Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "Kamala Harris Looks Like an Idiot When Her Lie Is Fact-Checked Instantly" video.

  1. not even "females", but privacy rights, generally. Ginsburg would have preferred a "gender" based decision under the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. I've corrected this several times on this thread. Such an important issue and even my side of it gets it wrong. Phew!
    2
  2. I believe she is on mood stabilizers, I agree, she always appears stoned.
    2
  3. Ginsburg said she would have decided based on the "Equal Protection" clause, she was working a case like it when she got appointed. I don't see "stretch" used, only that it would be "less durable", and she was proven correct.
    1
  4. Those are excellent points, and States like California include "mental health" as a reason, too. But this is not new, my mother, after two children, was able to get an abortion in the 1950s based on "mental health". This just is not settled law, or settled in our culture.
    1
  5. Difference? The 14th amendment.
    1
  6.  @galenbarnaby  The Declaration of Independence was written by a committee of five. Only two held slaves, and one of those was ambivalent about it. John Adams would not bring slaves into work at the White House, only free men. The majority of the writers of the Declaration knew slavery was wrong, but were practical men working toward "a more perfect union".
    1
  7. RBG did not say that, she said it would have been better decided as "equal protection", not "privacy" under the constitution.
    1
  8. Ginsberg only said she would have prefered it be based on the "Equal Protection" clause, not "Privacy". She wanted it to be gender based. Roe was not a "law".
    1
  9. 333 million do not qualify, the number is closer to 70 million.
    1
  10. Viability now proven at 21 weeks. Science is creating artificial wombs, what if an interested party, like the father, wished to harvest their contributed DNA and grow the child in that artificial womb? We will soon be presented with that question.
    1
  11. Slaves were 3/5ths human under the constitution.
    1
  12. Many states still do, Texas for one has recently prosecuted based on double-manslaughter in car accident.
    1
  13. "Ginsburg", no "e", didn't say it was "unconstitutional", she did think it should not have been made based on "privacy" but "equal protection". She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy
    1
  14. The State has an interest in viable life, which is proven to be 21 weeks. I consider that "equal protection" under the constitution.
    1
  15. The State has an interest in viable life, which is proven to be 21 weeks. A fetus is protected from manslaughter in many states, one recently prosecuted in an auto accident caused by drunk driver, manslaughter charged for murder of fetus.
    1
  16. The state has an interest in viable life, which is proven to be 21 weeks. There are a number of states which charge manslaughter when a fetus is killed. It's not about religion, but civilization itself.
    1
  17.  @lisaamerson1547  I can't amend the constitution. We have a framework and process for doing that, and it's not the SCOTUS, either.
    1
  18.  @dr1742  the "gestating parent" is now the correct term.
    1
  19.  @dr1742  question, if a "gestating parent" were to use misoprostol without a physician's recommendation, how does that apply to the original decision on privacy? At what point in gestation does the State have an interest in the "privacy" or "equal rights" of the fetus?
    1
  20.  @dr1742  I agree, "Fetus Rights", and even the right of the DNA contributor, are not enshrined by federal law or precedent. My base argument has always been it is not settled law, and with science changing the time of viability, I don't see how it can be right now. There's work on an artificial womb. The "clump of cells" can be harvested by the State or the DNA contributor. It's an open legal question.
    1
  21. It was until an amendment to the constitution was passed, Same can be done for abortion.
    1
  22.  @cchavezjr7  It was a wartime executive order. It applied only to states that had seceded from the United States, leaving slavery untouched in the border states.
    1
  23.  @cchavezjr7  Yes it does negate the comment, which was disingenuous. Slavery was not ended by that executive, wartime, order. Lincoln did a number of things which skirted the law in wartime, that "stroke of the pen" was one of them. I often think of how Andrew Jackson ignored SCOUTS, too.
    1
  24. America is not a theocracy.
    1
  25. Dobbs came after and Casey Planned Parenthood (1992), the Supreme Court affirmed the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade that the state is prohibited from banning most abortions. Casey also ruled, however, that states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses.
    1
  26. Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy
    1