wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Hey, c'mon, it's now paradise! No clean air to breathe, no right to privacy, no right to marry who you choose, and best of all, way more ******* guns in public!
- Status
Hey, c'mon, it's now paradise! No clean air to breathe, no right to privacy, no right to marry who you choose, and best of all, way more ******* guns in public!
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
No bodily autonomy. (You don’t need two healthy lungs, do you?)
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,663
Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.
What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.
I assume you are referring to the current Republican strategy?
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
Yes, because the GOP now is the party which stands for "ordinary democratic methods".
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,663
No, it's not starting to happen. Even the headline should have clued you in.
St. Luke’s Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception.
It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency.
It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency.
I don't know. There doesn't look like any possibility of anybody having the support to resolve this by changing the constitution. There seems to be an increasing push to not accept the legitimacy of laws from the other side. There seems to be an increasing trend to accuse the other side of cheating to win the election. It'll all work itself out somehow, but "how" is going to be interesting.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,663
This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,663
Well, yes. Because no side is sufficiently popular right now.
Which is precisely why this issue is better handled by the legislature than by the courts.
I don't think that that is going to do much to relieve the pressure overall. The whole game since the 60s, maybe even the 30s has been to push social change federally. That has built up a heck of a lot of expectation and power. If we are looking at it in isolation of the forces and pressures involved, I agree with you. I am not altogether sure that that is going to be an acceptable answer.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Too out there for a response?
Sorry, at that point, it wouldn't be a "donation".
How about forced blood harvesting to save people having surgery or suffering from some form of traumatic blood loss? Since Dobbs strikes down unenumerated rights based on Due Process, American citizens no longer have a right to bodily autonomy. If you can save one or more lives by forcing another individual through a procedure they'll probably live through, where is the legal or constitutional boundary?
Didn't we go through this with Covid vaccines? The federal government seemed to be relatively able to put people under a lot of pressure to accept medical procedures that violated their bodily autonomy in the service of the greater good.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Sure, and there is an argument to be made that, under emergency conditions, rights can be temporarily suspended so the country can deal with the crisis. Even then, no one was forced to take a vaccine. They could opt to not take one, but were then limited on where they could go and what they could participated in.
This isn't that. This is the permanent removal of the right to bodily autonomy. If one's state makes a law that abortion is illegal and that it is illegal to go across state lines to have an abortion, a pregnant person has no legal option.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
The US has been in a state of emergency since 1979. That is business as usual. You think, if they what ever their reason for wanting to do something like this wouldn't also be an emergency, continually extended like covid was? Implementing it through government would be the hard way though.
People were losing their jobs over the vaccine. We are living in a world now where government and global corporations work hand in glove. There is little need for the government to force you to do things, when they can just say how nice it would be if your employer threatened to fire you, or maybe close you bank account, if you don't do what they want.
I'm not sure that a state could make a law saying you couldn't cross state lines to do something that was legal in another state.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
In the latter case it is potentially worse, if officials look to prevention. It is, after all, unknown what a person's reason for travel is, unless it is monitored and controllled. A pregnant person or even a potentially pregnant person could be denied what we have cmplacently considered common freedom, which is not explicit.
We have always assumed that the Constitution guarantees the right to travel between states without search, seizure and intrusion, but like many such issues it is not explicit. The fourteenth amendment seems to suggest it, but a raging originalist might find it not really there., and though the abolition of slavery ended the need for Black people to show papers, the mechanism is not explicitly abolished.
Ha ha ha, couldn't happen here....!
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
People were losing their lives fighting over the vaccine, but you're missing the point: There is no longer any Constitutional barrier to blood or organ harvesting. The right that protected us from actions like that was the foundation of Roe and it is now gone. If the state decides it needs one of your kidneys or your body after you die, nothing prevents them from codifying it into law and making it happen.
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
He gets the point. He's only pretending not to (partly because he's perfectly fine with it).
Maybe. Do all protections have to be federal and tied to constitutional rights? If it's a big issue, it might well be much easier for the states where it is an issue to ban it.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
My predictions of massive violence amounting to a second civil War are not so crazy now, are they?
- Status