Abortion advocates misguided on Alito? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-01-2005, 05:08 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Alito voted to uphold it as a judge on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the law did not put an "undue burden" on women, and he did so based on his reading of a standard set by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in earlier cases that tested whether teenage girls must notify their parents before getting an abortion.


Alito said.
"The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that … discussion prior to the abortion" between a wife and her husband might prompt her to rethink her plans to obtain an abortion, he said. "

it was "parental notification"




O'Connon was not wrong

Alito was/is wrong.
__________________

__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2005, 05:09 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 05:36 PM
What if she wasn't married and of age?

What if they were consentually on birth control?

How do you verify notice?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-01-2005, 05:34 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



it was "parental notification"




O'Connon was not wrong

Alito was/is wrong.
Notification is permissible (by SC precedent).

Consent is not.

O'Connor created a new standard when she decided to treat notification by the same standard as consent.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-01-2005, 05:44 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

O'Connor created a new standard when she decided to treat notification by the same standard as consent.


thus, one can see how gender (and other things, like race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation) can influence how one understands and interprets the law.

hence, gender matters.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-01-2005, 05:46 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:36 PM
again Alito's basis was "parental consent"

that is what he said

therefore:

the wife is the 14 year old

and the husband is the parent

in his decision.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2005, 05:53 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Alito looked to permissible restrictions on abortion.

Notification is permissible.

So said O'Connor.

Until she changed the standard.

It has nothing to do with "parental consent".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-01-2005, 05:58 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Notification is permissible.

So said O'Connor.

for parents of 14 year olds

Quote:
Alito voted to uphold it as a judge on the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the law did not put an "undue burden" on women, and he did so based on his reading of a standard set by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in earlier cases that tested whether teenage girls must notify their parents before getting an abortion.

if you want notification

why not for ALL the so-called fathers?
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2005, 06:16 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Even better.

The "so called fathers" of pregnant minors may face other legal charges.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-01-2005, 06:21 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Even better.

The "so called fathers" of pregnant minors may face other legal charges.
one reason I am open to 'parental consent"

but back to the spousal notification

Quote:
a father is responsible for the child and the child gains full rights of inheritance (showing two different aspects of legal status)
based on your arguments here

ALL FATHERS should be notified, not just husbands.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-01-2005, 09:25 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:36 PM
With both my examples, the husband is the presumptive father.

If you want to address the issue of ALL FATHERS, you are opening a different can of worms that will affect a multitude of existing laws and regulations.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-02-2005, 12:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Funny how the other three cases ruled on by Alito got missed in the discussion.....

In 3 of 4 cases, Supreme Court nominee Alito voted on the side of abortion rights.

Quote:
If Alito holds a different view on that issue, his vote could shift the balance of power on the court. His four abortion cases include:

• A 1991 challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify their husbands before seeking an abortion. The court struck down the restriction. Alito dissented.

• A 1995 challenge to a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking to use Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to report the incident to law enforcement officials and identify the offender. Alito provided the decisive vote striking down the abortion restriction.

• A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.

• A 2000 challenge to New Jersey's ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Alito struck down the law based on a recent Supreme Court decision.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-02-2005, 07:25 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Funny how the other three cases ruled on by Alito got missed in the discussion.....
You'd be correct. I do wonder what the Religious Right would say to that, though?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com