Today is the (64th) anniversary of Brown vs. Board by which established that “seperate but equal” is unconstitutional.
Tomorrow is the (122nd) anniversary of Plessy v. Ferguson, by which the Court established that “seperate but equal” is Constitutional.
It took fifty-eight years and probably dozens and dozens of tries.
I believe those dozens and dozens of tries were worth it. Those tries, and many of them failed were wise uses of money and the people involved are unsung heros.
This is somewhat of a technicality, but Brown v Board didn’t really overturn “separate but equal” (which said the separate facilities had to be of equal quality) that was established in Plessy, but rather ruled that the segregated schools were “inherently unequal”.
And besides, stare decisis is a cornerstone of our judicial system. Unless there is a drastic shift in society’s views on abortion, the core principles that Roe and Casey established are not going to be overturned.
Sounds good.
Roe declared life begins when a fetus can survive outside the womb using 1972 technology.
Iowa is trying to move that to when the fetus has a heartbeat.
Other possible life beginings could br
I don’t believe there is, in our society, no unanimity as to when life begins. Brave people challenged Plessy v Ferguson, presumably many people on many occasions.
Minimum wage, social security and the 40-hour work week were initially ruled unconstitutional as well.
You may support or oppose the Iowa law but trying and retrying SCOTUS decisions is an important part of our legal system, one that is held dear by everyone who opposes Dredd Scott.
This case will likely never make it to the Supreme Court, given that the challenge is being litigated in State court, using State constitutional issues.
I didn’t know about the state court, but I figured it would get knocked down and the Supreme Court would not take it up.
Defining life at six weeks sounds like a nonstarter to me, but I’ve been wrong before.
There are two possible outcomes to this litigation.
It works its way to the State Supreme Court and gets knocked down. No possibility of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Status quo maintained.
It works its way to the State Supreme Court and is ultimately upheld. No possibility of appeal to the United States Supreme Court and the six week ban goes into effect in Iowa only. Again, because it is state litigation of non-federal questions, the best they can do is sustain this legislation in the State of Iowa only. Women must cross the Mississippi River into Illinois, go North into Minnesota or South into Missouri to get a post 6 week abortion.
Opponents are not going to take this into Federal Court and risk an overturn of Roe v Wade, at least not until November of this year.
If Democrats take the Senate, ensuring Trump is blocked from any further Supreme Court appointments, they might then file a federal case, knowing there is no chance of an overturn of Roe v Wade in the foreseeable future.
i disagree with part 2. if the state supreme court were to uphold it it will still be appealed to the federal courts because it infringes on a womans right ot privacy. and it will be struck down there if not before
Depends on whether a beating heart means life. Strictly speaking IMO a beating heart, tho often used synonymously to mean “life”," is but an indicator that life is possible.
Insofar as we are speaking of the current litigation, my previous post is correct. When the Iowa Supreme Court rules, its ruling will be based on Iowa constitutional law and thus cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Now, if the the Iowa Supreme Court does uphold the legislation, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood likely would file federal lawsuits against the legislation, based on federal Constitutional law. But until and unless they do, the Iowa Supreme Court has the final word.
A new human life begins as soon as two gametes fuse to form a zygote. This is a biological fact. However, it’s more or less irrelevant with regard to the legality of abortion. Up until viability, the woman has an unrestricted right to have an abortion. The unborn human’s right to life does not supersede the woman’s autonomy, right to have her body unoccupied, right to defend herself, right to not have her bodily resources taken, etc.
[quote=“adroit, post:172, topic:800, full:true”]
A new human life begins as soon as two gametes fuse to form a zygote. This is a biological fact. However, it’s more or less irrelevant with regard to the legality of abortion. Up until viability, the woman has an unrestricted right to have an abortion. The unborn human’s right to life does not supersede the woman’s autonomy, right to have her body unoccupied, right to defend herself, right to not have her bodily resources taken, etc.
[/quote]
You presented a concise, cogent post, right up to the bolded part,
It’s a human baby, not a ■■■■■■■ virus.
[quote=“markdido, post:173, topic:800, full:true”]
And what it is is irrelevant, if the woman wants it removed from her body she has every right to do so.
That doesn’t change my point. No human has the right to occupy another human’s body against their will. No human has the right to impose a serious health risk on another human.
That may be your argument, but that would be no different than legalizing the killing of a conjoined twin, and in the same ballpark with extrajudicial killing of tresspassers, snoops and peeping Toms, cyber hackers or private eyes who are endangering (only) privacy and not life liberty or property.
Moreover it is NOT the issue the court dealt with. The court dealt specifically with when does the fetus become a life, specifically a person with rights.
The courts decision was not unreasonable given the limits of what was known to science at the time.
Iowa’s attempt to define life as beginning with a fetal heartbeat is borderline ludicrous, but part of the long established American juris prudence of testing and retesting controversial decisions.
I prefer the Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey framework of a 9th Amendment Right to Privacy applied to the States via the 14th Amendment due process clause, to the eviction argument that has been put forward.
The Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey framework allows for a graduated role for the State as the development of the fetus progresses, permitting significant restrictions on abortion in the post viability period.
If you go with an unqualified right to evict, that would essentially legalize elective abortion up to the very moment of birth. I don’t support that any more than I would support a total ban on elective abortion from conception.
The present framework, with its viability cutoff, is the best solution.
Your posts are getting as vapid as Mobilus’.
Occupy? Against their will? Serious health risk?
You do know how babies are made, right?
The baby didn’t have anything to do with it.
How about we put the onus on the two people who can prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place.
Nope there’s a vast difference between entering someone’s home and inhabiting a woman’s body.
It’s not valid at all. The woman has the unrestricted right to expel the unborn human until viability. The unborn human’s right doesn’t come with the right to dwell in another human’s body and impose a serious health risk. Doesn’t matter that the unborn human didn’t have a choice. It’s irrelevant to the contention of rights. In this case, the woman’s autonomy and self-determination win out.
There are two human beings involved here: the baby and the mother. Both lives have meaning and value. Simply because of the location of the child or its developmental stage does not make someone less of a human. A human is a human. You continue to not comprehend this point/scientific reality.
In our system of government, you cannot kill another human being unless your life is in danger of being killed or disabled.
It does MATTER that the baby didn’t have a choice. If a mother commits a crime, say manslaughter, and she dies before the end of the sentence, does it make sense to have her son go to jail and complete his mother’s sentence? No. It does not. It does not make sense to punish people for committing no crime, no due process of the law.
Having an abortion is by no means risk-free. Women have died having abortions, whether it be through back alley or through a legitimate doctor’s office. Having a baby ripped from its mother’s womb AND having its body parts torn in pieces does put at risk her ability to have more children. So in other words, abortion is not actually GOOD for the mother, both short-term and long-term, and poses health risk.
Lastly, I do not understand why viability is somehow a benchmark for human statehood. Yes, the baby can survive outside the mother’s womb, but you’re simply switching one kind of womb to another kind of womb. What do I mean? Lets say the earth’s oxygen goes away, does anybody survive? What if one day the ocean and lakes dry up and we no longer have water. Does anybody survive? If you throw a baby/adult/teen in a locked closet with no food, water, and sunlight, can they survive?
The courts have it wrong here. The word “privacy” exists no where in the constitution, nor does the word “viability” or “women’s autonomy”. It was an activist decision and the courts decided to play scientist. And where is the woman who complained about not having an abortion today? She’s on the pro-life side and regrets the mess she caused.
