Friday, November 8, 2024

Can Democrats Ever Put Democracy BACK Into their Party?

...or is the need to immediately "donor finance" a Trump-Watch Attack Machine too High?  "Appoint new leadership... Accept old leadership... let the money machine decide"!

12 comments:

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Can Republicans Ever Put Democracy BACK Into their party?

Joe Conservative said...

We had a primary.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

So did Democrats. They chose the Biden/Harris ticket. As per the Constitution, Harris (who voters selected via the primary) moved to the top of the ticket when Biden bowed out.

Joe Conservative said...

lol! Is THAT how it happens? It's a "DNC" thing? Who knew?

Joe Conservative said...

Maybe you can tell me where in the DNC rule book that that rule lives?

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

The Constitution.

Joe Conservative said...

LOL! Isn't the purpose of your party to figure out ways AROUND the Constitution (ie - Roe)?

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Roe was originally decided by 5 republican-president-appointed justices and 2 Democrat-resident-appointed justices. It was the republican party that decided it was Constitutional.

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

Abortion was already legal in 49 states at the time of Roe. It's never been illegal anywhere but PA. It's therefore always been Constitutional under the 9th and `0th amendments.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

That reply makes no sense. There is nothing wrong with affirming a right. Though, if that is what happened (and abortion is Constitutional under the 9th and 10th amendments as you say) how is it that States are outlawing it now and women are dying because they can't get the medical care they need?

YOU said that the purpose of Roe was to find away "around" the Constitution. And YOU blamed Democrats. So now you're saying the Roe decision didn't matter and had no impact? That's after I correctly pointed out that Roe was decided by republican-appointed justices. If it didn't matter then why did you bring it up?

Although you are wrong...

Perplexity: This claim about Roe v. Wade and the legal status of abortion prior to the Supreme Court decision is not accurate. Here's a breakdown of the key points...

## Legal Status of Abortion Before Roe ##

Contrary to the claim, abortion was not legal in 49 states at the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973.

- In fact, abortion was illegal in most states, with only a few exceptions, typically for cases where the mother's life was in danger [1].

- By 1973, only four states (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington) had fully legalized abortion [1].
- About 16 states had liberalized their abortion laws to some extent, but still maintained significant restrictions [1].

## Reasons for Supreme Court Acceptance ##

The Supreme Court accepted the case for several important reasons:

1. Constitutional Question: The case presented a significant constitutional question regarding privacy rights and state regulation of medical procedures [2].

2. Conflicting State Laws: There was a patchwork of conflicting state laws across the country, creating legal uncertainty [2].

3. Public Health Concerns: Illegal abortions were a major public health issue, often resulting in injuries or deaths [2].

4. Civil Rights Implications: The case touched on issues of women's rights and bodily autonomy, which were gaining prominence in the civil rights era [2].

## 9th and 10th Amendments ##

The claim that abortion was always legal under the 9th and 10th Amendments is also inaccurate:

- The 9th Amendment states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution doesn't deny or disparage other rights retained by the people [3].
- The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people [3].
- Neither of these amendments explicitly protects abortion rights. In fact, the Roe decision was primarily based on the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the right to privacy [2].

## Conclusion ##

The Supreme Court accepted Roe v. Wade because it presented a pressing constitutional question with far-reaching implications for women's rights, public health, and the balance of state and federal power. The legal landscape for abortion before Roe was much more restrictive than the claim suggests, and the case was necessary to address the inconsistencies and constitutional issues surrounding abortion laws in the United States.

Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-state-breakdown-abortion-laws-2-years-after/story?id=111312220
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/us/abortion-rights-access-states-roe-v-wade/index.html
[4] https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/
[5] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/dashboard/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard/
[6] https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/abortion-access-tool/US
[7] https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/
[8] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-year-after-the-supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-trends-in-state-abortion-laws-have-emerged/

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Thank you for silently agreeing I was right.