The Equal Protection Clause (s) mean that the laws apply equally... and, generally, they do.
But that doesn't mean that laws can't be created that discriminate...
In essence, governments can enact laws that create a "discriminated group" and can affect that group, but that's not universal.
Your complaint is that women are a discriminated group. I won't debate that, but Nature created such discrimation with the creation of sexual reproduction over 1 billion years ago.
Anyway, in the American judicial system, a member of the discriminated group that is adversely affected by the law can sue in court that the government's discrimination is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (and likely others) and thus unconstitutional.
Now, the courts then have to review the law and look at the nature of the discrimination and the nature of the discriminated group.
The courts us three levels of testing.
The first is "Rational Basis Review".
The second is "Heightened Scrutiny" or "Intermediate Scrutiny".
The last is "Strict Scrutiny".
With "Strict Scrutiny", the onus is really on the government that they must create this discriminated group and law to accomplish some important objective and that there's no other way to do that.
I think it is better if I let Google Gemini explain this...
https://g.co/gemini/share/ca8de469480b
====
PROMPT:
In American jurisprudence, what are the three levels of scrutiny used by courts to evaluate if a statute unconstitutionally discriminates against a group of people?
RESPONSE:
In American jurisprudence, courts use three main levels of scrutiny to evaluate if a statute unconstitutionally discriminates against a group of people, primarily under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These levels determine how rigorously a court will examine the government's justification for the classification:
Rational Basis Review (or Minimum Scrutiny):
Intermediate Scrutiny (or Heightened Scrutiny):
Strict Scrutiny:
=============
And, by the way, there is a law that controls a man's body...
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 49—MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE (§§ 3801 – 3820)
§ 3802. Registration
50 U. S. Code § 3802 - Registration
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any alien lawfully admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 1101(a)(15) of title 8, for so long as he continues to maintain a lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States.
(b) Regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) may require that persons presenting themselves for and submitting to registration under this section provide, as part of such registration, such identifying information (including date of birth, address, and social security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.
It's a strict legal interpretation. The 14th Amendment specifically uses the term "State", which means it doesn't apply to the federal government or country as a whole. The 10th Amendment clearly states
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Equal protection is not one of the federal powers stated in the Constitution, therefore it's reserved for each individual state, and each state has the right to do, or not do, whatever its citizens and state government choose.
Thanks for MHO
u It should apply equally but what you are gonna get is people trying to convince you that a clump of parasitic cells is it's own person but in the same breath deny that insurance can be taken out on it or that it should gain other benefits of a person. It's a hypocritical argument made in bad faith just to limit a woman's choice of what to do with her own body.
In the end, there are a lot of misguided women signing on to this idea that limiting our rights is for our own benefit. It's expected by conservative men at this point because they don't believe in choice and freedom unless it's for their own benefit. They pull up the ladder behind them once they get what they want. It's a shame what that party has become under MAGA leadership.
Gilead is alive and well! I hate misogyny!
Those "parasitic" cells contain the DNA of both parents, and become its own separate sentient life form upon the moment of conception; or are you some kind of anti-science religious fundamentalist?
And most women in the West do not resort to abortion for legitimate reasons like preserving the life of the mother or stopping the consequences of rape and incest from further harming the community
Ah see? There's one now. Just as I said.
@Ez-Bri-Z_v2,
A concise cogent description and summary of the problem we are dealing with and have been dealing with since the day this country was founded. Well said!
Not sure what you mean. We've equality across the board though i have noticed that being a woman gives me certain legal and social protections and rights that men don't have.
For instance i could leave my husband tomorrow for another man and the legal system would reward me financially with alimony, child support, half the marriage assests, full custody, half any inheritance he might have or his pension and possibly possession of the family home.
Opinion
23Opinion
back when our laws were made by the founding fathers they were made at a time when men were a higher status than women I think in todays society it is not written directly so a bunch of people to shape that to there own wants when reality is it applies to both and while i won't go on on people who do that I will say this words are words and just that you can sit analyzeing this for hours or just silently understand women are included although as we see daily by certain members of society on gag and not (no one specifically!) they missed the memo and well thats just to bad for them
This angle is pure bullshit.
A man doesn't get any right to kill the baby if he wants. He has no right to keep his child if the women wants to kill it. He has no right to opt out of any obligation to the child if she wants to keep it.
Biology isn't co trolling a woman's body. Reproduction is 100% natural and normal. If you choose to have sex you choose the chance of pregnancy. Women just do not want any consequences for their actions.
This control my body is BULLSHIT.
Reproduction is totally normal and natural and it isn't some curse or government control.
This spin they use is pure BS.
Riddle me this Batman... who wrote the laws and who has been arguing for "States Rights". Who has been doing the bulk of interpreting the laws for 250 years? It's no surprise that women and minorities ended up with the shit covered end of the stick.
Abortion isn't Constitutional, and abortion isn't unconstitutional, because Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. So you can have laws for or against abortion across the entire spectrum. Democrats had numerous opportunities (control over the House, Senate, and White House) over half a century (most recently, from January 2009 to January 2011) to codify Roe Verses Wade into a national federal law (something around 20 weeks or so), and failed to make it happen, over and over again. Same old story. Democrats blame all their failures and shortcomings on everything and everyone, except themselves.
I'm not for that anti choice bull shit. It's all about the uterus and breeding people like cattle. More people, more power and more money. That's not small government. It's totalitarian. It's the biggest hypocrisy on the right. They'll get away with it too with the left gone woke fucked in the head and mutilating children.
It's mot odd that it doesn't. It's just plain wrong. Before becoming a justice, Gunsburg tackled this by arguing that a man who cares for a sick relative should be given the same protections as a woman who does this. By fighting for equality at the other end it pushed for more equality across the board.
No laws that control mens bodies you say...
Selective sercive and if the country comes under attack, off to the front you go or get court martialed if you refuse.
These 2 facts basically mean that men are government property.
You guys also allow genital mutilation of boys. Fuck bodily autonomy am i right...
It's disgusting that women's reproductive rights are contingent upon individual states' laws, but we blacks had ZERO rights a white man was bound to respect (See: Dred Scott U. S. Supreme Court case) until Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 1964 and 1965, respectively.
SCOTUS threw women under a bus when it overturned Roe v Wade.
It's the republican way to ignore the constitution.
The 14th amendment does apply to women. The Supreme Court has established this in Reed v. Reed and Craig v. Boren.
We have states and people arguing over what other people should be able to do with their bodies. Shits crazy
As usual, leftist rantings contain no logical thought.
Have you bothered to look at the arguments made before SCOTUS when the Dobbs case was argued before it, or the decision itself?
I gave up trying to make sense of SCOTUS rulings after they packed the court with ultra-right weirdos.
I just assumed that it applied equally, but apparently it doesn’t since some states are a bit different with women’s rights it seems
About abortion, is it. Does the "equal protection" apply to unborn babies with unique DNA?
Blastilas do not have standing
Still no. Zero standing
Equal protections under the law isn't the same as equal laws.
No one claimed otherwise
I always thought that women always had more rights than men.
@msmissydc they can abort a baby.
Women are also the only ones that can carry a baby. That’s not an extra right.
@SmokinAces2000
If the state can't hold women responsible for their poor choices, then it shouldn't hold men responsible for ours either. But it does anyway. If women want the right to abortions, then men should have the right to financial abortions as well.
It doesn’t matter what the state thinks if something is growing inside of someone’s body that affects them physically and mentally and is a threat to their life. Also you’re against abortion yet you want to punish the women that don’t get the abortions by allowing the dudes who got them pregnant to legally abandon the kid. There is no tit for tat when it comes to abortion
@msmissydc
Women have the right to be exempt from military conscription, men do not.
@SmokinAces2000
No. What I want is for people to be accountable for their choices. But if equality is what we're after, well, fair is fair.
After all, how was I supposed to know she would get pregnant? If you think about it, it was actually her fault for letting me smash. Especially raw. And with the pill, and all sorts of other contraception.
You’re looking for equality in a situation where both parties don’t equally put their bodies and life on the line. You can try to twist it all you want but what you’re advocating for is like I said, punishing the women who don’t get abortions.
@SmokinAces2000
And you're advocating for killing an innocent child.
An “innocent child” that needs someone else’s body to survive. An “innocent child” that can potentially kill the mother. It’s ridiculous that there are even arguments or debates over abortion but when people run on emotion instead of logic this is what we get.
@SmokinAces2000
Agreed. It's crazy how illogical the left is.
That innocent child is also gonna need financial support of some kind. I don't want to support it and put my future in jeopardy. Even though, I made the choice to engage in an activity that created the life.
Once you get out of your mother's basement, you'll realize your daddy was right.
So again you seek to punish the women who don’t get abortions.
@SmokinAces2000
No. You fail to see the connection.
I do see the connection. It’s contradictory and idiotic.
@SmokinAces2000
Liberal policy tends to be like that. Giving rights to some, but not all. I'd actually argue the woman gets off easy, having to only carry the child for 9 months. Whereas, the father is obligated for 18 years.
So how about this? We end abortions, except in the case of rape, provided the woman can prove rape. And in exchange, the father is financially responsible as well. Seems fair and equal and the innocent child is not murdered for the choices of the parents.
Like I keep saying women are the only ones who carry the baby, therefore they are the only ones that should decide whether something about grow in “their body”. That’s not going against equality because men and women don’t equally carry the baby. I don’t see how this is hard to understand. You can’t ask for equality of other people’s bodies and that’s essentially what you’re advocating for because giving men the legal right to abandon their kids isn’t equality because for one, the only way to achieve “equality” is to give men rights over women’s bodies. And for two, thats not even the same situation.
@SmokinAces2000
It's not hard to understand. You believe women are infallible. It's a sign of naivety.
What you're saying is a woman who engaged in sex is not responsible for a pregnancy. And therefore should be given special treatment and an out if she wants. That out being murder. I'm saying, if she engaged in consensual sex, got pregnant, then she should be held responsible for her choices. As well as the father. But if you say women are allowed to opt out of an unwanted pregnancy, then men should be allowed to as well. That's all.
“Special treatment” what part of her body are you not comprehending. Yes or no, should men be able to legally force a woman they got pregnant to have the baby even if she doesn’t want to?
@SmokinAces2000
They can force you to pay child support. Actually, they can imprison you if you don't.
That didn’t answer the question that I asked and you’re comparing parental responsibilities once a baby is born and no longer impacting the woman’s body to a woman deciding early on in her pregnancy that she doesn’t want something growing inside of her.
@SmokinAces2000
My personal belief is it's murder. I figured it was clear with my multiple references to it. Murderers should be imprisoned.
If we are using your logic that it’s murder then how would it not be self defense if women can die during childbirth? I’m assuming you believe in self defense so if someone defends themselves against someone who can kill them then wouldn’t that be a justified “murder”?
@SmokinAces2000
If women don't want the risk then they can not engage in sex. If they do engage in sex, get pregnant, and wish to abort so as to not risk their future, then they can stand trial for murder. The choice and responsibility of birth has always been with women. The pill, plan b, and abortion have just allowed them the freedom of inconsequential sex. But there is no such thing as inconsequential sex.
Doesn’t matter if they knew the risk. If something is growing in their body that can kill them they have the right to defend themselves.
@SmokinAces2000
I disagree. Especially if they could have prevented it by not engaging in an act that is designed to produce that "something". You know, like women before the development of birth control and abortion. Back in the day, women use to throw unwanted babies in the ditch. Should we just allow that too?
Your example isn’t relevant to self defense because the baby would be outside the woman’s body and wouldn’t pose a risk to her life. Also like I said it doesn’t matter if she engaged in the act or knew the risk. Kyle Rittenhouse knew the risk of showing up to a riot and knowingly put himself in harms way. The court ruled that he was justified in defending himself. I’d argue that if abortion is murder like you say then it’s irrelevant if a woman knowingly has sex and knows the risks and ends up pregnant. She still has the right to defend herself.
@SmokinAces2000
My example is used to showcase that before the invention of plan b and medical abortion, there was only one option women had to rid themselves of unwanted children. The technology just made the atrocity of abortion gentler on the woman. Which probably made it more palpable and common.
But again, you're gonna have a difficult time convincing me that women who kill children for selfish reasons should be allowed in society. And frankly, those who support them, ought to be tried as well.
I reject the notion that abortion is self defense. Except in the case where a woman was raped
Again your ignoring the concept of its in her body. there's not a comparison between someone throwing away a baby that is already born and a woman stopping a pregnancy early which like I said numerous times affects her mind and body and can kill her. The fact that you genuinely think the two are comparable show that you are in fact coming from a place of emotion instead of logic.
@SmokinAces2000
I'm not ignoring the concept. Both abortion and carrying to birth affect her emotionally, spiritually and physically. Both will affect her forever. Both are murder. Only one is deemed acceptable by you. The outcome is the same... a dead unwanted child at the hands of an irresponsible mother. You simply refuse to accept the fact that women should be held responsible for their choices.
What I don’t understand is you’re acting like women are able to get abortions up to 8 or 9 months and they can just go in there and kill the baby and thats allowed. Over 80 percent of abortions are performed before 9 weeks. Again it’s not comparable for someone to stop the progression of a pregnancy before it turns into a baby and for someone to throw away a baby that’s been born.
@SmokinAces2000
It kind of depends on your definition of when life starts. Personally, I believe at conception.
If true, that 80% of abortions are before 9 weeks, it's even more disgusting than I thought. What that tells me is that the vast majority of abortions are done before any adverse medical conditions could arise. To me, it sounds like they simply didn't want a baby. To which I say... should have thought of that before you spread your legs.
Now, do I think there are women who NEED medical necessary abortions... sure. But they are probably extremely rare. And the vast majority, like you stated, are using abortion to escape responsibility of poor choices.
You keep talking about how women shouldn’t spread their legs. Well they did and if they are pregnant now it’s irrelevant whether they should or shouldn’t have. Now someone is growing in her body that can harm her and she should have the right to defend herself. If you believe in self defense then you should believe in abortion.
@SmokinAces2000
You believe in, literally, letting women get away with murder. That's the bottom line.
This conversation is going nowhere and I'm sure @exitseven is tired of the notifications.
I agree because you don’t believe that women have the right of self defense.
@SmokinAces2000
The voting age needs to be increased to 35...🙄
I say up it to 44. Clearly this is the peak of someone’s intelligence.
Its crazy how forced birthers are always screaming murder but I never met an actual pro-live person. In addition at the stage of abortion its technically a parasite. So if you treat a different parasite you are also murdering something? Or do you make the cut of when its human? Than what is a human?
The fact that there is misogyny even in a country like the usa makes me think deeply.
If a man has to pay child support that is control over his body. People have responsibilities to more than just themselves.
Where don’t women have equal rights? This ought to be hilarious.
States that aren't as progressive as my or ca
what rights are they missing?
Paid maternity time for starters
Its amazing how you all seem to gloss over the whole murdering children aspect of abortion.
No thats abortions. School shootings are a very separate issue and not what's bieng discussed here.
Nope I'm pro 2nd amendment because weapons are just tools it's the person using them to do wrong that is the problem.
And no it's still a child. If a drunk drive kills a pregnant woman he gets charged for the death of both the woman and the child. It dosen't get to stop being a child at your discretion to suit your convenience
Well we declare a person dead when thier heart stops beating, therefore it stands to reason we declare something alive when it's heart starts beating.
How do you figure I'm ok with post birth abortion. I just don't blame the firearm I blame the shooter. And sure pre heartbeat I'm OK with but anything after that is murder
Misogyny actually treats women as equals, which is why women hate it.
Repeal the 19th. Women have proved time and time again they aren't capable of power.
Fool
Cuck
There is no such thing as a woman anymore so what does it metter.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions