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?
If the Supreme court says that a woman is exercising her right to privacy to get an abortion, and that the states cannot enact restrictions upon a persons rights.
Doing so would make it a privilege.
With the new abortion law that says a woman can not get an abortion unless ____(fill in the blank)___ being an obvious restriction upon the exercising of a woman's right to privacy.
Isn't this fraud by those who wrote the law and also took an oath to uphold the Constitution since they are obviously violating it and receiving a paycheck under false pretenses?
No restrictions that can't be successfully legally challenged. Your rights cannot be restricted. All you have to do is prove that it's a right, state the supreme court cases that say a right cannot be restricted (there are several) then show the restriction.
The supreme court has ruled that they cannot be restricted even in the interest of public safety or economic reasons. If they have "clauses" then they are privileges.
Those are not "restrictions" upon a right. Your rights end when they affect another persons rights. Those are the "limits" of a right. Totally not the same thing, all rights have the same limit. Name one "restriction" as you see it that doesn't affect another person's rights. I bet you can't. If you can I can find a supreme court ruling that would force a lower court judge to dismiss it since they can't rule in opposition to a higher court.
The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which cour
ts can and do ignore.
Constitutional matters are binding precedents.
A restricted right is saying you don't have the right unless you _________
A limited right is saying you have this right until you ________
That's a better way to explain it for you. 2 totally different things.
@Phillip h - whether or not the baby is here because of irresponsibility is not the issue here. The courts have already decided that. You stated arguments for Rowe vs Wade. According to the courts it's not a baby until after the first trimester. So before the first trimester a woman is exercising her right to privacy. Whether u agree with that take is not the issue. If the courts say it's a right and recognize it as such, no law can be written to make it a privilege. By Texas making a law that says "fine you can exercise your rights but only after you do this first" makes it a privilege. Since a state cannot make this law and no judge can enforce it, those acts are fraudulent actions by the state and the judge. It's no different than me saying you have the right to practice your own religion but only after you sit down with a preacher of every religion So you know If you are making the correct choice for your religion. But If you don't do that and we catch you
Practicing your own religion, without meeting state requirements, then you are committing a crime. That reduces a right to a privilege granted to you by the state. since in essence you are not allowed to exercise a recognized right until you meet state requirements. So since the state made a law which violates your rights after swearing to uphold them. They are allowing themselves to be sued for fraud. Google Charlie sprinkle and the right to travel fraud Nixon.
3 Answers
- Philip HLv 79 years ago
With Rights come Responsibility.
You can not use a Right to Suppress the Rights of others.
Killing someone takes All of their rights away from them.
Using your religion to prevent another from practicing their religion is a violation of that persons rights.
Dumping garbage in you back yard is a potential problem because it it will become food for rats and roaches which will invade your neighbors property.
As a result we have zoning codes and you could complain those codes restrict you right to dump garbage on your own property.
The solution, as our brilliant Founding Fathers were well aware of, is to have a functioning justice system. Those using their Rights in an irresponsible manner are to be held Liable for any harm they cause.
If we made corporations liable for any harm they cause to the environment, there would be much less environmental regulation needed and the tax paying citizen would not be Liable for the clean-up of messes made by someone who walked off with all the profits and who dumped the resulting problems on everyone else to correct. The production costs would be higher and the cost would make the resulting product more expensive, but that places the cost where it belongs.
So, back to the Abortion Issue: If the baby is the result of the mothers irresponsible behavior, the mother is the one liable for the care and/or correction of the problem. If the mother is not responsible, as in the case of rape or incest, then an abortion is appropriate.
What needs to be established is: At what stage of pregnancy should we consider that baby to be a human being. Killing a human being is wrong.
That is another issue for which I have logical suggestions to put forward as resolutions, but going into that would make this answer too long.
- 9 years ago
If you are talking about the sonogram law, that isn't an infringement. It simply forces abortion clinics, which are often out for profit, not women's health, to show women the "clump of cells" that they are killing and allow them to make an informed choice about "their" body. If it isn't a baby, why is it such a big deal?
- Katy MLv 79 years ago
I can't think of any rights that don't have restrictions on it.
Free speech is a right. There are restrictions. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre. You can not slander someone. You can not defraud with your words. You can not incite violence.
Freedom of religion is a right. You can't perform human sacrifices.
