Federal vs State when the Issue is Abortion

[Conservative]

Without mentioning candidates’ names, I’m reading that one, (so far) is talking in terms overturning Roe v. Wade - step one being making it/turning it over to a state vs federal issue. (???) Isn’t that just an election plank by another color? Color me clueless.

 

[Dale_M]

Are you referring to a proposal to define human life as beginning at conception, and whether state legislatures or the U.S. Congress should be the one to pass the bill?

 

[Conservative]

Are you referring to a proposal to define human life as beginning at conception, and whether state legislatures or the U.S. Congress should be the one to pass the bill?

No. Rather, a candidate’s stand that he’d rather see the issue go to State rather than Federal level. Roe v Wade was what was being discussed/written.

 

[markomalley]

No. Rather, a candidate’s stand that he’d rather see the issue go to State rather than Federal level. Roe v Wade was what was being discussed/written.

The reason why Roe V Wade passed in the first place was that there was no legal definition (that would be accepted by the Supremes) that allowed a pre-born baby to be treated as a “person” in a legal sense.

So that part of it would have to be done at a Federal level. Whether the Supremes change their mind and say “Oops, we guess a pre-born baby is a person now,” whether Congress could pass legislation providing that definition to the courts, or whether a constitutional definition would be needed is the issue.

However, as far as assigning penalties for it and the type and severity of the crime, that is, in fact, properly done at the state level…unless it becomes a federal issue by way of Constitutional amendment (which would kind-of violate the basic tenets of the bill of rights, particularly the 10th Amendment)

So how’s that for a non-answer???

 

[Conservative]

The reason why Roe V Wade passed in the first place was that there was no legal definition (that would be accepted by the Supremes) that allowed a pre-born baby to be treated as a “person” in a legal sense.

So that part of it would have to be done at a Federal level. Whether the Supremes change their mind and say “Oops, we guess a pre-born baby is a person now,” whether Congress could pass legislation providing that definition to the courts, or whether a constitutional definition would be needed is the issue.

However, as far as assigning penalties for it and the type and severity of the crime, that is, in fact, properly done at the state level…unless it becomes a federal issue by way of Constitutional amendment (which would kind-of violate the basic tenets of the bill of rights, particularly the 10th Amendment)

So how’s that for a non-answer???

Your reply is substantially well-put. IOW - it’s the typical rhetoric to be expected to be repeated by every so-called conservative candidate’s political plank.

A-MAZING ! If they keep this up, there won’t be enough babies born to vote…Or, maybe I’ll vote on a state level - but come Presidential Election I won’t do it on the Federal Level…uh, duh? Do they ever think of that? I guess I’m making it hard by not wanting to name candidate (not sure of board rules) but to this voter - it’s waffling or dodging. And on this, I’m a cement wall of ethics. Thanks for that (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[markomalley]

Your reply is substantially well-put. IOW - it’s the typical rhetoric to be expected to be repeated by every so-called conservative candidate’s political plank.

A-MAZING ! If they keep this up, there won’t be enough babies born to vote…Or, maybe I’ll vote on a state level - but come Presidential Election I won’t do it on the Federal Level…uh, duh? Do they ever think of that? I guess I’m making it hard by not wanting to name candidate (not sure of board rules) but to this voter - it’s waffling or dodging. And on this, I’m a cement wall of ethics. Thanks for that (name removed by moderator)ut.

The problem is (well, maybe not a problem) that we have a federal system in this country. WE DON’T WANT the Federal government to make all the decisions. They can’t even manage their job properly…so why should they take the responsibility for the states’ jobs, as well? I know they do so in a lot of cases, anyway, but why should it be encouraged?

 

[markomalley]

Oh, and one other thing, if they did pass a federal law, it would only apply to DC, federal facilities, and territories. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the 10th Amendment.

 

[BioCatholic]

Oh, and one other thing, if they did pass a federal law, it would only apply to DC, federal facilities, and territories. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the 10th Amendment.

That is why I simply cannot figure out why so many people were happy about the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban. It explicitly states “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce”.

So unless a Dr.'s office occupies two states or is on the border with Mexico or Canada, then he is free to continue to do those abortions. The actual procedure must in some way be in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.

Some could argue that the INSTRUMENTS used are bought in interstate commerce, but they can also be used in other legitimate medical procedures.

Even if Roe v Wade is overturned, States like NJ, NY, CA, Oregon, Washington ect. will still allow abortion. It is simply not possible to stop people from traveling from one state that prohibits abortion to one that doesn’t. Congress does not have that power. I think it has been tried before with regard to gambling, and we all know that travel packages to Las Vegas or Atlantic city can be bought in all 48 other states. The same will be so for abortion. Anyone will be able to schedule an abortion in NJ or other states, and hop a plane.