XPost: alt.abortion, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/7/2024 11:49 PM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 15:56:50 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 9/7/2024 3:37 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 14:10:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth   
   >>>  in alt.abortion with message-id   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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!   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it isn't but I think it should be.   
   >>   
   >> Right! Like it or not, Roe is gone. And therefore, legislatures can ban   
   >> abortion even though a fetus is not a person.   
   >   
   > True.  But that can be reversed with the proper legal steps.   
      
   You are expecting SCOTUS to reverse course and reinstate Roe? Sorry, no.   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Most of the discussions I have heard say a Constitutional   
   >>> Amendment would be needed for a nation-wide law.   
   >>>   
   >>> I would support one that legalizes pro-choice.   
   >>   
   >> The discussions you have heard from people that think a nationwide law   
   >> requires an amendment are at odds with binding SCOTUS precedent.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)