Are these 'infringements'?

Suppose we amended our Constitution to guarantee the right of access to abortion. We might include such language as: 'the right of the people to access abortion services shall not be infringed'.

If we did, would you consider it to be constitutional to ban the morning after pill, impose abortion waiting periods, limit how many abortions a woman can get, track who gets how many abortions and where in a database, require women purchase and pass pre-abortion classes and pre-abortion psych-evaluations, and/or require that women obtain an 'abortion permit' before they may get a legal abortion? Or would you consider any of these to be 'infringements' on the right of the people to access abortion services?

 

Would violate HIPAA laws

 

is banning ex-felons from owning guns an infringement, is it not telling people what house doesn't own a gun?

 

Not necessarily. Abortion is a medical procedure, so we'd just have to mandate that the data stays in the medical system and is only able to be accessed by authorized personnel. Any personnel that violate the law, either by abusing access to the system or by providing an abortion to a prohibited person could be fined or imprisoned.

Is that the ONLY thing you think would be an 'infringement'?

 

I think yes, it definitely is an infringement.

I was gonna add it to the OP, but its too late.

 

38 minutes, 8 views, 2 votes. For reference.

 

Why only abortion? Why not health?

(((Sigh))). And now I have to address the sheer stinking ignorance and prejudice in that post

1. morning after pill is NOT repeat NOT an abortion pill
2. All abortion waiting periods do is delay abortion so there are more later abortions
3. Although a significant proportion of women will have more than one abortion that is over a thirty year period when they are fertile
4. Only a tiny handful of women who are suffering from Münchausen syndrome “use abortion as birth control” - tiny fraction because it is more expensive and inconvenient to have an abortion than have a LARC
5. Psych evaluations - do you honestly believe a women choosing to have an abortion is somehow mentally ill?
6. What makes you think women need “pre- abortion classes” do you really think they are that ignor…….hmmmm looks at lack of sexual health and reproductive health knowledge in the post quoted and…..

 

The rest of us are waaaay more informed on reproductive health than the OP

 

who is a "prohibited person"?

 

Good pick up

What he said! Who is a “prohibited person”?

 

I get the comparison in the OP and it's a good political question. I've never seen this issue quite framed this way.

However, it's important to point out that the gun laws being mirrored serve a purpose that would be lost if similar measures were enacted for abortion. You can't kill another individual with an abortion(stand down Pro-Lifers, I'm not finished). Yes, abortion will kill the fetus and that's where all the arguments on abortion lay, but an abortion definitely WON'T kill anyone outside of the mother's body like a gun will. Nobody is sitting in their house and struck dead by a random abortion that someone on the street was having. Nobody has ever robbed a store, carjacked, or kidnapped someone with an abortion.

Guns serve a purpose and I cringe every time I see the left foolishly trying to attack gun rights thinking it will do anything to stop the problems they say they're trying to solve. It won't. But guns are easily turned against law abiding citizens. Abortions don't do that.

The laws in the OP if applied to abortion would be done solely to harass the mother. They do not serve anybody's best interest, they are troll laws. I suspect that trolling is baked in to some of those gun laws too, making it a pain in the butt to get a gun thinking that will mean fewer people with guns, but the disconnect comes from assuming fewer people with guns means we won't be a violent nation anymore(which is at the heart of the problem in the first place, far more than the gun is).

 

You completely missed his point despite his being rather transparent about it.

 

No right is absolute, but status as a right gives it immense value that needs a good justification to limit. What is the purpose of each of these limitations? The purpose would have to be quite great to justify messing with a woman's privacy and bodily autonomy. No matter how you slice it, we always come back to whether and when the embryo/fetus is a person. When most abortions occur, it is not.

The limitations on gun rights have been about public safety, at least in the United States. Guns are powerful tools that can do great damage. So it's not quite a comparable situation.

 

someone who has had too many abortions, hasnt passed their psych eval, was denied a permit or otherwise doesnt meet the other 'regulations' laid out in the OP.

 

why would that be required to have a child, maybe we test if they are going to be good parents, are they old enough to have a child?

 

Not sure. But then I also don't understand why people would be limited similarly in their right to keep and bear arms. But they are, so clearly making sense of a law is not a prerequisite to having to follow a law that others think is sensible. But thats not the issue here. The issue is whether these requirements are 'infringements' of a right. Do you think the regulations laid out in the OP are infringements, or do you only oppose them if they can't be legislated within the confines of HIPAA?

 

Oof. 9 hours, 71 views, 3 votes...

 

Could be health. Would you consider the restrictions laid out in the OP to be 'infringements' if they were applied to a constitutional amendment that said 'the right of the people to access healthcare shall not be infringed'?

 

its not a health issue. its a legal issue. assuming the application of democracy where the law is made by public opinion, you won't always get laws that make sense (to you). But you still have to follow the law regardless. And so do legislators. This is a question of whether you think the regulations laid out in the OP are infringements on a right, not a question of whether you think the regulations are necessary or effective. In a democracy, your opinion doesnt matter as much as the opinion of everyone else, and in a limited democracy, even that matters less than what is written in the law.

So, are the restrictions laid out in the OP infringements, or not?

 

I think it's clear some of those could be infringements (though some wouldn't be and some would depend).

I guess that just demonstrates how foolish it would be to legislate that a right can't be infringed in any way or for any reason.

 

Would you support those unconstitutional 'infringing' regulations that made sense to the 51%, or would you require that the law not be infringed until the 'foolish' constitution were amended to allow for sensible regulations?

 

true, it's either a right or it's a privilege, seems many on both sides treat it as a privilege

 

Not really my problem since I'm not American but the reason I find the idea of a "cannot be infringed" law is that, while the general principles the law of a society are based on can be fixed to a great extent, the specific details will always need room for practical conditions and exceptions.

I think that is why the US has pretty much always had laws that would clearly be technically unconstitutional but are never formally challenged because they're widely recognised as necessary (or the least worst practical option), modern gun control laws being the classic example.

 

Abortion has not been banned.

 

I said 'if'... Did you even read the whole thing? What point do you think Im trying to make here?