SD Republicans want to make killing abortion providers legal

[Vidav]

Joe, is that you?

[Grizalltheway]

Pro lifers -- if you want abortion to be criminalized... what punishment would you deem just?

To be consistent, it would have to be the same as murder charges.

That should do wonders for the prison-overcrowding problem, not to mention the budget deficit.

[89Hen]

That should do wonders for the prison-overcrowding problem, not to mention the budget deficit.

Making theft and burglary legal would free up a lot of prison space and put a nice chunk of change back in our pockets... until the theives come for it.

[Skjellyfetti]

Making theft and burglary legal would free up a lot of prison space and put a nice chunk of change back in our pockets... until the theives come for it.

Murder is life in prison without parole or a decade plus on death row.

Theft and burglary would be a couple of years tops for first offense.

See the issue there with overcrowding? And we already lead the world in incarceration rate.

[Col Hogan]

btw... the problem with the "states rights" argument is simple. Constitutional rights trump them.

if the 14th Amendment protects the right to privacy in New Jersey, it also does so in South Dakota. To allow one state to deny such a right to their citizens would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

I've always wondered why killing a fetus comes under the "Right to Privacy "... and please show me the words that give us this right in the Constitution...not where a judge made it up, but in the actual document...

[89Hen]

Making theft and burglary legal would free up a lot of prison space and put a nice chunk of change back in our pockets... until the theives come for it.

Murder is life in prison without parole or a decade plus on death row.

Theft and burglary would be a couple of years tops for first offense.

See the issue there with overcrowding? And we already lead the world in incarceration rate.

Diversion is not becoming.

[Baldy]

What about the girl (or guy) who couldn't read the condom wrapper because they were too busy getting sex education in a government school instead of learning how to read and write?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

btw... the problem with the "states rights" argument is simple. Constitutional rights trump them.

if the 14th Amendment protects the right to privacy in New Jersey, it also does so in South Dakota. To allow one state to deny such a right to their citizens would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

I've always wondered why killing a fetus comes under the "Right to Privacy "... and please show me the words that give us this right in the Constitution...not where a judge made it up, but in the actual document...

The right to have a private conversation with a doctor and to have a medical procedure without government interference were upheld under the first and fourteenth amendments in Roe v. Wade (1973) and subsequent altered via several cases (Griswold v. Connecticut, among others)

Privacy is an implied right under the Constitution, you may not see it that way... but that is how those appointed to interpret the Constitution have ruled...

[Grizalltheway]

Even here in podunk MT, they managed to do both.

[D1B]

Okay, 50 years ago a fetus couldn't really survive outside the womb if it was more than a couple weeks premature. Today there are babies being born at 22 or 23 weeks and surviving.

So...this is a rule that would have to change every so often as technology increases?

Nope. Just need the doctor's to quit playing God....

(I'm so glad we've got another abortion thread going.... )

Jesus, you've become a total asshole.

[Thumper 76]

Making theft and burglary legal would free up a lot of prison space and put a nice chunk of change back in our pockets... until the theives come for it.

Murder is life in prison without parole or a decade plus on death row.

Theft and burglary would be a couple of years tops for first offense.

See the issue there with overcrowding? And we already lead the world in incarceration rate.

Well you should be happy with this bill going through then, as it not only puts in a death row style punishment, express lane style

[JoltinJoe]

btw... the problem with the "states rights" argument is simple. Constitutional rights trump them.

if the 14th Amendment protects the right to privacy in New Jersey, it also does so in South Dakota. To allow one state to deny such a right to their citizens would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

I've always wondered why killing a fetus comes under the "Right to Privacy "... and please show me the words that give us this right in the Constitution...not where a judge made it up, but in the actual document...

Don't you know that the right to privacy was in the constitution all along, hiding in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various amendments? Of course, many majorities of the Supreme Court had previously rejected that there was a "right to privacy" protected by the constitution, but that's only because Justice Douglas was smarter than all of them and knew where to find it, hiding in the penumbras for almost 180 years. Who knew?

Justice Douglas, in his opinion in Griswold (1965), never bothered to discuss why most fundamental rights were specifically enumerated in amendments to the constitution, but that those clever framers decided to hide one fundamental right away in the shadows of various amendments -- so that only someone as smart as Justice Douglas could find it.

Sarcasm aside, Justice Douglas' majority opinion in Griswold is an insult to intelligent people everywhere and the worst example of the court arrogating for itself the right to amend the constitution without following proper procedures. Griswold, and the evil which it spawned, Roe, have in the prescient words of the dissenting (liberal) justice Hugo Black "threatened the tranquility and stability of the nation."

[Skjellyfetti]

I guess John Roberts isn't one of those intelligent people.

"The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways. It's protected by the 4th amendment, which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers is protected. It's protected under the 1st amendment dealing with the prohibition of the establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise. It protects privacy in matters of conscience. It was protected by the framers in areas that were of particular concern to them that may not seem so significant today... the 3rd amendment, protecting their homes against the quartering of troops. And in addition, the court has, with a series of decisions... going back 80 years... has recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause. The court has explained that the liberty is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it's protected, not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well. And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution."

[JoltinJoe]

I guess John Roberts isn't one of those intelligent people.

"The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways. It's protected by the 4th amendment, which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers is protected. It's protected under the 1st amendment dealing with the prohibition of the establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise. It protects privacy in matters of conscience. It was protected by the framers in areas that were of particular concern to them that may not seem so significant today... the 3rd amendment, protecting their homes against the quartering of troops. And in addition, the court has, with a series of decisions... going back 80 years... has recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause. The court has explained that the liberty is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it's protected, not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well. And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution."

It's funny (but not surprising) that you don't even grasp that John Roberts, in this quote, is being critical of a so-called fundamental right to privacy, protected by the highest level of constitutional review -- strict scrutiny. When he says "privacy" is a liberty right protected by the "due process clause," he means that any claim under the "privacy" right can be invaded by the government so long as it provides you with due process. It is arguable that one may have a liberty interest to an abortion. What Roberts is saying is that government may restrict that interest so long as it provides you with due process of the law.

It is precisely the same opinion expressed by Justice Black's dissent in Griswold, in which he stated: "I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to. invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."

Look at what he says. He identifies specific amendments to the constitution which protect some interest in your privacy, and then throws the rest of "privacy" under the 14th amendment's due process clause.

The distinction is between enumerated rights, which are fundamental and enjoy the highest level of constitutional protection, and non-enumerated rights, which are said to be general liberty interests which receive the lowest level of constitutional protection and find protection, if at all, under the due process clause. When Roberts spoke these words at his confirmation hearing, Ivytalk and I had an exchange over at AGS in which we joked that Roberts just said that there is no fundamental right to privacy, but to the unlearned ears of the dolts on the judiciary committee, it sounded like something totally different.

[dbackjon]

Pro lifers -- if you want abortion to be criminalized... what punishment would you deem just?

To be consistent, it would have to be the same as murder charges.

For the fetus-support system?

[youngterrier]

I didn't write the law, Hen. If you're so passionate about this, run for office and get it changed.

dodge, duck, dive and dodge

you forgot dip

[youngterrier]

Though I think we have a right to privacy, and someone can somehow justify it through the constitution, I'm not arguing with JJ. He's a freaking lawyer.

[Wedgebuster]

Dumb de dumb de dumb! Here come the Zygote Zorros once more!!

[JoltinJoe]

Though I think we have a right to privacy, and someone can somehow justify it through the constitution, I'm not arguing with JJ. He's a freaking lawyer.

And I've taught Con Law too.

There is no fundamental right to privacy which exists in the text of the constitution.

At this point, only two cases have ever held that something is a fundamental privacy right. In Griswold, the court held that there was a fundamental privacy right which protects married couples' right to use contraceptives.

In Roe, the Court held that there was a fundamental privacy right to an abortion.

Roe has effectively been overruled to the extent that it held that there was a fundamental right to abortion protected by the highest degree of constitutional review -- the strict scrutiny test (which almost no restriction could survive). In Casey, the Supreme Court, without a clear majority, indicated that abortion was a substantive due process right protected the 14th amendment of the constitution. In this regard, it plainly overruled the core holding of Roe, which held that abortion was a fundamental right on the same level as enumerated rights, such as First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, etc.

Therefore, the abortion right was not protected by the strict scrutiny test, but rather something now called the "undue burden" test. Plainly the court is still wrestling with how to apply the "undue burden" test (this test having no precedent in the field of personal rights), but the type of laws which were easily and repeatedly stricken down when Roe was the law of the land (waiting periods, required dissemination on information concerning the development/viability of the fetus) have been upheld under Casey. So abortion restrictions have been more readily and frequently upheld since the effective reversal of Roe.

My prediction is that there will never be another application of the "fundamental" right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court. The case law supporting the fundamental privacy right is riddled with flaws, poor reasoning, and raw abuse of imposing personal preferences in the guise of constitutional reasoning.

So that's it. Married couples have a fundamental privacy right to use contraceptives (later expanded to include unmarried couples).

There are also a handful of cases which protect something which may arguably be described as a "privacy" interest under a 14th amendment analysis.

[YoUDeeMan]

That's the beauty of lawyers...all they do is sit around and argue with each other while billing third parties.

Face it, the law is fluid...always will be. Some clown thinks he finds the ultimate answer and another clown who disagrees finds a few other people to agree with him. They both tell everyone they are correct because, well, they are lawyers. In the end, one of them is a dumb as a post...at least for the time being.

Of course, you get some hack of a judge to interpret it his way, and another judge - on appeal - to interpret it a different way. On and on it goes until it works it's way up to the Supreme Court where, giggle, political appointees, appointed by someone voted in by the masses (heavens, a dumbass, unemployed crack addict's vote is as valuable as a lawyer's), decide what the law means for the next few years.

Banning abortion is as useless as banning alcohol. Scream at the wind all you want, but people are going to want to abort a fetus now and then. And, as 89 says, it is either murder or not. So if you believe it is murder, then there are NO exceptions to abortions...they are all murder.

However, that leaves every pro-life person in the position of being a hard liner...you know, those who want to force a woman to give birth to a child concieved by rape. Hey, your father molests your sister...tough luck...bring on the newest family member. Some mentally ill creep with diseases and multiple genetic problems rapes your wife...whoops...bring on your new son or daughter.

Fvck you.

It would be poetic justice for some whack jobs to start targeting pro-lifers for rape. Line up the church going husbands and force them to watch their loved ones get repeatedly raped...and then you get to sit around for 9 months with a loving, supporting smile on your face waiting for the birth of one of God's little gifts.

[SuperHornet]

Two wrongs don't make a right, Cluck.

How would you feel if YOUR mom tried to abort YOU? Shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Two wrongs don't make a right, Cluck.

How would you feel if YOUR mom tried to abort YOU? Shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it?

happy to be among those who were chosen. (i was born after 73... my mother had a choice)

what i find hilariously ironic... a conversation about abortion... among exclusively men...

not say/just sayin

[youngterrier]

That's the beauty of lawyers...all they do is sit around and argue with each other while billing third parties.

Face it, the law is fluid...always will be. Some clown thinks he finds the ultimate answer and another clown who disagrees finds a few other people to agree with him. They both tell everyone they are correct because, well, they are lawyers. In the end, one of them is a dumb as a post...at least for the time being.

Of course, you get some hack of a judge to interpret it his way, and another judge - on appeal - to interpret it a different way. On and on it goes until it works it's way up to the Supreme Court where, giggle, political appointees, appointed by someone voted in by the masses (heavens, a dumbass, unemployed crack addict's vote is as valuable as a lawyer's), decide what the law means for the next few years.

Banning abortion is as useless as banning alcohol. Scream at the wind all you want, but people are going to want to abort a fetus now and then. And, as 89 says, it is either murder or not. So if you believe it is murder, then there are NO exceptions to abortions...they are all murder.

However, that leaves every pro-life person in the position of being a hard liner...you know, those who want to force a woman to give birth to a child concieved by rape. Hey, your father molests your sister...tough luck...bring on the newest family member. Some mentally ill creep with diseases and multiple genetic problems rapes your wife...whoops...bring on your new son or daughter.

Fvck you.

It would be poetic justice for some whack jobs to start targeting pro-lifers for rape. Line up the church going husbands and force them to watch their loved ones get repeatedly raped...and then you get to sit around for 9 months with a loving, supporting smile on your face waiting for the birth of one of God's little gifts.

that last paragraph is kind of sick.....

[youngterrier]

Two wrongs don't make a right, Cluck.

How would you feel if YOUR mom tried to abort YOU? Shoe's on the other foot now, isn't it?

happy to be among those who were chosen. (i was born after 73... my mother had a choice)

what i find hilariously ironic... a conversation about abortion... among exclusively men...

not say/just sayin

i see what ya did there

[Grizalltheway]

That's the beauty of lawyers...all they do is sit around and argue with each other while billing third parties.

Face it, the law is fluid...always will be. Some clown thinks he finds the ultimate answer and another clown who disagrees finds a few other people to agree with him. They both tell everyone they are correct because, well, they are lawyers. In the end, one of them is a dumb as a post...at least for the time being.

Of course, you get some hack of a judge to interpret it his way, and another judge - on appeal - to interpret it a different way. On and on it goes until it works it's way up to the Supreme Court where, giggle, political appointees, appointed by someone voted in by the masses (heavens, a dumbass, unemployed crack addict's vote is as valuable as a lawyer's), decide what the law means for the next few years.

Banning abortion is as useless as banning alcohol. Scream at the wind all you want, but people are going to want to abort a fetus now and then. And, as 89 says, it is either murder or not. So if you believe it is murder, then there are NO exceptions to abortions...they are all murder.

However, that leaves every pro-life person in the position of being a hard liner...you know, those who want to force a woman to give birth to a child concieved by rape. Hey, your father molests your sister...tough luck...bring on the newest family member. Some mentally ill creep with diseases and multiple genetic problems rapes your wife...whoops...bring on your new son or daughter.

Fvck you.

It would be poetic justice for some whack jobs to start targeting pro-lifers for rape. Line up the church going husbands and force them to watch their loved ones get repeatedly raped...and then you get to sit around for 9 months with a loving, supporting smile on your face waiting for the birth of one of God's little gifts.