Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death

 

It doesn't matter. It's not like you consider anything other than the echo of your own myopic viewpoints.






https://reproductiverights.org/maps/worlds-abortion-laws/

 

I'd like to see this resolved in a less risky way, such as congress making a law stating the federal position enabling abortion, leaving it up to states to regulate further within federal limits.

Part of the problem to consider is the existing "trigger" laws which are idle but designed to activate instantly if Roe Vs Wade is reversed. On that ruling, 13 states would immediately have total abortion bans, another 7 would have various levels of restrictions not applicable today. That would trigger a lot of conflict, and it would take years for it to work it's way back to the supreme court. That would create many bad reactions, from home-abortion deaths to people returning to the harassment of any legal abortion clinics and staff, and quite likely the murder of abortion doctors. I remember one that was actually shot while attending services in his own church. They had previously vandalized and bombed his clinic, vandalized the vehicles of and harassed his patients, which needed armed guards to get through protesors- but that wasn't enough for the righteous. People who think god has directed them to do such things can be very dangerous, and sometimes are people who have no prior history of violence. Whatever happens- it would most likely be very bad.

The biggest issue to me is that none of the people pushing for zero abortion are affected by the law they want- it's all people thinking they have the right to impose their moral value on others. Regardless of issue, I think that's a violation of individual rights, the ownership of your own life and body. There's not going to be any resolution that will please everybody, and many of the anti-abortion people believe they are doing gods work, meaning that it's not even open to any other consideration.

 

There is a really big law that prevents government from spying into your medical history. No such law exists regarding you selling of illegal drugs.

 

While I in no way support the crazies bombing and shooting up abortion clinics like in the 90s, I do not see why such an action would increase in places where it would be newly illegal. I guess you are assuming a crazy free for all in the days after it would theoretically be repealed. I would probably assume some type of temporary stays would be put in place to slow down the enactment of the various trigger laws until those legal challenges had been ruled upon. I would even see countless challenges being waged that would also create stays, which in my mind would result in a very long time before repeal actions were actually taken. Reality is probably somewhere between our two assumptions.

My bigger issue remains being stoutly behind the notion that Roe v Wade was faulty law, regardless if I support the ends, and I think it is vitally important that judicial activism as a whole be stopped. Making law is not the intent of the USSC, and if this were repealed, it is a big step in eliminating the notion of judicial activism.

 

I mentioned this to you earlier, but you seemed to have ignored it.

While it is possible that some states could possibly criminalize the woman in addition to the doctor, make no mistake, the doctor is the main target. This is similar to a drug dealer and a user. A user may or may not occasionally be caught up in a bust, but the big fish and thus the primary focus is on the dealer.

The HIPAA laws would not stop doctors from being found out and ultimately prosecuted. If women were to not be caught based on HIPAA laws, I am not sure that many would really care. It is the clinic that they want to shut down. Women would simply go to a legal state. The doctors would not risk the super high chance of being caught if they continued performing abortions in an illegal state.

 

The attachment is incorrect.

 

Abortions have been happening for centuries. Doctors will find a way to help women in need. The government cannot subpoena a doctor’s patient files. It will be private, not a clinic.

 

Oh there is no doubt whatsoever that abortions will be performed in many and probably even most states by a large preponderance. This does not mean however that more than a scant few doctors would put themself in the peril necessary to save women the trouble of going over state lines and having a clinic in an illegal state. Not to mention how they would bill for services and actually get paid. If it were illegal everywhere you would have a point, but that is not going to be the case.

So do you acknowledge that HIPAA is not going to stop a doctor from being found out? That was my big reason for my last post to you.

 

Except there will be no way to prove it.

many women will be able to cross state lines, but if Florida makes it illegal, a poor woman in Miami won’t have the means to travel to get it done. It’s 10 ish hours to GA from there, and if it illegal in GA, it’s a much longer drive to NY.

banning abortion will do what many laws do, have zero impact on the wealthy. I’m sick of laws that only harm the poor.

 

Isn't that pretty much inevitable?

 

There are countless ways to prove the doctor is performing abortions. Employees. Medical products ordered. Billing records. The notion that a clinic could operate and not be found out is simply not realistic. Not even remotely. They could get a warrant based on ordering records alone and bug the place. There would be nothing even slightly difficult about proving a doctor that was running a true abortion clinic. If you want to speculate someone could do it a few times and get away with it, sure, they absolutely could. They would not however, get away with it on any type of large scale.

Poor women needing to get over state lines. How could that problem be solved?....subsidized bus tickets. That answer is blatantly obvious, and it would cost a hell of a lot less than operating numerous Planned Parenthood Clinics across a state. Money for transportation for the indigent is surely not the problem. That is a problem that is too easily solved. To pretend like that is insurmountable is disingenuous.

 

Could be the premise of the opinion to over turn was based on fault rather than rights, I don't know. But as I said, the court's job is to resolve challenges, not initiate them. At least that is comment I've seen in reviews of such things.

In places where it was illegal- no. But that would be greatly encouraging and emboldening to those protesting in in any place where it still was. In previous anti-abortion events, protestors traveled interstate to participate- and many were financially capable of staying for long periods of time, just to push protest. It's a disturbance of the status quo that would create great waves, but bring no real resolution. That is my opinion, bases only on history and what I think drives the protests. Powerful feelings, for sure.

As I said- my preference would be that congress create a basic federal protocol that left states the rights to regulate within the federal law. I doubt this will happen.
It's a lot easier to stay a new law than an existing one, and these trigger laws have been on the books for some time. I suspect delaying their enforcement would be difficult, and attempts to do so would erupt in conflict. No easy answer for sure.

I think we agree pretty much across the board on this.

 

You are under the assumption that poor women can get lots of time off like that. Some people have no clue what it’s like to be poor.

It is illegal for any medical professional to report on the going ps on wrt patients in their office.

 

Some medical procedures require taking a few days off work. This would max add one day to the equation. They already need to take a day off even if its just down the block.

I work in Medical sales, and I have for decades. In fact, I have probably spent a thousand days in various operating and procedure rooms. I know full well what HIPAA allows and what it does not. HIPAA precludes disclosing privileged health information about an individual, but it most certainly does NOT preclude staff from discussing what procedures take place. Hell, the procedures are listed on a giant board in the halls of the O.R. The only thing that cannot be discussed outside of the OR is the patient name. Not only does staff know what procedures are being performed, but so do the sales reps that sell them and train them on their products. A name is not required to report abortions being performed. You are TRULY out on a limb with this notion. Sincerely. It would not stop a doctor from being caught. Not even slightly.

 

While I'm all in favor of a healthy society- but how many things are to become rights that you get without being required to pay for them?
Does anyone have the "right" to bill others for the costs of their lives?
If so, why should anyone work- when somebody else pay the bill.

Perhaps we have the right to make the most of ourselves, and in so doing, thrive, build strong families, stand on our own two feet.
I believe in that right. I also believe in the right to help the man who would but can't, and refuse to help the man could but won't.

 

Well, you just keep on hoping there a lots of ways to ensure women have no agency over themselves. Let’s take away their right to vote, too. In fact, they should be required to have a man present for any transaction they are involved in.

 

I am not hoping for anything. As I have said several times already, I am pro abortion. Ending abortions is not my aim.

I saw you making incorrect statements about HIPAA protecting doctors, and I correctly pointed out that is not the case.

As far as making this about men and women, have you ever pondered the notion that men throughout history have gotten the shaft about being drafted and going to war? Obviously this happens because men are the bigger, stronger, and faster of the 2 sexes. I have never heard it expressed as a war on men, rather it is a reflection of the reality that men are better suited for combat.

If abortion is made illegal in some states and it creates a few more obstacles for a woman to get an abortion, it equally is not about a war on women. Rather it is a reflection that women are the ones who biologically have babies so the concept is intextricably linked with that biological reality. I refuse to believe this is based on some nonsensical war on women.

 

Men are 100% responsible for every war and police action in this country's history. Men are 50% responsible for all the babies every created in the history of humans.

How is this women's fault?

 

Did somebody argue that something is women's fault? No.

That makes this a textbook strawman argument because you are arguing against a point that was not raised.

 

Nah, I was being hyperbolic. I’m just annoyed that this basic human right can now be taken away due to someone’s religious beliefs. We should not be leaving intensely personal decisions up to the religious.

 

Claiming it so means nothing. Show how it is incorrect.

 

Not to dispute your points about the SCOTUS and the rule of law, but my argument is essentially based on the premise stated in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, and argued countless times before that by Locke and others, that our government was instituted to secure our rights.

 

Beyond the second trimester
2 people assumed as one body.


Moi

​

 

There doesn't need to be a granted right to abortion. It's a personal choice. You don't need governments permission to own your own body or make decisions about it.
On the other hand, I believe no person has the right to deprive others of their natural rights concerning themselves, nor dictate their personal choices- so those attempting to impose their version of morality on others are the ones in questionable positions.