Should Keeping Abortions legal be left up to the States?

macgyver06

I dont think so.

floyd1975

Why not?

meme

I think if you are willing to leave it to the states you are saying it is not a matter of individual right to choose.

mammasan

meme wrote:

I think if you are willing to leave it to the states you are saying it is not a matter of individual right to choose.

So leaving it to the federal government is?

farfromglorified

Based on the structure of American democracy, yes the question of abortion is a state question.

farfromglorified

meme wrote:

I think if you are willing to leave it to the states you are saying it is not a matter of individual right to choose.

Not really. Personally, I believe that every woman has the right to make that choice. But if the government is going to get involved at some level, the appropriate level of involvement is at the state level. If we want to make abortion a federal right, that should be done by amending the Constitution.

Pacomc79

it's always going to be an individual choice no matter who you leave the legal wrangling up to.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It has to be decided at the state level. End of story. How else?

There is no other solution.

macgyver06

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It has to be decided at the state level. End of story. How else?

There is no other solution.

why not the city level?

farfromglorified

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It has to be decided at the state level. End of story. How else?

There is no other solution.

What? "There is no other solution"? How silly. There are lots of other solutions. There's certainly leaving it to the states. There's amending the Constitution. There's rewriting the Constitution completely. There's keeping the system of judicial review, if you're willing to deal with the bs that comes from that.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

macgyver06 wrote:

why not the city level?

If that's what a particular state wants then they should be able to self regulate if the added paperwork and infrastructure is not an encumbrance. I'm thinking it would be unnecessary division...perhaps not. It should be seen as the state of affairs. When you live in a state that's the state, if the status quo is pro or against...well that's what it is....feel free to vote away. If some people can't deal with the state of affairs so to speak.....the country is free to roam.

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

why not the city level?

Some states could certainly choose that, if they wish.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

farfromglorified wrote:

What? "There is no other solution"? How silly. There are lots of other solutions. There's certainly leaving it to the states. There's amending the Constitution. There's rewriting the Constitution completely. There's keeping the system of judicial review, if you're willing to deal with the bs that comes from that.

What level of granularity would you like it to be then? Neighborhood or street level? Odd number houses can, even numbers cant hehe...

meme

mammasan wrote:

So leaving it to the federal government is?

Wouldn't he be repealing a Supreme Court decision that defends a woman's right to choose? He is thereby saying that's not an individual right the Supreme Court is supposed to defend.

farfromglorified

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What level of granularity would you like it to be then? Neighborhood or street level? Odd number houses can, even numbers cant hehe...

If a state would like to structure their abortion laws so that only inhabitants of odd-numbered houses could get abortions it would certainly be in their power to try, although that would violate numerous federal and state-level constitutional principles.

In all seriousness, however, states could certainly in turn leave abortion choices to counties or cities. It would be an odd approach, but certainly a legal one.

meme

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really. Personally, I believe that every woman has the right to make that choice. But if the government is going to get involved at some level, the appropriate level of involvement is at the state level. If we want to make abortion a federal right, that should be done by amending the Constitution.

The idea is that the Constitution is already defending that right

RolandTD20Kdrummer

farfromglorified wrote:

If a state would like to structure their abortion laws so that only inhabitants of odd-numbered houses could get abortions it would certainly be in their power to try, although that would violate numerous federal and state-level constitutional principles.

In all seriousness, however, states could certainly in turn leave abortion choices to counties or cities. It would be an odd approach, but certainly a legal one.

I wouldn't be against that. It's less of disturbance. The more distributed the mandate is, the better really. what I was saying is compared to federal it's the only solution. The same mentality could be applied for state to county, and it would bother me, as long as it didn't create more gov't costs and overhead. It shouldn't though. I say put it everything in the hands of individual communities.

mammasan

meme wrote:

Wouldn't he be repealing a Supreme Court decision that defends a woman's right to choose? He is thereby saying that's not an individual right the Supreme Court is supposed to defend.

It's not. If the federal government wants to get involved then they have to amend the Constitution. If they are not willing to do so then it is a state's rights issue. Prior to Roe v Wade there where states where abortions where legal and even if it reverts back to that the wman still has the choice to hop in her car, a bus, or a plane and go to a state where abortion is legal.

farfromglorified

meme wrote:

The idea is that the Constitution is already defending that right

But it's not. The courts are defending that right by simply inventing it from a supposed principle of privacy that does not really exist in the Constitution, or at least does not exist in a generic form. If I have a right to "privacy", then how can the government subpeona me, view my income records for the purposes of taxation, or impose a federal system of health care that would force me into the system? If you think about the silly justification of "privacy" and its logical extensions, you'll find numerous contradictions.

If you want the Constitution to defend the right of abortion, amend it. It's not complicated.

farfromglorified

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I wouldn't be against that. It's less of disturbance. The more distributed the mandate is, the better really. what I was saying is compared to federal it's the only solution. The same mentality could be applied for state to county, and it would bother me, as long as it didn't create more gov't costs and overhead. It shouldn't though. I say put it everything in the hands of individual communities.

Well, in practical terms, it's really not much of a solution to have abortion legal in one town and then illegal in another. Then you're going to end up having some serious conflicts between individual small regions, which is probably why all states would impose a state-wide answer.

Abortion, as an issue, is dealt with best by the individual woman in question, which is why all forms of government should stay out of the picture, in my opinion.

meme

mammasan wrote:

It's not. If the federal government wants to get involved then they have to amend the Constitution. If they are not willing to do so then it is a state's rights issue. Prior to Roe v Wade there where states where abortions where legal and even if it reverts back to that the wman still has the choice to hop in her car, a bus, or a plane and go to a state where abortion is legal.

Maybe I am not being clear. One of the things the Supreme Court does is defending fundamental individual rights against majority decisions.
By repealing the decision, Paul is saying that the Supreme Court is mistaken in its interpretation of the constitution as granting a woman's rights to privacy, and that the states can legislate legitimately against that right.