Would a compulsory abortion law be constitutional?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:57:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Would a compulsory abortion law be constitutional?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Would a compulsory abortion law be constitutional?
#1
Constitutional (Roe supporter)
 
#2
Unconstitutional (Roe supporter)
 
#3
Constitutional (Dobbs supporter)
 
#4
Unconstitutional (Dobbs supporter)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 49

Author Topic: Would a compulsory abortion law be constitutional?  (Read 647 times)
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 29, 2022, 12:11:36 PM »
« edited: June 29, 2022, 01:28:58 PM by America Needs Dionysus »

I’m talking about a hypothetical law which would mandate pregnant women receive abortions in certain circumstances; perhaps, for instance, if the state deems the woman unfit or unable to be a mother, or if the child is likely to have a very low quality of life if born.

As a supporter of Roe, and someone who regards Dobbs as an abomination of jurisprudence, the answer to me is pretty clear: such a law would be unconstitutional, as it would violate the right to privacy/personal autonomy contained within the due process clause.

However, if you happen to think that the court’s legal judgement in Dobbs was correct, I do not see how you could logically think the courts could have any constitutional basis to strike down a mandated abortion law, as evidently you do not believe the Constitution contains any rights protections to the contrary. I think how those folks answer will be fairly revealing as to their true motives for supporting the striking down of Roe
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2022, 12:20:07 PM »

Unconstitutional and probably also unenforcable because you would have a hard time finding doctors willing to carry it out under these circumstances.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2022, 12:24:55 PM »

Such a law would outrage both pro-life and pro-choice people and would likely be struck down in a 9-0 ruling.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2022, 05:32:01 PM »

Unconstitutional (Dobbs supporter)

There is a more fundamental liberty interest implicated by forced abortions since they necessarily contain an element of physical force and/or restraint. 

Dobbs is also pretty clear that it isn't denying the existence of substantive due process rights or a more specific substantive due process right to privacy; the fundamental error in Roe was extending such a right to include abortion without any constitutional rationale (i.e., that abortion was "deeply rooted" in our nation's history and traditions.) 
Logged
TML
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,404


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2022, 05:40:35 PM »

I’ll give you a hint: people who are/were involved in forced abortions for women in violation of China’s family planning policy are considered persecutors of people on the basis of political opinion and are thus ineligible for admission to and/or asylum in the US.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2022, 06:01:51 PM »

Unconstitutional (Dobbs supporter)

There is a more fundamental liberty interest implicated by forced abortions since they necessarily contain an element of physical force and/or restraint. 

Dobbs is also pretty clear that it isn't denying the existence of substantive due process rights or a more specific substantive due process right to privacy; the fundamental error in Roe was extending such a right to include abortion without any constitutional rationale (i.e., that abortion was "deeply rooted" in our nation's history and traditions.) 

What about if the law was not literally pinning women down to a table and giving them an abortion, but fining or imprisoning them if they did not voluntarily submit to the procedure?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2022, 07:16:32 PM »

Unconstitutional (Dobbs supporter)

There is a more fundamental liberty interest implicated by forced abortions since they necessarily contain an element of physical force and/or restraint. 

Dobbs is also pretty clear that it isn't denying the existence of substantive due process rights or a more specific substantive due process right to privacy; the fundamental error in Roe was extending such a right to include abortion without any constitutional rationale (i.e., that abortion was "deeply rooted" in our nation's history and traditions.) 

What about if the law was not literally pinning women down to a table and giving them an abortion, but fining or imprisoning them if they did not voluntarily submit to the procedure?

Can you really "voluntarily" submit to something under threat of a fine or imprisonment?

Unlike abortion, an act of force isn't required for a woman's pregnancy to come to a natural conclusion.  It doesn't take any (physical) intervention to keep pregnant women pregnant, so the imposition on their liberty imposed through abortion bans is meaningfully less than what mandatory abortion would require. 
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2022, 07:20:44 PM »

Buck v. Bell is still valid precedent, and I am a mindless drone who just follows "precedent" without any regard for constitutional interpretation, so yeah probably.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2022, 07:45:54 PM »

Buck v. Bell is still valid precedent, and I am a mindless drone who just follows "precedent" without any regard for constitutional interpretation, so yeah probably.
Buck v. Bell would likely be overturned if a case involving it ever comes up.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2022, 08:05:12 PM »

Buck v. Bell is still valid precedent, and I am a mindless drone who just follows "precedent" without any regard for constitutional interpretation, so yeah probably.
Buck v. Bell would likely be overturned if a case involving it ever comes up.

OMG! And overturn our precious precedent?!?! Barbarism! I'm practically catatonic at the very idea of such savagery!
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,472
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2022, 09:23:24 PM »

Buck v. Bell is still valid precedent, and I am a mindless drone who just follows "precedent" without any regard for constitutional interpretation, so yeah probably.
Buck v. Bell would likely be overturned if a case involving it ever comes up.

I'm not so sure, depending on what you mean. The core part people get outraged over, compulsory sterilization, is still good law, as Dobbs implicitly confirms.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,669


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2022, 11:01:08 PM »

Apart from everything else, this is a pretty clear First Amendment/freedom of religion question
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2022, 11:30:25 PM »
« Edited: June 29, 2022, 11:43:36 PM by 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 »

No.  It's clearly against the traditions and understanding of natural law which undergird the Constitutional order. If there would ever a place for a Ninth Amendment decision this would be it.  Additionally:

If it's done in a discriminatory manner toward either parent or child, it's an Equal Protection violation.
If it's done in response to a crime, it's a No Cruel and Unusual Punishment violation.
If it's not done in response to a crime, it's a Due Process violation.
In cases where it's against someone's religious or similar moral convictions, it's becomes a Free Exercise issue.

Could be considered a legitimate penumbra (if you believe in those) more than a supposed right to an abortion ever was.

Also there's an decent argument for considering a fetus to be a person under the 14th amendment. It's one thing for a state to be agnostic or nuanced on this question, it's another to declare the unborn has no rights. There may be various limits and competing interests and prudential considerations which prevent abortion to be generally treated the same as murder, but at the very least the state should be prohibited from acting with intent to harm fetal life.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,141
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2022, 01:08:19 AM »

No
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2022, 11:31:25 AM »

Apart from everything else, this is a pretty clear First Amendment/freedom of religion question

Many Jews interpret their scripture as encouraging, even mandating, abortion in certain situations (chiefly in cases of a threat to the health of the mother) — indeed, several Jewish groups are currently challenging Dobbs on First Amendment religious freedom grounds. Why does freedom of religion not apply there?
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,669


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2022, 12:42:32 PM »

Apart from everything else, this is a pretty clear First Amendment/freedom of religion question

Many Jews interpret their scripture as encouraging, even mandating, abortion in certain situations (chiefly in cases of a threat to the health of the mother) — indeed, several Jewish groups are currently challenging Dobbs on First Amendment religious freedom grounds. Why does freedom of religion not apply there?

The difference is that no court would throw out a conviction for something like murder or rape if a defendant claimed that the crime was really just an exercise of their religion.  Likewise, if the state determines that an unborn baby is a person, then abortion is murder.  Also, I'll note that it seems to be mostly Progressive Reformed Jews making this argument, while Orthodox Jews (who follow Jewish Law in many areas to a much greater degree) don't seem to be making it (from what I've heard).
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2022, 01:02:02 PM »

Unconstitutional (Dobbs supporter)

There is a more fundamental liberty interest implicated by forced abortions since they necessarily contain an element of physical force and/or restraint. 

Dobbs is also pretty clear that it isn't denying the existence of substantive due process rights or a more specific substantive due process right to privacy; the fundamental error in Roe was extending such a right to include abortion without any constitutional rationale (i.e., that abortion was "deeply rooted" in our nation's history and traditions.) 

What about if the law was not literally pinning women down to a table and giving them an abortion, but fining or imprisoning them if they did not voluntarily submit to the procedure?

Its not a fine, its a tax.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2022, 06:06:44 PM »

Unconstitutional (Dobbs supporter)

There is a more fundamental liberty interest implicated by forced abortions since they necessarily contain an element of physical force and/or restraint. 

Dobbs is also pretty clear that it isn't denying the existence of substantive due process rights or a more specific substantive due process right to privacy; the fundamental error in Roe was extending such a right to include abortion without any constitutional rationale (i.e., that abortion was "deeply rooted" in our nation's history and traditions.) 

What about if the law was not literally pinning women down to a table and giving them an abortion, but fining or imprisoning them if they did not voluntarily submit to the procedure?

Its not a fine, its a tax.
[/quote
Taxation is theft though Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.052 seconds with 13 queries.