Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (84673)	11/7/2004 5:02:03 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) of 793799

(Apologies in advance for my ignorance of the law. I'm not challenging you; I just am trying to understand it better. ...and the states would have to resolve it So it is similar to the gay marriage issue? Why can't that be left to the states also then? Why do we need a marriage amendment? (legally) I just went and read a summary of the two cases that set precedent for Roe v Wade and it's really hard for someone like me, not trained in con law, to separate my emotional reaction to the Griswold case and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which sound like horrible cases. It amazes me that the dispersal of contraceptives was controlled by the state. And that married women could get them, but not single! So you feel that the SC opinions took interpretation of the 9th and 14th amendments too far? That it should be up to each state to determine how much control a woman can have of her own body? Does that mean you would not have ruled in favor of the women in the first cases? Are there state laws on the books that would go into effect immediately if SCOTUS overturned Roe? So abortions would only be allowed in NY, Hawaii, and Ca until each legislature took it up? What a mess that would be. Lotta very angry women.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next