Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (84673)	11/7/2004 4:43:10 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793794

It's not based on sound constitutional grounds. As you well know, it's based on the right to privacy which live in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. The federal Constitution, not some state constitution, and not some state statute. Not a chance in hell that R. v. W. gets reversed. Too many other things that go along with it, including the right of consenting adults to do whatever they want to in the privacy of their bedrooms, would be undermined. As it is, the right to die has not been made part of the Constitutional right to privacy partly because Roe has been so controversial, and I can't think of anything more fundamentally up to the individual than the decision to terminate one's life. If R. v. W gets reversed, which I don't think has an icicle's chance in hell of happening, we had better get used to losing a lot of freedoms that have nothing to do with abortion. The doctrinal basis for things we take for granted but which are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution would get scrutinized. The attempt to overturn Roe is ultimately the attempt of the extreme rabid right wing to tell you when, how and with whom you may express your sexuality, which is utterly and completely wrong. You want a bunch of yahoo state legislators to tell you what is and what isn't encompassed by your right to privacy? Not me, thanks. We've got plenty of them here in Louisiana; no way will the federeal courts allow that bunch of idiots to legislate morality.

To: Ilaine who wrote (84673)	11/7/2004 5:02:03 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793794

(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.