A Question of Law

May 2011
4
0
#1
I am wondering why I cannot find the laws that decriminalized abortion for each state. When the ruling came down from the Supreme Court in 1973 there were 30 states where abortion was totally illegal. It seems no one has ever collected those states laws. Or should I say, no one has presented abortion in that style. It's as if a portion of history has been written off. I think it is very important to know the wording of the laws. Where and how each state stood at the end of 1973. Also, there is not a map showing the 30 states and the dates they decriminalized abortion. Also, I cannot figure why the argument about abortion has not be viewed as pro-choice, pro-life and pro-self. I think there are three slices to the pie, why is that ignored? Being pro-self is like no one hears that voice. That's what Roe v Wade was all about. Women being for themselves. Without interference from employers and others.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#2
I am not sure I understand your question. Didn't those laws just become irrelevant with Roe v. Wade?

By the way, welcome back :)
 
Nov 2012
174
1
Salt Lake City, Utah
#3
I am not sure I understand your question. Didn't those laws just become irrelevant with Roe v. Wade?
Yes, federal law trumps state law, so any state laws that were in effect when the federal law was enacted are automatically revoked.

As for his point, I believe he's trying to make a state's-rights issue out of it (but perhaps I should let him speak for himself (or her? hehe)...
 
Jul 2009
5,740
441
Opa Locka
#6
I have never understood how federal law trumps states law because of the 10th Amendment/BOR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I believe that abortion should be a states rights issue.
It all comes down to President Jackson bullying states into submission when they tried to overturn Federal law. The whole Federal Gov't wiping out a bunch of independent minded states and replacing the with military juntas in the 1860s thing pretty much set it in stone.
 
May 2011
4
0
#7
This is an OUTSTANDING document if you need to know where your state has been and where it is going to.

reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/bo_whatifroefell.pdf
 
Oct 2012
3,950
641
Louisville, Ky
#11
I understand there is a man involved...pretty obvious. Personally however, I do not see him as the "Primary" individual involved. Within the female is the potential to physically, Mentally, and personally force a series of dramatic life changes...including the pursuit of life, liberty, and Happiness.
The male usually just got laid, though certainly not only. If he is seriously wanting a child with this woman, they likely have a relationship that can withstand conversation and compromise. If not, she is still the person that must carry a child to viability, decide if the pain of attachment outweighs the pain of loss, forgo many years of options in her personal life, endure physical pain, and watch her body change as it adjusts...often forever.

To me it seems, she should be in control. I wonder how many actual verified cases of the man fighting abortion actually exist?
 
Nov 2012
64
0
#12
I understand there is a man involved...pretty obvious. Personally however, I do not see him as the "Primary" individual involved. Within the female is the potential to physically, Mentally, and personally force a series of dramatic life changes...including the pursuit of life, liberty, and Happiness.
The male usually just got laid, though certainly not only. If he is seriously wanting a child with this woman, they likely have a relationship that can withstand conversation and compromise. If not, she is still the person that must carry a child to viability, decide if the pain of attachment outweighs the pain of loss, forgo many years of options in her personal life, endure physical pain, and watch her body change as it adjusts...often forever.

To me it seems, she should be in control. I wonder how many actual verified cases of the man fighting abortion actually exist?
Abortion is a very emotional issue & maybe I come to it with a different perspective.
I have to ask, when it comes to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness", what about the fathers happiness, assuming he wants the child, the babys right to pursue anything?
Another thing, & this goes more to the topic, if the "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happinesss" can be & is used by the USSC, or the privacy clause, how then can they shove aside an amendment, the 10th? It just seems hypocritical to me that a document would be used to throw out another part of that document.
I'm a simple person & see many things in black & white, I don't believe in the death penalty either. The only time, IMO, that we have the moral right to kill another human being is in self defense.
 
Oct 2012
3,950
641
Louisville, Ky
#13
Abortion is a very emotional issue & maybe I come to it with a different perspective.
I have to ask, when it comes to "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness", what about the fathers happiness, assuming he wants the child, the babys right to pursue anything?
Another thing, & this goes more to the topic, if the "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happinesss" can be & is used by the USSC, or the privacy clause, how then can they shove aside an amendment, the 10th? It just seems hypocritical to me that a document would be used to throw out another part of that document.
I'm a simple person & see many things in black & white, I don't believe in the death penalty either. The only time, IMO, that we have the moral right to kill another human being is in self defense.
As I stated, in my opinion the Father feeling emotionally pleasant, is far outweighed by the Mothers physical and emotional well being. As for the 10th amendment issue, you would need to ask the Supreme Court.

I choose not to question (outloud), what is decided when issues manage to get there as I see the concept of a "Highest Court" to be a needed endpoint to societal bitch fests.
 
Nov 2012
64
0
#14
"Emotionally pleasant", interesting way of describing a potential fathers feelings about a baby.
In the end, it's only our opinions, & I don't know that many change their mind on abortion. Strangely though, the lady that took this (Roe-v-Wade) to the USSC has changed her mind & actively campaigns against abortion.
 
Nov 2012
64
0
#17
No it doesn't explain how the tenth amendment was just shoved aside. that I don't know
Seems that we're not supposed to know about "why", seems like there's many things we're not supposed to know....we just pay the bills.
Doesn't seem right, does it. :(
 
Oct 2012
3,950
641
Louisville, Ky
#18
We may never "Know" the why, as we cannot delve into the minds of the Justices. We can however speculate based on logical thought, individual civil rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment (not to mention the Ninth Amendment and others in the Bill of Rights from which the right to privacy is inferred), could have outweighed the Tenth Amendment claim.It may be the issue was simply such a pain in the ass they decided to try to please everyone with a middle of the road law.

Regardless, the 10th amendment issue is a weak one at best...a hail mary at worst...and irrelevant either way.
 
May 2009
225
0
USA
#19
You want to know the why? It’s all a matter of judicial interpretation. For example: there is no express provision of the Constitution for a general right of privacy. Rather it is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments viewed through the prism of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Cruzon v. Missouri Dept. of Health, and more recently, Lawrence v. Texas. It is the product of an expansive reading of the Constitution rather than a literal interpretation of its provisions. I can remember Judge Robert Bork (renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "Originalism" in the interpretation of the Constitution) stating that there was no right to privacy, which did not go down well in the Senate confirmation hearings for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court; albeit today Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, would be considered to have rather narrow views on the right of privacy; and whether a specific law violates an individual's right to privacy is a matter for independent judicial review. To say that the Constitution means what it says is only to beg the question of its interpretation, and that is a subject upon which, ultimately, the Supreme Court has the final word. In the final analysis, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
 
Oct 2012
3,950
641
Louisville, Ky
#20
You have explained a "why"...just not the why in question. I well understand the reasons for a highest court, national decision, and Supreme finality...but individual cases are defined by justice personality and choice.
The decision to bypass a state right in favor of national interest simply falls outside a description of the court itself, and becomes tied to the personalities in question.
 

Similar Discussions