I apologize. I was working from memory and I thought the article was more relevant than it was. Of course, I also thought I’d seen it a few months ago rather than a few years ago. So much for my memory. :rolleyes:
Thank you for showing once again that the main reason for opposing aborition is because the people who do so are monsters. Creatures of pure malice.
As I said in the GD thread; it’s supposed to hurt and kill women.
Yes. Or just evil. Gloatingly evil, going by your first post in this thread. You strike me as the sort of person who would jump with joy over hearing that a woman died because of this.
I just scratch my head that a law was made saying you have to cut the fetus up first, then take it out, rather than taking it out first and then cutting it up. WTF? Why is one procedure more repugnant than the other? I don’t get it.
In the same sense that you consider anything concerning the A-word to be an absolute wrong?
What is the source of the authority to ban abortions after the fetus is viable? Wouldn’t it be the same? (Although I certainly hope no doctor would agree to perform such an abortion if the health of the mother were not in danger…)
Do you have to TRY to be this dishonest, or does it just come naturally?
Seriously. Exactly which SC ruling found that abortion was an “absolute right”? Roe? Roe stipulates explicitly when and how states can regulate abortion. Casey clarifies and extends this language.
I’ve heard this from lots of pro-life people, and it’s a complete lie.
I’ve never had someone on the hook to ask about this before though: can you explain to me why you chose to be a liar? What exactly is your motivation?
If memory serves, this is not the first time our celebrated friar has giggled girlishly at some theocratic “victory” as scored on the Dobsonite bingo card.
You may flatter yourself that you’re a Christian, Ted, but if I were looking for someone who embodied the principles of the Man Himself, you’d be way, way down the list.
Yes. The federal law in question targets physicians acting in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
Yes, although it’s not worded exactly that way, and “rational basis” is probably an even lower standard than “crappy reason.” It’s extremely deferential.
The rational basis standard also applies in Due Process cases, and when no fundamental right is implicated merely holds that the law, regulation or action must be rationally related to any conceivable legitimate end of government. It basically says that governement can’t act arbitrarily and irrationally for no good reason. In tongue-in-cheek layman’s terms, if the goverment can come up with a legitimate reason for acting arbitraily and irrationally (har har), and you can’t overcome the strong presumption that they did and the burden of proof (which is in most cases on you), the law will be upheld. They don’t have to state the best rationale, just a reasonable one.
The only case that I can think of off the top of my head where a law failed a Due Process rational basis test is Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494. May 31, 1977 (no rational basis for saying mother, son, and two grandsons can’t live together).
Generally, state law. State legislators do not derive their authority to legislate from the Federal Constitution.
Most abortion-related regulation/legislation is at the state level, although the litigation often ends up in the Federal courts when opponents of the state action challenge it on Constitutional grounds other than whether the legislature has the general power to regulate health care.
Hey, we’re just women, it’s not like we’re needed for anything besides reproduction. :rolleyes:
(I thought I was used to dear Ted’s posts by now, but “victory dance?” That’s harsh.)
Ah, I didn’t know the law had that jurisdictional hook. I suppose that’s the only reason the law could survive the doctrine coming out of Lopez, right?
Do you think we’ll see doctors challenging whether their practice falls within the jurisdictional clause?
Remember that Lopez did not strike down Wickard, and medical care undeniably touches upon interstate commerce.
But does a particular abortion procedure touch on interstate commerce more than safe education? It isn’t clear that non-economic activities are subject to Wickard-style aggregation. My sense is that Lopez, to the extent that offers an opinion either way, suggests that you can’t aggregate non-economic activity. Do you think the ban could survive without the statutory jurisdictional hook?
I seem to recall being annoyed by FriarTed in the past over his similar enjoyment of the idea that hard atheists would be reduced to weeping, pant-wetting wrecks upon meeting him upstairs at death. I have no doubt he believes, but mentally he doesn’t always seem that into it.
Anyway, this is a topic that’ll have a great effects on polls for pro-lifers. I mean, i’m pro-choice, and I read the procedure and think “Nasty”. It’s a fantastic emotional argument.
Read who supported the decision: Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts.
It ain’t the Supreme Court of the United States any more.
It’s the Supreme Court of the conservative white male Catholics of the United States.
Duplicate post? 
Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think Kennedy can properly be called a conservative, nor is Thomas white.
As to who is or isn’t Catholic, I have no idea.
“[O]f the United States” isn’t describing the members of the court. [Not that your point doesn’t still stand, in an indirect way.]
True enough. I imagine a blow-by-blow of my hemorrhoidectomy would be a gruesome read as well, but I’m still glad I wasn’t legislated into Option B, which I understand involves a mallet, a chisel, a liter of tequila, and a friend you can really trust.
Antiabortionists are the reason I had a hysterectomy. I don’t get decision making rights over my uterus or the contents therein? Fine, yank the bitch.
I am one of those women whose health/possibly life could be threatened by pregnancy. What are those reasons, you may ask? Fuck you, it’s none of your business. That was between me, my GP and the surgeon. Abortion may be available without legal impediment in Canada right now, but I wasn’t going to assume it would stay that way. I don’t want kids. So out it came.
On a semi related note, how in the hell can a gynecologist be licenced to practice without knowing how to remove a dead fetus? How bad does decomposition have to get before they’ll go in and get it out? Does a woman have to have a bloodstream resembling a Calcutta drainage ditch before a surgeon will intervene?
(Sorry, know someone this happened to, she expelled the fetal corpse after a week, was scheduled for surgical removal on day 10)