Let’s Give Red Flag Laws a Try, with Abortion

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Suppose we apply red flag laws to abortion. Should an ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, parent, or friend be able to petition a judge to halt an abortion? Clearly, the decision to have an abortion is a highly emotional one, would it be so bad for a judge to halt the procedure, just long enough to make sure that the subject woman is acting rationally? Should we allow an ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, parent, or school counselor to make the red flag abortion petition ex-parte? Would pro-choice advocates feel comfortable that a judge hearing the red flag abortion petition could keep his or her personal and political feelings out of the ruling? Would a woman seeking an abortion feel overly burdened by simply having to plead her case to a judge, or would she believe that she does not have to explain exercising her Constitutional rights to anyone? Would a woman feel, in such circumstances, that abortion was no longer a right but a privilege?

https://townhall.com/columnists/paulcurry/2019/11/30/lets-give-red-flag-laws-a-try-with-abortion-n2557252
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
Unfortunately the Roe v. Wade decision was based on a supposed right to privacy for the woman seeking an abortion. Given that SCOTUS is loath to over-rule previous decisions (except when it's abolishing a right to own slaves) even this court would balk at the proposal.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Unfortunately the Roe v. Wade decision was based on a supposed right to privacy for the woman seeking an abortion. Given that SCOTUS is loath to over-rule previous decisions (except when it's abolishing a right to own slaves) even this court would balk at the proposal.
There is an irony here, the made up "right" is so sacrosanct that it's held untouchable, but an actual right can be legislated away.
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
There is nothing similar about purchasing a gun and growing a fetus to term inside your own body.

So no. This s dumb premise.
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Other than the fact that both are guaranteed rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.... I agree :yay:
i don’t believing you can call getting pregnant a right under the constitution anymore then you can say breathing or walking or existing is a right.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
That’s serious. I don’t think the constitution equates owning a fire arm with carrying a baby to full term a right bestowed on most women at puberty
Why are you getting dumber every day instead of smarter every day...like the rest of us?
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
That’s serious. I don’t think the constitution equates owning a fire arm with carrying a baby to full term a right bestowed on most women at puberty
You are correct, the constitution does not call out a specific right to fart or take a crap. But there are a couple of factors, the premise of our system is that the people, humans are endowed with inalienable rights, those rights given to us by God. Reproduction is one of those functions.

Where you really go off the rails is that the question isn't about getting pregnant. It's the so called "right to privacy" clause that is applied to having an abortion. Or should we state more accurately, the alleged right of a woman to terminate a human life, without consent or approval from anyone, simply because it is growing in her uterus.

Hence Roe v Wade made up this "right", whereas the 2nd Amendment (which the last time I checked was part of the Constitution) prohibits the government from taking away the citizens rights to own and carry arms. Another important distinction, the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights. The original body of the Constitution laid out the framework for the government and gave each branch it's role and responsibilities - it is what gives them their authority. It also clearly states that all rights not given to the federal government revert to the individual and the state.

You would think that alone would be sufficient to contain and control the government. But the founders took no chances and prepared the first ten amendments to address very specific items that they felt should be every citizens right. The right to an abortion is not mentioned. Not even sure if privacy is, but we are protected from unlawful surveillance, search and seizure.

The right to privacy is alluded to in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
Hence declaring any regulation of an abortion / murder of child, is a violation of a persons right to privacy is a fraudulent statement.
We are comparing that to regulating the second amendment which states it should not be infringed upon, hence not regulated.
 
Top