- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: South Carolina Supreme Court rules state consitution contains right to privacy, abortion
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now we get to see how much the "states' rights" meme was genuine or a lie to hide real goals
“States rights” is still valid, but that doesn’t mean the state court gets to use the same bad legal logic that Roe v Wade did on a federal level.
3
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:45 am to Ag Zwin
quote:The difference is that the language which SCOTUS “interpreted“ into the US constitution seems to actually be PRESENT in the South Carolina constitution.
the state court gets to use the same bad legal logic that Roe v Wade did on a federal level.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:52 am to Perfect Circle
quote:
Not true in all states. In Alabama, someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.
That has been fought and overturned in most states.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:56 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
“States rights” is still valid, but that doesn’t mean the state court gets to use the same bad legal logic that Roe v Wade did on a federal level.
Uh, why not? It's their right.
Also, the language of the different constitutions are different.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:56 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
Justice Few
One of the dumbest lawyers I have ever met but the legislature really hits a new low. We are a backward redneck state.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:58 am to Eurocat
quote:
Even so, the court’s majority said that the right to abortion “was not absolute, and must be balanced against the State’s interest in protecting unborn life.”
This is an absurd statement. If the right to an abortion is not absolute, then what are the restrictions that may be placed upon it?
If the Court recognizes that the State has an interest in protecting unborn life, then how can any abortion be allowed, except in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is doomed regardless but the mother can be saved.
This ain't over. Legislature has work to do.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:58 am to Eurocat
quote:
a woman’s privacy and equal rights.
Equal rights? Well what about the fathers rights and the you know, baby humans rights?
Posted on 1/6/23 at 7:59 am to rebelrouser
quote:Rare board unanimity on this point.
We (in SC) are a backward redneck state.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:00 am to Eurocat
SC Supreme Court says mothers have a right to murder their kids and State also has right to protect the unborn. Makes sense.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:00 am to mtntiger
quote:If only SCOTUS had answered these questions (multiple times) over the past 50 years.
This is an absurd statement. If the right to an abortion is not absolute, then what are the restrictions that may be placed upon it?
If the Court recognizes that the State has an interest in protecting unborn life, then how can any abortion be allowed, except in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby is doomed regardless but the mother can be saved.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:01 am to FooManChoo
I'm with Foo here, how do you get to a right to privacy to a right to an abortion?
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:02 am to DMAN1968
quote:
As it should be.
It should be left to state legislators. I don’t think many people wanted to swap federal judicial fiat for a state version.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:02 am to Ag Zwin
Do not care. Less Democrats in the country is a good thing.
If SC wants to enact eugenics, let them. Evidently women aren't capable of being mothers these days.
If SC wants to enact eugenics, let them. Evidently women aren't capable of being mothers these days.
This post was edited on 1/6/23 at 8:13 am
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now we get to see how much the "states' rights" meme was genuine or a lie to hide real goals
Being for states’ rights doesn’t mean you stop advocating for states to ban barbarism
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:03 am to DMAN1968
quote:
As it should be.
Why stop at the states?… why not let each county decide?… or each city?… or each neighborhood?
Or, why not let each individual decide?
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:03 am to Eurocat
I don't like the ruling but I'm happy that this issue is being fought at the state level as it should be and should have always been.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:07 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Being for states’ rights doesn’t mean you stop advocating for states to ban barbarism
In the 1860s most Americans wanted to end barbarism, but states’ rights was the excuse used to prevent that from happening.
I guess South Carolina is just doing what it’s always done.
This post was edited on 1/6/23 at 8:08 am
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:08 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Being for states’ rights doesn’t mean you stop advocating for states to ban barbarism
Right, I can still disagree with SCs ruling. And the mental gymnastics it takes to call abortion equal rights.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:09 am to lowspark12
quote:
In the 1860s most Americans wanted to end barbarism, but states’ rights was the excuse used to prevent that from happening.
I guess South Carolina is just doing what it’s always done.
Listen when I get my way and this entire country is Christian Nationalist ya’ll won’t have to worry about these things anymore
Posted on 1/6/23 at 8:09 am to dgnx6
Its a good litmus test for the states’ rights absolutists.
You may not like it, but it’s their interpretation of their law.
You may not like it, but it’s their interpretation of their law.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News