What does this mean other than feminazis losing their minds on social media? Already seeing people talking about moving to Europe!
Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
A number of states have laws that were never repealed or new laws specifically written to trigger abortion bans at various stages if Roe v Wade was overturned. In states where it is legal, it is still legal.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Probably not, at least not that would pass scrutiny with this court. And that applies to federal statutes outlawing abortion as well as those legalizing abortion. The Commerce Clause doesn't give Congress the power to outlaw or legalize abortion.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
The Mississippi 15 week ban would have been in line with most European laws.One Louder said:
Don't most European countries have stricter abortion laws than we did yesterday?
Zarathustra said:
I've argued with a few Democrats online. They're mad because they think the Supreme Court outlawed abortion. When you point out that the Supreme Court just said it's up to the states, they get mad and point out that many states will outlaw abortion. When I tell them welcome to democracy, they get mad and say that the Supreme Court should legalize abortion. Then I point out that they really do what nine justices deciding the law, they get mad again.
ThunderFighter06 said:
Wow thank you for all the quick replies! I thought it meant that it would be decided by the states. Was wondering if had missed something based on the level of meltdown I'm seeing!
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government._mpaul said:What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
Page 77 of the majority opinion:_mpaul said:What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
Not explicit, but clearly states who may regulate abortion, and it's not Congress.Quote:
It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot "substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies." Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729730; see also Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 484486 (1970); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152 (1938). That respect for a legislature's judgment applies even when thelaws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 365368 (2001) ("treatment of the disabled"); Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 728 ("assisted suicide"); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 3235, 55 (1973) ("financing public education").
I don't think that would stop Congress from passing a law provided it found some jurisdictional basis for it, like the ICC. And let's face it, it's not like the Court hasn't also stretched the scope of the ICC beyond reason in the last 80 years. If they can stop some poor dude from growing wheat for his own use . . .aggiehawg said:10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government._mpaul said:What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
No. The majority specifically states it only applies to abortion, period.agsfan said:
Does this mean the states authority to legislate basically any medical procedure? If the state of Texas decided to pass a law banning vasectomies for people under the age of 30, would that hold up?
agsfan said:
Does this mean the states authority to legislate basically any medical procedure? If the state of Texas decided to pass a law banning vasectomies for people under the age of 30, would that hold up?