Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

Who cares, Emily?
It’s not like anyone is going to mistake you for a friend of abortion rights or bodily autonomy. The finer nuances (or lack thereof) of your “yes, but” position, are truly irrelevant chaff. Feel free to represent yourself as a fem freedom fighter if you wish. Just ignore the polite snickers.

Well, given that the only way you'd see me as a friend of those is if I took a completely extremist position on them... oh the fuck well. I'll stick with reasonable common sense and respect for a diversity of viewpoints rather than rabid ideological conformity.

 

[ZiprHead]

Abortion not being a women's right but a state's right is the extremist position.

 

[Elixir]

I'll stick with reasonable common sense and respect for a diversity of viewpoints

You sticky girl you. Keep on sticking’ to that ambiguity which so endears you to everyone here. Finding oneself to be a reasonable embodiment of common sense is a common attribute, but offers little substantial or logical support.

the only way you'd see me as a friend of those is if I took a completely extremist position

WELL! I never!
To accuse me of trying to get you to give up the hallowed dead center position you have so considerately staked out and so valiantly defended for yourself!
Forfend that I’d indulge in such moral turpitude!

As yet another claimant to the Ultimate Dead Center Reasonable and Correct Position, I would never so insult a fellow traveler!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

It isn't a falsehood. Though your reaction is typical Emily Lake/muridi, taking something out of context because you didn't bother to stop and think for a moment before you flew off the handle.

You have stated you didn't like Roe v Wade and the grounds it was founded on. You have stated so. You wanted reproductive freedoms, but in a different way. Well, you got your wish with Roe v Wade getting axed. Just too bad there wasn't a replacement, other than hope one lives in a state that allows abortion.

None of that is true. Like, not even a little bit of it. I never opposed Roe v Wade, I didn't disagree with any of it. I absolutely have not states so. It's a falsehood - straight up not true. Whether you're addled and mixing up posters, or your memory is flawed and your brain is feeding you wrong info is pretty much irrelevant to me. What you've state here, and doubled down on, is flatly untrue.

link

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Oh For Fuck's Sake.

You claim I was trying to get rid of RvW. That is untrue. I NEVER tried to get rid of it. I was quite happy with that being the rule. And your linked post doesn't support your claim at all - it is in no way evidence of me trying to get rid of RvW. I made a post AFTER it had been overturned. What I did say is that I don't disagree with the SC decision to overturn it - not because I disagree with the guidelines of RvW, but because the support for it being enforceable on constitutional grounds was shaky. I don't like that it was overturned, but it should never have been based on a flimsy interpretation in the first place

Like I said, ax Roe v Wade for something more perfect. Which is what I said.

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Your position here is that the ends justify the means, that it's okay for the government to violate constitutional provisions if it achieves an end that you believe is worthwhile. I disagree - I think the ends is worthwhile, but I don't think that justifies the means. The problem for me is that what one views as a worthwhile end is highly subjective and can be extremely variable. It's subject to populist whims, the rhetoric of ideologues, and the pressures of special interest groups. What is viewed as "worthwhile ends" in the future could very easily end up being something that every one of us finds abhorrent.

If we abuse the means for something we all think is worthwhile now, there is nothing at all to prevent someone else from abusing the means in the exact same way in the future for something we would find horrific.

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

In many subsequent discussions, I've repeatedly expressed a desire to have an ACTUAL LAW created that reinstates the exact same thresholds and guidelines that existed under RvW, but doesn't rest upon such a highly challengeable interpretation. Properly passed legislation would be much, much stronger.

No, it wouldn't be. SCOTUS ruled that there is no Federal interest at all in abortion rights. So there is no viable way the Feds can regulate it. Much like how the Roberts' bench ax'd the Voting Rights Act. That was legislation, voting it is specifically noted in the Constitution, as is equal protection.

So I will say again: your claim is false. Please don't repeat it.

What, "while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade for something a little morally better"? That is the text you cited. You said Roe v Wade was crap and wanted a better foundation. I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

 

[Jarhyn]

So I will say again: your claim is false. Please don't repeat it.

What, "while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade for something a little morally better"? That is the text you cited. You said Roe v Wade was crap and wanted a better foundation. I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

Also, what consequences are there? Emily has been repeating false and misleading comments now for years without consequences.

We all might as well just start calling you Aunt Lydia for how much of an "ally" to women you are.

 

[Elixir]

I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

That was probably me. Emily is against abortion rights, but only if they impinge on the rights of the fetus. Other than that, pregnant women’s bodily autonomy is priority one.

 

[Emily Lake]

Abortion not being a women's right but a state's right is the extremist position.

Desiring abortion to be a legislated federal right isn't an extremist position.

It currently being a state's rights is something I have no control over... so I don't know why you're ascribing some kind of extremity to me for something outside of my influence.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'll stick with reasonable common sense and respect for a diversity of viewpoints

You sticky girl you. Keep on sticking’ to that ambiguity which so endears you to everyone here. Finding oneself to be a reasonable embodiment of common sense is a common attribute, but offers little substantial or logical support.

the only way you'd see me as a friend of those is if I took a completely extremist position

WELL! I never!
To accuse me of trying to get you to give up the hallowed dead center position you have so considerately staked out and so valiantly defended for yourself!
Forfend that I’d indulge in such moral turpitude!

As yet another claimant to the Ultimate Dead Center Reasonable and Correct Position, I would never so insult a fellow traveler!

Oh the horror of holding a view that about 90% of americans hold. I'm truly despicable for not adopting your view, which is held by only about 5%.

 

[Emily Lake]

Like I said, ax Roe v Wade for something more perfect. Which is what I said.

Yes... that's what YOU said, but it has NEVER been my position. I didn't desire RvW to be overturned, I was quite unhappy when it was. But being unhappy about a legal decision doesn't mean that I find that decision to be unsound. Hell, I was unhappy with OJ being found not guilty; that doesn't mean I think the jury's decision was unsound. Unsatisfactory yes, but not unsound.

What, "while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade for something a little morally better"? That is the text you cited. You said Roe v Wade was crap and wanted a better foundation. I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

I never tried to get rid of RvW in the first fucking place, and you repeatedly saying such is blatant fiction.

I did not say RvW was crap. I do, however, want essentially the same guidelines to be implemented on a stronger foundation, one which will be less vulnerable to interpretation.

Why are you so invested in trying to force a view onto me that I don't hold?

 

[Emily Lake]

Also, what consequences are there? Emily has been repeating false and misleading comments now for years without consequences.

Untrue... but don't let that sway you from your harassment campaign. You seem to really be enjoying the special privilege that lets you attack me on a regular basis with no consequences.

We all might as well just start calling you Aunt Lydia for how much of an "ally" to women you are.

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it. Clearly I'm an awful ally to women for wanting to retain sex-based separation in intimate facilities. Obviously I'm truly evil for wanting women and girls to have access to fair athletic competition. How horrid of me to oppose male sex offenders being placed in shared cells with female inmates solely on the basis of their profession of an internal gendered soul.

 

[Emily Lake]

I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

That was probably me. Emily is against abortion rights, but only if they impinge on the rights of the fetus. Other than that, pregnant women’s bodily autonomy is priority one.

This is a fabrication. It is untrue. I've repeatedly asked you to stop spreading falsehoods, but somehow you seem to think it's acceptable behavior to invent fictions and attribute them to other people.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

This is one of Emily Lake's worst arguments. Only if there was a law... then SCOTUS would have had a harder time to reverse it.

Voting Rights Act on line four for Emily Lake

It is a bit interesting though. In remanding the issue to the states, it makes me wonder otherwise on the Federal Ban, either from law or from SCOTUS. Would the Roberts' Court have to overrule itself in suggesting that the fetus has protected rights? I mean, sure... the Roberts' Court hasn't particularly held to much in the way of tradition in legal interpretation and findings in the last 20 years, but in saying the Federal Government has no say, does that gravely impact any chance of a Federal Ban, especially from the court itself?

 

[ZiprHead]

but in saying the Federal Government has no say, does that gravely impact any chance of a Federal Ban, especially from the court itself?

Good question. I'm pretty sure they can shoehorn their way around that.

 

[Jarhyn]

but in saying the Federal Government has no say, does that gravely impact any chance of a Federal Ban, especially from the court itself?

Good question. I'm pretty sure they can shoehorn their way around that.

"Well because states have a right to regulate abortion, and because the federal government has no right to legalize it, in order to support the rights of states that would ban it and abortion tourism or pill-by-mail, federal controls are acceptable and federal protections are not."

Hey @lpetrich I don't suppose you can give me the odds I should expect for payout from a bookie? But given how sure of a bet that is, I'm guessing WAY worse than even money.

 

[Playball40]

Abortion not being a women's right but a state's right is the extremist position.

Desiring abortion to be a legislated federal right isn't an extremist position.

It currently being a state's rights is something I have no control over... so I don't know why you're ascribing some kind of extremity to me for something outside of my influence.

Why do you believe abortion rights are ANYTHING but the woman's right?

 

[Elixir]

I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

That was probably me. Emily is against abortion rights, but only if they impinge on the rights of the fetus. Other than that, pregnant women’s bodily autonomy is priority one.

This is a fabrication. It is untrue. I've repeatedly asked you to stop spreading falsehoods, but somehow you seem to think it's acceptable behavior to invent fictions and attribute them to other people.

Claiming it wrong without correction is just you bleating about the failures of your own argument, Emily.
Your prior attempt to paint your so-called position as “purple”, i.e. ‘middle ground’, fell flat on the basis of logic, and you have been unable to redeem it.
What I said is absolutely the apparent truth as you have expressed your opinions.
I’m perfectly amenable to correction, but not purely by your declaration of error sans elucidation. Set me straight, and stop complaining about the logical inferences of your previous statements.

It’s amazing how consistently you are “misunderstood” by virtually every other poster around here Emily. At some point that might encourage a rational person to indulge in some introspection.

 

[Emily Lake]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

 

[Emily Lake]

Abortion not being a women's right but a state's right is the extremist position.

Desiring abortion to be a legislated federal right isn't an extremist position.

It currently being a state's rights is something I have no control over... so I don't know why you're ascribing some kind of extremity to me for something outside of my influence.

Why do you believe abortion rights are ANYTHING but the woman's right?

I'm kind of scratching my head here. I certainly don't think it's a men's right after all. But as it currently stands, the states have the right to make laws on things that don't have federal laws. That was one of the weaknesses with RvW - it was never an actual law.

States can't violate federal law. The closest they can get is to decline to enforce federal law locally. That's what happened with marijuana - it was still illegal at the federal level, but many states chose to not enforce those laws locally. If the DEA were really inclined to be bastards about it, they could have gone after all the recreational pot smokers and it would have been within their jurisdiction to do so. DEA pretty much doesn't care though.

 

[Emily Lake]

I never claimed you were against abortion rights.

That was probably me. Emily is against abortion rights, but only if they impinge on the rights of the fetus. Other than that, pregnant women’s bodily autonomy is priority one.

This is a fabrication. It is untrue. I've repeatedly asked you to stop spreading falsehoods, but somehow you seem to think it's acceptable behavior to invent fictions and attribute them to other people.

Claiming it wrong without correction is just you bleating about the failures of your own argument, Emily.
Your prior attempt to paint your so-called position as “purple”, i.e. ‘middle ground’, fell flat on the basis of logic, and you have been unable to redeem it.
What I said is absolutely the apparent truth as you have expressed your opinions.
I’m perfectly amenable to correction, but not purely by your declaration of error sans elucidation. Set me straight, and stop complaining about the logical inferences of your previous statements.

It’s amazing how consistently you are “misunderstood” by virtually every other poster around here Emily. At some point that might encourage a rational person to indulge in some introspection.

No, I'm pretty much only misunderstood by you and a couple of your extremist pals.

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal. I'd very much like it to be a right - but I don't think it should be a right without any limits at all. I think some limits are reasonable, even if they're related to very unlikely situations.