No they wouldn’t agree that the federal government can put those restrictions in place. They would say that the 10th amendment says that any powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution are reserved to the states. There is no Constitutional provision that allows the Federal government the right to do anything with healthcare except in regards to pharmaceuticals that cross state lines. They would say then that any Federal healthcare legislation is unconstitutional. That’s why Obamacare couldn’t just simply say ‘Medicaid for all.’ They had to dangle carrots to encourage states to open their Medicaid roles and they had to coerce and cajole states into accepting provisions rather than just dictating them.
There aren’t many, as most laws about kids are relatively universal, but this would obviously be a big law that differs between states.
If you had a state that allowed euthanizing your kid, or allowed FGM, then your home state may impose a law that prevents you from leaving with your kid to these states for these purposes.
If a fetus gets the same rights as a human, then I could see states imposing laws not allowing you to take that fetus across state lines for the purposes of ending the pregnancy.
Crime rates would increase over the next twenty years or so. On the plus side adoption would be a lot easier.
Oh really? Please explain this decision then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart
For those that don’t want to click, its’ a 5-4 decision (with Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito in the majority) upholding the constitutionality of the federal “partial-birth” abortion ban.
Then the question would be at what point does a fetus get the same rights as a human? If it’s conception, then most forms of birth control (and likely stem cell research) would become illegal.
Not true.
Most forms of conception prevent fertilization.
If a fetus gets the same rights as you or me, abortion would be illegal everywhere in the US. There might be some exceptions (life of the mother), but abortion on demand would be illegal and there would be no state you could go to get a legal abortion.
Read the concurrence of Thomas and Scalia. It specifically says that the parties did not raise the commerce clause jurisdictional issue.
Current WV law (not enforced now because of Roe/Casey):
Ack :smack:
Should read…
“Most forms of contraception prevent fertilization.”
I would suspect the biggest implication would be the increased numbers of abused and neglected children.
In fact, IIRC in deciding the key “Obamacare” decision, Roberts took a sideswipe at the commerce clause by deciding that the commerce clause argument was too much of an extension of any interpretation of the clause and did not apply, setting another line to limit Commerce Clause arguments. But then, in a “you guys fix it” message to congress, said it was a tax and therefore legal.
IMHO Roberts despite his alleged leanings has been trying hard not to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for any faction; but to keep it a respected institution.
I was talking on a state’s level, not federal. Obviously, if there are federal fetal personhood laws, then those would cover the nation. But if a state were to enact one, then they could use that to justify not allowing you to leave the state for the purposes of ending the pregnancy.
In fact, they’d have quite a bit of control over any expecting mother, as she would be less an independant being with personal autonomy, and more a state assigned incubator.
This is GQ - do you have a cite for this?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know of any reason why a state could not have an extraterritorial law that is applicable to its citizens. I also don’t know of any state that currently does it, but the United States does at least in respect to having sex with underaged prostitutes when out of the country.
But most of these horror stories are unrealistic. I remember during the Bork confirmation, Ted Kennedy kept going on about how a state could outlaw birth control, or implement a one child per family policy under Bork’s jurisprudence. That’s hyperbole. The system has a respect for the democratic process and if people start enacting nutty laws, then they get the system they deserve.
It’s more protective than the system that the UK has (Parliament has absolutely NO limits at all) and there are no ridiculously outlandish laws being passed there.
Umm, yes, actually.
It has most recently been used against pedophiles and sex traffickers crossing state lines, but it is ambiguous, and has been used to prosecute people for things as petty as marital infidelity in the past.
If it is illegal to have an abortion in your state, then it could be argued (and would be by anti-abortionists) that it is an immoral purpose to transport a woman across state lines for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy. It’s current wording is, I believe, “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense”, which the second part is a given, if abortion is illegal in the home state, and the first can be debated, as to whether or not an abortion is related enough to sexual activity to fall under the act.
Of course, Bork not getting the nomination and not overturning roe v wade means that that was never tested, so is hypothetical that states would not push for as much restriction as possible. And the fact that you happen to live in a regressive state that wishes to treat you as an incubator rather than as an independent human being is not something that anyone deserves. Keep in mind, in a democracy, around about half of the people are not getting the system that they asked for, so it is a bit more than a little disingenuous to suggest that it is what they deserve.
I was referring to contraceptive methods like “Morning After Pills”. But you are right that these types of pills don’t comprise the majority of available oral contraceptives on the market.
Indeed but it is worth noting here that oral contraceptives, while the most popular form of contraceptive, only account for 16% of contraceptive use (in that 100% number is 31% using no method…not sure why they did it that way).
The morning after pill is waaaay less used at 0.2% listed under “emergency contraception”.
I think that if the feds can make it illegal for marijuana grown in Colorado and consumed there without crossing state lines, then they could certainly pass a law stating that personhood begins at conception. They could also use the Mann act, already on the books, to ban crossing a state line for the purpose. Would they? Why not? It is easy to start enforcing an old law than passing a new one over a likely filibuster.