Just send it back to the states. Simple and easy.
Do lawsuits make sense here? Should Alabama be able to investigate what you were doing in California to see if a criminal conspiracy had been committed in Alabama? If a citizen of a permissive state finds themselves in Idaho, should they be prevented from seeking medical care they want?
I understand that people feel strongly about this issue. I share many of those feelings on a personal level. I wouldn’t pay for such a procedure nor would I encourage or participate unless it was a really extreme situation.
Where I’ve always parted is that I just don’t understand how my morality, in any area including this one, can be fairly and effectively enforced, policed and/or regulated by the State.
Discuss.
Streaming free now. Y’all check it out.
https://youtu.be/JbS23CYU7G4?si=o9KpSukyzsnSpO8Y
The FBI under Hoover is redeemed!! https://www.history.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-fbi-j-edgar-hoover-communism
couple things for the group to ponder.
1- my body, my choice. This is the call to arms for those who support the right to choose. But those same people were awfully quiet when the Covid vax was being forced on everyone
2- well you say, you needed the Covid vax because by not getting it, you were endangering others. Totally random, but I watched a Netflix special on the Laci Peterson case the other night. Her husband was charged with murdering her and her unborn child. Read that again. Charged with murdering an unborn child.
how do you square all of the above? There are plenty of circumstances where I support the right to choose and plenty that I don’t.
That’s a pretty tenuous connection. Is pregnancy communicable? Curious as to what liberty interest a leper would have in sitting next to you on an 4 hour flight to LA.
Not sure that anyone has suggested that if a woman has a choice of what to do about her own pregnancy that it means we all get to make that choice for her as well, whether she likes it or not.
And I’m not presenting this issue as a moral one or even as a question of law. My question is a practical one: how does any government or law enforcement agency effectuate a policy that enforces a proposition that life begins at conception? You can believe it. You may even be correct. Morally and scientifically. Now what?
It just seems to me that it very quickly devolves into a damn mess. And the greater the urgency, the bigger the mess. My proposal for those morally opposed to Roe was to use their energies to change hearts and minds. It would have been less divisive and quite possibly more effective. And it certainly hasn’t validated the underlying premise in the vast majority of the country and for those parts who have tried to make that proposition enforceable, they have a lot of court appearances upcoming.
if there were a vaccine that the government told me would prevent me from getting leprousy and I chose to get it (remember, my body my choice) I guess I wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) have a problem sitting next to a leper for four hours on a bus or train or whatever you said above.
and for the purposes of this next comment – let’s just all agree (hypothetically or not) that abortion is ok in instances of rape, incest or to protect the mothers life. Why is it that the woman should get to unilaterally choose when there are two people involved in conception? Especially when the father can be held accountable via child support
You do realize that people can carry diseases for which there is no vaccine. The question is: does a person have the right to spread their diseases about and the state have no say in what precautions they need to take to mingle with others? Is it unconstitutional for the government to exclude a US citizen diagnosed with Zika from clearing customs and put them in quarantine?
There is no legal requirement that you be informed that you may have impregnated a woman.
The obligation to support the product of your negligently spilled seed is for the benefit of your child, not the mother. You don’t want that obligation, proceed carefully. I’ve never seen the inverse argued: “judge make her get an abortion! I don’t want to pay child support later!! She said she was on the pill!!!”
Maybe it’s Covid fog from the strain I picked up in Indy (worth every symptom!) but I’m pretty sure the “my body, my choice” people were screaming for the non-vaxxers to get the shots. Seems to me it was often the same people who want to ban abortion that were the ones suddenly all “my body, my choice” and fighting against vaccines.
I support my body my choice. I support it for the mother and the baby. In addition the father that helped make the child needs to have some voice in the matter. This is definitely not a Federal issue so the states have to deal with it.
“‘Where I’ve always parted is that I just don’t understand how my morality, in any area including this one, can be fairly and effectively enforced, policed and/or regulated by the State.”
In my view not of us are entitled to our own morality. There is a reason murder is illegal. None of us humans just thought that up. Therefore we follow a higher law that we can’t legislate out of existence.
Pretty sure atheists don’t want to be murdered. Probably not much interested in doing the murdering either. The concept that thievery and murder would have been tolerated in any organized society, but some divine inspiration intervened strikes me as a pretty specious argument. Law and order is necessary if people are going to live among each other in peace and prosperity, full stop. If it could proven that there is no God, no after life and no purpose here on Earth but to live and then to die, you’re still going to prison for murder and stealing.
If there is some divine inspiration its in doing, or not doing, something just because its the right thing to do. If the law was there to make you moral you’d have to attach your Church attendance receipts to your tax returns. The law is there to protect persons and property not to make anyone a good person.
In fact, in this country you have the God-given natural right to be a complete bastard, as long as you don’t hurt any one else, literally. You can have your 3 year old baptized in the Church of Satan, if you want. No one can stop you. Sounds like terrible shit to me. You can read your 7 year old Mein Kampf at bedtime and introduce him to your favorite skinheads. Fit him with a robe and hood, Youth XL. No one can stop you. Because we say as a nation: God says you can.
The taliban, the ayotollah and quite a few Americans, I hope, someday will figure this out.
apparently you can’t ask a school teacher if your kid is switching genders. But you can do all the other stuff you said. Agree completely it quickly devolves into a damn mess, which seems to be where we find ourselves
Freedom can be messy, but consider how much you save by not purchasing lots of Zyklon B.
“The law is there to protect persons and property not to make anyone a good person.
In fact, in this country you have the God-given natural right to be a complete bastard, as long as you don’t hurt any one else, literally.”
You haven’t gotten any arguments from me on this point. It is the as long as you don’t hurt someone else part that we are talking about. The mother, father and baby are all someone else’s. All of them are equal before the law. None of their rights stand above the others.
Ok so if the doctor says:
“you carry this to term, you may die, you won’t have ever have children, and the life expectancy of your baby is less than 48 hours.”
Mom says: let’s have the procedure.
Dad says: nope. You’re having the baby.
Who wins out in this “equal rights” scenario?
And keep in mind that we haven’t yet even considered what the Attorney General of the state thinks.
The way you phrased this “you may die” makes it impossible to answer because all of us face a “you may die” at any moment and that is true in child birth as well. But, assuming you mean that there is an extreme circumstance that makes the mother unlikely to survive childbirth then every state that I am aware of rightly gives the mother the right to make that decision. Also keep in mind the scenario you’ve concocted is less than 1% of the cases.
Why does the mother’s unwillingness to accept the risks outweigh the father’s interest in her taking her chances?
Because the father or anyone else does not have the right to force the mother to die for another.
Where do the odds have to break down there? 50/50? 90/10? 10/90? What if the father insists upon a second opinion from Father O’Donahue who interned at a hospital once and who has spoken to God who has made some concrete assurances that all will be well?
“Where do the odds have to break down there?”
They break down to where the most good is accomplished as is humanly possible to discern.
I’m pro-life and not ashamed of it one bit. I won’t get into the reason. I do believe this, as most legal issues, should be settled at the state level. If NY wants practical infanticide to be acceptable, who am I as a non-New Yorker to disagree? I can try to persuade people that’s bad policy, but the people’s representatives have determined that to be the law of the land for the moment. If ID wants a full ban on the procedure, who am I as a non-Idahoan to protest? Full stop on the issue.
I did not read the details associated with the links, but the question of conspiracy is really not good policy with one exception. If the state has a law requiring minors to have parental consent and said organization takes a minor without parental consent across a state line to get the procedure, I would make the case that’s a state-level conspiracy case with federal and state kidnapping charge on top of it. I could make that case even if there was no parental consent law.
Good policy or not, would you be ok with the Alabama AG enforcing a subpoena on an Illinois gynecologist for a woman’s medical records? Should she be forced to testify before a grand jury about how she got to Illinois and what they knew about it?
If a pregnant woman was driving from MS to FL, got in an accident in Montgomery, ends up in a hospital and her or an associate says: “we need to leave. We have an appointment at the clinic in Tampa and we can’t miss it. The 6 weeks is expiring.” Should the state of Alabama have the authority to place the mother in custody to prevent a premeditated murder? What is exalted there? A right to travel or the state’s rights to protect human life?
Living in Alabamastan, I can confirm that is the exact kind of fuckery our AG would consider doing. He has also expressly made threats about prosecuting those involved in someone leaving the state to get an abortion. We have NO exceptions and folks here are very passionate about that right up until the child is born. At that point, they cease giving a shit.
It’s all about controlling the woman.
See response below.
Bring me YPP data, how is CKS and roster management to date, can mens/womens hoops take a step forward, will mens/womens tennis take a newer direction, with success, comes success after building a bigger trophy case, haven’t heard much out of bm lately….this topic today is a states issue and a very bad choice for wednesday conversation…Blutarsky 24 Start Drinking Heavily….GO DAWGS!!
I thought teaching and practicing abstinence was supposed to fix all of this?
Those policies never cost the Catholic Church a dime that’s for sure.
One of the most amazing things I remember reading about was what young women were willing to do in order to “save themselves for marriage.” Someone enterprising young ladies put the absurdity to song called “The Loophole.” Smh…
AIDS is bad but condoms are far worse.
-Catholic Church
Abstinence ain’t as easy as my Sunday School Teacher made it out to be…
especially when she wore cotton sundresses…to this day it causes a revival
Given that a doctor in Illinois is not subject to Alabama state law, I would suggest the answer is no. If the grand jury common law would suggest that a DA can subpoena a person in another state and compel them to testify without breaching doctor-patient confidentiality, the answer would be yes. If this doctor can’t be compelled to testify in Alabama, what happens when a crime under investigation by a grand jury in Illinois but someone who could be a witness is in Alabama? Does that person get to tell Illinois to go pound sand?
On the 2nd one, that’s a little more touchy. I personally don’t think in this case Alabama has a leg to stand on without reading their law. A competent adult can decide to leave a health care facility at any time. The only thing is when you cross a state line you become subject to all of that state’s laws.
I say all of these things without being a lawyer but staying in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
With a valid subpoena the state of Alabama can drag a witness or documents from any state it wants into an Alabama court.
Would you be that “hands off” if the patient said: “my traveling companion and I traveled here on the way to Florida to kill my husband. We have weapons, a written plan, zip ties, an address, the murder plan is in place and ready to go, but I am in a bit of a hurry?” It’s obviously a completed crime and the next stop ought to be the jailhouse. Why is a conspiracy to commit the murder of an unborn child different from a conspiracy to murder an adult?
This all reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Act where Congress forced some states to return “property” to other states. For some reason though the “burdened” states here aren’t vociferously seeking or claiming the moral high ground.
The question you are asking is a moral one. I don’t know if a health care professional has an obligation to report a pending abortion in Florida to the authorities under the Alabama law … I doubt it. What I do know is the person traveling through Alabama doesn’t have the right to tell an Alabama health care practitioner to perform the procedure outside whatever the state law says.
The reporting obligation isn’t the authority I am exploring, but it could be someday. You may see pregnancy tests being logged on a ledger one day to be perused through by the local constabulary. Rather I am wondering what proponents of an end to Roe, and presumably those who would oppose a federal bill or amendment that adopted Roe, think should be the contours of a state’s right to protect innocent life within its own borders. Because if the rhetoric on the subject is to be taken literally, then considerable restraints upon women could be authorized. To include: “my pregnant girlfriend is threatening to get on a plane and get an abortion. Please put her in jail to prevent the murder of my child until the child is born and placed in my custody.” Obviously, a father making a credible claim that the mother threatened to terminate the pregnancy would be demonstrably unfit, right? I mean we’re taking the child away, right? I mean if she’ll try to kill at 6 weeks, who knows? A divorce lawyer in a custody suit ought to be able to inquire about teenage terminations as a basis to terminate parental rights for her living children. Murdering children should have its consequences after all.
I’ll answer your question with a question. What limitations do you believe are acceptable on abortion as someone who appears to want Roe codified as federal law? The left had 51 years to codify Roe federally. Why didn’t they?
Left up to me, my first instinct would be to leave it up to medical professionals to sort out. Having the AMA, working with third party payers, developing a uniform set of professional procedures and practices makes sense. Any division between covered and uncovered procedures, like other voluntary medical treatment, would probably present the most difficult questions for those actors to sort out. As in most things, it comes down to money.
Practitioners operating outside the guidelines would be subject to discipline and law suits.
Only after seeing how those developed and anticipating how they would work in practice would I look into what role, if any, the gubmit needs to play.
One of the by products of the controversial nature of the issue was that most capable doctors opted out. (Not suggesting that none would opt out otherwise. Some would.) Whether that would change in a different political environment would be interesting to see. One thing that would be nice is if the doctors provided accurate medical advice and weren’t ideological advocates, either way:
“This is how far along you are. This is what that means. These are your options. This is what each choice would mean.” Full, complete, neutral. Followed by: what would you like to do? Would you like to think about it? Treat it like a personal medical and moral decision that only they can make. I think that could be a workable framework.
As to the second, I am doubtful that such a proposed statute could have survived a filibuster at any time since 1973. There were probably more times when the opposite would have passed both houses of congress.
It’s called a Federal System for a reason, its just the that folks don’t understand the 10th Amendment to the once beautiful Constitution, Powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. Good old John Marshall f’ked that up real quick. The reason we only have a two party monopoly in this country is based on the Federal rights verse States rights thing. It has always been that way and will remain that way until one party gets total control and end the other party forever.
It might have been screwed up by the Commerce Clause or by southern slaveholders who wanted their lost property located in Massachusetts returned to them.
The truth is that what always inhibited the free practice of Federalism and allowing local control to flourish were complete and total bastards, pure and simple. You can’t run a state in a way that is incompatible with the nation’s values and keep the feds out of your business. Nor should they. If the state of Mississippi wants to use it’s police force to murder visitors doing nothing more than what is lawful, well, the government gonna jump all up and down on your head and sing cockle-doodle doo.
Good day to you sir. (First one who recognizes the reference gets an attaboy.)
And they should. You don’t get to fly the American flag on your capital building and rely on our military for protection while you brutalize your people because “federalism.” Its bullshit.
If Massachusetts abolished private property, took over all industry and required five daily prayers to the East to Allah from every school child are you gonna defend their STATES RIGHTS!!? Or are you going to bring them in line?
A subject for another day but slavery was the law of the land in New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky until after the war….
So you want to abolish the States, go for it. The two party system and the the Civil War was fought in part to end state’s rights so your not very original. Good Day
Nice dodge. The South seceded from the Union rather than be subject to the possibility that subsequent laws might impinge upon their industry. And then it fired upon a US military installation. If state’s rights means a state is free to ignore congress or the supreme court, separate itself from the Union, form a rebellious army and shoot at the US military, exactly which founding father proposed that state’s held such “freedoms?” While I am sure that you would support a state disassociating itself from the union, pledging its allegiance to Mao and Xi, raising a Red army dedicated to worldwide atheistic communist domination and using that army to attack American military installations, in the name of freedom of course, I think you would find yourself well outside of popular opinion about what the appropriate response ought to be to said treason.
I am always amazed by the apologists for the proponents of slavery 165 years ago. You’d think by now the universal opinion would be: slavery bad so you can’t shoot at people just because they might set your human property free one day.
Seems simple enough.
As I suggested, the concept of federalism and local control is great. It can and has been used for good. When its enslaving people, blocking school houses and otherwise terrorizing fellow Americans it has shown it doesn’t deserve the freedom it had been given. Its forfeited. Otherwise, what are other Americans supposed to sit back and tolerate and defend? Surely it can’t be taking beaten and battered escaped humans, holding them in cells and returning them to the masters who caused that condition, can it? Is that your idea of federalism? Return my slaves you yankee heathen abolitionists! They’re my property!!!
What if CA legalized child sex slaves and insisted the escaped ones over at your house be returned henceforth?!! Are you going to yield to state sovereignty on that one?
What if CA decides to be an illicit maker and exporter of fentanyl to other states with Project Blue America 2029 as the stated goal? I think a nation’s values of decency and human freedom fairly override any state’s interests in being complete and total bastards. The constitution is not a suicide pact and no rights are without limits. In fact, most come with corresponding responsibilities.
Just so everyone is clear on the facts, life does begin at conception. Literally the first sentence of my Embryology textbook as a first year medical student was: “Life begins at conception.” Your political or religious definition may be different, but Medical science says life begins at conception.
Not sure how much dispute there is on that particular biological question. The harder questions relate to viability, its relevance, when it is reached and resolving conflicts of rights. I also suggest that law enforcement is ill-suited for the job of policing and enforcing any rights deemed to be bestowed upon the “conceived.” Wanting to provide that protection is one thing. Doing that fairly and effectively, especially when much of the country permits certain procedures, is quite another. I understand the desire, and from a personal perspective, I’m there. Don’t have to worry about me participating in that market. Not happening unless it was a really extreme scenario and even then I wouldn’t like it. What I would like even less is being told by a law enforcement agency what I can and can’t do. I can manage that issue without any help from the police, thank you. The very concept that you, the mother, a doctor and the police have to sort it out together, is repellant to me. My attitude is: what are the police involved in this for? This is a private matter. What’s more I can assure you that if I am there the “conceived” will have its interests heard. What I wouldn’t feel good about is calling the cops or filing a lawsuit when I don’t get my way.
There is more dispute on my statement than you would think. One time I foolishly made that statement around people I didn’t know well and they went fricking nuts. I agree with you on the practical aspects of this issue. I doubt it will ever be fully resolved. I think viability shouldn’t be an issue. A 30 week old unborn child depends on the mother’s body to support its life. A newborn also is completely dependent on its mother’s support to survive.
That’s one of those things where people just want to win the argument while avoiding the facts/reality. Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue hasn’t spent time on it. It may be the hardest one out there. Lots of bad and insufficient solutions and very few good ones.
Nothing worse in my opinion than an abortion advocate. No one should be enthusiastic about it. But some are. I find that repugnant when I see it.
And as fos as some can be on this issue from the left, I think the pro-life people are when they argue that abortion is equivalent to murder but then say violence against clinics and doctors is morally wrong. If it is murder as you claim, violence is actually legally permissible: defense of others. It could be easily argued that if the premise is adopted you are morally bound to respond by every means possible. But because violence turns voters away from the pro-life position they embrace hypocrisy while never giving in on the fact that “murder” is probably not the right word in that context.
Adults ought to be able to confront the truth of things and sort through them and not lazily adopt meaningless terms, definitions and positions that don’t withstand scrutiny because they like the landing spot. Work through the problem.