should have the choice of whether the pregnancy comes to term, the pregnant woman or the church using the power of the state. That's a no-brainer to me. Neither the church nor the state are moral authorities. The dictates of conscience and what it tells one is right and wrong is the proper moral authority and sole moral compass.

You seem to have forgotten that you live in a society governed by laws.
Whether you abide by them or not is your decision as long as you relize that there can be consequences for not abiding by them.

 

[esmith]

So, does anyone agree that Roe vs Wade should be overturned by the SCOTUS and legilative bodies make the law governing abortion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No she did not. From the linked article
She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

That doesn't mean she would have voted against it. It's incredibly doubtful she would have.
And I agree with her it's troubling it wasn't considered a women's rights issue. But I disagree it should have been gradual. That just tends to cater to bigots who will throw out every last thing they can to avoid fulfilling the American promises of freedom and liberty for all.

 

[esmith]

That doesn't mean she would have voted against it. It's incredibly doubtful she would have.
And I agree with her it's troubling it wasn't considered a women's rights issue. But I disagree it should have been gradual. That just tends to cater to bigots who will throw out every last thing they can to avoid fulfilling the American promises of freedom and liberty for all.

You say freedom for all, but don't you realize that there are many that are against abortion, both male and femal, thus not freedom for all
Just freedom for what you think is right, correctr?.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you think that should matter to anybody not on the Supreme Court? They're making judgments of constitutionality. I assume that I am not alone when I say that I am making a moral judgment. For one making moral judgments, if the Constitution doesn't support it, then the Constitution should be changed. That's a different kind of assessment than those who are not trying to decide what is right or wrong, but what is already supported by the Constitution.

Also, religious judgments don't matter to humanists making moral judgments. What the faithful believe a god wants is not part of the moral calculus outside of those circles. Neither the Constitution nor any religious dogma factor into moral theory or making moral judgments. For me, the issue is simply one of deciding who should have the choice of whether the pregnancy comes to term, the pregnant woman or the church using the power of the state. That's a no-brainer to me. Neither the church nor the state are moral authorities. The dictates of conscience and what it tells one is right and wrong is the proper moral authority and sole moral compass.

You seem to have forgotten that you live in a society governed by laws.

Really? I don't see where you get that. I don't advocate breaking the law. In fact, I referred to Constitutional amendment if it decided that the Constitution doesn't support abortion rights.

I also support the move to have Congress enact legalizing legislation, in part because I support reproductive freedom, but also because of the way drive out the Democratic vote in November. The Republicans seem about to be giving a gift to the Democrats by taking one of their most successful wedge issues at bringing out the vote and making it an issue the Democrats can use to do the same. Does this sound familiar, except now coming from the left? :

This matter could result in a large blue wave in November, siphoning off even MAGA votes wherever there is a Bubba that doesn't want to pay child support for 18 years for a child neither he nor the mother wanted. It is Christians requesting most abortions in the States, even so-called pro-life Christians. They mind it socially convenient to articulate a pro-life position, but when push comes to shove, many if not most want choice. Watch them tell their pastors that they are voting Republican as they secretly vote for the party that will defend and protect their right to abortion : It Turns Out Christians Have More Abortions Than Any Other Religious Group In America

You say freedom for all, but don't you realize that there are many that are against abortion, both male and female, thus not freedom for all
Just freedom for what you think is right, correctr?.

You have the freedom to refuse abortion if you find the idea repugnant. Everyone has this freedom. That IS freedom for all.

You seem to equate freedom with the ability of those opposing abortion to impose their values on others as well. That's freedom for none, even those who oppose abortion. Sure, they don't need freedom if the law commands doing what they would choose to do anyway, just as one doesn't need freedom of religion if one's own religion is the only lawful one, but freedom's just another word for something else to choose.

 

[Ponder This]

As abortion is a medical procedure and medical information is sealed tighter than Fort Knox, it is my understanding it is a Constitutional right under the 9th and 14th amendments.

I think that the 9th and 14th amendements are a big reason that the Supreme Court will be overturning Roe vs Wade. The 9th amendment reserves the power to regulate medical procedures to the states and the 14th amendment does not allow States to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that the 9th and 14th amendements are a big reason that the Supreme Court will be overturning Roe vs Wade. The 9th amendment reserves the power to regulate medical procedures to the states and the 14th amendment does not allow States to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The 14th works for Roe v Wade. The only definite person that is deprived of life, liberty, or property (maybe that should be in bold too) without the process of law are the pregnant women that need an abortion. No one has as of yet proved that globule of cells is a person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say freedom for all, but don't you realize that there are many that are against abortion, both male and femal, thus not freedom for all
Just freedom for what you think is right, correctr?.

No, it applies to the people that are against abortion too. If they don't want one no one can force them to have one. Which is unlike biblical abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, does anyone agree that Roe vs Wade should be overturned by the SCOTUS and legilative bodies make the law governing abortion?

It should be reinstated, but as the article that you linked shows it should be due to women's rights. Not due to doctor's rights. You tried to use a states' rights argument when it came to abortion but forgot that the Ninth Amendment also reserves rights to women. Nowhere in it does it say that it reserves medical rights to states. The Ninth Amendment is a stronger argument for rather than against abortion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think that the 9th and 14th amendements are a big reason that the Supreme Court will be overturning Roe vs Wade. The 9th amendment reserves the power to regulate medical procedures to the states and the 14th amendment does not allow States to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 14th:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
These can be read as blanket rights and protections for all, including HIPAA laws.
Other than the woman and doctor it is no one's business knowing she even had anything done. For all we need to know she went to ask for directions to the gas station. We don't even need to know that much.