Roe v. Wade Explained
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the decades-old Roe v. Wade decision, which said women have a constitutional right to have an abortion. Here’s a look at the case’s beginning.
Originally published at - www.voanews.com/a/roe-v-wade-...
» Subscribe to VOA News: bit.ly/3KIPysi
» Watch more VOA News video: / voanews
Voice of America (VOA) is the largest U.S. international broadcaster, providing news and information in more than 40 languages to an estimated weekly audience of 236.8 million people. VOA produces content for digital, television, and radio platforms. It is easily accessed via your mobile phone and on social media. It is also distributed by satellite, cable, FM and MW, and is carried on a network of approximately 3,000 affiliate stations.
Since its creation in 1942, Voice of America has been committed to providing comprehensive coverage of the news and telling audiences the truth. Through World War II, the Cold War, the fight against global terrorism, and the struggle for freedom around the globe today, VOA exemplifies the principles of a free press.
Connect with VOA News:
» VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.voanews.com/
» LIKE OUR FACEBOOK PAGE: / voanews
» FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM: / voanews
» FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: / voanews
The argument in Roe v Wade wasn't really sound. Somewhat like the current roster (only in the other direction), SCOTUS '73 had already decided they were going to legalize abortion before the case even got there. In their hurry to get it done, they literally just looked for an argument that seemed legit and ran with it. They happened to pick one of the weakest... It only stayed on the books so long because no justices were interested in going through the madness that would come if they overturned it. Even the late Justice Ginsberg warned people that the original argument was not sound and would be overturned eventually. No one listened.
If all people are interested in for the time being is simply getting rid of the bans (rather than acheiving a direct right to abortion,) challenging the state bans (at least up to 24 weeks) on the grounds that they violate the 13th amendment's protection against involuntary servitude is the best way to approach it. There are hundreds if not thousands of rulings from many levels of our courts where a woman carrying and giving birth are considered a form of work (she gets the final say because she's the one who will have to do the work of carrying and giving birth style arguments.) If it's work then the 13th applies. If the 13th applies, the 10th amendment can't and SCOTUS no longer has constitutional grounds to send the issue to the states. SCOTUS might still overrule that argument, but they'll likely have to pull their rebuttal directly from their backsides to do so. At that point, it will be clear to all that they are ruling based on personal/political/religious reasons not the constitution...and that will be the end of what little legitimacy SCOTUS has left. I doubt they're delusional or arrogant enough to destroy the court's integrity any more than they already have. Well...maybe Thomas.
😍😍😍😍😍...
It was an illegal law.
I don't understand why SCOTUS had to rely on the 14th amendment right to due process or the 9th amendment reference to unenumerated rights to justify it's finding that people have a constitutional right to privacy. The right to privacy is clearly stated in the 4th amendment.
"The right of people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers and and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." This right is not absolute but it is clearly recognized and protected in the 4th amendment.
..
They "relied" on it so they could fabricate law.
What’s really interesting is Norma McCorvey’s life. Some specific notes they didn’t mention was that she went to 2 lawyers who they then sued Texas. She never attended a trial because she was still pregnant, and she gave birth to the child.
I encourage people to read about her life, wild stuff
It should be the women's choice whether to have the baby or not (in cosultation with Doctor).
On the other hand people should use protection to avoid unplanned pregnancies.
Regular use of Pills is not good for health and may affect fertility, etc.
I thought RvW was decided on the matter of privacy between a patient (female) and her doctor.
Where’s the privacy gone?
If an abortion is desired after the first trimester,why not make it the mother ?
Woe unto those who decree unrighteous decrees!
That's good
📓
Schlecht wer nicht auf dem Landrat Lucas ist #grüßean8D
Speak English
I am pro life and pro abortion. I agree individual states should decide on the abortion issue. Abortions should be restricted to the 1st trimester. I believe abortion should be legal for down syndrome, spina bifada and/or various other conditions where quality of life is an issue. Women should have the right to choose.
So you think people with down syndrome don't deserve life?
yes@@gabrielcitrowske8897
You're most literally advocating for eugenics
Abortion rights should be left to the woman and their decisions ,and the government should have not be allowed to dictate to women what they do with their bodies.
In that case a woman, if she decides to keep the baby against the man's will, should not be given child support by the man.
Wrong. He planted the seed in order to create a fetus. If the woman chooses to allow the fetus to grow into a baby, he should still put towards supporting the child.@@rohanshende4338
@@rohanshende4338all this does is provide incetives for abortion on the fathers behalf. So the argument that women have the right to choose is overshadowed by men also choosing. Because in doing so, the mother is less likely to actually choose to keep the baby due to financial burden. Not much of a choice
@@wyatthale555im a conservative man except for ablation, it’s the body of the women and tbh we don’t have no right to talk about their pregnancies
You elected the people in your government to make your decision.. as a citizen we have no rights. The elected people are our voice. It's all a system to keep the people locked down.
The children should be given up for adoption to countries like Japan and Singapore.
In this case, we should go to the Bible.
do you know we are supposed to separate church and state?
God gives us free will. The state gives us order by socially accepted norms. But I have no doubt in my mind that God sees this as an atrocious act of man and probably murder.
@@wyatthale555 wow yes let's look to your unverifiable Sky-Daddy's opinion
@@Teqnifii well I'm definitely not looking towards man to see whats right. Humans are evil by nature.
“The lawsuit that gave women the constitutional right to abortions”
Court overreach
Even RBG said they veered outta their lane ~back to the states rightful hands
Ginsberg never said that there weren't other sound arguments which either directly or indirectly protect abortion. Just that the one they happened to base the original ruling on was weaksauce. For example, there's a very strong argument to be made with support of hundreds if not thousands of previous rulings from all levels of our courts in support that abortion bans violate the 13th amendment's protection from involuntary servitude. If the 13th applies then the 10th can't and SCOTUS ultimately has no grounds to send the issue to the states.
@@possumverde Justices have it a lot easier when they’re examining actual laws against the Constitution. There was, and even after Obama had bicameral control, there still are no laws guaranteeing abortion. The Supreme Court doesn’t make laws & they shouldn’t have to squint & stand the Constitution on it’s head to connect dots that legislators are supposed to do
Very much true. It was overreach. And the fact it was a constitutional right makes me sick, but they're going to happen anyway and there is no way NO WAY all 50 states would be on board with decriminalization and so we will be going back to the abortion slaughter houses of yester year. And so I support RVW.
@@txryder79I also support RVW
Down with Christian fascism
What's the definition of life on mars?
@@Chew_Mane you’d have to ask martians that question.
@@Chew_Mane The definition of life has no bearing in this issue. Tapeworms are alive (and share many chatacteristics with an underveloped fetus) but oddly they don't meet the requirement for personhood and thus aren't protected (and few would argue that parasites have feeding rights and thus can't be eliminated via medical treatment.) Until at least 24 weeks, a fetus is at best in a vegetative state (and that's being generous) with no signs of consciousness or self awareness (due to lack of brain development.) Pretty much on par with a parasite. Medically, up to that point it is not considered a human baby for those reasons as well as it's inability to survive outside the womb and thus hasn't acheived personhood. For those wishing to reconcile that reality with whatever mystical superstitions they may hold, simply look at it as an empty chasis still under construction which could potentially be mounted with a soul/whatever if completed. If scrapped before then however, no individual identity has been lost. So, no harm/no foul. Mind your own business and move on.
@@possumverde Ignorance with an agenda. You keep using the term fetus yet deny its root origin (to plant). You have no bearing on when a soul is alive or not.
@@possumverde OK, I'm hear to offer a non-religious answer to this. The fundamental issue most pro-life people have is killing innocent people. I hate war because we just kill people. As I've gotten older I question if we need the death penalty.
Now I will admit I believe we must now make health care free for infants and children, and we must also make mandatory maternity leave. Also we should start getting more manufacturing in this country and use some that land that the feds love to have into affordable family homes and possibly ban corporations from buying them to turn them into rentals. After we have made everything easier to raise a family yes ban it and treat it like murder.
If you’re having unprotected sex you should have the money to travel to the next state for an abortion. If you don’t you’re already setting the child up for failure. Personal responsibility much?
Don't have sex if you don't want to have a baby.. don't kill an innocent in the wumb
So do you think people shouldn't drive if they don't want to get into a car accident?? Do you see how stupid that mindset is?
@@Amandaxo18 That's why we have seatbelts and condoms. Don't drive a car if you don't want to wear a seatbelt. Don't have sex without protection if you don't want a baby. Do you see how stupid your mindset is?
@@Jeffranjan You are aware neither a seatbelt nor a condom is a 100% safe right?
@@Amandaxo18 driving is a privilege not a right. That’s two different things
what if it's rape? And the girl is a teen huh
How does radical feminism respond to this??
It’s not radical to support RVW
Just keep it in your Pants Plain and Simple 💯
God bless the One Holy Catholic anf Apostolic Church