- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Florida Judge Blocks Governor Ron DeSantis’s 15-Week Abortion Ban
Posted on 6/30/22 at 3:00 pm to lsufball19
Posted on 6/30/22 at 3:00 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Exactly. So if a minor doesn't have that right pursuant to the SCOTUS, then the legislature can impose restrictions consistent with SCOTUS interpretations
Not exactly.
SCOTUS held there is no constitutional right to abortion (not under "right to privacy"; due process, etc.) under the US Constitution.
States can recognize such a right as they choose.
Florida appears to have done so (I say "appears," because there is no express right in the constitution, only that the "right to privacy" for a minor does not prevent the Legislature from passing a law requiring parental notification). It is implied from the other provision.
So, then the question becomes, can this implied right be regulated/restricted?
That will have to be decided under Florida law; however, I would imagine that the Florida SC will look to Roberts' concurrence in Dobbs for some guidance (he would have maintained Roe [right to privacy] but upheld the Mississippi law [15 weeks]).
Posted on 6/30/22 at 3:10 pm to udtiger
quote:
(not under "right to privacy"; due process, etc.)
right to privacy isn't in the constitution either, which was also addressed in the Dobbs ruling
quote:
Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.
quote:
Finally, after all this, the Court turned to precedent. Citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy,” id., at 152, but it conflated two very different meanings of the term: the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600 (1977). Only the cases involving this second sense of the term could have any possible relevance to the abortion issue, and some of the cases in that category involved personal decisions that were obviously very, very far afield.
quote:
When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, very little of Roe’s reasoning was defended or preserved. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846. The Court did not reaffirm Roe’s erroneous account of abortion history. In fact, none of the Justices in the majority said anything about the history of the abortion right. And as for precedent, the Court relied on essentially the same body of cases that Roe had cited. Thus, with respect to the standard grounds for constitutional decision making—text, history, and precedent—Casey did not attempt to bolster Roe’s reasoning.
quote:
Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.
quote:
States can recognize such a right as they choose.
Florida appears to have done so
What Florida did was essentially codify the interpretation the SCOTUS has had with respect to the right to an abortion in their own state constitution. With the Dobbs ruling, laws consistent with the SCOTUS' current interpretation of those rights has been turned upside down.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 3:25 pm to udtiger
quote:
That will have to be decided under Florida law
As it should be. Fwiw, this is how things will play out now; if the FLORIDA Supreme Court ultimately declares that law to be in violation of the FLORIDA Constitution then they need to amend it. SCOTUS didn't outlaw abortion, it said it is governed by state law.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News