14th Amendment is being applied again

[Politic Negro]

The Forgotten Constitutional Weapon Against Voter Restrictions

A former Justice Department lawyer thinks he’s found a way to penalize states that undermine voting rights.

www.politico.com

The Forgotten Constitutional Weapon Against Voter Restrictions
A former Justice Department lawyer thinks he’s found a way to penalize states that undermine voting rights.

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. "

Here's some added political humor

 

[blackpepper]

The Forgotten Constitutional Weapon Against Voter Restrictions

A former Justice Department lawyer thinks he’s found a way to penalize states that undermine voting rights.

www.politico.com

The Forgotten Constitutional Weapon Against Voter Restrictions
A former Justice Department lawyer thinks he’s found a way to penalize states that undermine voting rights.

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. "

Here's some added political humor

In normal english, this means what?

 

[Politic Negro]

In normal english, this means what?

Republican controlled states would lose representatives and electoral college votes if this case rules in favor of the plaintiff.

 

[blackpepper]

Republican controlled states would lose representatives and electoral college votes if this case rules in favor of the plaintiff.

The current high court would never do that. So its, nevermind.

 

[TEN]

 

[snark9]

I dont really care about so-called voting rights in a duopoly of a political system.

I watched the ad. As satirical as it may be, soon as she talked about abortion, i stopped listening.

I never trust any point of view that describes abortion rights as 'control of women's bodies', when the reality is that it regulates which medical procedures are made available to the public. It is a physician-centered regulation of the medical industry, and not woman centered. People do not have a 'right' nor are guaranteed access, to specific medical procedures, and abortion is no different.

Simple descriptions like that tears down credibility on all other perspectives expressed in the ad.

 

[Temujin]

I dont really care about so-called voting rights in a duopoly of a political system.

I watched the ad. As satirical as it may be, soon as she talked about abortion, i stopped listening.

I never trust any point of view that describes abortion rights as 'control of women's bodies', when the reality is that it regulates which medical procedures are made available to the public. It is a physician-centered regulation of the medical industry, and not woman centered. People do not have a 'right' nor are guaranteed access, to specific medical procedures, and abortion is no different.

Simple descriptions like that tears down credibility on all other perspectives expressed in the ad.

You are conflating laws that outlaw abortion with the right to an abortion. But let's keep it funky. Shouldn't physicians be making ethical decisions about medical procedures and not lawmakers? How is it not woman centered when it effects only woman? It's like saying a law is not racist even though it affects only black people.

As far as rights I have the right to control what goes on in my body. That's fundamental. It's why we couldn't force people to vaccinate even when it could affect other people. It's funny how people stand up for their right not to be vaccinated but not for their right not to be pregnant.

 

[snark9]

You are conflating laws that outlaw abortion with the right to an abortion. But let's keep it funky. Shouldn't physicians be making ethical decisions about medical procedures and not lawmakers? How is it not woman centered when it effects only woman? It's like saying a law is not racist even though it affects only black people.

As far as rights I have the right to control what goes on in my body. That's fundamental. It's why we couldn't force people to vaccinate even when it could affect other people. It's funny how people stand up for their right not to be vaccinated but not for their right not to be pregnant.

Firstly, I did not conflate any law.

How could I when federally directed abortion access has nothing to do with laws whatsoever? It was always just a legal precedent established by Roe. Secondly, you suggested a 'right to an abortion,' but where is the 'right to abortion' enshrined exactly? Like, where in the Constitution? Which article? So it seems that such a conflation requires at least two things, but it is impossible in this case, b/c (maybe) only one of the things you mention has merit.​

As far as medical officials making the decision, saying that is like suggesting banks should be the ones regulating banks.

​

The FDA, NIH, CDC and the office of the Surgeon General, have powers to assist in regulation, but mostly they inform the political community. When it comes to making laws, the way our system works, is that the gov't has three branches and 'the medical branch' isn't one of them.​

Concerning abortion regulation being physician-centered, not woman centered, take that up with Ruth Bader Ginsberg who stated:

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said in a 2013 event at the University of Chicago. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice. … It wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” ​

​

And and I agree. Especially since If abortions were illegal, and a woman received one from a doctor, the doctor is the one who would be prosecuted, not the woman. It is physician-centered regulation, your analogy notwithstanding.​

 

[Joe Money]

@Supersav @Soul On Ice @Tito_Jackson @gene cisco

 

[Supersav]

Shit is entertainment and fluff. Nothing real going on here just distractions

 

[Soul On Ice]

@Supersav @Soul On Ice @Tito_Jackson @gene cisco

Just here for the comment's and splaining

 

[RUDY RAYYY MO]

I'm out before this turns into 5-6 pages about COVID

 

[Temujin]

Firstly, I did not conflate any law.

How could I when federally directed abortion access has nothing to do with laws whatsoever? It was always just a legal precedent established by Roe. Secondly, you suggested a 'right to an abortion,' but where is the 'right to abortion' enshrined exactly? Like, where in the Constitution? Which article? So it seems that such a conflation requires at least two things, but it is impossible in this case, b/c (maybe) only one of the things you mention has merit.​

As far as medical officials making the decision, saying that is like suggesting banks should be the ones regulating banks.

​

The FDA, NIH, CDC and the office of the Surgeon General, have powers to assist in regulation, but mostly they inform the political community. When it comes to making laws, the way our system works, is that the gov't has three branches and 'the medical branch' isn't one of them.​

Concerning abortion regulation being physician-centered, not woman centered, take that up with Ruth Bader Ginsberg who stated:

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said in a 2013 event at the University of Chicago. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice. … It wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” ​

​

And and I agree. Especially since If abortions were illegal, and a woman received one from a doctor, the doctor is the one who would be prosecuted, not the woman. It is physician-centered regulation, your analogy notwithstanding.​

You did conflate when you compared abortion laws (laws that outlaw abortions) with the former supreme court precedent that declared those laws unconstitutional. Precedent is not a law. Why were they unconstitutional? because it was found woman had a right to an abortion. Legal precedent isn't enshrined anywhere except within the legal opinion and it's interpretation.

That was a horrible analogy. Almost all decision about the ethics of medical procedures are handled by state medical boards not legislatures with no medical experience. The governement literally has its own bank. So banking laws make since. What other procedures that you know of that are medically deemed ethical but are not legal. Like you said there is no medical branch. Why are legislatures making decisions about the morality of a medical procedure? This has nothing to do with the health of the patient.

As far as the physician centered bullshit. You are being purposely myopic. Granted yes most anti-abortion laws are focused on the procedure not the patient. However the impact is clearly on the patient who cannot get the procedure. These laws restrict the access to a medical procedure that is used exclusively on woman.

 

[snark9]

You did conflate when you compared abortion laws (laws that outlaw abortions) with the former supreme court precedent that declared those laws unconstitutional. Precedent is not a law. Why were they unconstitutional? because it was found woman had a right to an abortion. Legal precedent isn't enshrined anywhere except within the legal opinion and it's interpretation.

That was a horrible analogy. Almost all decision about the ethics of medical procedures are handled by state medical boards not legislatures with no medical experience. The governement literally has its own bank. So banking laws make since. What other procedures that you know of that are medically deemed ethical but are not legal. Like you said there is no medical branch. Why are legislatures making decisions about the morality of a medical procedure? This has nothing to do with the health of the patient.

As far as the physician centered bullshit. You are being purposely myopic. Granted yes most anti-abortion laws are focused on the procedure not the patient. However the impact is clearly on the patient who cannot get the procedure. These laws restrict the access to a medical procedure that is used exclusively on woman.

No offense, but your response reads like an emotional exhibition for the 'need to be right' rather than an honest rebuttal.

I don't think you ever really established my apparent conflation. If i conflated anything, then post the exact quote to which you are referring.​

​

Just b/c you disagree with my analogy, doesn't refute the greater point in your suggestion that doctors should be in charge of laws that affect medical regulation, just isn't how the system works; and I would argue that it is better that way.​

​

You called the physician-centered rationale to Roe (which I substantiated with commentary from Justice Ginsberg) 'bullshit.' Remember my critique is about the quote 'control of women's bodies'. Govt-directed abortion access doesn't attempt to control women's bodies. It mandates control over which medical procedures are available to the public and no one is guaranteed a 'right' to specific medical procedures. Your point about impact is immaterial from a legal standpoint. ​

​

• If the attempt was to truly control a woman's body, and abortions were illegal, then when said woman used a coat hanger or traveled to terminate a pregnancy, then she would be arrested.

​

• But in a physician-centered scenario where abortions were illegal, all of the consequences would be on the physician who performed the procedure.

​

With the exception of the legality of abortions, the second of the two scenarios above is more like the physician-centered system we have now.

In order for the 'Impact' perspective that you suggest to hold any value, then you have to establish that pregnancy is unavoidable in all stages of the process and that abortion procedures are the only option available to stop that inevitability. Otherwise the point about impact is diminished to a mere preference to have the procedure available.​

 

[tebriel69]

Excellent discourse between y’all. Thought provoking and done without insults. Props.