Are these 'infringements'?

Oh I don’t agree with them a ton — especially with this new stacked hyper partisan court.

But they are the law, even when stripping people of their bodily autonomy, being bribed, or impacting the votes of the people.

Without safety, rights are meaningless

 

what decision by the USSC clearly flies in the face of the words of the constitution or the bill of rights

 

Privacy rights for one — my main concern is ignoring of precedent is what I am concerned about but I do hope democrats use this new precedent to their advantage when the court eventually flips.

 

what privacy rights? unlimited abortion? the supreme court held that the states are the proper places to make the decisions on that. Let me guess you want a supreme court to overturn Heller and McDonald and Bruen because you are mad about Dobbs? You're upset that a poorly reasoned decision-Roe v wade was overturned. there was no real support for that decision in the constitution

 

Unlimited abortion is not preferable but it is vastly superior than forcing women to carry unviable fetuses or demanding children have their rapists child.

In the end it is about bodily autonomy and the right to self determination, along with making private decisions in council with a medical professional and not a politician determined to shove their religious beliefs on the unwilling.

And yes, the originalist claim that all current law must be based on the ideals of 250 years ago even though we are dealing with devices that are no where near what existed at the time.

Like I said, just wait until a liberal court is sat — even though they will likely never take advantage and act in such a highly partisan manner.

 

What would happen if a state arbitrarily BANNED blood pressure medications?

There is no Federal law that "protects" BP meds ergo that ban would be upheld according to what you posted above.

 

THIS one does it in SPADES!

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a40406685/roe-v-wade-overturned-decision-full-text/

LYING about the RvW decision right off the mark because abortion was LEGAL when the nation was formed AND it was PROTECTED by the UNENUMERATED rights in the BoR.

The Bruen Decision is yet another RIDDLED with UNCONSTITUTIONAL claptrap about centuries old precedents that actually CONTRADICT what Corrupt Clarence was LYING about.

The Roberts court also made the DESPICABLE Citizens United decision that ended up FUNDING the Xtofascist takeover of the GOP.

 

Or better yet Ozempic on the basis of “people should not have gained weight in the first place”

 

“Unlimited abortion….” What does that even mean? Look at Canada - there are NO restrictions on abortion and as one of their health ministers said “why should we? We don’t put regulations on hip replacements”. And it is free. So why isn’t its abortion rate higher?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-rates-us-increased-5-2021-final-year/story?id=105092521

 

this isn't Canada and I think at some point the state has valid interest in protecting viable life

 

your logic would have defended the Dred Scott decision. Slavery was LEGAL when the nation was formed.

 

do you think the FDR court's ASSumption that the commerce clause allowed the 1934 NFA was proper?

 

blood pressure medications do not -in any case-kill a viable human life

 

So, you choose to ignore reality?
Or the actual laws?
I saw a post of yours about rights are more important than safety. Yet you want the rights of people's medical issues posted all over the gov't information?

Is this suppose to be a flamebait thread then?

 

it's in the 2A. I thought you claimed to be up on that amendment.

 

I know what it means-your posts suggest you haven't a clue. I am doing what I did when I taught constitutional law. Socratic method. what do you think the term "well regulated" does to modify or impact "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

 

Did you read the OP?

 

Does it? I mean are you acting on something not there? Eleven in Canada late term abortions are rare rare rare and usually for catastrophic foetal anomalies. Obviously medical staff can and do make ethical decisions IF there is oversight of overall quality. Gosnell was a perfect example of what can happen if there is no proper oversight.

 

Want to make a bet? Unless you have done extensive research on teratogenic effects of medications I would not be making those sorts of claims

 

you missed the point entirely

 

I oppose late term abortions in most cases. I don't oppose pre-viability abortions for any reason

 

And late term abortions are overwhelmingly done for devastating foetal abnormality. I mean think about it - what woman in her right mind stays pregnant for six to eight months and THEN decides to abort?

 

Nope! There are women today who are serving time in jail because they suffered a foetal death/ miscarriage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262324/

 

I agree, it's a very rare procedure. probably happens about as many times as AR 15s are used in mass murders.

 

doesn't seem like a sympathetic example but that's silly