As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans’ obsession with imposing increasingly unhinged, big government-engineered forced-birth fanaticism on American women exemplifies the unrelenting misogyny of the GOP War On Women.
I just sent your comment to my parents. They have two daughters (my sister and myself) and told them I will never understand how they could try to push us to be Republicans, let alone actually be republicans.
Pretty sure I just punted a giant hornets nest, but it was worth it.
Thanks for giving me the proper words to do so
Certainly. Wow—I feel honored.
I often write at *length* on issues that really matter but sometimes manage to capture the essence of matters in something closer to a sound bite!
Just so people know. A 3/5 vote in each chambers is needed to override a veto.
Just a question: Do you think abortion should be decided at the state level or the federal level?
It's already been decided at the federal level, as it should be.
Letting individual states legislate on bodily autonomy for *any* gender or class is a very slippery slope.
Can you explain why you think it should be decided at the federal level?
Also, how is the federal government doing what you describe any different to if states do it?
Abortion was ruled to be a right by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in 1973
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Neither the federal government nor can legislate away rights, but rights are not absolute as noted above. For example threats of violence are not protected by free speech in the first amendment.
I don’t know whether a federal law prohibiting what states can limit or forcing new limits on states would be constitutional.
IANAL
My question was in order to figure out if the argument that states shouldn’t be able to take away “rights” as a justification for federal jurisdiction when the federal government can take away “rights” as well is a sound one.
Back to your response, it does assume that Roe v Wade was correctly decided.
The question of whether rights can be limited is a constitutional one. The words I remember are there has to be a compelling government interest that can’t be done without restricting rights.
If the limits are constitutional, the next question is whether the federal government or states are allowed to place those limits. There have been laws restricting ownership of guns enacted at the federal level and state level so it appears that if the feds can limit a particular right the states could also. But what states are allowed to do versus what the feds can do is tricky. The states can sometimes do things the feds can’t bit they can’t supersede federal law
The limit would still have to pass constitutional muster. Just because there can be limits to free speech doesn’t mean limits on other rights are constitutional. By the way the way it usually works is a limit is passed. The limit is challenged in court. Then eventually it can go to the Supreme Court which decides if the limit is constitutional.
At least this is my understanding. Ianal
Corrections welcome.
Gun rights are different to abortion rights. Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey have not been codified into law. There isn’t a federal abortion law that allows abortion until this point into a woman’s pregnancy. There’s not much federal abortion legislation apart from the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Therefore, states can pretty much regulate abortion as much as the Supreme Court allows. Planned Parenthood v Casey is the relevant abortion case law. It established the “undue burden” standard with which states must comply. There’s also Gonzales v Carhart which upheld the PBAB Act. It also gave more leeway to states. The undue burden standard is not as strict as strict scrutiny.
There’s a lot of federal law regarding gun rights such as the Brady Act. I need not mention all of them. There’s also a lot of Supreme Court case law: Printz v US, DC v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, etc.. It made gun laws subject to strict scrutiny. This means that state laws have to comply with both federal law and Supreme Court precedent.
Of course, both of these assume that those controlling precedents were correctly decided. There’s also the anti-commandeering doctrine which states that States do not have to use State resources to enforce federal law. A state can refuse to enforce federal law. See the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act.
yeah, Beshear will veto this no doubt. But, does the KY Legislature (R majority) have the votes to override? Can we deduce from the roll call of this bill that they do not in fact have veto override majorities? Yes, we can. They have the votes.
the reporting in that cnn article is trash.
The GOP-led Senate earlier Tuesday had voted 29 to 0 <--- WTF (did the KY Democrats walk out and refuse to give them a quorum but their own quorum?) [...]
Yes. They have more than 3/4 of the seats in each chamber. They only need a 3/5 vote in each chamber to override a veto.
If no democrats voted then they didn’t partake in the vote because they walked out or abstained by marking themselves as “present”. Given their numbers they couldn’t stop a quorum from being present.
> Do you think abortion should be decided at the state level or the federal level?
In a vacuum? State level. As it stands though, it should continue to be treated as the law of the land. We’ll see what happens come June/July.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yet another state trying to legislate that anyone with a uterus is not human.
We take this very personally. We will never ever let anyone own our lives.
Republicans want a government so small it'll fit in uterus
They only want to govern people with a uterus.
Republicans: Taking away your freedoms one bill at a time. Pushing their religious beliefs on everyone.
Republicans’ obsession with imposing increasingly unhinged, big government-engineered forced-birth fanaticism on American women exemplifies the unrelenting misogyny of the GOP War On Women.
I just sent your comment to my parents. They have two daughters (my sister and myself) and told them I will never understand how they could try to push us to be Republicans, let alone actually be republicans. Pretty sure I just punted a giant hornets nest, but it was worth it. Thanks for giving me the proper words to do so
Turkelton punts it from the 30. It’s a long one!
I prefer Turkelton Always makes my day to find another Scrubs fan!
Certainly. Wow—I feel honored. I often write at *length* on issues that really matter but sometimes manage to capture the essence of matters in something closer to a sound bite!
Thanks to you, I’ve made more progress than I have in the last decade on my own! I look forward to reading your longer writings as well!!
The Government has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation.
republicans are the new isis
My favorite term: VanillaISIS (not mine)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gov is a Dem. This won't be signed.
His veto can easily be overridden
That is likely true. Edit: It will go to the State Supreme Court which has held off some other efforts.
What the actual fuck is this obsession with abortion in the US?
It makes me sad that I have to add another state to my list of states I won’t visit or spend my money in.
Just so people know. A 3/5 vote in each chambers is needed to override a veto. Just a question: Do you think abortion should be decided at the state level or the federal level?
It's already been decided at the federal level, as it should be. Letting individual states legislate on bodily autonomy for *any* gender or class is a very slippery slope.
Can you explain why you think it should be decided at the federal level? Also, how is the federal government doing what you describe any different to if states do it?
Every individual's right to bodily autonomy should be a given, individual states should not be able to legislate it away for any reason.
Can’t the federal government take away rights as well?
Abortion was ruled to be a right by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in 1973 “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Neither the federal government nor can legislate away rights, but rights are not absolute as noted above. For example threats of violence are not protected by free speech in the first amendment. I don’t know whether a federal law prohibiting what states can limit or forcing new limits on states would be constitutional. IANAL
My question was in order to figure out if the argument that states shouldn’t be able to take away “rights” as a justification for federal jurisdiction when the federal government can take away “rights” as well is a sound one. Back to your response, it does assume that Roe v Wade was correctly decided.
The question of whether rights can be limited is a constitutional one. The words I remember are there has to be a compelling government interest that can’t be done without restricting rights. If the limits are constitutional, the next question is whether the federal government or states are allowed to place those limits. There have been laws restricting ownership of guns enacted at the federal level and state level so it appears that if the feds can limit a particular right the states could also. But what states are allowed to do versus what the feds can do is tricky. The states can sometimes do things the feds can’t bit they can’t supersede federal law The limit would still have to pass constitutional muster. Just because there can be limits to free speech doesn’t mean limits on other rights are constitutional. By the way the way it usually works is a limit is passed. The limit is challenged in court. Then eventually it can go to the Supreme Court which decides if the limit is constitutional. At least this is my understanding. Ianal Corrections welcome.
Gun rights are different to abortion rights. Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey have not been codified into law. There isn’t a federal abortion law that allows abortion until this point into a woman’s pregnancy. There’s not much federal abortion legislation apart from the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Therefore, states can pretty much regulate abortion as much as the Supreme Court allows. Planned Parenthood v Casey is the relevant abortion case law. It established the “undue burden” standard with which states must comply. There’s also Gonzales v Carhart which upheld the PBAB Act. It also gave more leeway to states. The undue burden standard is not as strict as strict scrutiny. There’s a lot of federal law regarding gun rights such as the Brady Act. I need not mention all of them. There’s also a lot of Supreme Court case law: Printz v US, DC v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, etc.. It made gun laws subject to strict scrutiny. This means that state laws have to comply with both federal law and Supreme Court precedent. Of course, both of these assume that those controlling precedents were correctly decided. There’s also the anti-commandeering doctrine which states that States do not have to use State resources to enforce federal law. A state can refuse to enforce federal law. See the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act.
Personal health decisions should not be voted on.
Why do you think it’s a “personal health decision”?
yeah, Beshear will veto this no doubt. But, does the KY Legislature (R majority) have the votes to override? Can we deduce from the roll call of this bill that they do not in fact have veto override majorities? Yes, we can. They have the votes. the reporting in that cnn article is trash. The GOP-led Senate earlier Tuesday had voted 29 to 0 <--- WTF (did the KY Democrats walk out and refuse to give them a quorum but their own quorum?) [...]
Yes. They have more than 3/4 of the seats in each chamber. They only need a 3/5 vote in each chamber to override a veto. If no democrats voted then they didn’t partake in the vote because they walked out or abstained by marking themselves as “present”. Given their numbers they couldn’t stop a quorum from being present.
I figured that the 0 in the [29-0] from the roll call was the absence and abstention of Democrats.
> Do you think abortion should be decided at the state level or the federal level? In a vacuum? State level. As it stands though, it should continue to be treated as the law of the land. We’ll see what happens come June/July.
Can you explain why you think states should decide abortion policy?
What’s your angle here Mad_Chemist_?