|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 23, 2024 7:08:15 GMT -5
This is all a self-inflicted wound by Canam. This thread was completely dormant until he brought it to life by trying to say that since not *all* women in the US have had the right to control their own body taken away by their state laws, that there is no problem. And then he compounded that by saying slavery really wasn't a big problem either, because it also didn't apply to every black person in the country. (Although, in fact, after the Dred Scott Decision it did.) I have no idea why he thought it would be a good idea for him to even bring this thread back to life, but it hasn't worked out that way. (In much the same way, it hasn't worked out politically for the Republicans that they managed to overturn Roe.) Again mike your perception is fuzzy at best. I saw an article on where states are two years after the decision and posted the link. Never did I say that slavery wasn't a big problem, but again that's you being dishonest. Even you saying this thread was completely dormant is a bit of a lie as the last post on here was yours in April of this year.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 23, 2024 7:35:55 GMT -5
But, to the heart of the matter, you seem to be focused on a different part of the argument than I am. I was stating that square's comment was inaccurate because it doesn't hold true for most women in the United States. Their healthcare hasn't been affected so how could it be devastated? Your point was... The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision.
To me, that's completely different than what I addressed. Well, its actually the response/counter-argument to your "qualified" argument. Your argument is basically that devastating doesn't apply because it didn't affect everyone. That's a very narrow, qualified argument. I guess the asteroid that landed on Earth in the age of dinosaurs really wasn't devastating because not every species was affected. And here's where we go around the mulberry bush, because I'm going to say it wasn't devastating to every animal, same as the overturning of Roe v Wade wasn't devastating to every woman in every state. In fact, for close to two-thirds of the country, it was business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jun 23, 2024 8:30:02 GMT -5
Well, its actually the response/counter-argument to your "qualified" argument. Your argument is basically that devastating doesn't apply because it didn't affect everyone. That's a very narrow, qualified argument. I guess the asteroid that landed on Earth in the age of dinosaurs really wasn't devastating because not every species was affected. And here's where we go around the mulberry bush, because I'm going to say it wasn't devastating to every animal, same as the overturning of Roe v Wade wasn't devastating to every woman in every state. In fact, for close to two-thirds of the country, it was business as usual. So what is your point, only a select population matters and lets make light of those that are negatively impacted? Meanwhile GOP continues to push for a federal constitutional restriction. My how the constituional rights pendulum has swung and how apologist make light of it 'cause, gees, state's rights matter until they don't.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 23, 2024 8:34:12 GMT -5
Devastating is defined as "highly destructive or damaging". If you want to use a word that applies to "all" then annihilation or something of that sort would be more appropriate.
These seem like word games to avoid directing attention at the underlying important issue.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 23, 2024 10:00:41 GMT -5
Devastating is defined as "highly destructive or damaging". If you want to use a word that applies to "all" then annihilation or something of that sort would be more appropriate. These seem like word games to avoid directing attention at the underlying important issue. The technical term is “the rope-a-dope.”
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 23, 2024 13:47:44 GMT -5
And here's where we go around the mulberry bush, because I'm going to say it wasn't devastating to every animal, same as the overturning of Roe v Wade wasn't devastating to every woman in every state. In fact, for close to two-thirds of the country, it was business as usual. So what is your point, only a select population matters and lets make light of those that are negatively impacted? Meanwhile GOP continues to push for a federal constitutional restriction. My how the constituional rights pendulum has swung and how apologist make light of it 'cause, gees, state's rights matter until they don't. What exactly do you think I'm making light of boob?
|
|
|
Post by franknvb on Jun 23, 2024 15:18:10 GMT -5
Devastating is defined as "highly destructive or damaging". If you want to use a word that applies to "all" then annihilation or something of that sort would be more appropriate. These seem like word games to avoid directing attention at the underlying important issue. The overlying issue is a person's right to life
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jun 23, 2024 15:19:50 GMT -5
So what is your point, only a select population matters and lets make light of those that are negatively impacted? Meanwhile GOP continues to push for a federal constitutional restriction. My how the constituional rights pendulum has swung and how apologist make light of it 'cause, gees, state's rights matter until they don't. What exactly do you think I'm making light of boob? AmeriCouldn't why did you bring up the distinction between states in the first place? Just to show you like colorful charts?
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Jun 23, 2024 20:31:00 GMT -5
There is a reasonable debate about the restrictions that should be placed on abortion and when a fetus without rights becomes an unborn child with rights to be balanced against the rights of the mother.
But attempting to charge people for crimes for something done in another jurisdiction that is legal in that jurisdiction is some extremely authoritarian nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jun 23, 2024 21:52:50 GMT -5
There is a reasonable debate about the restrictions that should be placed on abortion and when a fetus without rights becomes an unborn child with rights to be balanced against the rights of the mother. But attempting to charge people for crimes for something done in another jurisdiction that is legal in that jurisdiction is some extremely authoritarian nonsense. It's really odd how they're doing it, since states can't really get around that it's legal for someone to travel to another state to do acts or receive products/services that are legal there, but not in the home state. For instance, a dry county can't make it illegal for someone to go to another county to drink alcohol. States can't make it illegal for their residents to go to another state to smoke weed. Prostitution is legal in some ways in Nevada, but nobody can be prosecuted in a home state for that. It looks more like they're going at the margins first to test this out. I think the Idaho law says that it has to be a minor going without permission of the parents. It would punish anyone who aids in the transportation or funding. I suppose they couch it as a parental rights argument. I would note that the law went into effect in 2023 and was paused by a federal judge. I can't find anything that says that the restraining order has been lifted yet. Here's an article and the ruling (from Nov 2023). idahocapitalsun.com/2023/11/09/federal-judge-orders-temporary-restraining-order-on-idahos-abortion-trafficking-law/storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.idd.52541/gov.uscourts.idd.52541.40.0_1.pdfCONCLUSION This lawsuit is not about the right to an abortion. It is about much more. Namely, long-standing and well recognized fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression, due process, and parental rights. These are not competing rights, nor are they at odds. No one right is more important than another. Indeed, these rights can co-exist in harmony as they have for decades with existing child protection laws and criminal laws protecting the important rights of parents, while still preserving the fundamental rights of all individuals to due process and freedom of expression. The State can, and Idaho does, criminalize certain conduct occurring in its own borders such as abortion, kidnapping, and human trafficking. What the state cannot do is craft a statute muzzling the speech and expressive activities of a particular viewpoint with which the state disagrees under the guise of parental rights, as Idaho Code Section 18-623 does here. Nor can the state enact a criminal law that is so unconstitutionally vague that ordinary individuals, including the proponents of the legislation themselves, are without fair notice of what conduct is proscribed and that subjects individuals to arbitrary enforcement. For all of the reasons stated herein, the Court finds Plaintiffs have named the proper defendant, demonstrated both subject matter jurisdiction and Article III justiciability, and established the requirements for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion and will preliminarily enjoin Attorney General Labrador from enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623. The Court will not require Plaintiffs to post a bond, as there appears no realistic likelihood of harm to Attorney General Labrador from issuance of the preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (“[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”); Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district court may dispense with the filing of a bond when it concludes there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.”). ORDER NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED. Attorney General Raúl Labrador, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, is HEREBY ENJOINED from enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623, effective as of the date of this order and lasting until otherwise ordered by the Court.
|
|