Do people on both sides that now the federal government now can’t pass a law legalizing abortion or Illegalize abortion without a amendment?

[Stoner710]

I’m pro life I would love congress to pass a law making abortion a crime. As much as I would support that law The federal Congress of the United States isn’t allowed to make abortion illegal. SCOTUS would stick down any law making abortion legal or illegal on the federal level. The constitution of the United state demands that the abortion issue remains at the state level. This means move to the states that share your views on abortion if you want abortion to be illegal move to Texas if you want a 15 week ban like France Ireland and England has move to Florida if you want abortion up unto the point of birth move to California or New York, The point of the constitution is the founders knew we would have issues that one state would fight another state over it abortion is an example of this (even though the founders had they knew abortion would be legal they would have outlawed abortion in the bill of rights from the start)

[Twalli]

The Constitution doesn't demand that, that's what SCOTUS decided. Before Roe v. Wade was struck down no state law was allowed to be made regarding abortion. Also not everyone can move easily. I'll give you an example that doesn't touch on abortion on why some people are stuck in places they don't want to live in. Medicaid is based on what a state provides, as long as it meets the minimum federal standards. That's good for this guy on Medicaid who lives in Michigan because Michigan provides what he needs. The problem is, he doesn't want to live in Michigan. He wants to live in Arizona, where his friends are. He can't, Arizona's Medicaid laws will not cover what he needs. So let's tie that back into abortion. You want to live in a state that allows you to get an abortion, but you need to live in a state that doesn't.

[Stoner710]

The constitution does mandate that any law that’s not explicitly written in the cost tuition becomes a state issue and a lot of people don’t understand the 10th amendment because it’s not widely used and a lot of people forget about it but the constitution of United States and the 10th amendment mandates that any laws that aren’t written in the constitution go to the states.
Now there are 50 states live in the one bets for you and your beliefs if you are pouring can’t move then your shit out of luck I disagree with my abortion law which allows a abortion up to the point of birth with some restrictions I agree with Texas law on abortion but since I’m poor I can’t afford to move to Texas so I’m shit out of luck

[Twalli]

That's the question. What protections are in The Constitution?

[Stoner710]

Freedom of speech religion freedom to bear arms freedom of unlawful search and seizure. The freedom to not self incriminate. Etc bill of rights we added that women can vote and your not allowed to enslave people. The government has the right to regulate Commerce that’s what the federal government has the right to do everything else goes back to the states

[Twalli]

You're missing some amendments there, as well as what they actually mean.

[Stoner710]

No I’m not that’s a black leather law and I am interpreting it at the time it was written. This is how Supreme Court justices should rule this is known originalism. Again you can’t have something written in 1787 to mean what you want in 2022

[WindAtMyBack]

As I understand it, the recent ruling prevented the feds from making it illegal just as much as it prevented them from making it legal. The ruling was completely neutral regarding abortion. The feds don't have the authority to make it legal or illegal. They threw it to the states. The states can make it legal or illegal as they choose, but not the feds.

[Stoner710]

Exactly my point

[Anonymous]

I've seen hundreds of posts about telling women to stop having sex if they don't want to get pregnant, but I've seen zero calls for men to become celibate. It will never cease to amaze me how little men are blamed for getting someone pregnant. This is about control and patriarchy.

[JohnK123]

U just say that because u need a man to have a kid. But what bout the cases where some women lie about taking a pill? Or saying they cleaned up but didn’t? Or said they were raped but actually raped the man?

[Stoner710]

Your correct men should be celibate until marriage. Men definitely are equally as guilty for creating a child as women and should be held accountable. I would support 100% of mens paychecks going to the women the man has had a kid with. That stripper that had hunter Biden’s child (whom joe Biden won’t even acknowledge exists and is put in danger every single day of her life she baby is a little girl). The stripper would be rich as fuck

I’m calling on all men to stay with the mother of your children maybe men would be more responsible and stay with the mother of there children

[Stoner710]

@JohnK123 there’s a solution to that it’s called get married don’t have sex until marriage then have a much sex as you want with your wife and have as much children as you want with your wife fathers stay with the mother of your kids

[JohnK123]

Cool ok but women can do that too
We don’t need teens fucking around

[Stoner710]

@JohnK123 true we know they will this is the purpose of a shotgun wedding

[Anonymous]

I didn’t read the whole opinion. Did it say it was returned to the states? I only remember reading it was returned to the people and their representatives. Currently that is the states since there is no federal law either way.

[WindAtMyBack]

I don't know if it actually said it returned to the states. But that's the effect of it. By default everything is at the state or local level. So anything that's not at the federal level is automatically state or local.

The states are completely autonomous and decide their own destiny, except for exceptions explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

[Opinion Owner]

@WindAtMyBack Yeah I agree but here is what Justics Kavannah said in his concurring opinion. "On the question of abortion, the Constitution is thereforeneither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutraland leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address. " That is on page 126 of the document www.supremecourt.gov/.../19-1392_6j37.pdf
That makes me think that Justice Kavannah thinks the decision could be up to the states or congress and that a federal law making it legal or illegal wouldn't be constituational or unconstitional per the U. S. constitution.

[WindAtMyBack]

The way I read it, he is talking in generalities. He's being careful with his wording and trying to maintain neutrality. In the previous paragraph he says abortion is neither an enumerated right, nor a right rooted in tradition. Therefore there has no Constitutional protection.

He later says:

"Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. ***No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position.***"

He's trying to stay completely neutral. Overall he's saying that it's not a constitutional issue. It does go to the states be default, like everything else not specifically addressed in the Constitution. So it DOES return to the states. But he does imply that doing it through statue at the federal level is possible. There is somewhat less of an implication that he would be OK with whatever they decided on the issue. Congress has not made such a statute so it's hard to comment on something that hasn't been done.

My eyes are not good enough to read all the opinions. I read most of his though. Obviously his opinion is not universal.

[Soteris]

Actually, that is not true. Problem with federal abortion protection is just that its super easy to undo next time the Republicans are in charge which means its virtually pointless.

What the SCOTUS did was simply remove the federal protection, not decide it must be handled on a state level which means the federal government can still submit new legislation perfectly fine.

[888theGreat]

I think in the moral states , she would be charged with homicide or at least manslaughter. Even though you could prove with ease it was premeditated murder which gets you the death sentence or life in prison.

I asked what penalty should be in a question , but GAG took it down.

[lightbulb27]

what would be worse than parents murdering their unborn kid... it would be parent (s) forced to have and raise a kid they'd prefer to murder and lack emotional connection to.

[gorydetails]

Bingo. I’ve actually read a moron on this site say it’s “fascist”. Letting 50 legislatures decide this issue is less likely to bring about fascism over 1 legislature.

[Soteris]

... That is literally the opposite of how statistics works. The chance that 50 legislatures are going to consistently avoid fascism is a lot lower than just 1. Statistically, 50 times lower in fact as for every one chance that the Supreme Court is to get corrupted there are 50 chances that one of the many state legislatures are corrupted.

[gorydetails]

@Soteris the odds of all 50 legislatures going “fascist” in a country of competing interests is a lot lower than 1, idiot. Do you work to be this stupid? Or is it natural? And the Supreme Court isn’t corrupted, it’s making correct constitutional decisions. You losers call anything you don’t like “fascism”

[Soteris]

Who said something about all 50 legislatures? You only need one to go bad for Americans to live under fascism.

[Stoner710]

@Soteris true look at Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi they’re pretty much left-wing fascist

[gorydetails]

@Soteris you’re trying so hard to pull your stupid reply into something resembling intelligent thought. It’s funny.

[Soteris]

Pointing out that 50 is a bigger number than 1 is hardly a challenge. Having to try explain it to you on the other hand, is.

[gorydetails]

@Soteris would one state out of 50 make the country a fascist country? Of course not. But that doesn’t stop you from making a retarded point.

[Soteris]

Does or does the legislature not have legal authority over their state? In which case, yes it would give them control over that state and ability to impose fascist control over those Americans. Try keep up, this is simple stuff.

[gorydetails]

@Soteris oh, the issue is you have trouble reading. Got it. I guess that happens with you slower kids.

[Soteris]

And you got a chronic issue with answering questions. Appears to be a symptom of Republicans since they never could defend their stupid decisions.

[gorydetails]

@Soteris the original question is about the federal government, the country as a whole. You’re the dolt who can’t understand simple English.

[Soteris]

But I am responding to you, whom brought in the truly retarded argument that state level legislatures are somehow less prone to being corrupted by fascism than the federal government. Which is not only wrong but is also statistically wrong.

[gorydetails]

@Soteris which is exactly not what I typed. But I’ve come to expect nothing but idiocy from you.

[Soteris]

Oh, let me quote yourself then.
"Letting 50 legislatures decide this issue is less likely to bring about fascism over 1 legislature."

[gorydetails]

@Soteris exactly. Getting all 50 legislatures to agree is less likely to bring fascism to the country than one legislature. It’s a simple concept you’re too dumb to understand.

[Stoner710]

@Soteris he’s talking about legalized abortion on the federal level the SCOTUS decision basically destroyed any ability the federal government had to do anything about abortion whether it’s to make abortion illegal throughout the land or illegal throughout the land the federal government can do nothing about it so I’d recommend moving to a state that has abortion if you agree with abortion or move into a state that has made abortion illegal federalism is the idea that we live in individual states the states have in a sense more power over the federal government unless there is an actual constitutional amendment on the federal level the only thing the federal government can do is to pass a constitutional amendment saying abortion is legal or abortion is illegal but they don’t have a voice to do either one of those right now.

[gorydetails]

@Stoner710 I appreciate you trying to explain things to Soteris, but I think he’s not smart enough to understand simple concepts.

[Stoner710]

Fair

[Soteris]

@Stoner710 As I have said already, that is blatantly wrong. The decision of the SCOTUS regarding Roe does not prevent federal protection (or ban) of abortion. It simply overturn an earlier ruling while leaving the possibility open for new federal legislation or ruling that can either be passed by congress or the legislature.

In other words, Congress can reapply a federal protection of Abortions.

I also love the idea of Americans being completely fine with terrible things.. like Fascism.. or Slavery.. or restricted voting rights for women and men, all as long as its decided on a state level because apparently it being on a state level automagically makes something awesome.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: Not a day passes without your stupid sophistry

[Soteris]

@Avicenna And not a comment goes by where you actually manage to point one of those examples of sophistry out.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: Go see a psychologist- you really need one, badly.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna Not a bad idea. It would be nice to sit down and talk about all the funny things I see you idiots type all day. I am sure it would brighten the psychologists day.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: You'll be committed to a psychiatric ward once they see the delusional nonsense you post.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna Are you that desperate for company in that dreary place?

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: Call a mental health professional tomorrow morning- it may be the only chance for you to get the help you need to deal with your issues.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna Sadly. I do not know your address so I can't call them on your behalf no matter how much you beg me. Also dont tell me, I sleep better at night not knowing if you are even a real person or just a really badly programmed AI.

[anylolone]

They don't know. I do.
Does anyone know what compromise means?

[Stoner710]

There shouldn’t be compromise in the federal level, state level there should be compromise because it affect what you do I. Your own state but federal government no compromise

[anylolone]

There's already massive compromise with federal law.
Argue in specific.

I'd suggest you to claim common law in this aspect can't be reconciled in the federal level, because the states are too rigid and disparate.

[Stoner710]

That’s probably partially true frankly the federal government is too powerful and needs to significantly reduce his power otherwise we’re really not gonna have a country more red states are going to join with red states blue states are going to do it with you these days and either we’re going to fight and kill each other or we’re going to divorce

[anylolone]

Oh, I agree that the US needs more federalization, though, as a brazilian, your level of federalization makes me orgasm.

But, that doesn't mean it's true in every case, maybe in this, but not every.

[Cubus]

Yep, that's pretty much what Xth amendment is about.