Question for SOME pro-lifers

[Bono]

Assuming Roe vs. Wade is overturned, where can the autorithy granted to the federal government to regulate abortion be found?
The only way I see it could possibly be applied is through the republican form of government clause.

[A18]

The federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to regulate abortion in the United States, except in their collective property.

The republican provision was intended, I believe, to prevent any state from turning itself into a monarchy or any other such thing, so I find that argument extremely dubious.

[Richard]

Interstate commerce?  The federal government can make out-of-state abortions illegal to support a state law.

[Bono]

The federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to regulate abortion in the United States, except in their collective property.

The republican provision was intended, I believe, to prevent any state from turning itself into a monarchy or any other such thing, so I find that argument extremely dubious.

Well, I personally find it a stretch to fit it there, but siome argue that under the republican form of government clause, the federal governmetn could prohibit abortion, since in a republic life cannot be taken without due process.
(on a side note, I'd like to point out that a monarchy can be a republic.)

[A18]

It all depends on your definition of republic, but in the federal constitution, the republican form of government provision is understood to ban monarchies.

Abortion was legal in many states at the time the constitution was drafted, so again, it's hard to argue they meant to require every state to protect every unborn life. (Under English common law, abortion was found to be legally and ethically acceptable if occurring before 'quickening,' when the movement of the fetus could first be felt.)

You could also argue equal protection, but no where in the history of the 14th amendment do I find any evidence that "equal protection" was supposed to extend to stage of life, or even sex. It was a racial thing.

[Brandon H]

I think the 10th Amendment says something like powers not given to the federal governement are given to the people and the states.

However, twice in the Constitution it states "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is why Democrats should never give an inch to you Republicans. You'll take a mile.

[Blue Rectangle]

Assuming Roe vs. Wade is overturned, where can the autorithy granted to the federal government to regulate abortion be found?
The only way I see it could possibly be applied is through the republican form of government clause.

I believe Ginsberg's opinion is that abortion should be based not on privacy (I agree; this is a ridiculous basis for Roe), but on the 14th's equal protection clause.  Likewise, the federal government could still claim the authority to regulate abortion based on equal protection.  This regulation could take the form of banning abortion uniformly (based on equal protection for the unborn) or allowing abortion uniformly (based on equal protection for women).  In essence, the latter situation is the one we are in now--except that the courts, not Congress, impose the uniformity.  This is, of course, in violation of Roe's original policy of leaving the decision to the states.

[The Duke]

The Federal government does not have authority to ban abortion, imo, once Roe is overturned.  Maybe under the commerce clause, but its very iffy.

[A18]

However, twice in the Constitution it states "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law".

That is derived from the Magna Carta. It means the executive branch of government can only take away life, liberty, or property in accordance with the law, rather than the will of an executive officer, such as the president.