 |
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
I'm not sure this will add to the discussion, but IMO, nobody has a "right" to life. Billions of years of evolution have proved that life is about survival. Sure, abortions aren't good things, but they are necessary for some people to survive. My mom had an abortion shortly after Roe V Wade. Her and my dad recently were married, she was in school, he worked full time, and they simply could not support a family. Now she had two choices, get an abortion; or have the kid and become a welfare collecting family. My dad had a stroke in 1986, and my mom has been the main income earner for the family. Even with her job (she's a director level VP for a medical company), we've been struggling to survive, monetarily. I find it a little hypocritical that many Pro-Life people are against abortions, but also against welfare programs that help people that choose to have children instead of working or getting an education.
I'll make a deal with you Pro-Lifers... I'll agree to no-abortions (except rape, incest, medical necessity) if you guys agree to the creation of universal health care, education, and subsidized housing (for people who need it). It seems as if many Pro-Lifers' care for Life stops at birth.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Heart of Atlanta is a pretty clear IC case - even though the specific hotel wasn't commonly used in interstate commerce, it certainly didn't check people for state of origin, and metropolitan area room vacancy rates are a driving force in room pricing. Since most hotels clearly are part of interstate commerce as a component of interstate movement and transportation, (now much more than in 1972), it would be very hard to distinguish "intrastate" hotels from "interstate" hotels in a consistent way.
Wickard is another huge reach in Federal regulatory power, and smells of too much vodka to boot , so I agree with you there. |
Missed this, sorry!
The problem with Heart of Atlanta is that it CAN be expanded and generally was until Lopez stopped it in its tracks. Right now there is still the expansive IC cases on the books (they haven't been overturned, just distinguished). The court really hasn't touched Congress' regulation of any business since the New Deal years (Wickard), so I believe they'd say Congress could ban late term abortions (as long as the ban is specified to be after viability and has a provision for the life of the mother).
To rule that this is an overextension of Congress' powers would overrule, at the very least, Wickard and every case relying upon it. As seen in Planned Parenthood, the court really doesn't like shaking things up THAT much.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|