Abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 14, 2024, 10:37:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which provisions should have been upheld?
#1
3205: required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed
 
#2
3206: mandated the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure
 
#3
3209: commanded that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband
 
#4
None of the above
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 17

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey  (Read 6362 times)
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


« on: January 13, 2006, 08:45:13 PM »

Only provision 3206.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2006, 01:15:50 AM »

Which parts of the Constitution would the other provisions have violated, in your opinion?

You're going to disagree with me, I think Philip will as well. I, like Ernest, believe there is a right to privacy, be it a nonenumerated right (9th, gets ready for Philip's flak) or in the penumbras of the first 8 amendments of the bill of rights. In case its not obvious by now, I'm influenced by William O'Douglas (and to a lesser degree, Goldberg).

I'm well aware of what you guys (I'm speaking generally, and if I unfairly group you, I'm sorry) have said regarding privacy and the 9th amendment. I respect your arguments and certainly I may buy into them in the future, but not now. Certainly given the fact that I am pro life, it pains me that *hypothetically* I'd rule in this fashion.

What I'd really like to see, just to see it done, is one of you guys try to convince me to join you in the vote on the condition that you do not attempt to try to convert me to a whole different judicial philosophy (I think what I'm getting at here is that, one of you guys should use "my" philosophy and argue the side I didn't take.) I think one of you two, being as bright as you are (or as I think you are), could do it.

Ah well...I should lay off the beer.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.