Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

There is now over 40 years of legal precedent and decision making that protects not only the privacy mentioned above, but also establishes that the unborn are not "persons" with constitutional protections.

Which would only take one SCOTUS decision to overturn.

So what happens to the 30-40% of fertilized eggs that miscarry naturally under this brave new precedent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Don't give them any ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Don't give them any ideas.

Food for The Hunger Games Alt-Right!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Don't give them any ideas.

This doesn't seem so far fetched. Aren't Republicans opposed to the morning after pill, which merely prevents the formation of an embryo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Seriously, this is relevant. If people really want to base a "right to life" on "being a person" AND hold that an embryo is a person, then those frozen embryos have exactly as much right to life.

[Anonymous]

So, they want more babies but don't want safety nets available when the baby is born and gorws up??? What kind of demented thinking is this? These people are American Mullahs!

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

Because it's nonsense. Banning abortions after 6 weeks is banning abortions almost 100%. Not everyone is able to get up and move to a different state -- the federal government sets minimum standards about many issues for states who don't want to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

Because it's nonsense. Banning abortions after 6 weeks is banning abortions almost 100%. Not everyone is able to get up and move to a different state -- the federal government sets minimum standards about many issues for states who don't want to do so.

Just go to a state where abortion is legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

Because it's nonsense. Banning abortions after 6 weeks is banning abortions almost 100%. Not everyone is able to get up and move to a different state -- the federal government sets minimum standards about many issues for states who don't want to do so.

That's what the democrats have said out of work coal miners should do. Just move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

Because it's nonsense. Banning abortions after 6 weeks is banning abortions almost 100%. Not everyone is able to get up and move to a different state -- the federal government sets minimum standards about many issues for states who don't want to do so.

That's what the democrats have said out of work coal miners should do. Just move.

seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All SCOTUS needs to do is overturn its prior decision in Roe v. Wade, which falsely determined that unwritten "penumbras" in the amendments you listed provide a right to privacy.

SCOTUS could also easily conclude that the constitution applies to the unborn and that laws allowing them to be murdered are unconstitutional. This would ban abortion in all 50 states.

There is now over 40 years of legal precedent and decision making that protects not only the privacy mentioned above, but also establishes that the unborn are not "persons" with constitutional protections.

Which would only take one SCOTUS decision to overturn.

So what happens to the 30-40% of fertilized eggs that miscarry naturally under this brave new precedent?

Well, if the woman did anything the court decided could have jeopardized the pregnancy, she could go to jail. This has already happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

This is kind of like saying during WWII, "why not just ban the extermination of Jews at the German federal level and let the sub-regions each decide if they want to do it?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with letting each state decide whether abortion should be legal in their state?

because it's a fundamental, federal, constitutional right.

No it's not. It's a "right" created out of thin air by a Supreme Court decision that is universally considered to have laughable reasoning.