Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
New abortion law in Texas?
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Rowe vs. Wade
"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.
Basically the courts have said that a woman is exercising her right to privacy by getting an abortion and that it is unconstitutional to make a law, act, statute, or regulation that requires you to meet certain specifications to exercise those rights. Basically a state CANNOT make a law that says in order to exercise your rights you have to jump through these hoops first.
If that is the case then a woman in Texas can sue the legislatures for fraud. Since they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then make a law going against it. That would mean they are receiving a paycheck under false pretenses. True or false?
Keep in mind that your personal opinion on abortions is not relevant since what I stated is the law as it stands today.
It is a violation of your rights to say in order to exercise them you must do this first. A right is a right is a right. It cannot be regulated even in the interest of public policy. Requiring you to do something before you can exercise a right is a regulation upon such right. Which would make the regulation null and void on it's face. That's not an opinion, that is a legal fact.
But you didn't answer my question...
A regulation on a right is reducing a right to a privilege. What if they do not want the sonogram? Can they still get an abortion without it? If the answer is no then it is a regulation or restriction upon a right. It is not a question of if this new law violates another right. It so plainly violates the right that made an abortion legal in the first place.
I'm not getting how you can't see that saying in order to exercise a right you must do this first, and if you don't then you can't exercise this right is not a violation of your rights. That seems pretty common sense to me, and to the supreme court since they have already ruled in that manner.
2 Answers
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
I think it is fair to show the women the "clump of cells" she is killing so she can see just how human it looks.
- demos_jonesLv 69 years ago
It's not a violation of her right to an abortion because she can still have one.
It's not a violation of her right to privacy because it involves her doctor whom she already invited into the situation.
A woman does not have any right to be free of hearing information that may (or may not) be helpful to her.
The problem with court is that it can only rule on the REASON for the challenge to the law, and the challenge was about the free speech right of the doctors to decide what, or what not, must be said. Since they ARE required to advise patients of other potential dangers or drawbacks of patients' decisions, this is simply one more, and found to be Constitutional.
MY issue is the sonogram requirement. WHO pays for it? If it's the patient, that's an undue expense for no valid medical purpose. If it's the taxpayers, then I guess it's up to the voters whether they're willing to foot the bill.
However, even the process of going through a sonogram is suspect to me. It seems that forcing a medical procedure upon someone who does not agree with it IS a violation of rights, specifically 4th Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure. That is HER time being co-opted by the government without compensation.
So, to fight the Constitutionality of the new sonogram law, THAT is the basis for the challenge, not Free Speech. So it will have to go back AGAIN to court.
