Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Im pretty sure the 10th amendment does not grant permission top violate the 14th amendment or the ninth.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
So then allow me to clear it up for you. No where in Roe v Wade does it mention benefitting the fetus. Just the woman, and, if it so chooses, the state. I have gone through it and can quickly qoute it verbatim. If there is something I have to prove, I prove it. And no, Roe gave the state the power to act in its OWN INTERESTS, in the THIRD trimester. In the second trimester it can only act related to maternal health.
Took me seconds to google it, and minutes to skim it and qoute it verbatim:
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67-72.
XI
To summarize and to repeat:
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
http://tlc-patch.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Judged:

1

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Dont waste the spit on her Katie, she's not worth it.

Judged:

1

1

1

Badaxe wrote:

<quoted text>Actually simpleton, you are the only one that seems to not understand that R v W defined "viability" in regards to abortion laws, and my challenge was to you to provide a case where a different definition took precedence. Apparently you didn't understand the challenge, or are trying to twist and lie again. Either way, here is proof of a legal challange to Roe V Wade's definition of viability, the only relevant definition of viability in regards to the abortion issue;
428 U.S. 52
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Held:
1. The physician appellants have standing to challenge the foregoing provisions of the Act with the exception of § 7, the constitutionality of which the Court declines to decide. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179. P. 62, and n. 2.
2. The definition of viability in § 2(2) does not conflict with the definition in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160, 163, as the point at which the fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and is presumably capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Section 2(2) maintains the flexibility of the term "viability" recognized in Roe. It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period. Pp. 63-65.
There, I showed just one case where the SCOTUS held Roe V Wade's DEFINITION OF VIABILITY as legal precedence. Your turn, show me a case where R v W's definition was not the precedence. Don't twist and lie, Lynne Jr., just provide an answer to support your claims.

Judged:

1

1

1

Badaxe wrote:

<quoted text>LOL, look loser, I just showed where the SCOTUS clearly stated that Roe V Wade's DEFINTION OF VIABILLITY was the precedence, every quoted I have ever posted about it's definition is from the Roe v Wade decision, what else could you need to admit you are wrong? Oh yeah, some integrity.
Not even Katie,Lulu or STO are blindly supporting you on this one CS, it's time to admit you're wrong, shut up about it already and quit calling everyone else stupid, LOL!!!!

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> Don't bite the hand that feeds ya chicky, didn't you say you work for CSS? Hmm? If you do, not for long. I really think you were a client, they offered you food and a place to stay . Even when you say vile things about us. I am pretty sure the CSS are praying for your grandchildren to NOT turn into someone like YOU.

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Much of their dogma is archaic and makes no sense. For example, in this era to disallow birth control based on some bible passage is irresponsible and just plain stupid.

Judged:

1

1

Cali gurl at heart wrote:

<quoted text> How can someone be so uneducated when it comes to their birth control. Maybe you shouldn't be playing with the big girls, you dumbass.
Girls like you are why there are so many abortion. Stupid people not using their brains then crying boo hoo when they get pregnant and then claim to have to abort.

Judged:

2

1

1

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
That still gives women five months to make a decision.

Judged:

1

1

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Which bible passage is that?

Judged:

2

1

1

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text>Proof you have OCD. You are on topix too much and shows you are mentally ill. I am sure the only thing they would hire you for is to clean the toilets. Why would you even work for a group of people that you hate? Doesn't make any sense. So you are a faux pro abort, or you have a minimum wage job cleaning toilets and such. Either way you are a sad piece of work.

Judged:

1

1

1

Badaxe wrote:

<quoted text>R v W does not really give the state power to act on behalf of the fetus, the fetus is not a legal individual. It does give the State power to act on it's interests to protect "potentail life".

Judged:

1

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>For you it's "Thou shalt not kill."

Judged:

1

1

1

Cali gurl at heart wrote:

<quoted text>I recall you from a similar forum. You antagonize PL. You shove your impractical opinions down others throat when in reality you are very dumb. You need to educate yourself before you attempt the role of educating others. Show some empathy while your at it.
Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

Judged:

1

1

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text>Right..... You have proved my point, no Church run business would allow your sorry azz to work for them with your views , so you are a fake....you are only on Topix because you are bored. You are on Topix quite a bit to hold down two jobs chicky anyway, go out side and enjoy the air and walk off that fat azz of yours.

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong.
The church can hire anyone it wants without discrimination charges under faith based initiatives financed by the government.

Judged:

1

1

1

realkatie wrote:

<quoted text>BA, the word ALBEIT = however, but, except, etc. That means, the "definition" RvW provides of VIABILITY is not an actual medical definition because it "is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability..." The court is leaving it up to the responsible physician and to use judgement case by case.

This is what Chicky has been saying all along and she is right. You just proved she is. Just take a moment and think about it all, let it sink in. I have faith you will be able to understand where folks like NR, Doc, and Triple L are not.

Judged:

1

1

1

realkatie wrote:

<quoted text>I actually just did, BA.
Chicky is not in the wrong.
And you seriously just proved her right.

(it's really easy to get frustrated with people when they refuse to learn. you guys think it's funny when others get frustrated with you, i don't think it's funny one bit. i get mighty frustrated, too)

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>So it boils down to this:
Roe v Wade puts limits on the 10th amendment states rights, which accrues to the rights of women and
Roe v Wade puts limits on the 14th amendment, which accrues tothe rights of the fetus.
The result is a middle of the road approach to abortion, which is my point.

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
A fetus has no rights. The state and the woman have the rights.
Yes. Roe v Wade IS the compromise on abortion.

Judged:

1

1

1

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you Katie! He did in fact prove my point. You nailed it.
I'm waiting for my computer to grind him in to the dirt once and for all. Can't access all the info I need on my phone.