Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Partial Birth Abortion is not a medical term. Then ban affects 2nd trimester abortions, makes no exception for the health of the mother, and is clearly unconstitutional.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It could be argued that anything is a privilege or immunity.

Of course, I entirely agree with you. My only point is that the finding of a right to protect one's health has at least some semblance of an historical basis, unlike the so-called "right to privacy." Stenberg is not as bad as, say, Griswold v. Connecticut.

You Republicans seem to have never heard of the 9th amendment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction concerning federal power. The Federalists argued a bill of rights would be dangerous, because by listing various exceptions to powers not granted, you would imply the government had those powers. In other words, you would make the powers seem far more expansive than they actually were.

The Ninth Amendment was simply a response to that.

James Madison, introducing the bill of rights and explaining the ninth amendment:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It is clear from the amendment's history and text that it is but a rule of construction, preventing the Bill of Rights from being taken by implication to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated.

Of course, the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I notice liberals like to use the word "clearly" to mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about. Even most Supreme Court justices admit Roe is a bunk ruling, that they only vote to uphold under stare decisis.

Griswold vs. Connecticut made explicit the implicit right to privacy in the 9th amendment. Roe vs. Wade used that right to privacy to allow abortion,  which had been allowed "pre-quickening" under English common law.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just explained the actual meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Do you have a counterargument, or do you just want to cite irrelevant facts, such one justice's "interpretation" of the amendment (which no one on the current court accepts), or English common law (which is inferior to statute)?

You are just an anti-Griswold extremist.