US judge: Mississippi 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional

[Hoodat]

Run a scan of the entire Constitution and you won’t find a single mention of “computer” and yet, it’s protected under the Fourth Amendment from searches without probable cause. 

That's because Amendment IV expressly mentions "searches" and "probable cause", just as Amendment X expressly mentions "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Short of an act of Congress, the right of the people to regulate abortion resides with the States.

Abortion isn't the issue here.  The right of the people of Mississippi to establish their own laws is what is at issue here.

[Oceander]

That's because Amendment IV expressly mentions "searches" and "probable cause", just as Amendment X expressly mentions "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Short of an act of Congress, the right of the people to regulate abortion resides with the States.

Abortion isn't the issue here.  The right of the people of Mississippi to establish their own laws is what is at issue here.

Ahh, so you can imply things in when you like it, but then stand on your soapbox and decry it when you don't.

So rational, so reasonable, so well thought-out.  Not.

Abortion falls out from the general tenets of the Constitution in just the same way that the prohibition on searches of papers and effects was extended to telephone calls.

The fact that you do not like it is no ground for saying that it is not protected in the Constitution, and all you have is your personal dislike and hatred.

[Oceander]

The only thing being restrained here is the right of the people of the great state of Mississippi to come together as a society and establish their own laws.  In that regard, this judge is denying them their Constitutional right defined under Amendment X.

Most of the point of the Constitution is constraining both federal and state governments for the protection of individuals and individual liberty.

The people of Mississippi are not at liberty to make up whatever sort of laws they like; they may not enact laws that tranche on protected rights of an individual.

[GrouchoTex]

Nope.  That’s just your sour grapes opinion. It was through applying it.  Claiming that the magical mystical “intent” was missed is just a subterfuge for someone who cannot accept the words as written.

Bullcorn @Oceander

The court said it was the right to privacy under the due process protection of the 14th amendment.
It isn't my imagination, rather, just that you don't want to admit it.
That is a twist of the 14th amendment.
Blackmun was interviewed by Ted Koppel when he retired,  and admitted as much, it was a hard decision, but the 14th amendment was the only way it could be legalized.

Don't take my word for it, take Justice Blackmun's.
I don't care for

[Hoodat]

Ahh, so you can imply things in when you like it, but then stand on your soapbox and decry it when you don't.

So rational, so reasonable, so well thought-out.  Not.

Abortion falls out from the general tenets of the Constitution in just the same way that the prohibition on searches of papers and effects was extended to telephone calls.

So you are still unable to cite the section of the Constitution that the judge used for this decision?  Why not just be honest for once and admit it?

The fact that you do not like it .  .  .

Wait just a second here.  The only part that I don't like is that a judge ruled based solely upon his personal opinion, with zero regard to the Constitution of the United States of America - something he took a sworn oath to uphold.

.  .  .   is no ground for saying that it is not protected in the Constitution  .  .  .

The right of the State of Mississippi to enact its own laws is indeed protected by the Constitution.  You should read it sometime.

.  .  .  and all you have is your personal dislike and hatred.

lol, my personal dislike and hatred?  Good grief, all I asked you to do was to pinpoint the wording in the judge's decision which cited the part of the Constitution which this law violates.  And instead of honestly admitting the obvious that no such wording exists, you decide to charge me with personal dislike and hatred?  Pathetic!

[Oceander]

Bullcorn @Oceander

The court said it was the right to privacy under the due process protection of the 14th amendment.
It isn't my imagination, rather, just that you don't want to admit it.
That is a twist of the 14th amendment.
Blackmun was interviewed by Ted Koppel when he retired,  and admitted as much, it was a hard decision, but the 14th amendment was the only way it could be legalized.

Don't take my word for it, take Justice Blackmun's.
I don't care for

Bullshit.  Unfortunately for you, the Constitution did not enshrine the odious little theocracy you wish to impose. 

[GrouchoTex]

Bullshit.  Unfortunately for you, the Constitution did not enshrine the odious little theocracy you wish to impose.

Nonsense.
You would have to make a huge leap from the last sentence of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which is exactly what Blackmun said the court did, to find a privacy clause violation for allowing chickens to be killed against state law, let alone fetuses.

You are just being a jerk by saying it's my "odious little theocracy".
That's the best argument you have because you have no other.

Just like Plessy v Ferguson, Roe V Wade was a bad decision, "theocracy, little or odious", be damned.
They've screwed up in both decisions, while using the 14th amendment in both cases to screw both decisions up.

[jmyrlefuller]

Abortion falls out from the general tenets of the Constitution in just the same way that the prohibition on searches of papers and effects was extended to telephone calls.

What general tenets imply any sort of right to kill one's own child in the womb? Any reasonable person would read through the text of the Constitution and find no such thing.

Except for lawyers from the Michael Avenatti school of prevaricating and insult hurling.

[Oceander]

What general tenets imply any sort of right to kill one's own child in the womb? Any reasonable person would read through the text of the Constitution and find no such thing.

Except for lawyers from the Michael Avenatti school of prevaricating and insult hurling.

To start with, the rights of liberty and property, which give the individual robust protection from the government interference in what that individual does with his or her own body, and until viability at least, that is all it is: the individual’s own body. 

What provision of the Constitution allows you to use the force of government to impose your personal religious views on others and on what they do with their own bodies?

[TomSea]

To start with, the rights of liberty and property, which give the individual robust protection from the government interference in what that individual does with his or her own body, and until viability at least, that is all it is: the individual’s own body. 

What provision of the Constitution allows you to use the force of government to impose your personal religious views on others and on what they do with their own bodies?

Cite proof that people use religion to back these beliefs up.

Many doctors have said life begins at conception so this is not really in line with the communist-like line you feed off on because you can't simply debate the topic and must resort to an off-topic attack.

One can say he's religious but Ron Paul as a gynecologist has said he knows life begins at conception and so do many doctors, so you are just seeking to impose your own belief system on others while feigning that it is not. Our Founding Fathers also were overwhelmingly religious and the first Thanksgiving was in celebration of religious freedom.  Secularism or whatever, it's another belief system.

[TomSea]

The two worse, two of the three at least, totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, Nazism and Stalinism scapegoated religion. Pretty sad to see, this is all some people have to argue about.

[TomSea]

If not for Christianity, we'd all be bowing to Mecca.

Where Christianity declines in the West, one can see the decline by Western Civilization and it could well fall to Islam..... so the atheists with their low birth rates, secularists as well pretty clear show us the future.  Russia may not recover from 70 years of atheistic communism.

Which by the way, a lot of these preaching hate for the West have no problem with our population being replaced by foreigners.

[Oceander]

Nonsense.
You would have to make a huge leap from the last sentence of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which is exactly what Blackmun said the court did, to find a privacy clause violation for allowing chickens to be killed against state law, let alone fetuses.

You are just being a jerk by saying it's my "odious little theocracy".
That's the best argument you have because you have no other.

Just like Plessy v Ferguson, Roe V Wade was a bad decision, "theocracy, little or odious", be damned.
They've screwed up in both decisions, while using the 14th amendment in both cases to screw both decisions up.

No such leap is necessary.  As the Supreme Court has recognized at least as far back as 1891, that the right to the possession of, and control over, one’s own body was a fundamental right of the individual.  See, e.g., Union Pacific Railway v. Bots ford, 141 US 250 (1891).  The same fundamental right to privacy was also noted in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557 (1969).   As the Stanley Court noted, by quoting with approval from Brandeis’ dissent in Olmstead v. US, the makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man. 

The 14th Amendment makes clear that these fundamental rights, based ultimately in liberty and property, apply with equal force against the states, and cannot be deprived by the states without violating due process of law. 

That is the foundation on which Roe v. Wade built, not on some ginned up excuse thought up at the last minute as a desperate ideological ploy. 

You disagree.  Fine.  You’re entitled to your disagreement under the same fundamental principles.  Nonetheless, you are wrong. 

[Oceander]

Cite proof that people use religion to back these beliefs up.

Many doctors have said life begins at conception so this is not really in line with the communist-like line you feed off on because you can't simply debate the topic and must resort to an off-topic attack.

One can say he's religious but Ron Paul as a gynecologist has said he knows life begins at conception and so do many doctors, so you are just seeking to impose your own belief system on others while feigning that it is not. Our Founding Fathers also were overwhelmingly religious and the first Thanksgiving was in celebration of religious freedom.  Secularism or whatever, it's another belief system.

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson felt that the Virginia statute for Religious Freedom was one of his two greatest accomplishments, and why freedom from, and freedom of, religion were enshrined in the First Amendment, and that reason is antithetical to your position.

[Oceander]

The two worse, two of the three at least, totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, Nazism and Stalinism scapegoated religion. Pretty sad to see, this is all some people have to argue about.

The Nazis nationalized Christianity. It bastardized it, to be sure, but it did not scapegoat it. 

[TomSea]

No matter how much it tries, some countries may not be able to overcome secularism. Secularism seems to be the weak statements that go against our in America having freedom of religion and exercise that religion. If one does not want it, North Korea is always there.

Honestly, we are already seeing real scares....

[roamer_1]

The Nazis nationalized Christianity. It bastardized it, to be sure, but it did not scapegoat it.

Yes it did. By the end Nazis were calling to ancient Germainc pagan gods, and its administration were deep in occult practices.

[Hoodat]

@Oceander

Still waiting for you to identify which part of the Constitution this judge says was violated by the Mississippi statute.

Why not be honest and admit that there is no such citation in his decision - that the entire ruling was based solely on his emotive opinion, kind of like your own.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Still waiting for you to identify which part of the Constitution this judge says was violated by the Mississippi statute.

Why not be honest and admit that there is no such citation in his decision - that the entire ruling was based solely on his emotive opinion, kind of like your own.

Obviously, it violates the 14th Amendment’s protection of the fundsmental rights of liberty and property by denying without sufficient basis the fundamental right, as long ago identified by the Court, of each individual to possess and control his - or her - own body. 

It’s too bad you prefer your own subjective ideological beliefs to the Constitution. 

[Oceander]

The only thing being restrained here is the right of the people of the great state of Mississippi to come together as a society and establish their own laws.  In that regard, this judge is denying them their Constitutional right defined under Amendment X.

Nope.  The people of Mississippi have no right - collective or otherwise - to violate an individual’s fundamental liberty and property rights to possess and control their own body.   

[Hoodat]

The Nazis nationalized Christianity. It bastardized it, to be sure, but it did not scapegoat it.

The Christian religion and National Socialist doctrines are not compatible.

-Martin Bormann, Party Minister NSDAP-


"The question of the divinity of Christ is ridiculous and inessential.  A new answer has arisen as to what Christ and Christianity are: Adolph Hitler."

-Hanns Kerrl, Reichsminister of Church Affairs-


"The Jews are not our enemies because of their race, but because one of their subtlest rabbis, that man called Saint Paul, distilled the poison of the Christ myth out of the life of the story of Jesus of Nazareth.  The Jews are enemies of the Nordic race because they produced Christianity, which has been the poison that has destroyed the vitality of the Aryan people." 

Erich Ludendorff, Beer Hall Putsch conspirator, and early NSDAP political supporter-

[Hoodat]

Nope.  The people of Mississippi have no right - collective or otherwise - to violate an individual’s fundamental liberty and property rights to possess and control their own body.

Interesting take since it is illegal for a minor to get a tattoo in Georgia without a parent's consent.  Seems that all that talk about states not having that right is all a bunch of self-invented bullshit.

Now, back to the original question:

In the decision, which part of the Constitution did this judge cite as being violated by the Mississippi statute?

[Oceander]

Interesting take since it is illegal for a minor to get a tattoo in Georgia without a parent's consent.  Seems that all that talk about states not having that right is all a bunch of self-invented bullshit.

Now, back to the original question:

In the decision, which part of the Constitution did this judge cite as being violated by the Mississippi statute?

Yawn.  Asked and answered.  You lose.

I know you’re butt-hurt over the fact that the Constitution does not enshrine all of your religious peccadilloes; maybe you just need a softer cushion to sit on. 

[Hoodat]

Obviously, it violates the 14th Amendment’s protection of the fundsmental rights of liberty and property by denying without sufficient basis the fundamental right, as long ago identified by the Court, of each individual to possess and control his - or her - own body. 

It’s too bad you prefer your own subjective ideological beliefs to the Constitution.

Here is Amendment XIV, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First of all, no one is being denied life, liberty, and property.  No one.  The Mississippi statute is not even remotely connected to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property as outlined in this section.

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend it does.  Does this mean that a State cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property?  Certainly not.  States incarcerate people all the time.  They routinely seize property to cover fines, back taxes, or civil judgements.  And from time to time, they execute criminals.

So how is the State able to pull this off?  It's called "due process of law".  Which is EXACTLY what this Mississippi statute is.  Due process.  A law put in place by the legislative branch and signed by the leader of the executive branch in perfect alignment with the ideals of republican government as directed by the Constitution of the United States of America, and affirmed by the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution.  You ought to read it sometime.

[Oceander]

Here is Amendment XIV, Section 1:

First of all, no one is being denied life, liberty, and property.  No one.  The Mississippi statute is not even remotely connected to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property as outlined in this section.

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend it does.  Does this mean that a State cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property?  Certainly not.  States incarcerate people all the time.  They routinely seize property to cover fines, back taxes, or civil judgements.  And from time to time, they execute criminals.

So how is the State able to pull this off?  It's called "due process of law".  Which is EXACTLY what this Mississippi statute is.  Due process.  A law put in place by the legislative branch and signed by the leader of the executive branch in perfect alignment with the ideals of republican government as directed by the Constitution of the United States of America, and affirmed by the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution.  You ought to read it sometime.

And under the 14th Amendment, prior to viability, a state cannot prohibit a woman from having an abortion because at no point does the state have an interest that is sufficient to outweigh her fundamental right to control her own body; there is no due process sufficient to overcome that deficit. 

This law deprives an affected woman of her liberty and property interests without a sufficiently weighty countervailing state interest, it therefore violates the 14th Amendment. 

“Due process” is not a fig leaf that cures all manner of sins; there are some rights that, under certain circumstances, are not amenable to being taken away no matter what process is offered.