- 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 10:26 am to Azkiger
Posted on 1/6/23 at 10:26 am to Azkiger
I would Be interested in when this language was added to their consitution.
The Federal Consitution doesn’t have a specific right to privacy.
If this was added Post Row V Wade it almost assuredly was ment to codify the right as understood by the SCOTUS at the time.
The Federal Consitution doesn’t have a specific right to privacy.
If this was added Post Row V Wade it almost assuredly was ment to codify the right as understood by the SCOTUS at the time.
2
Posted on 1/6/23 at 10:51 am to SammyTiger
quote:The opinion is not a model of clear judicial draftsmanship, but it would APPEAR that SCoSoCar is saying that Section 10 was enacted in 1971. Roe was 1973.
I would Be interested in when this language was added to their consitution.
The Federal Consitution doesn’t have a specific right to privacy.
If this was added Post Row V Wade it almost assuredly was ment to codify the right as understood by the SCOTUS at the time.
quote:In its 2022 session, the legislature tabled (and did not vote upon) an amendment to Section 10, to add the following language:
In analyzing the import of the words of the amendment, it is important to note that this right to privacy was not created out of whole cloth in 1971, but instead was recognized as having always existed.
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable invasions of privacy includes, but is not limited to, a limited right to abortion health care.
This post was edited on 1/6/23 at 10:58 am
Posted on 1/6/23 at 10:57 am to SammyTiger
quote:
If this was added Post Row V Wade it almost assuredly was ment to codify the right as understood by the SCOTUS at the time.
No
Posted on 1/6/23 at 11:04 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Not true in all states. In Alabama, someone killing a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.
quote:Why is it dumb at all? Murder is a crime against a person, not a piece of property. The State can't have it both ways. If a person can be charged with murder for killing the unborn child of a pregnant woman, then the unborn child is de facto a person.
the pro-life side has a lot of intelligent arguments in its favor. This is one of the dumbest.
This post was edited on 1/6/23 at 11:05 am
Posted on 1/6/23 at 11:06 am to Eurocat
quote:
Eurocat
Time for you and the rest of your board commie friends, that are chiming in already, to celebrate all the black babies in SC that will be killed. Congrats to you baby killers on such a "win"
Posted on 1/6/23 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the "states rights" angle becomes completely irrelevant if your real goal is absolute prohibition of abortion.
Only if you believe that the current position of the states is the only position they are able to have moving forward, and anything done to try and change that state's individual position is a violation of their states rights. Otherwise, they are in no way counter to one another. I'll support the members of any state that want their state to adopt positions I agree with. That isn't a violation of states rights.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 11:09 am to PurpleandGeauld
quote:
Why is it dumb at all? Murder is a crime against a person, not a piece of property. The State can't have it both ways. If a person can be charged with murder for killing the unborn child of a pregnant woman, then the unborn child is de facto a person.
Cause it's not written like that in the law or some judicial precedent where it was "found" as a "right"
Remember you are talking to an atheist who prays at the alter of the legal system, and that drives his reasoning.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:34 pm to Eurocat
quote:
The five justices ruled 3-2 that a state ban on abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy violated a provision in the state constitution which says that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated.”
Help me to understand where in that sentence a right to abort a baby is spelled out
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:37 pm to L.A.
quote:
Help me to understand where in that sentence a right to abort a baby is spelled out
The privacy aspect comes into play with the state's regulation of the behavior.
To move it back a degree, the implied right to privacy was ruled in in previous cases with respect to birth control. Do you think a state government has the right to regulate if a married couple uses birth control? If not, based on what protections?
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:38 pm to Gavin Elster
considering this:
it would appear that the decision is correct.
quote:
Unlike the United States Constitution and the constitutions of most of our
sister states, South Carolina's Constitution includes a specific reference to a citizen's
right to privacy.
it would appear that the decision is correct.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:43 pm to Mailman82
quote:
Bravo!
Pro life people are simpletons
Have you met Hank yet? You two are ideological twins.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
The right to privacy, even in the RvW decision, was recognized to have limitations based on the development of the child in the womb.
A right to privacy for medical concerns does not automatically trump the right to life.
A right to privacy for medical concerns does not automatically trump the right to life.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The right to privacy, even in the RvW decision, was recognized to have limitations based on the development of the child in the womb.
The SC court says so in its decision. It merely determined that the law passed was too retrictive.
It is basically what the state of the law was prior to Dobbs, when the Roe "right to privacy" directed the jurisprudence.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:46 pm to udtiger
quote:
The SC court says so in its decision. It merely determined that the law passed was too retrictive.
Thank you for beating me to it.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why if there is a state constitutional provision?
What is the provision for?
Not being obtuse or disingenuous. Legit not sure what you are positing.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you think a state government has the right to regulate if a married couple uses birth control?
What kind of birth control? Regulate in what sense?
If you're talking about birth control that prevents conception, then no, I do not think the state should regulate that.
If you mean something post-pregnancy, then i think the state has an interest in regulating that since I believe a human fetus to be a living unborn human baby.
I realize that not everyone agrees with that POV so I'm fine with states determining their own approaches to abortion. It just seems like South Carolina is falling back on the Harry Blackmun "right to privacy" argument for abortion, which I've always had a problem with
Posted on 1/6/23 at 1:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
the pro-life side has a lot of intelligent arguments in its favor. This is one of the dumbest.
That’s sort of law does not confer “rights” upon a fetus. It punishes the behavior of the wrongdoer for actions inconsistent with good public order.
You can also be charged with a crime for damaging the property of another person. That property does not have “rights.”
Now, some genius will assert that I claim a fetus is nothing more than property. Those persons do not understand analogies.
Well then why isn't the charge property destruction? Why homicide? There is an equal protection problem with charging someone who kills a fetus with homicide in that sort of case, while permitting abortion.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 2:08 pm to mikeybates
quote:No.
There is an equal protection problem with charging someone who kills a fetus with homicide in that sort of case, while permitting abortion.
The question is "whose rights have been violated?" The only legal person (with rights) TO BE violated is the pregnant woman (and arguably the father).
In the homicide scenario, the perp has violated those rights. By contrast, if the pregnant woman pursues abortion, she can hardly violate her own rights. Yes, it raises interesting questions about the (maybe) rights of the father in that instance.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
behavior. To move it back a degree, the implied right to privacy was ruled in in previous cases with respect to birth control. Do you think a state government has the right to regulate if a married couple uses birth control? If not, based on what protections?
No but it has the right to not allow the purchase/sale/ production of birth control, just like it has the right to outlaw barbaric medical procedures.
You want to re-introduce lobotomies? Oh I guess we did something similar with mutilating children for gender religion.
Posted on 1/6/23 at 2:27 pm to L.A.
quote:
What kind of birth control?
Any
quote:
Regulate in what sense?
Banning
quote:
It just seems like South Carolina is falling back on the Harry Blackmun "right to privacy" argument for abortion, which I've always had a problem with
The issue with Roe was that our Constitution was silent as to this issue. If there was an explicit privacy provision (like in the SC constitution), I don't know if Hobbs happens.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News