Public Club

Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court

Posted

Specializes in Med/Surg. Has 11 years experience.

You are reading page 15 of Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

chare

3,567 Posts

2 hours ago, heron said:

Actually, from my reading, the project already has the 34 state resolutions needed to call on congress to convene such a meeting.

As to specific proposals, what I listed are possible constitutional revisions that would support the far-right agenda. It is based upon statements from actual extremists like Taylor-Green, Boebert, et. al.

[...]

I've not seen this.  As I said, all I was able to find was the petition site calling for a Constitutional Convention.  If you are able to post links, I will definitely read them.

3 hours ago, heron said:

[...]

While I agree with you that the need for ratification presents a significant brake on crazy becoming constitutional law, the fact is that, like lawsuits, the initial proposals are not required to be rational.

[...]

My understanding is different.  If a Constitutional Convention was held, any proposed amendment that is released is the final product that is sent to the states for ratification.  Just as if it were voted on and accepted in both houses of congress.

3 hours ago, heron said:

[...]

Your main point of contention seems to be that constitutional revision is unlikely to actually happen because of the processes outlined in Article V. You may be right, but I’m not betting my life or my grandsons’ lives on it.

[...]

Perhaps I'm not following you here, but how would a constitutional amendment be enacted outside of the procedures in Article V?

3 hours ago, heron said:

[...]

When people tell you who they are, believe them.

Absolutely.

toomuchbaloney

toomuchbaloney

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice. Has 43 years experience. 8,953 Posts

17 minutes ago, chare said:

I've not seen this.  As I said, all I was able to find was the petition site calling for a Constitutional Convention.  If you are able to post links, I will definitely read them.

My understanding is different.  If a Constitutional Convention was held, any proposed amendment that is released is the final product that is sent to the states for ratification.  Just as if it were voted on and accepted in both houses of congress.

Perhaps I'm not following you here, but how would a constitutional amendment be enacted outside of the procedures in Article V?

Absolutely.

It could happen the same way that the SCOTUS just up and decided to overturn settled law and upend precedent with Roe. They just do it. 

It could happen in exactly the same way that republicans tried to negate the election results and install Trump as some sort of unconstitutional president... they would try to do it outside of the constitution and dare someone to stop them.  In exactly the same way that republicans in states across the country are situated and seeking to control elections while simultaneously supporting the election lie that led to the attempted coup. 

The attempt to subvert our democratic republic is ongoing.  I'm far from the only one to have this opinion. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/24/trumps-attempted-coup-continues-even-after-January-6-hearings-are-over-for-now

heron, ASN, RN

Specializes in Hospice. Has 50 years experience. 3,347 Posts

19 minutes ago, chare said:

I've not seen this.  As I said, all I was able to find was the petition site calling for a Constitutional Convention.  If you are able to post links, I will definitely read them.

My understanding is different.  If a Constitutional Convention was held, any proposed amendment that is released is the final product that is sent to the states for ratification.  Just as if it were voted on and accepted in both houses of congress.

Perhaps I'm not following you here, but how would a constitutional amendment be enacted outside of the procedures in Article V?

Absolutely.

Fair enough. The site only claims 19 states passing the resulution with another handful where it passed one chamber only. I did read a statement by an advocate for the petition to the effect that they had 34 states on board but that the feds refused to act on it. That guy could be fos so when I chase down that statement again, I’ll let you know who said it.

To address your question - I think I was being unclear. What I mean is that I disagree that the Article V procedures can be relied upon to prevent truly stupid, malicious or ridiculous amendments from being passed and ratified.

Prohibition springs immediately to mind.

In short, I believe them and will be keeping a weather eye on specific proposals.

Beerman

Beerman, BSN

Has 12 years experience. 1,860 Posts

4 hours ago, heron said:

 

Ummm … please be specific …

Well, to start with, the quote I included from the liberal member here.

There is a poll out that indicated half of Democrats think the constitution should be rewritten.  Another one in which a majority of Democrats think the Supreme Court should be abolished and replaced with elected judicial officers.

And, of course, it's no secret what liberals think of the 2nd Amendment, and the Electoral College.

This opinion piece sums up Democrat hypocrisy on the issue:

https://nypost.com/2021/02/15/democrats-are-radicalizing-against-the-us-constitution/

 

 

Edited by Beerman

heron, ASN, RN

Specializes in Hospice. Has 50 years experience. 3,347 Posts

18 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Well, to start with, the quote I included from the liberal member here.

There is a poll out that indicated half of Democrats think the constitution should be rewritten.  Another one in which a majority of Democrats think the Supreme Court should be abolished and replaced with elected judicial officers.

And, of course, it's no secret what liberals think of the 2nd Amendment, and the Electoral College.

This opinion piece sums up Democrat hypocrisy on the issue:

https://nypost.com/2021/02/15/democrats-are-radicalizing-against-the-us-constitution/

 

 

OK … if one assumes that your rationale is factually accurate, how does that prove that challenging the constitution is the sole province of democrats?

Can you refer me to the polls that indicate what you say they do, please?

subee, MSN, CRNA

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired. Has 50 years experience. 4,140 Posts

12 hours ago, heron said:

OK … if one assumes that your rationale is factually accurate, how does that prove that challenging the constitution is the sole province of democrats?

Can you refer me to the polls that indicate what you say they do, please?

I'd love to know where that poll  of Democrats was done.  On the elevator to AOC's office?  In a freshman college class?  Once can certainly challenge the interpretation of the Constitution without having to change it.   2nd amendment rights are interpreted differently by people who believe that gun ownership rights are tied to a well-regulated militia - not that every teenager is entitled to owning an armory like Adam Lanza:

 

"Firearm deaths have overtaken car crashes are the leading cause of death by trauma in the US, according to a new study.

In 2017, there were 1.44 million years of potential life lost due to firearm deaths, edging out that of motor vehicle crashes (1.37 million years), according to the study published Tuesday in the journal Trauma Surgery and Acute Care Open. And that trend continued in 2018.

Those numbers are based on data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention between 2009 and 2018, the most recent year for which data was available.

Researchers used the CDC standard formula to calculate years of potential life lost by subtracting the age of death from the standard age of 80, to represent the average US life expectancy of 78.7 years and then added the differences.

The main argument is that the right to bear arms to prevent injury or to defend against aggressors may result in a small number of preventable deaths is a plausible theory, however, the data reveal that the resulting access to firearms has equated to magnitudes of death due to firearm suicides in the same individuals demanding access to firearms,” the researchers wrote.

Should data like the kind presented from trauma surgeons have any bearing on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment?  I don't think it's a radical or authoritorian idea to hold up the actual words of "well-controlled militia" as a requirement to gun ownership.  Should we be allowed to infer that the creators of the constitution meant that people shouldn't have hunting guns? I don't think so.  But to allow anyone to own any firearm they want has proven to be a bad idea and should be open to a different legal interpretation than the one these dead-heads have given us.  We don't need to change the Constitution here; we just need to change the intellectual talent sitting on the court.  The author of the NY Post opinion piece is ignoring the fact that the Democrats are not a lock-stepped party so the rest of what he says is just hyperbole.

heron, ASN, RN

Specializes in Hospice. Has 50 years experience. 3,347 Posts

Years ago I repeated the suggestion that gun violence be approached as a public health issue. A user who was a frequent poster here at the time roundly condemned the idea. Still not sure I understand the rationale … something about government record-keeping and targeting of gun owners. I do know that, at that time, the idea made so-called Second Amendment advocates’ heads explode.

subee, MSN, CRNA

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired. Has 50 years experience. 4,140 Posts

4 hours ago, heron said:

Years ago I repeated the suggestion that gun violence be approached as a public health issue. A user who was a frequent poster here at the time roundly condemned the idea. Still not sure I understand the rationale … something about government record-keeping and targeting of gun owners. I do know that, at that time, the idea made so-called Second Amendment advocates’ heads explode.

You can't remember because what the person said sounds like a garbled mess.  If people knew what we are actually paying in medical costs for gun deaths and injuries, they might sing a different song.  

Initial hospital costs for gunshot wounds just 'tip of the iceberg' (stanford.edu)

 

HiddenAngels

HiddenAngels

Has 8 years experience. 546 Posts

On 8/8/2022 at 12:55 PM, heron said:

Years ago I repeated the suggestion that gun violence be approached as a public health issue. A user who was a frequent poster here at the time roundly condemned the idea. Still not sure I understand the rationale … something about government record-keeping and targeting of gun owners. I do know that, at that time, the idea made so-called Second Amendment advocates’ heads explode.

What foresight you have.. It is definitely a public health issue!

heron, ASN, RN

Specializes in Hospice. Has 50 years experience. 3,347 Posts

25 minutes ago, HiddenAngels said:

What foresight you have.. It is definitely a public health issue!

It wasn’t original to me. I was introduced to it back in the late 70s (I think) when I listened to the then-head of the public health dept in Mass. It was an era of escalating gun violence in our minority neighborhoods. She told a story from when she was an ED physician about a shot-up teens who were astonished to find out that getting shot hurts. She didn’t last long.

HiddenAngels

HiddenAngels

Has 8 years experience. 546 Posts

2 minutes ago, heron said:

It wasn’t original to me. I was introduced to it back in the late 70s (I think) when I listened to the then-head of the public health dept in Mass. It was an era of escalating gun violence in our minority neighborhoods. She told a story from when she was an ED physician about a shot-up teens who were astonished to find out that getting shot hurts. She didn’t last long.

Interesting….this may need to be explored furthered . This may be what is needed for kids and teens, everybody for that matter. Like some public health infomercial like those lung commercials from ex smokers. 

toomuchbaloney

toomuchbaloney

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice. Has 43 years experience. 8,953 Posts

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare_hospitals/article_9587102e-1fff-11ed-99eb-c73f5e980eaf.html

Quote

The decision by a Louisiana hospital not to provide an abortion for a woman carrying a fetus without a skull raised new questions this week about the clarity of Louisiana’s ban on the procedure, as doctors and hospitals work to interpret which abortions are legal and which could result in a prison sentence.

Nancy Davis was told by Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge earlier this month that she would need to go out of state for an abortion or carry to term a fetus that, because of a brain defect known as acrania, would not survive after birth.

What a sad state of affairs Republicans have created.