Louisiana governor signs abortion ban into law

[jimboston]

A bunch of men debating the merits of controlling a woman's reproduction system? Fascists I say!

Fascists if we’re on that side that says women should have the right to choose?

[NomadPatriot]

the eternal contrarian.....

[Jdsizzleslice]

If that's what you're getting from what I said, you didn't read very closely.

My apologies.

Not everyone has the money or wherewithal to just move because they ‘don’t like it”.

Leave everybody and everything you know, most all of your support systems, your job, and head out. Living where you want to is a luxury not beholden to all of us.

My statement is independent of luxury or preferences. My statement is about choice. As American citizens, we have the choice to leave and go somewhere else if we want to.

Why should it be a ‘State’s Rights” issue?

If this is a State issue why shouldn’t every other issue?

People who support the Right to Choose consider this an issue of Freedom, which is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Why is their opinion that this is a Federally Guaranteed Right any less valid than your opinion that it’s a State issue? The last time the Supreme Court looked at it they confirmed it was a Right Guaranteed by the Constitution. Do you believe your knowledge of the Constitution is better/more valid than the Supreme Court?

It’s fine if you think so, but explain why.

"Healthcare" is not a right. It is a privilege. Bill of Rights contains the rights of Americans. Healthcare is not one of them.

States Rights gives the states the right to deem certain things legal and illegal.

Two separate things...

[spurgistan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

"Article 25 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services." The Universal Declaration makes additional accommodations for security in case of physical debilitation or disability, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.[3]"

We signed that.

[NomadPatriot]

"Article 25 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services." The Universal Declaration makes additional accommodations for security in case of physical debilitation or disability, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.[3]"

I do not think you are reading that correctly.. it doesn't say " everyone gets free healthcare".. it says --> " Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

the right to a standard of living..

The standard of living is a measure of the material aspects of an economy. It counts the amount of goods and services produced and available for purchase by a person, family, group, or nation.
The standard of living is different from the quality of life. It doesn’t measure non-material characteristics, such as relationships, freedom, and satisfaction. These are part of the quality of life. Indices that attempt to measure quality of life also include the material standard of living measurement.

https://www.thebalance.com/standard-of-living-3305758

[Jdsizzleslice]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

"Article 25 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services." The Universal Declaration makes additional accommodations for security in case of physical debilitation or disability, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.[3]"

We signed that.

All of those things listed are privileges.

Here are the Bill of Rights and the other 17 Amendments. Please tell me where anything listed in the quote you provided is stated in the Bill of Rights.

[spurgistan]

No, they are rights, because we said so when we signed the document stipulating that. It says "Rights."

[Jdsizzleslice]

No, they are rights, because we said so when we signed the document stipulating that. It says "Rights."

You are incorrect. Did you even read my last post? There is no amendment in the U.S. Constitution talking about the right to healthcare.

You don't even know what your original link refers to. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Declaration consists of 30 articles affirming an individual's rights which, although not legally binding in themselves, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The Declaration was the first step in the process of formulating the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966, and came into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them.

Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for more than 50 years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law. However, in the United States, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), concluded that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." Courts of other countries have also concluded that the Declaration is not in and of itself part of domestic law.

[spurgistan]

OK, that's cool, if confusing. Now do Roe v Wade.

[HitRed]

To end abortion we need to study the Abolitionists. Over a relatively short period of time they changed the psychological mind of the world. So in 554 years they overturned 8,000+ years of history in most places. First country to outlaw slavery...

show

The next leap forward....

show

British Empire

show

USA

show

[jimboston]

"Healthcare" is not a right. It is a privilege. Bill of Rights contains the rights of Americans. Healthcare is not one of them.

States Rights gives the states the right to deem certain things legal and illegal.

Two separate things...

I agree that the Government paying for healthcare is not a right.

Access to healthcare is a right.

Yes... THESE are two separate things.

States Rights end when the laws State pass conflict with the Constitution.

... and then regardless of all this there are practical considerations that you and Nomad just like to ignore. I’m not gonna bother getting into that because you like to pretend that practical considerations don’t matter. Take for example your statement that people should ‘just move’ if they don’t like their State Gov’t limiting their rights!

[Symmetry]

No, they are rights, because we said so when we signed the document stipulating that. It says "Rights."

You are incorrect. Did you even read my last post? There is no amendment in the U.S. Constitution talking about the right to healthcare.

You don't even know what your original link refers to. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Declaration consists of 30 articles affirming an individual's rights which, although not legally binding in themselves, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The Declaration was the first step in the process of formulating the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966, and came into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them.

Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for more than 50 years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law. However, in the United States, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), concluded that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." Courts of other countries have also concluded that the Declaration is not in and of itself part of domestic law.

This is an interesting one. On one side you have the people who say that all agreements, even those that have become part of accepted law and legal theory should be burned at the stake as the witchery of foreigners impinging on sacred patriarchs. On the other hand, there are those that look to precedents, agreements, laws made, treaties, and rule of law to improve upon the current systems in the face of new challenges.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I agree that the Government paying for healthcare is not a right.

Access to healthcare is a right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

"Article 25 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services." The Universal Declaration makes additional accommodations for security in case of physical debilitation or disability, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.[3]"

We signed that.

All of those things listed are privileges.

Here are the Bill of Rights and the other 17 Amendments. Please tell me where anything listed in the quote you provided is stated in the Bill of Rights.

Heathcare is not a U.S. right. Show me in the Constitution where it says this. I have already answered this statement a few posts ago...

... and then regardless of all this there are practical considerations that you and Nomad just like to ignore. I’m not gonna bother getting into that because you like to pretend that practical considerations don’t matter. Take for example your statement that people should ‘just move’ if they don’t like their State Gov’t limiting their rights!

More crazy ideas from crazy people. You want people to uproot themselves from their generational habitat, leave everything they know due to a wind change in political climate?

Where do I suggest that? Certainly an extreme statement.

If you don't like the laws that are passed in a certain state, then you have the choice to not live there anymore, and move to a state that fits your political/moral/religious/etc. compass. Either that or elect people to offices that reflect your viewpoints to pass laws you are in favor of. It's simple, really.

Moving is an option and a choice, irregardless of practical considerations and other things. What are some of the practical considerations?

[jimboston]

Heathcare is not a U.S. right. Show me in the Constitution where it says this. I have already answered this statement a few posts ago...

I’m pretty sure it’s considered an unalienable right.

I’ve NEVER EVER heard a pro-lifer (or anyone ever) suggest that access to healthcare (not free healthcare, just access) isn’t a Right protected by the Constitution.

NEVER.

It’s logical to argue that the mother’s rights end when they impact/impede the rights of the unborn child. I don’t agree with that, but at least it’s a logical argument.

It’s illogical and just plain dumb to suggest States can limit access to specific medical procedures.

Firstly, the Supreme Court has already disagreed with this.

Secondly, if a State can make laws to prevent specific medical procedures because there’s no “right to healthcare” then by that logic a State could ban any procedure, like plastic surgery or hair transplants.

No logical.

... on a side note I heard Maine was going to ban dental procedures, but then realized they don’t have any practicing dentists to ban.

What are some of the practical considerations?

... in regards to moving because your State limits access to healthcare?

I mean it’s obvious and many in this thread have given examples. It’s just not possible for a sizable minority of the population. Many just can’t afford to move. They’d lose their jobs, they’d be away from family/friends which may be part of their support network, maybe some wound’t know how to even handle a move either because they’re young or dumb. It’s just not practical for most and not possible for some. You pretending you don’t realize, this is frustrating AND demonstrates that you don’t have an answer for this PRACTICAL consideration.

[Jdsizzleslice]

You obviously haven't been reading any of my posts. I am asking you because I want your opinion, not someone else's. I understand the reason of why people do/do not move. I have lived in several different places myself. Deciding to move to a different state is a choice. There are other choices out there (like voting) besides moving. My original statement is not an issue of practicality. It's an issue of choice to live where you want to live. That's all I was trying to say. Are you trying to tell me I don't know what it is like to move somewhere, and start a new life, and all the implications that come along with that?

You didn't even answer my initial statement. Where in the Constitution is healthcare a right? "Pretty sure" does not mean that it is in there. I won't make any more posts until you answer this question. Everything else has skirted around the answer.

[Symmetry]

You obviously haven't been reading any of my posts. I am asking you because I want your opinion, not someone else's. I understand the reason of why people do/do not move. I have lived in several different places myself. Deciding to move to a different state is a choice. There are other choices out there (like voting) besides moving. My original statement is not an issue of practicality. It's an issue of choice to live where you want to live. That's all I was trying to say. Are you trying to tell me I don't know what it is like to move somewhere, and start a new life, and all the implications that come along with that?

You didn't even answer my initial statement. Where in the Constitution is healthcare a right? "Pretty sure" does not mean that it is in there. I won't make any more posts until you answer this question. Everything else has skirted around the answer.

Oh dear, not another one who thinks that the Constitution is the be all and end all of US law, as if there's not centuries of jurisprudence, laws, treaties, precedents, scholarship, judgements, case-laws, civil-laws, international laws, agreements.. etc.

Honestly Jdizz, sometimes I think that your view of the legal system in the US is that a Judge reads the constitution and just says if something is in there. Like a child.

It'd be pathetic, but I genuinely do think that your go-to argument is that the most sophisticated legal minds in the world should be no better than a kid's comprehension of a few centuries old documents.

It's law for dummies.

[NomadPatriot]

Honestly Jdizz, sometimes I think that your view of the legal system in the US is that a Judge reads the constitution and just says if something is in there. Like a child.

a girl from the united kingdom preaching to a US citizen about his comprehension of his own laws..
of course..
the "European" won't even defend the sanctity of her own country.. she wants the UK laws erased & replaced by the EU laws..

[jimboston]

You obviously haven't been reading any of my posts. I am asking you because I want your opinion, not someone else's. I understand the reason of why people do/do not move. I have lived in several different places myself. Deciding to move to a different state is a choice. There are other choices out there (like voting) besides moving. My original statement is not an issue of practicality. It's an issue of choice to live where you want to live. That's all I was trying to say. Are you trying to tell me I don't know what it is like to move somewhere, and start a new life, and all the implications that come along with that?

You didn't even answer my initial statement. Where in the Constitution is healthcare a right? "Pretty sure" does not mean that it is in there. I won't make any more posts until you answer this question. Everything else has skirted around the answer.

If you are going to ignore everything type and keep hammering on one stupid point that makes no sense... then I guess I’m going to just stop typing.

It’s an inalienable right. Part of the ‘life liberty and pursuit of happiness’ spectrum.

It was never specifically called out and enumerated like the right to bear arms or not house soldiers.
It was never specifically listed because the Founders were unable to conceive of the possibility that the government would ever want to inhibit or limit someone’s access to healthcare.

The right to medical treatment in general and abortions in particularly has been UPHELD by the Supreme Court.
Are you claiming to be more knowledgeable than people selected to sit on the Supreme Court?

You are hammering on this dumb point and ignoring life!

Please tell me how this procedure would be any different than hip replacement in terms of ‘access to healthcare’ only.
If you cannot do this then you’re saying the government could legally / constitutionally ban hip replacements?
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING1

Explain this or GFY because if you won’t reply to my points i’m done.

[NomadPatriot]

because if you won’t reply to my points i’m done.

JD.. DON'T REPLY SO HE WILL SHUT THE F*CK UP.. only thing he wants to do is argue.. it doesn't matter what you say. JIM will argue againist your points..

he is the constant contrarian..

[jimboston]

because if you won’t reply to my points i’m done.

JD.. DON'T REPLY SO HE WILL SHUT THE F*CK UP.. only thing he wants to do is argue.. it doesn't matter what you say. JIM will argue againist your points..

he is the constant contrarian..

You’re right.