XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/7/2024 1:53 PM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 07:32:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >  wrote:   
      
   {snip}   
      
   >> The legislature made a tradeoff between the rights of a   
   >> (non-person) animal and a person, and came down on the side of the   
   >> animal. And, that's legally permissible.   
   >>   
   >> Similarly, a legislature can also (now that Roe has been discarded) come   
   >> down on the side of a non-person fetus over the rights of a woman.   
   >   
   > Are you saying a fetus has the same rights and   
   > responsibilities as a born individual?   
      
   Under the Constitution, no. Nonetheless, abortion can be outlawed. That   
   was the whole point of discarding Roe, and some states have done so.   
      
   It's as if you think Roe is still good law. Weird!   
      
   >> The rarity of PBA is not a legal factor and the courts have already   
   >> decided the issue. Congress was authorized to enact the PBA under its   
   >> Commerce Clause power (or the Necessary and Proper Clause applied to the   
   >> Commerce Clause). The same would apply to a nationwide ban on abortion   
   >> or a law that prevents states from banning abortions.   
   >   
   > The courts would have something to say about a lot of that.   
      
   What part of "the courts have already decided the issue" did you not   
   understand? The federal PBA ban is permissible, and the same logic   
   applies to other Congressional regulations of abortion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)