• Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Roe v. Wade

    From Arthur Rubin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 26 21:25:49 2022
    What, _exactly_, did Ruth Bader Ginsburg say about Roe v. Wade?

    I've seen:
    1. She approved of the decision but found the reasoning weak (or invalid)
    2. She would have supported Roe in the specific case, but NOT set up guidelines (which had the force of law)
    3. She supported using a different clause in the reconstruction amendments to support Roe, and possibly a different framework

    and a few other possibilities.

    What, really, did she say?

    I'm NOT asking how the members of this group would have ruled if they were on the Court. That might not be a violation of the group guidelines, but I see no point in asking.

    --
    Arthur L. Rubin
    Confused in Brea

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 27 10:31:23 2022
    "Arthur Rubin" wrote in message news:6f6fb79f-3ea0-45bc-9c11-2696689b1bb0n@googlegroups.com...

    What, _exactly_, did Ruth Bader Ginsburg say about Roe v. Wade?

    I've seen:
    1. She approved of the decision but found the reasoning weak (or invalid)
    2. She would have supported Roe in the specific case, but NOT set up >guidelines (which had the force of law)
    3. She supported using a different clause in the reconstruction amendments >to support Roe, and possibly a different framework

    and a few other possibilities.

    What, really, did she say?

    I'm NOT asking how the members of this group would have ruled if they were
    on the Court. That might not be a violation of the group guidelines, but I >see no point in asking.

    --
    Arthur L. Rubin
    Confused in Brea


    Read this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Jun 28 00:07:50 2022
    On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
    Read this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

    Paywall.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nick Odell@21:1/5 to bgold@labcats.org on Tue Jun 28 13:17:08 2022
    On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Barry Gold
    <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
    Read this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

    Paywall.

    Turning off javascript works for me.

    Nick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Tue Jun 28 16:41:38 2022
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:t9crvl$lcrn$1@dont-email.me...

    On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
    Read this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

    Paywall.


    Sorry. It was free when I first tried it. Here's a similar article from
    the Washington Post. If that's also blocked, the text is below the link.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

    The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have the votes to overturn the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion proposes, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still on the court. But Ginsburg was not a fan of the reasoning behind the 1973 ruling.

    Ginsburg, who died in 2020, criticized the 7-to-2 decision both before and after she joined the high court. She argued that it would have been better
    to take a more incremental approach to legalizing abortion, rather than the nationwide ruling in Roe that invalidated dozens of state antiabortion laws. She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more
    durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the
    Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.

    Ginsburg actually didn’t think Roe was the best case for establishing abortion rights. She would have preferred a case she worked on as a lawyer
    for the American Civil Liberties Union in the early 1970s.

    In that case, Ginsburg represented an Air Force captain who became pregnant while serving as a nurse in Vietnam. In a twist, Ginsburg championed the woman’s right not to have an abortion; an Air Force rule at the time
    dictated that pregnant women had to terminate their pregnancies or be discharged.

    Ginsburg challenged the rule on behalf of the woman, Susan Struck, in a case called Struck v. Secretary of Defense and won a stay preventing Struck’s discharge while the courts reviewed the case. In December 1972, two years
    after Struck gave birth to a baby and shortly after the Supreme Court agreed
    to hear the suit, the military changed the policy and let Struck remain on active duty.

    The court agreed to drop the case as moot. The following month, it issued
    its Roe v. Wade ruling.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nobody Special@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 1 22:53:55 2022
    On 28/06/2022 08:07, Barry Gold wrote:
    On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
    Read this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

    Paywall.


    Try this:

    <https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/KjZLGd>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Jul 5 23:08:06 2022
    On June 28, Rick wrote:
    The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have the votes to overturn the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion proposes, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still on the court. But Ginsburg was not a fan of the reasoning behind the 1973 ruling.

    She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.

    So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
    and mother in abortion decisions?

    Where's King Solomon when we need him?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 6 11:03:44 2022
    According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:
    Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather >> than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.

    So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
    and mother in abortion decisions?

    Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to bear
    a child agaist his or her will.

    Yes, this is considerably easier to implement for men.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Jul 6 16:51:49 2022
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On June 28, Rick wrote:

    The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have the votes to overturn
    the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion
    proposes, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still on the court.
    But Ginsburg was not a fan of the reasoning behind the 1973
    ruling.

    She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been
    more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause
    of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on
    gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the
    justices highlighted.

    So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
    and mother in abortion decisions?

    No, that is not what she meant.

    She meant that "equal protection" (meaning that everyone is entitled
    to the same rights under the law) is more a durable part of the
    Constitution than the right of privacy, which really isn't mentioned
    much if at all.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Thu Jul 7 07:06:14 2022
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:ta4hho$2lvq$1@gal.iecc.com...

    According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:
    Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality
    rather
    than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.

    So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
    and mother in abortion decisions?

    Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to bear
    a child agaist his or her will.

    But suppose that child has developed in the womb to the point where it is viable and able to exist on its own? By the time the child has been in the womb, say, seven or eight months, I think in this situation many people
    would argue that the person carrying the child should indeed be forced to
    bear that child.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jul 7 13:20:23 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:ta5buu$ne6$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to
    bear a child agaist his or her will.

    But suppose that child has developed in the womb to the point
    where it is viable and able to exist on its own? By the time the
    child has been in the womb, say, seven or eight months, I think in
    this situation many people would argue that the person carrying
    the child should indeed be forced to bear that child.

    And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the Court is
    saying that, no matter how early, no matter how undeveloped, a
    fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient person, and it is
    permissible to prevent doctors from counseling patients to abort when
    it is medically necessary to do so.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 11 19:30:18 2022
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsAECD7888F2EBAspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:ta5buu$ne6$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to
    bear a child agaist his or her will.

    But suppose that child has developed in the womb to the point
    where it is viable and able to exist on its own? By the time the
    child has been in the womb, say, seven or eight months, I think in
    this situation many people would argue that the person carrying
    the child should indeed be forced to bear that child.

    And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the Court is
    saying that, no matter how early, no matter how undeveloped, a
    fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient person, and it is
    permissible to prevent doctors from counseling patients to abort when
    it is medically necessary to do so.



    Well no, the Court is not really saying that. It's not addressing the rightness or wrongness of abortion per se. What the ruling essentially says
    is that the Court is the wrong venue to decide this issue since abortion is
    not specifically addressed anywhere in the Constitution. Since it's not a Constitutional issue, the Court's ruling returns the issue to the states.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Jul 12 06:00:25 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:taif1c$pt4$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the
    Court is saying that, no matter how early, no matter how
    undeveloped, a fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient
    person, and it is permissible to prevent doctors from counseling
    patients to abort when it is medically necessary to do so.

    Well no, the Court is not really saying that. It's not
    addressing the rightness or wrongness of abortion per se. What
    the ruling essentially says is that the Court is the wrong venue
    to decide this issue since abortion is not specifically addressed
    anywhere in the Constitution. Since it's not a Constitutional
    issue, the Court's ruling returns the issue to the states.

    That's a very simplistic and naive way to look at it.

    For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
    implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
    privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
    create a privacy issue, and are for the most part between a patient
    and his or her doctor. A fetus does have rights that must be
    respected, but (they said) that the rights had to be balanced. A
    fetus would have rights that the State could protect, but only after
    it could live itself outside the womb. For the three months before
    that they gave the State the right to restrict abortion but only in
    cases that there was some serious state interest. For the initial
    three months, the State could not restrict abortions if a woman and
    her doctor decided that it was in the woman's best interest.

    To say, "well, it's not in the Constitution so we won't deal with
    it" goes against almost 250 years of Supreme Court precedent. Almost
    every Supreme Court case that ever existed dealt with issues that
    weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

    Even religious freedom. It's not expressly mentioned in the
    Constitution either. Yes, people can't be restricted from
    "exercising" their religion. But that could mean that they won't
    stop you from going to court, but everything else is off the table.
    It's the right of privacy that actually creates our current notion of
    religious freedom. If you get rid of the right of privacy, then
    everything else is on the table. The government can tell you (as
    state laws had done in the past) what kind of sex you can have with
    your spouse, for example. The government can regulate almost
    anything and everything unless it is clearly and specifically stated
    in the Constitution.

    That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
    law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
    common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
    look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
    involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
    common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
    able to predict what is proper and what is not.

    This court wants to upend all of that.

    And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Ha!

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Tue Jul 12 08:04:38 2022
    On 7/12/2022 6:00 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
    law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
    common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
    look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
    involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
    common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
    able to predict what is proper and what is not.

    This court wants to upend all of that.

    And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Ha!

    "This court wants to upend all of that."

    I think that pretty much describes justice Thomas. But based on the
    comments of the other four justices who made up the majority, they ONLY
    want to overturn Roe. They have explicitly said(*) that they would keep
    Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. In short, they want to
    overturn the one ruling that the Republican "base" objects to, while
    keeping the other "substantive due process" rulings intact.

    The fact that this makes no logical sense doesn't seem to bother them in
    the least.

    (*) Of course, can we trust what they say? All five of them lied under
    oath at their confirmation hearings.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 21 11:09:51 2022
    "Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsAED1E860D6870spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:taif1c$pt4$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the
    Court is saying that, no matter how early, no matter how
    undeveloped, a fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient
    person, and it is permissible to prevent doctors from counseling
    patients to abort when it is medically necessary to do so.

    Well no, the Court is not really saying that. It's not
    addressing the rightness or wrongness of abortion per se. What
    the ruling essentially says is that the Court is the wrong venue
    to decide this issue since abortion is not specifically addressed
    anywhere in the Constitution. Since it's not a Constitutional
    issue, the Court's ruling returns the issue to the states.

    That's a very simplistic and naive way to look at it.

    For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
    implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
    privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
    create a privacy issue, and are for the most part between a patient
    and his or her doctor. A fetus does have rights that must be
    respected, but (they said) that the rights had to be balanced. A
    fetus would have rights that the State could protect, but only after
    it could live itself outside the womb. For the three months before
    that they gave the State the right to restrict abortion but only in
    cases that there was some serious state interest. For the initial
    three months, the State could not restrict abortions if a woman and
    her doctor decided that it was in the woman's best interest.

    To say, "well, it's not in the Constitution so we won't deal with
    it" goes against almost 250 years of Supreme Court precedent. Almost
    every Supreme Court case that ever existed dealt with issues that
    weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

    Even religious freedom. It's not expressly mentioned in the
    Constitution either. Yes, people can't be restricted from
    "exercising" their religion. But that could mean that they won't
    stop you from going to court, but everything else is off the table.
    It's the right of privacy that actually creates our current notion of >religious freedom. If you get rid of the right of privacy, then
    everything else is on the table. The government can tell you (as
    state laws had done in the past) what kind of sex you can have with
    your spouse, for example. The government can regulate almost
    anything and everything unless it is clearly and specifically stated
    in the Constitution.

    That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
    law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
    common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
    look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
    involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
    common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
    able to predict what is proper and what is not.

    This court wants to upend all of that.

    And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the >Constitution? Ha!


    You can call it nave and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth
    is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
    literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion
    or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And
    for that reason, the issue is back with the states.


    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Thu Jul 21 22:01:04 2022
    On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
    You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
    literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion
    or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution.  Period.  And for that reason, the issue is back with the states.

    What an... interesting... approach.

    The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
    consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
    That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence
    v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!

    Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to
    be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you
    have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.

    And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
    Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide
    you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From TheMightyAtlas@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 22 07:58:57 2022
    On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:
    On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
    You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
    What an... interesting... approach.

    The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
    consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
    That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence
    v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!

    Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to
    be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you
    have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.

    And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
    Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide
    you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.
    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    And you think that at least four members of the current Court wouldn't think ALL of these (and a good many more) are judicial and federal overreach?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 22 08:36:39 2022
    "Barry Gold" wrote in message news:tbcpio$2me86$1@dont-email.me...

    On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
    You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard
    truth
    is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one.
    Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
    literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to
    abortion
    or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And
    for that reason, the issue is back with the states.

    What an... interesting... approach.

    The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
    consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection". That >surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence v. Texas >and Obergefell v. Hodges!

    Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to be >"compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you have a >right to be warned about it before the cops question you.

    And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
    Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide you >with one if you can't pay for it yourself.


    Those are valid points, but it obscures what I think is unique about the abortion debate. It isn't just about equal protection or privacy rights -
    it is about the fundamental issue of when does life begin.

    I think we all agree that killing another human is generally wrong. Of
    course there are exceptions for self-defense and whatever, but the basic concept is well established that we don't allow people to kill other people.
    So the issue is when does life begin? I think just about everyone would
    agree that aborting a viable 9-month old fetus who is about to be born is generally not okay since you have an actual person who can exist outside the womb. Similarly, I think a majority of people (though not all, certainly) would argue that aborting an embryo right after fertilization is reasonable since you effectively only have the potential for life at that moment. So
    the question is where between those two extremes do we start the clock on
    life? Is it when major organs start to form? When the heart starts
    beating? When brain activity begins? When actual thinking occurs? This is not a Constitutional issue in the sense that this definitional question is
    not even hinted at anywhere in the document. The Constitution talks about equal protection for what we assume are human life forms, but it is silent
    on the very fundamental question of when does life actually start?

    So it's not so much a legal issue as a definitional issue. We agree that
    life should be protected under the law, but when does life begin? Since
    this issue is not addressed or even hinted at in the Constitution, it has to
    be defined somewhere else in some other legal document. Now that could be
    the Constitution through an amendment. Or it could perhaps be through some federal legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President, though
    that could raise 10th Amendment concerns. But in the absence of any such explicitly defined federal law or the Constitution itself, the Court has decided the issue is properly handled by the states. Now those who defend abortion rights are attacking the ruling and those who oppose abortion
    rights are defending the decision. But hardly anyone is addressing the
    central problem which is that the definition of when life begins is clearly
    not in the Constitution.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 22 10:51:21 2022
    On 7/22/2022 10:41 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
    ...

    Or is she allowed to evict this trespasser?

    Ultimately the abortion question is the same as the rent control
    question. Should somebody who will die without a suitable residence (the
    womb or the apartment) be legally allowed to stay there until they move
    out (get born)?  Or does the landlord/mother have the right to evict
    them, even if this means they will die in the winter snow/in the non-nurturing environment outside the mother's body?



    There is a difference A person evicted by a landlord has some chance of continue to live. A fetus being aborted has a 100% chance of death.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to TheMightyAtlas on Fri Jul 22 10:39:26 2022
    On 7/22/2022 7:58 AM, TheMightyAtlas wrote:
    On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:
    On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
    You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth >>> is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. >>> Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
    literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion >>> or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And >>> for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
    What an... interesting... approach.

    The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
    consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
    That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence
    v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!

    Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to
    be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you
    have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.

    And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
    Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide
    you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.
    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    And you think that at least four members of the current Court wouldn't think ALL of these (and a good many more) are judicial and federal overreach?

    That was exactly my point. If you're going to take an extreme literalist viewpoint, then we the people have almost no rights.


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick on Fri Jul 22 10:41:44 2022
    On 7/22/2022 8:36 AM, Rick wrote:
    "Barry Gold"  wrote in message news:tbcpio$2me86$1@dont-email.me...

    On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
    You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard
    truth
    is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. >>> Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
    literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to
    abortion
    or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution.  Period.
    And
    for that reason, the issue is back with the states.

    What an... interesting... approach.

    The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
    consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
    That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with
    Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!

    Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not
    to be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that
    you have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.

    And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
    Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to
    provide you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.


    Those are valid points, but it obscures what I think is unique about the abortion debate.  It isn't just about equal protection or privacy rights
    - it is about the fundamental issue of when does life begin.

    I think we all agree that  killing another human is generally wrong.  Of course there are exceptions for self-defense and whatever, but the basic concept is well established that we don't allow people to kill other
    people. So the issue is when does life begin?  I think just about
    everyone would agree that aborting a viable 9-month old fetus who is
    about to be born is generally not okay since you have an actual person
    who can exist outside the womb.  Similarly, I think a majority of people (though not all, certainly) would argue that aborting an embryo right
    after fertilization is reasonable since you effectively only have the potential for life at that moment.   So the question is where between
    those two extremes do we start the clock on life?  Is it when major
    organs start to form?  When the heart starts beating?  When brain
    activity begins?  When actual thinking occurs?  This is not a Constitutional issue in the sense that this definitional question is not
    even hinted at anywhere in the document.  The Constitution talks about
    equal protection for what we assume are human life forms, but it is
    silent on the very fundamental question of when does life actually start?

    So it's not so much a legal issue as a definitional issue.  We agree
    that life should be protected under the law, but when does life begin?
    Since this issue is not addressed or even hinted at in the Constitution,
    it has to be defined somewhere else in some other legal document.  Now
    that could be the Constitution through an amendment.  Or it could
    perhaps be through some federal legislation passed by Congress and
    signed by the President, though that could raise 10th Amendment
    concerns.  But in the absence of any such explicitly defined federal law
    or the Constitution itself, the Court has decided the issue is properly handled by the states.   Now those who defend abortion rights are
    attacking the ruling and those who oppose abortion rights are defending
    the decision. But hardly anyone is addressing the central problem which
    is that the definition of when life begins is clearly not in the Constitution.

    The moral issue is when life begins -- or more accurately, when the law
    begins to protect it.

    A zygote (newly fertilized egg) is alive. Left to itself in the right environment (a uterus), it will divide and divide again and take form as
    a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, and eventually a baby.

    So if all human life is to be protected, the even the zygote should be protected. Of course, nobody even notices a zygote. You'd need a
    microscope to see it. Once it implants and forms a placenta and the
    mother's hormonal balance starts to shift, the mother will notice it and
    decide if she wants to keep it.

    From my viewpoint, the question isn't about "protecting life" but about protecting a woman's bodily integrity. Is she be to be forced to carry
    around something that makes her nauseous ("morning sickness"), to feed
    it from her bloodstream, to provide waste disposal services to it, to
    endure being kicked in various tender spots, so that the baby can be
    born and assume its (presumably) rightful place in the society of human
    beings?

    Or is she allowed to evict this trespasser?

    Ultimately the abortion question is the same as the rent control
    question. Should somebody who will die without a suitable residence (the
    womb or the apartment) be legally allowed to stay there until they move
    out (get born)? Or does the landlord/mother have the right to evict
    them, even if this means they will die in the winter snow/in the
    non-nurturing environment outside the mother's body?


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Rick on Fri Jul 22 13:14:22 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:tbeeeh$1goh$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    Those are valid points, but it obscures what I think is unique
    about the abortion debate. It isn't just about equal protection
    or privacy rights - it is about the fundamental issue of when does
    life begin.

    I think we all agree that killing another human is generally
    wrong. Of course there are exceptions for self-defense and
    whatever, but the basic concept is well established that we don't
    allow people to kill other people. So the issue is when does life
    begin? I think just about everyone would agree that aborting a
    viable 9-month old fetus who is about to be born is generally not
    okay since you have an actual person who can exist outside the
    womb. Similarly, I think a majority of people (though not all,
    certainly) would argue that aborting an embryo right after
    fertilization is reasonable since you effectively only have the
    potential for life at that moment. So the question is where
    between those two extremes do we start the clock on life? Is it
    when major organs start to form? When the heart starts beating?
    When brain activity begins? When actual thinking occurs? This is
    not a Constitutional issue in the sense that this definitional
    question is not even hinted at anywhere in the document. The
    Constitution talks about equal protection for what we assume are
    human life forms, but it is silent on the very fundamental
    question of when does life actually start?

    So it's not so much a legal issue as a definitional issue. We
    agree that life should be protected under the law, but when does
    life begin? Since this issue is not addressed or even hinted at
    in the Constitution, it has to be defined somewhere else in some
    other legal document. Now that could be the Constitution through
    an amendment. Or it could perhaps be through some federal
    legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President, though
    that could raise 10th Amendment concerns. But in the absence of
    any such explicitly defined federal law or the Constitution
    itself, the Court has decided the issue is properly handled by the
    states. Now those who defend abortion rights are attacking the
    ruling and those who oppose abortion rights are defending the
    decision. But hardly anyone is addressing the central problem
    which is that the definition of when life begins is clearly not in
    the Constitution.

    You clearly don't understand how courts work. When a case gets to
    the Supreme Court, the facts (i.e. when life begins) have already
    been determined by lower courts. Appellate courts aren't supposed to
    tamper with those findings because they weren't there to see the
    evidence.

    So when the Supreme Court allows restriction on abortions it has
    nothing to do with when life begins. The Court isn't allowed to
    weigh in on that issue.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jul 22 13:19:13 2022
    Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:
    TheMightyAtlas wrote:
    Barry Gold wrote:
    Rick wrote:

    You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the
    cold, hard truth is that this Court is taking a different
    approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not,
    this Court is reading the Constitution literally, and the
    literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion or
    fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution.
    Period. And for that reason, the issue is back with the
    states.
    What an... interesting... approach.

    The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex
    with consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal
    protection". That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of
    sodomy. Away with Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!

    Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right
    not to be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't
    mean that you have a right to be warned about it before the cops
    question you.

    And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the
    Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence." But the government
    doesn't have to provide you with one if you can't pay for it
    yourself. --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    And you think that at least four members of the current Court
    wouldn't think ALL of these (and a good many more) are judicial
    and federal overreach?

    That was exactly my point. If you're going to take an extreme
    literalist viewpoint, then we the people have almost no rights.

    One thing that's not in the Constitution but has long been
    interpreted to be its meaning, is that the restrictions there apply
    to local and state governments as much as the federal government. If
    you take a literalist approach, we have no rights under state laws,
    and states are not required to follow the Constitution.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Roy on Fri Jul 22 13:16:47 2022
    On 7/22/2022 10:51 AM, Roy wrote:
    On 7/22/2022 10:41 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
    ...

    Or is she allowed to evict this trespasser?

    Ultimately the abortion question is the same as the rent control
    question. Should somebody who will die without a suitable residence
    (the womb or the apartment) be legally allowed to stay there until
    they move out (get born)?  Or does the landlord/mother have the right
    to evict them, even if this means they will die in the winter snow/in
    the non-nurturing environment outside the mother's body?



    There is a difference  A person evicted by a landlord has some chance of continue to live.  A fetus being aborted has a 100% chance of death.

    We can fix that. If the "right to life" crowd were truly interested in
    that aim, they would finance research into fetal transplants (we can
    already do that with cows) and, ultimately, an artificial uterus like
    the heart-lung machines we use to keep people alive during open-heart
    surgery and other situation when their own respiratory and circulatory
    systems temporarily can't do the job.


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Fri Jul 22 22:57:27 2022
    On 7/22/2022 1:19 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    One thing that's not in the Constitution but has long been
    interpreted to be its meaning, is that the restrictions there apply
    to local and state governments as much as the federal government. If
    you take a literalist approach, we have no rights under state laws,
    and states are not required to follow the Constitution.

    That's based on the "due process" and "privileges and immunities"
    clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Sat Jul 23 07:50:30 2022
    Barry Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 7/22/2022 1:19 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    One thing that's not in the Constitution but has long been
    interpreted to be its meaning, is that the restrictions there
    apply to local and state governments as much as the federal
    government. If you take a literalist approach, we have no rights
    under state laws, and states are not required to follow the
    Constitution.

    That's based on the "due process" and "privileges and immunities"
    clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Of course. But it doesn't mean the current court will keep it as is.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 23 12:30:24 2022
    According to Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:
    government. If you take a literalist approach, we have no rights
    under state laws, and states are not required to follow the
    Constitution.

    That's based on the "due process" and "privileges and immunities"
    clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Of course. But it doesn't mean the current court will keep it as is.

    It took quite a while for the court to apply the bill of rights to the
    states under the incorporation doctrine. The double jeopardy clause of
    the fifth amendment wasn't incorporated until 1969, the fourth
    amendment not until 1961 and 1964. Under the new rule of clearly
    established at some former time we will determine, those could easily
    go away.

    On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
    200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
    to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
    about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
    so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
    that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
    18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sat Jul 23 14:52:42 2022
    On 7/23/2022 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
    200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
    to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
    about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
    so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
    that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
    18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.

    I found a webpage that looked well-researched, and it claimed that this misreading started with one person in the 1930s. He got a bunch of
    essays published, other people picked it up, it grew and grew until now
    the entire "Conservative" movement buys into it.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sat Jul 23 14:51:21 2022
    On 7/23/2022 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
    ...
    On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
    200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
    to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
    about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
    so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
    that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
    18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.


    Under current definitions, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic
    assault rifle to be carried to the mall.

    An assault rifle is generally defined as having "selective fire". The
    wiki says

    "Selective fire is the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, fully automatic, and/or burst mode."

    The AR-5, -10, -15 rifles were designed as "battle rifles". I carried
    an M1 and later an M14 during my ROTC days and they were definitely not
    assault rifles. There were some variations of the M14 that had
    selective fire which I never carried :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sat Jul 23 14:52:10 2022
    On July 12, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
    implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
    privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
    create a privacy issue, and are for the most part between a patient
    and his or her doctor.

    If it's a privacy argument, then the Burger court should have struck down all Drug War programs, in the next case involving illicit substances.

    If it's all about a woman's right to control her own body, how can Big Brother abrogate a person's sovereignty over his own skin, to decide for himself what substances he may ingest? If there's any human right, that's it - talk about privacy -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Jul 23 23:18:44 2022
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

    For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the
    Constitution implies (but does not specifically state) that there
    is a right to privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical
    treatments create a privacy issue, and are for the most part
    between a patient and his or her doctor.

    If it's a privacy argument, then the Burger court should have
    struck down all Drug War programs, in the next case involving
    illicit substances.

    If it's all about a woman's right to control her own body, how can
    Big Brother abrogate a person's sovereignty over his own skin, to
    decide for himself what substances he may ingest? If there's any
    human right, that's it - talk about privacy -

    You really can't tell the difference between abortion and drug use?
    Abortion really is a private affair and doesn't have a significant
    effect on society at large. Drug use, however, does. By your
    argument theft, burglary, perhaps even murder, may be private because
    they don't involve other people at that specific moment, and so can't
    be regulated by the law. That's just silly.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 23 23:24:39 2022
    According to Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com>:
    On 7/23/2022 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
    ...
    On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
    200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
    to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
    about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
    so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
    that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
    18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.


    Under current definitions, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic
    assault rifle to be carried to the mall. ...

    I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the details of various kinds
    of guns, but I would have thought my point is simple enough.

    The interpretation of the second amendment that finds a personal right
    to own and carry the kind of guns used to commit mass murder in Uvalde
    and in Highland Park and in Buffalo and in 300 other places so far
    this year is a highly selective and motivated one, not a literal one.

    If anyone is wondering what the amendment is actually about, the
    answer is the same as the answer to any question about early American
    history: slavery. It was to keep northern abolitionists from banning
    the state militias that the southern states used to fight slave
    rebellions.

    See "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment", a well written
    paper by law professor Carl Bogus (yes that's his real name):

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sun Jul 24 00:56:35 2022
    On 7/23/2022 11:18 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    You really can't tell the difference between abortion and drug use?
    Abortion really is a private affair and doesn't have a significant
    effect on society at large. Drug use, however, does. By your
    argument theft, burglary, perhaps even murder, may be private because
    they don't involve other people at that specific moment, and so can't
    be regulated by the law. That's just silly.

    Most of the "significant effect on society at large" arises from drug prohibition. Recreational drugs are illegal(*) so their price is high.
    That means that addicts have to steal to get money to pay for their "fix".

    None of the most popular illegal drugs (opioids, amphetamines, and
    cocaine) is particularly difficult to manufacture. If they were legal,
    they would probably sell for about the same prices as other OTC drugs --
    less than $0.10 per dose.

    There would be no need to steal or rob people to pay for the drugs, and
    people could use the drugs in their homes or (in most cases) in public.
    And the dosage would be reliable, which would mean many fewer overdose
    deaths and hospital admissions.

    Our current drugs laws result from the efforts of Harry J. Anslinger.
    After prohibition was repealed, he needed something else to fight to
    justify his salary as Assistant Comissioner in the Bureau of
    Prohibition. So he worked up a panic over marijuana and morphine. (We
    have a personal recipe book from my wife's great grandmother, which
    includes "50 cents of morphine" as an ingredient in a pain-relief
    concoction.) That's "50 cents" as in "half a dollar". You bought it in a general store.

    (*) Except for ethanol, nicotine, and caffeine

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Jul 25 13:52:08 2022
    On 7/23/2022 11:24 PM, John Levine wrote:
    According to Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com>:
    On 7/23/2022 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
    ...
    On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
    200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
    to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
    about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
    so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
    that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
    18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.


    Under current definitions, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic
    assault rifle to be carried to the mall. ...

    I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the details of various kinds
    of guns, but I would have thought my point is simple enough.

    The interpretation of the second amendment that finds a personal right
    to own and carry the kind of guns used to commit mass murder in Uvalde
    and in Highland Park and in Buffalo and in 300 other places so far
    this year is a highly selective and motivated one, not a literal one.

    If anyone is wondering what the amendment is actually about, the
    answer is the same as the answer to any question about early American history: slavery. It was to keep northern abolitionists from banning
    the state militias that the southern states used to fight slave
    rebellions.

    See "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment", a well written
    paper by law professor Carl Bogus (yes that's his real name):

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114



    It is important that we have a common vocabulary.

    Pollster asks two people "Should we ban assault rifles"

    One says Yes but really means things like the AR-15 style rifles.

    One who is an NRA member says Yes also. He knows that assault rifles
    are ALREADY banned in the US. Because of the selective fire feature,
    the ATF defines them as machine guns and they are strictly controlled.

    The pollster then reports two people in charge of the assault rifle ban
    but it is really two different things

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernie Cosell@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 30 07:28:57 2022
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

    } I think we all agree that killing another human is generally wrong. Of
    } course there are exceptions for self-defense and whatever, but the basic
    } concept is well established that we don't allow people to kill other people. } So the issue is when does life begin? I think just about everyone would
    } agree that aborting a viable 9-month old fetus who is about to be born is
    } generally not okay since you have an actual person who can exist outside the } womb. Similarly, I think a majority of people (though not all, certainly)
    } would argue that aborting an embryo right after fertilization is reasonable
    } since you effectively only have the potential for life at that moment. So
    } the question is where between those two extremes do we start the clock on
    } life? Is it when major organs start to form? When the heart starts
    } beating? When brain activity begins? When actual thinking occurs?

    Note that at the other end of the life cycle, lack of brain activity
    {"brain death"} is considered [dunno how universally] as being "dead".
    So it is possible to consistently extend that view to the other end: an
    embryo isn't "alive" until its brain has started functioning.

    /Bernie\
    --
    Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
    bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
    --> Too many people, too few sheep <--

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Bernie Cosell on Sat Jul 30 11:26:07 2022
    Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

    Note that at the other end of the life cycle, lack of brain
    activity {"brain death"} is considered [dunno how universally] as
    being "dead". So it is possible to consistently extend that view
    to the other end: an embryo isn't "alive" until its brain has
    started functioning.

    That's my opinion too. On the other side, though, they say at the
    beginning, as opposed to the end, it's a "potential" life, and
    shouldn't be eliminated for that reason. However with cloning
    technology every time we cut our finger nails we are killing
    "potential" lives. Why is that not the same?

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Elle N@21:1/5 to Rick on Sun Aug 21 19:55:35 2022
    On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 6:41:41 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
    Ginsburg actually didn’t think Roe was the best case for establishing abortion rights. She would have preferred a case she worked on as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the early 1970s.

    In that case, Ginsburg represented an Air Force captain who became pregnant while serving as a nurse in Vietnam. In a twist, Ginsburg championed the woman’s right not to have an abortion; an Air Force rule at the time dictated that pregnant women had to terminate their pregnancies or be discharged.

    Ginsburg challenged the rule on behalf of the woman, Susan Struck, in a case called Struck v. Secretary of Defense and won a stay preventing Struck’s discharge while the courts reviewed the case. In December 1972, two years after Struck gave birth to a baby and shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the suit, the military changed the policy and let Struck remain on active duty.

    I am reading Jane Sherron DeHart's biography of Ginsburg. About Struck v. Secretary of Defense, the biography says the Air Force regulation Struck (with the ACLU's and Ginsburg's help) challenged was the one requiring discharge "when it is established that she... [h]as given birth to a living child while in
    a commissioned officer status."

    The biography seems to assert that the abortion issue, while present, was not nearly as prominent in the briefs Struck's attorneys submitted to the courts.

    I am not convinced that Ginsburg wanted to use to strike down abortion laws.
    My take is Ginsburg with the ACLU was a sort of brilliant, strategic, brick-by-brick contractor when it came to gender discrimination. The ACLU
    and Ginsburg time and again in the 1970s would take on men being
    discriminated against by statute; win these cases; and then ask the courts
    to apply these recent precedents to women's situations. The ACLU and
    Ginsburg borrowed heavily from rulings saying discrimination on the
    basis of race violated the equal protection clause.

    In early 1973, Ginsburg was the director of the ACLU's Women's Rights
    Project. According to the biography, right after the Court issued its Roe
    v. Wade decision, the ACLU asked Ginsburg to take on the court cases
    that were coming up, chiseling away at Roe v. Wade. Ginsburg declined.
    Why? Because the ACLU Women's Rights Project was funded in large
    part by the Ford Foundation, on condition that the Project did not take
    on abortion-related litigation. Also the Project was understaffed. Ginsburg herself had an unrelenting schedule already, the biography said. For
    Ginsburg to become in any way a champion of abortion rights in the
    courts, was, as a matter of practicality, not do-able.

    I am only about halfway through the biography. It is long, detailed
    and not my usual reading. But I am captivated. I believe the author
    observed that Ginsburg sometime in the last 20 years has been
    critical of Roe v. Wade in a way that exercises hindsight. In the context
    of 1972, doing things the way the attorneys for the plaintiff in
    Roe v. Wade made a lot more sense, jurisprudence-wise. So I think
    I read.

    I agree with others that Ginsburg did not like the privacy arguments.
    Given her equal protection work before the Court for years, in the
    name of eliminating all gender discrimination (as a strategy to
    benefit women), and with that evidently incredible focus of hers,
    perhaps privacy rights were simply not something to which she
    had given nearly as much thought?

    As I read the book, and as unhappy (stingy?) as I am that Ginsburg's
    genius did not apply to her decision-making regarding stepping
    down from the High Court during the Obama years of Democrat
    -controlled Senate, I realize:

    Chief Justice Roberts:
    She was a goodly Justice.

    Pelosi:
    She was a woman. Take her for all in all,
    I shall not look upon her like again.

    The court agreed to drop the case as moot. The following month, it issued
    its Roe v. Wade ruling.

    Right, as far as I can tell. Of note is that the Solicitor General in 1972 was Erwin Griswold. Griswold was the dean at Harvard Law School when Ginsburg completed her first two years of law school there. Solicitor General
    Griswold advised the Air Force to change its regulations and grant Captain Struck a waiver. The Air Force did so. The biography attests that this was
    a smart move on Griswold's part.

    Going forward, Captain Struck's military career was restored.

    On January 22, 1973, the Court announced its Roe v. Wade decision.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Rick on Tue Aug 30 20:53:43 2022
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT),
    "Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
    ......
    You can call it nave and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth
    is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. >Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
    literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion
    or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And
    for that reason, the issue is back with the states.

    The Constitution doesn't mention dinner either. Can the states pass
    laws that prevent people from eating dinner?

    Or maybe that's vague so: No eating between 4PM and 6AM.

    Not just dinner but eating isn't in the Constitution either.


    --


    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Gold on Tue Sep 6 22:54:04 2022
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 12 Jul 2022 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT), Barry
    Gold <bgold@labcats.org> wrote:

    On 7/12/2022 6:00 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
    law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
    common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
    look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
    involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
    common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
    able to predict what is proper and what is not.

    This court wants to upend all of that.

    And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the
    Constitution? Ha!

    "This court wants to upend all of that."

    I think that pretty much describes justice Thomas. But based on the
    comments of the other four justices who made up the majority, they ONLY
    want to overturn Roe. They have explicitly said(*) that they would keep >Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. In short, they want to
    overturn the one ruling that the Republican "base" objects to, while
    keeping the other "substantive due process" rulings intact.

    The fact that this makes no logical sense doesn't seem to bother them in
    the least.

    Didn't one of them say the difference was that abortion is about life
    and death, or something like that, and the others are not?

    That's a big difference, but maybe you're saying wrt the logical
    argument, there is no differnce. Even if you're right, that it makes
    no logical sense, since issues of life and death seem different, surely
    there is some valid legal way to express the difference?

    (*) Of course, can we trust what they say? All five of them lied under
    oath at their confirmation hearings.

    They will, I presume, say that the did respect Roe vs. Wade, but they
    also respected the claims in the current case. IIRC they were asked if
    they respect precedent, or if they respect Roe as a precedent, but they
    were not asked if they considered it totally binding precedent.

    And wersn't Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson binding precedent until
    they weren't?


    This kind of linguistic gymnatics reminds me of what I would tell trump
    if I worked for him. Yes, I will be loyal to you. Then later, when he complained about something I did, I"d say, I have been loyal to you.
    I've never said a bad word about you to the press, or in public, but I'm
    sure you didn't mean I should break the law or refuse a subpoena.
    Obeying the law or answering questiosn before a committee or grand jury
    doesn't mean I'm not loyal to you. I'm still loyal to you. I haven't
    said anything bad about you in any interview or to anyone.

    This also reminds me of asking Clinton if there is a special
    relationship between him and Monica Lewinsky. He said no, and I see his
    point. There used to be one but now there isn't. It's not Clinton's
    fault that they don't ask their questions broadly enough. I'm serious.
    It didn't work the way he hoped it would but that doesn't mean he didn't
    answer truthfully.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)