Roe & Casey overturned.
-
Here’s his statement:
Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families. I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force. The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law.
Doesn’t seem that nefarious.
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Doesn’t seem that nefarious.
The military doesn't cover abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to life of
motherbirthing person. Otherwise they must leave the base.And, as has been stated there is no "federal law" about abortion - other than the Hyde amendment.
-
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
@George-K I have to agree with Jon. Seems like a headline that is imply way more than has been actually stated.
-
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
True. It's a weasely response, however. I would hope the Secretary of Defense knows what federal
lawslaw exists regarding abortion.@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Seems like a headline that is imply way more than has been actually stated.
That's true. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out wrt the military.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
If federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.
-
If federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
f federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.
That's right.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
True. It's a weasely response, however. I would hope the Secretary of Defense knows what federal
lawslaw exists regarding abortion.@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Seems like a headline that is imply way more than has been actually stated.
That's true. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out wrt the military.
@George-K Putting on my AX hat.
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.
(But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )
-
@George-K Putting on my AX hat.
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.
(But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K Putting on my AX hat.
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.
(But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )
What about the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protestors that are trying to burn down the Supreme Court?
-
@George-K Putting on my AX hat.
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.
(But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K Putting on my AX hat.
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.
(But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )
Actually, no.
A sheriff is an elected official of local government. In almost all cases, the majority of his funding is provided by the county (or parish) he's in. As such, he has finite resources and pick and chooses to make the most of those limited resources.
The sheriff is THE most powerful political entity in most counties.
You do not piss off the majority of the people in your county and remain sheriff very long. Therefore, if you don't have a gun problem, it would be head-banging stupid to rigorously enforce some of the sillier laws, while letting serious stuff slide, because you were using your resources on a non-existent problem.
-
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Be that as it may, the actual statement doesn’t really indicate that they intend to ignore any laws.
My question is whether there has been more than one statement made? The Pentagon is not Sec Def. It’s possible a poorly worded message went out by the Pentagon and then SecDef cleaned it up.
-
@George-K Putting on my AX hat.
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
Now, I say yes. There is a difference between a sheriff in Colorado and the Minister of Defense.
(But I am someone who would also say there is a difference between rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest of January 6 and the rioting/insurrection/peaceful protest about the Black Life Matters )
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I think the pro-death folks would get their best shot, if they compromised on a twelve-week limit, with a viability clause.
But right now, reason has left them.
-
I think the pro-death folks would get their best shot, if they compromised on a twelve-week limit, with a viability clause.
But right now, reason has left them.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
f federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.
That's right.
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
f federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.
That's right.
Yep the headline is just outrage clickbait. There’s no there there.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
compromised on a twelve-week limit
Like most of the planet.
What’s the difference in development of the fetus between 16 weeks and 12 weeks? For that matter, what’s the difference between 12 and 8?
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
compromised on a twelve-week limit
Like most of the planet.
What’s the difference in development of the fetus between 16 weeks and 12 weeks? For that matter, what’s the difference between 12 and 8?
@LuFins-Dad I think in both cases the answer is ‘4 weeks’.
-
Come on @jolly You are telling me that it is okay for a sheriff to selectively decide by himself which laws he should follow or enforce?
Maybe I am incorrect, but my understanding is that the sheriff is there to enforce the laws, not to make a decision on the legality of them. He is not the judge of the county/state/country, etc.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
Agreed. But it is the law of the land. Roe never was, and it was only through an interpretation of "privacy" that it became legal throughout the country.
Now, the issue is in the hands of the voters. Elect people who will enact laws which you support, or overturn those you don't.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.
Close. But not quite. Congress can enact a law allowing abortion in any fashion, to any time up to delivery. Presumably, such a law would not be unconstitutional, because, as has been said, the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution. The court's job is to interpret the law and determine the constitutionality of that law, not to determine whether the law is "good" or "bad." That job belongs to the legislature, and by extension, the people who select it.
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.
Close. But not quite. Congress can enact a law allowing abortion in any fashion, to any time up to delivery. Presumably, such a law would not be unconstitutional, because, as has been said, the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution. The court's job is to interpret the law and determine the constitutionality of that law, not to determine whether the law is "good" or "bad." That job belongs to the legislature, and by extension, the people who select it.
Hm. Just because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution does not necessarily mean that nothing about abortion can be deduced from the constitution.
From what I understand, the "Roe vs Wade" justices back then thought that a right to abortion is implied by the constitution, but the current SCOTUS does not. No?
