344

Did you intentionally leave out the “States” and people therein? Seems to me the regulation of abortion, if any, by the terms of our federal constitution, is reserved to the States and people therein.

345

Yes. Does it say “states and people therein”? Or does it say “or to the people.”

You don’t get to ignore the “or”.

346

A deeply rooted history and tradition of abortion.

347

is reserved to the States and people therein.

Not what it says @johnwk2

348

I have no reason to ignore the “or”.

Seems to me the regulation of abortion, if any, by the terms of our federal constitution, is reserved to the States or people therein which is accomplished through each state’s legislative process as may be restricted by its Constitution.

349

No. That’s not what it says. You don’t get to do that.

@SottoVoce is making a valid substantive due clause argument and you are trying to rewrite the 10th Amendment to counter.

There is no “therein”. There is the states. Then separately, there are “the people”.

1 Like
350

State law (what is modern day common law), federal law and precedent.

Alito

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The arguments are:

Abortion is not protected by the Equal Protection Cause because its regulation is not “sex-based.” That alone is insane. How many males seek abortion?

Abortion is not a “liberty” because their definition of “liberty” is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Which is their definition of a liberty in regard to the 14th Amendment.

351

And? Do they not act in concert when creating legislation?

.

352

That’s what you have with abortion now.

You went too far.

1 Like
353

Alito said there couldn’t be an amendment? Odd.

That is correct. It’s not

Their who?

I think that is arguable. It seems as though they are limiting the history of it to Roe. You are attempting to expand it, which is understandable, but that’s a tough case to make with abortion.

Was it argued on those grounds? I don’t think it was.

354

We are talking about rights John, not creating legislation. Do you understand the concept of substantive due process?

355

I thought we were talking about the Tenth Amendment which concerns “powers”. Nothing in there about “rights”.

356

Is abortion a sex-based procedure? If regulated does it impact both sexes equally?

It was argued throughout the history of the constitution and before. Starts on page 16 of the opinion. I won’t include all of it. Most of it is deceptive or extremely selective in my opinion. It emphasizes that abortion was criminal after the quickening. It repeatedly fails to mention that before quickening it was legal, common and available.

We begin with the common law, under which abortion was a crime at least after “quickening”—i.e., the first felt movement of the fetus in the womb, which usually occurs between the 16th and 18th week of pregnancy.

Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century trea-tise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide.”

Sir Edward Coke’s 17th-century treatise likewise as-serted that abortion of a quick child was “murder” if the “childe be born alive” and a “great misprision” if the “childe dieth in her body.”

357

Touche

If the people have the power, can they create the right?

358

It doesn’t have to. Men are not allowed to get abortions in the same states women are not allowed. Don’t try the 'disproportionately affects" bull ■■■■ . You’re doing so well.

So you are claiming a sin of omission? Was it argued that way in this case?

Did you know the 1994 ban was never argued on 2nd Amendment grounds?

359

So, just what does the14th Amendment State?

SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED

The14th Amendment declares:

”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.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities”. Note that “privileges and immunities” are specifically created by government legislation. Additionally, the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles. To get an idea of what “process” means, see the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery which is the very intention for which the amendment was adopted.

Applying the 14th Amendment to abortion, a state may not make a law regulating abortions which makes a distinction based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. That would be a violation of the 14th Amendment’s intent.

360

One only need to look at some of the various states’ Declaration of Rights to acknowledge a resounding YES!

361

Then you accept as valid @SottoVoce’s substantive due process argument. Not that you agree, just that it’s valid.

362

It is too generalized to comment on, especially within the context of our federalist system.

363

No, it’s not. That’s a cop out. @SottoVoce has made the case.