Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Timewise 60+ said:
Yes, representative democracy describes better than just democracy. But, what controls the representative, how do they get to be representatives, etc. etc. I found an article that talks about why the word Republic and how it works (Constitution) is important...

US NEWS
Democracy vs a Republic Perfectly Explained for Dummies
By TFPP Writer
Published June 8,

There’s a reason why the American founders created a republic, and not a democracy. Republics are the best form of government for protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority. And there most certainly is a tyranny of the majority that always manifests in democratic style systems.

Here’s how it works: in democratic or republican systems, there is a kind of majority rule. In democracies, the 51% rules over the 49% and has total control. The 51% can do whatever it wants, because in democracies there are not structures in place to protect individual rights.

If 51% vote to steal your bike, you are without a bike. If 51% vote to kill you, you are out of a life. It does not matter if it is right or not, what the majority says is what happens.

A republic is different though, and it operates for the protection of the individual against the majority when they get out of control. It is very important to protect the rights of the individual in a political system, for that is how governments are limited in their power and scope.

Democracies provide arbitrary power to governments, giving them prerogative to do anything as long as “it’s what the people want.” In a free society, this is unacceptable.

Republican governments operate by electing officers who represent the interests of the people, and who are supposed to have more knowledge about politics than the average person. These people are effectively trustees of the citizenry.

In republican governments, the polity is governed by a written constitution that safeguards certain rights against tyrannical majorities. There are separations of power, courts, and layers of government to ensure that knee-jerk reactions do not become law.

This is the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy: a republic protects you from arbitrary power, a democracy is nothing but arbitrary power.
Click to expand...
Yes, in the USA, we have a representative government. The question that comes to mind is: "Who are they representing?" My answer is: "Whatever PAC offers the most money, and the majority be damned."
 

Pepper said:
If during the '60's black civil rights were dependent on it, majority rule would have southern black people still living under Jim Crow. I guess you have no problem with that. You are entirely too cavalier over what constitutes women's rights not to be enslaved, yes, I'm using that word. And you have no idea what I mean, I don't think. Why? The obvious reason.
Click to expand...
The obvious reason? You'll have to spell that out for me. In the mean time, face the fact that there is a process available to you if you and 2/3rds of americans agree with you to amend the constitution to have a woman right to abortion be a federally protected right. You and those who agree with you should have started that process years ago. Your failure to do so is not my fault. And if 2/3rds of americans do not agree with you, you have to work within your states to secure those rights.

Equating abortion to slavery is quite a stretch, don't you think? Nah, you don't.

Just for the record, I would vote for such an amendment.
 
Last edited:
JB in SC said:
Popular vote margins can be significant, big cities have more voters than some states. While the popular vote in 1960 was razor thin (112,000 of 68 million votes or so), the disparity in todays electorate is in the millions. Without some balance a less populated state has little to gain by giving up any power in a true democracy.

Folks that don’t like the electoral college can get it changed by amending the constitution, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I understand how to change it, not what I asked. I don't see that you've answered my question, which is ok, let's just drop it. Thanks for the replies.
 

I don't have a horse in this race. I think the SCOTUS just kicked the issue back to the states. The SCOTUS is a political animal, abortion is a no-win issue. And some states were continually going to chip away at availability. Quite frankly, despite the decision's legal mumbo jumbo, it's somebody else's problem, now.
 
oldman said:
Well, one thing is for sure in the article. No where in the constitution does it mention abortion. I think this is the reason why the SC believed the issue should stand with the states and it’s people having the ability to make decisions on this issue.

The SC makes decisions on laws and how the constitution affects those laws, but since the issue of abortion is not mentioned, there is nothing for them to debate.
Click to expand...
The holding in Roe v. Wade was:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. This right is not absolute, and has to be balanced against the government's interest in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Texas's statutes making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.

Abortion didn't need to be mentioned in the US Constitution.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
A test tube baby! In time even science will have to deal with when a baby really is viable (scientifically and legally) ...it may soon be on day 2 or 3 of the pregnancy.

As for souls, I have already recognized that some don't accept the existence of a soul within the human body. My point made earlier on this was, what if you are wrong? You say we cannot prove we have souls; I say you cannot disprove it! No one, knows for sure...and what if you are wrong? For me, I prefer to hedge my bet!

By the way, late at night, when you are alone and it is dark, who do you talk to in your head! Some say their mother, some say themselves. Either way, you are talking to your soul! Otherwise, you would have a blank mind!
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that on day two or three of the pregnancy, a fertilized egg will be viable. Here's why:

The egg is in the Fallopian tube for 60 hours, or 2.5 days. The egg, if it is fertilized, is fertilized in the fallopian tube. It is capable of being fertilized for 12-24 hours, during the last 30 hours it is in the Fallopian tube. The single cell embryo (the fertilized egg) is called a zygote.

Over the next 7 days, the embryo undergoes multiple cell divisions (mitosis). After this, it is called a blastocyst and begins the process of implanting in the uterus. 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.

Regarding belief in a soul or not, it seems to me that "hedging your bets" is not so much a matter of faith, as hoping that god will screw up and think that you believe you have a soul due to your faith, instead of "hedging your bets".

Late at night, I think with my brain, just like I do during the day, just as every living human who can think, does.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Republican governments operate by electing officers who represent the interests of the people, and who are supposed to have more knowledge about politics than the average person. These people are effectively trustees of the citizenry.

In republican governments, the polity is governed by a written constitution that safeguards certain rights against tyrannical majorities. There are separations of power, courts, and layers of government to ensure that knee-jerk reactions do not become law.

This is the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy: a republic protects you from arbitrary power, a democracy is nothing but arbitrary power.
Click to expand...
Well, IMO, being a Republic doesn't work very well in the US.
 
Buckeye said:
The obvious reason? You'll have to spell that out for me. In the mean time, face the fact that there is a process available to you if you and 2/3rds of americans agree with you to amend the constitution to have a woman right to abortion be a federally protected right. You and those who agree with you should have started that process years ago. Your failure to do so is not my fault. And if 2/3rds of americans do not agree with you, you have to work within your states to secure those rights.

Equating abortion to slavery is quite a stretch, don't you think? Nah, you don't.

Just for the record, I would vote for such an amendment.
Click to expand...
It's not 2/3 of Americans, it is at least 3/4 of states that have to ratify an amendment, or at least 38 states. The proposed amendment is sent by Congress to the states' legislatures, for them to decide whether to ratify the amendment. Congress can send the proposed amendment to the states' ratifying conventions, but this is rare.
 
WheatenLover said:
The holding in Roe v. Wade was:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to abort her fetus. This right is not absolute, and has to be balanced against the government's interest in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Texas's statutes making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.

Abortion didn't need to be mentioned in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
Like so many other issues that arise, it's all about interpretation, I would think.
 
JB in SC said:
In a true democracy the majority can take rights from the minority by merely being the majority. A popular vote excludes the minority. The electoral college and the senate (along with the filibuster) were a balance of power given the small states.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct !!
 
Personally, I'd rather have the majority making the rules than a radical, religious minority. The majority of people are rational and relatively honest. The majority respect our Constitution and value our democracy.

There was some discussion earlier about whether we actually have a democracy here in the U.S. Obviously, since we vote every year (or most of us do, anyway), we do indeed have a democracy, but it's a hybrid of a representative system and a direct system. Sometimes we vote for representatives to make decisions for us and other times, mostly at the state and local levels, we vote directly for a statute, project, or other government matters.

In the case currently under discussion, the repeal of a Constitutional right to an abortion was made by a radical minority. The SCOTUS justices who took away that right were appointed by presidents who didn't receive a majority vote. They should have recognized that the majority didn't approve of their actions. Especially in this day of extreme polarization, they should have considered what is best for our country and for society, but instead based it purely on their radical religious beliefs, which is blatantly unConstitutional.

Since the repeal of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy no longer exists, there are other avenues abortion bans can be overturned.

The 1st Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion, and the ban is based purely on religious views, which makes it unConstitutional (IMO).

There is also the 4th Amendment which guarantees people the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, people no longer have that right when the government can search what goes on between you and your doctor.

Granted, I'm not a Constitutional law expert, so that might not work. Anybody should feel free to rebut my argument. :)
 
Last edited:
WheatenLover said:
It's not 2/3 of Americans, it is at least 3/4 of states that have to ratify an amendment, or at least 38 states. The proposed amendment is sent by Congress to the states' legislatures, for them to decide whether to ratify the amendment. Congress can send the proposed amendment to the states' ratifying conventions, but this is rare.
Click to expand...
Before the states can vote to ratify, 2/3 of both Senate and House have to approve the proposed amendment. That is my point of reference. One can argue that neither step in the process is 2/3 or 3/4 of Americans, but that is a different thread.
 
CrowFlies said:
can someone please tell why this thread...

SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Whttps://www.seniorforums.com/threads/scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade.72404/page-5#post-2143302ade​

Locked
3 4 5

...got locked and this thread here now is going.

im new here and unclear on a few things, like this. did my use of the word...r..a...p..e.....cause a problem?
is this forum run by goole or does it have its own admin?
i thot i contacted admin but have not heard back.

thanks.
Click to expand...
Not my call, but a few posts were nasty personal attacks.
 
SeniorBen said:
Personally, I'd rather have the majority making the rules than a radical, religious minority. The majority of people are rational and relatively honest. The majority respect our Constitution and value our democracy.

There was some discussion earlier about whether we actually have a democracy here in the U.S. Obviously, since we vote every year (or most of us do, anyway), we do indeed have a democracy, but it's a hybrid of a representative system and a direct system. Sometimes we vote for representatives to make decisions for us and other times, mostly at the state and local levels, we vote directly for a statute, project, or other government matters.

In the case currently under discussion, the repeal of a Constitutional right to an abortion was made by a radical minority. The SCOTUS justices who took away that right were appointed by presidents who didn't receive a majority vote. They should have recognized that the majority didn't approve of their actions. Especially in this day of extreme polarization, they should have considered what is best for our country and for society, but instead based it purely on their radical religious beliefs, which is blatantly unConstitutional.

Since the repeal of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy no longer exists, there are other avenues abortion bans can be overturned.

The 1st Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion, and the ban is based purely on religious views, which makes it unConstitutional (IMO).

There is also the 4th Amendment which guarantees people the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, people no longer have that right when the government can search what goes on between you and your doctor.

Granted, I'm not a Constitutional law expert, so that might not work. Anybody should feel free to rebut my argument. :)
Click to expand...
A) it is not the role of SCOTUS to decide "what is best for our country and for society". That is what Congress and the state legislators are for. The role of SCOTUS is to make sure laws that are passed, federal or state, are consistent with the Constitution.
B) This ruling has nothing to do with religion. It does not make abortions illegal. It merely returns the right to allow abortions or not to the various states. SCOTUS reverses older ruling more than most folks realize. They have done so over 200 times.
C) The right to privacy still exists, it is just more clearly defined.
D) Again, this ruling is not a ban, and has nothing to do with religion. If a state now bans abortions, the citizens of that state can rally the votes needed to change that state law.
E) Same with the 4th amendment. Again, state law will prevail in this area

And, as has been pointed out a zillion times, there is a process available to make each and every healthcare related issue a constitutionally protected right. You need to get busy and make it happen.
 
I've mentioned this before on this board that is supposed to avoid politics, that some apparently did not absorb. Members need to stop DIRECTLY naming political parties and politicians in their threads. There are other ways to reference parties, groups, and politicians without doing so directly. For example, B is the D president. Yeah I know [insert member name], you prefer to demonize directly so everyone can read whatever. Some members are increasingly doing so and some of the same names who do so pop up frequently.

As an example, search in this thread shows "republican" 12 times, democrat 4 times, biden 5 times, trump 5 times, 7 alito, 9 thomas, 6 roberts, 3 breyer, 1 sotomayor, 3 kavanaugh, 1 kagan, 1 gorsuch, 3 barrett.

... before any pin head points out that I just did so...don't.
 
SeniorBen said:
Since the repeal of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy no longer exists, there are other avenues abortion bans can be overturned.

The 1st Amendment guarantees us freedom from religion, and the ban is based purely on religious views, which makes it unConstitutional (IMO).

There is also the 4th Amendment which guarantees people the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, people no longer have that right when the government can search what goes on between you and your doctor.

Granted, I'm not a Constitutional law expert, so that might not work. Anybody should feel free to rebut my argument. :)
Click to expand...

IMO, other Constitutional attacks will be moot, as Due Process umbrellas any avenue of legal options. A State will decide under its own Sovereignty right, not federal sovereignty. This avoids facial challenges.
 
@Buckeye
"You and those who agree with you should have started that process years ago. Your failure to do so is not my fault."

It's not my fault either, I've been shouting this for decades. You know nothing of my successes or failures Hoot. Don't bother attempting.
 
CrowFlies said:
i dont see much 'demonizing' here....i see personal opinions which are not clouded over in secrecy.
it seems pretty difficult to write thoughts to print that do not show indicate or lean in some direction.

who is it that deems things "too political"..? Idk im asking.
how do i avoid "politics" or do i just avoid opinion. idk. what is the diff?...idk.
Click to expand...
Politics has to do with actual naming of names or parties. That is my limited understanding.
 
David777 said:
I've mentioned this before on this board that is supposed to avoid politics, that some apparently did not absorb. Members need to stop DIRECTLY naming political parties and politicians in their threads. There are other ways to reference parties, groups, and politicians without doing so directly. For example, B is the D president. Yeah I know [insert member name], you prefer to demonize directly so everyone can read whatever. Some members are increasingly doing so and some of the same names who do so pop up frequently.

As an example, search in this thread shows "republican" 12 times, democrat 4 times, biden 5 times, trump 5 times, 7 alito, 9 thomas, 6 roberts, 3 breyer, 1 sotomayor, 3 kavanaugh, 1 kagan, 1 gorsuch, 3 barrett.

... before any pin head points out that I just did so...don't.
Click to expand...

Good point. And that's not counting the sneak-it-in-anyhow-damn-the-rules snarky stuff.
 
Black women account for the majority of abortions. This is by no means a racist comment. I am simply stating a fact. Many of them already have children and can't support more. And they don't have the means to travel to another state for an abortion. How many of these children will go unwanted or go into the foster system? How many will want to adopt them? Another member mentioned that 2 million parents are waiting to adopt. Are they waiting to adopt Black children? Are White parents even equipped to raise Black children with so much racism still prevalent in our country?

Many White women will still have the means to travel to another state or order Plan C pills through the internet. That is why SCOTUS doesn't care. They are trying to take us back to the 50's.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ro...ely-hurts-black-women-experts-say-2022-06-27/

Also, states like Mississippi, who oppose abortion, have the worst Social Services in the country. They are one of the worst states to live in for families. And this is from Fox News. 'Nuff said.

https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/l...tate-raise-family/QV4Y665KEZD27DMCC2MDJTKJVU/
 
Last edited:
dseag2 said:
Also, states like Mississippi, who oppose abortion, have the worst Social Services in the country. They are one of the worst states to live in for families. And this is from Fox News. 'Nuff said.

https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/l...tate-raise-family/QV4Y665KEZD27DMCC2MDJTKJVU/
Click to expand...

As a native and current resident, I can verify that. And women who are unable to afford health insurance (mandating it did nothing for those who still can't afford even reduced rates) who do not qualify for Medicaid don't have the money for doctor visits and contraceptives. It was heartening to see a state female representative yesterday advocating for the state to cover the contraceptive gap, but we'll see how that goes. I'm not holding my breath, but will voice my support.
 
all i can add at this time is....every woman, veteran or non veteran, says the same thing:
they FEAR living now.

not simply living HERE....but Living. period. "here" brings it forward.
here becomes the norm factor since...they live 'here'.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top