Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

The right to reproduce is the most basic right of all, next to the right to live. Everything else is meaningless. Abortion is baked into the human experience. It’s not surprising to me the Founders took it for granted. In fact, until very recently this obsession with fetuses was a fringe Catholic belief only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

How would they prove you weren't going to the casinos?

Well, they can put you in a maternity prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

+1

But it never really was about states rights, was it? The only reason "states rights" became a Republican catchphrase is because "we love slavery" and "f*** women and minorities" is déclassé.

If you think about it, it was always about the states rights to infringe upon the fundamental liberty of their inhabitants that was at stake. Boggles the damn mind how conservatives have been able to spin their fascism as love of liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does this guy think anything in today’s decision bans abortion?

Do you think your fundamental ignorance makes your anti-abortion stance more compelling?

So, you think the Supreme Court just outlawed abortion?

Just stop. You poor deluded thing.

It’s a pretty simple question.

The issue of abortion is now back with the voters, where it always should have been. If you don’t like Mississippi’s laws on abortion, don’t move there.

Why do other people get to make decisions about someone’s health care? Why should the decision be moved from the woman to “the voters”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

The right to reproduce is the most basic right of all, next to the right to live. Everything else is meaningless. Abortion is baked into the human experience. It’s not surprising to me the Founders took it for granted. In fact, until very recently this obsession with fetuses was a fringe Catholic belief only.

And not even really a Catholic belief. When my grandmother had a miscarriage in 1931, did anyone act like it was a death of a child? No. When my mom had one in 1966, did anyone? No. It's only very recently that Catholics have gone in for those "angel in heaven" and prayer services for miscarried fetuses. All that stuff came *after* the massive anti-abortion movement, which was thoroughly astrotufed by Republicans who needed a rallying cry post-Nixon to rebuild the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've still never been able to understand why all these bigoted states want to create laws to essentially guarantee there will be more poor and minority children in their state? Children they definitely do not want to pay to feed, house, or educate.

Cannon fodder. Reliably undereducated, miserable red voters. Future Medicaid beneficiaries - which Florida Republican was defrauding the federal government to the tune of millions? It’s a whole racket.

And don’t forget that these six regressives are Christianists. They embrace an Old Testament religion (but with the Jewish introspection and general menschy quality that humanizes a book so old). They love causing pain, misery and creating chaos. They are the religious tyranny that the founders warned us about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

So originally it was agreed that people had freedom to have an abortion (because why?) and the constitution upheld this freedom but now states can curtail this freedom (based on what)? I'm trying to understand the legality. Not the practicality.

Okay you want a conlaw primer? The constitution guarantees the rights of the people, and limits the rights of the government. The law requires that the state show it has a compelling interest whenever it restricts those rights. The courts must apply strict scrutiny to any laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. By erasing the fundamental rights of women, Alito has relieved the states from the burden of providing a compelling reason for any law regarding abortion. Alito’s reasoning is atrocious and incorrect—abortion had been around for eons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've still never been able to understand why all these bigoted states want to create laws to essentially guarantee there will be more poor and minority children in their state? Children they definitely do not want to pay to feed, house, or educate.

Cannon fodder. Reliably undereducated, miserable red voters. Future Medicaid beneficiaries - which Florida Republican was defrauding the federal government to the tune of millions? It’s a whole racket.

And don’t forget that these six regressives are Christianists. They embrace an Old Testament religion (but with the Jewish introspection and general menschy quality that humanizes a book so old). They love causing pain, misery and creating chaos. They are the religious tyranny that the founders warned us about.

Well we can't have slavery anymore (at least not yet) so this is a way to create a poor working class to do the work rich, usually white people don't want to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

+1

But it never really was about states rights, was it? The only reason "states rights" became a Republican catchphrase is because "we love slavery" and "f*** women and minorities" is déclassé.

If you think about it, it was always about the states rights to infringe upon the fundamental liberty of their inhabitants that was at stake. Boggles the damn mind how conservatives have been able to spin their fascism as love of liberty.

It's because their party is comprised entirely of people who are wealthy and want more tax cuts, politicians who put party over country, and millions of gullible voters with the critical thinking skills of a fruit fly.

[Anonymous]

These big threads are really hard to follow in a forum format. At least with reddit you have hierarchy to keep the responses grouped together. This thread is going to be hundreds of pages and impossible to keep up with.

[Anonymous]

Merrick Garland has announced that the DOJ will be taking action as needed to protect women’s ability to have abortion pills sent them across state lines by doctors in other states, as well as women’s freedom to travel to other states for abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've still never been able to understand why all these bigoted states want to create laws to essentially guarantee there will be more poor and minority children in their state? Children they definitely do not want to pay to feed, house, or educate.

Cannon fodder. Reliably undereducated, miserable red voters. Future Medicaid beneficiaries - which Florida Republican was defrauding the federal government to the tune of millions? It’s a whole racket.

And don’t forget that these six regressives are Christianists. They embrace an Old Testament religion (but with the Jewish introspection and general menschy quality that humanizes a book so old). They love causing pain, misery and creating chaos. They are the religious tyranny that the founders warned us about.

Well we can't have slavery anymore (at least not yet) so this is a way to create a poor working class to do the work rich, usually white people don't want to do.

Oh slavery is coming back. Don’t you worry. You should see the whacked out videos the conservative members of my family have been sharing with eachother regarding the “truth” about slavery. Holy god this country is in trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've still never been able to understand why all these bigoted states want to create laws to essentially guarantee there will be more poor and minority children in their state? Children they definitely do not want to pay to feed, house, or educate.

Cannon fodder. Reliably undereducated, miserable red voters. Future Medicaid beneficiaries - which Florida Republican was defrauding the federal government to the tune of millions? It’s a whole racket.

And don’t forget that these six regressives are Christianists. They embrace an Old Testament religion (but with the Jewish introspection and general menschy quality that humanizes a book so old). They love causing pain, misery and creating chaos. They are the religious tyranny that the founders warned us about.

Well we can't have slavery anymore (at least not yet) so this is a way to create a poor working class to do the work rich, usually white people don't want to do.

This isn't actually true. Read the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Southern Republicans will definitely go for this under the thinnest veneer of legalism and due process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

The right to reproduce is the most basic right of all, next to the right to live. Everything else is meaningless. Abortion is baked into the human experience. It’s not surprising to me the Founders took it for granted. In fact, until very recently this obsession with fetuses was a fringe Catholic belief only.

Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

+1

But it never really was about states rights, was it? The only reason "states rights" became a Republican catchphrase is because "we love slavery" and "f*** women and minorities" is déclassé.

If you think about it, it was always about the states rights to infringe upon the fundamental liberty of their inhabitants that was at stake. Boggles the damn mind how conservatives have been able to spin their fascism as love of liberty.

It's because their party is comprised entirely of people who are wealthy and want more tax cuts, politicians who put party over country, and millions of gullible voters with the critical thinking skills of a fruit fly.

Yes. Succinctly stated. What are we supposed to do about that?