Milla Jovovich opens up about emergency abortion

She urges people to protect the right to a safe abortion. She raises a compelling argument!

https://news.yahoo.com/milla-jovovich-alabama-abortion-ban-145157520.html

oh, citation needed for that

If we had sigs, that would be signature worthy.

If it’s a baby at conception then any anti-abortion law needs to come with it new laws concerning child support payments, and since the “baby” cannot live during pregnancy without the mother, you’re de facto financially responsible for both.

That means child support payments need to start at conception including prenatal care and 50% of all medical expenses which can go upwards of $30,000. If the woman discovers she’s pregnant at 60 days then you owe 60 days of back child support.

Unless I’m missing something, this is a pretty large stipend of money women are missing out on. Anything short of this, and these laws just become an obvious ruse for men to punish women for being women. If it’s really about the “baby’s life” then the money and support needs to start immediately.

@joebones5000: You're never at a shortage for stupid, I'll give you that.

Could you kindly give citation on this quote "It is an inalienable, constitutional right"?

So where are the pro-life people in this forum who would normally claim abortion is murder? Is Milla Jovovich a murder because of this?

Roe v. Wade. The court ruled that a state law that banned abortions was unconstitutional.

A 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.

I now understand why Alabama wants block a rape and incest exception to their abortion bill.

Without rape and incest, we wouldn't have these fine looking people!

Weird, was that always in the history books? Could people have read that before this post? I'm kinda doubting it.

Link isn't working for me. But if it was to literally save her life, then no.

That doesn't usually seem to matter to people.

You do, just not on mobile. You might have it turned off in your settings.

@zaryia: Can you link where it’s at in the constitution? Thanks in advance.

Goal post move. He said it was a constitutional right and it currently is by law, that's just a fact.

You should have made these posts after it is potentially overturned, but the person you quoted was correct.

Why don't pro lifers ever talk about prosecuting the fathers of the baby as well as the mother's?

The women didn't get pregnant by herself

Might as well lock this thread because this shuts it down anyway hahaha. Well played.

@zaryia: I wasn’t the one that said he was wrong about it? I just wanted a source.

@zaryia: Delusional as usual, I wouldn't expectanything else from you at this point.

"Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it."

@vfighter: yeah pretty much, thats the main reason roe vs wade has controversy, its a loose interpretation. Not in the constitution

The Constitution isn't very long, hence why we have a court system which interprets the document. Abortion is a constitutional right as interpreted by the 4th amendment and verified by your own post.

He's right you're wrong, end of story.

Look up the fourth amendment on Wiki. The words "Abortion" , "Roe v. Wade" make no appearance in there, and it gives a pretty extensive breakdown of what the amendment covers and entails. Just because a few judges make an interpretations that go into law doesn't make it constitutional. Certainly doesn't make it a right.

It also doesn't make it constitutional when you put it in big, bold letters and you have a bunch of people agreeing with you.

The SC's job is to dictate the constitutionality of laws. What they decide is defacto constitutional (until overruled). By this line of reasoning guns aren't constitutional since they aren't mentioned in the constitution.

'Just because a few judges make an interpretation on the 2nd amendment doesn't make it constitutional!

@HoolaHoopMan: Or you hold a constitutional convention and make an amendment.

Guns are specifically mentioned in the constitution in a specific amendment. Second amendment specifically states our right to bear arms. States are given the authority to regulate their own militia's, which is why gun laws differ from state to state.

Roe v. Wade is very different. It clearly states a right to privacy is not absolute, which is why abortion restrictive states exist. It's also changed since it's ruling in 1973. We no longer go by trimester of pregnancy, and we now go by fetal viability, which is not in favor of pro-abortion. In some states, women need to determine the viability by going through some invasive procedures, like an ultrasound. If there was any kind of absolute constitutional protection, federal law would prevent.

Archibald Cox puts it

"Roe's failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."

I'm sorry, I don't see 'guns' in there. Arms isn't specified to mean guns. SHOW ME GUNS IN THE AMENDMENT OR ELSE IT ISN'T CONSTITUTIONAL.

And yet arms are to be used by a well regulated militia but that gets ignored and it's clearly in the amendment.

@vl4d_l3nin: sounds about right

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. These new anti-abortion laws violate it.

Hmm, how did you come from

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

To Abortion?

But I am sure you meant to say fourteen right? :)

@joebones5000: Constitutional right, yes, however it is not inalienable. A legal right and a natural right are not always equal.

Quoting The Encyclopedia Britannica is "delusional"?

Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade (1973) is the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Meanwhile not only did you take a quote from a Catholic Missionary website (great citation, lmao), but you managed to botch that up as the quote directly agrees with what I said. This is the first time you've ever tried to actually defend yourself from my onslaught and you failed miserably. Next time follow your typical trend and exit the thread after I win (typically via solid citation), as you usually do:

• https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/ughseems-every-pc-game-is-filled-with-cheaters-33458974/?page=3#js-message-356215054
• https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/did-trump-and-the-far-right-accidentally-create-sj-33458326/?page=1#js-message-356206366
• https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/us-successfully-removes-sexual-health-references-f-33457477/?page=1#js-message-356195158
• https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/white-supremacist-coast-guard-lieutenant-was-alleg-33452614/?page=1#js-message-356124703
• https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/milla-jovovich-opens-up-about-emergency-abortion-33459451/?page=1#js-message-356222428

We weren't arguing if it is literally written in the constitution, or how loose or unfair the interpretation was in people's opinions.

We were arguing that it currently is a constitutional right (fact) due to that ruling you found unfair or loose. You may not have liked it, but it happened and it is the current reality. Which is why Red states are trying to overturn Roe. Not even the GOP argues this fact, which is why they are trying to CHANGE this fact via the SCOTUS. Hurrrr Durrrrrrrr.

I don't like debating facts and definitions so lets end this quickly,

Encyclopedia Britannica:

Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade (1973) is the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Your opinion on the 1973 ruling isn't relevant. I'm just stating the facts. Abortion is currently a constitutional right and these Red states are trying to get that changed. Even the GOP accepts this fact hence their actions. Also,

First: A constitutional right — any constitutional right, in fact — simply means that an individual holder of that right can go to court and get an order stopping the government from doing something.

If the court were to overturn Roe, it would mean that the Constitution no longer stands in the way of states banning abortion altogether and imposing punishment on health care providers and/or women for engaging in abortions. (The Alabama law would not put women and girls in prison for having had abortions, but it would force some to carry pregnancies to term against their will.)

The Constitution is at the top of the legal food chain. Below it are state laws, among other things. Without the Constitution standing in their way, states could pass abortion laws as they see fit. Some states would allow abortions. Others would not. Others would allow abortions only under certain circumstances.

Second: In a post-Roe world, therefore, abortion would not be illegal in the United States. It would depend on the state — and its voters. Post-Roe, proponents of safe and legal abortions would have to vote their way into state legislatures to secure the passage of laws that allow safe and legal abortions. The Constitution would no longer help them.

Americans should be prepared for the real possibility that the constitutional right to abortion will be read out of the Constitution by the current conservative majority of the Supreme Court.

Congratulations N64DD, you gave the 4 extreme right posters here an out by introducing the straw-man argument of "Is Abortion written in the constitution" to avoid the fact that Abortion is a constitutional right. Some of them are even pretending they won this debate no one was even having.

You might be a troll, but you're damn good at it.

Looks like someone is mad because he got factually proven wrong.

Perhaps read your own Catholic Missionary website next time before destroying yourself.

If a record is kept of a woman having an abortion (which a lot of states have enacted laws doing), it is violating her right to privacy.

Not really but nice try there.

And here I assume you mean medical journals which are done with the proper paperwork and where the "women" sign that she understands that records are being kept.

If you, however, means a women privacy like mentioned in Roe V Wade then it´s the fourteen amendment that has been extended to include this, despite it never being mentioned in it.

Which also makes it a judicial bench read of the amendment that has extended the right to free abortion to women and not an "It is an inalienable, constitutional right"like some in this thread seem to think. Which is also why the far-left used the scare tactics that "Roe V Wade" was going to be overturned.

Are you and the rest of the pro 'rape baby' mongoloid crowd missing the analogy?

@Nuck81: the mother does not get charged, the doctor does.

Fathers are held responsible, they are linked for life. Thats why we put fathers who dont pay child support in prison.

Not sure of the inalienable part, but it is a constitutional right.

Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade (1973) is the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Not sure why some of the extreme right posters here are contesting the basics of this entire arguement. This is why these backwards Red States are creating these draconian laws, to have the ruling challenged and change this commonly accepted fact.

@joebones5000: I do not see the logic in equating the interpretation of an unenumerated right to a construct that's explicit. Nor do I see the value of fear mongering and pandering to MSNBC talking points.

@joebones5000: Extremely bad reasoning? Where? Are you saying your reasoning for upholding or overturning Constitutional law is superior than that of 5 (or more) Supreme Court justices? Impressive.

@zaryia: You throw the word "fact" around a lotwhen its not so, I truly believe you dont know what the meaning of it is...but I wouldnt expect a person as delusional as you to understand anyways.

Pro-lifeZ

Please stop making a fool out of yourself. Abortion is currently a recognized constitutional right and that is a fact. Even GOP Legislators in backwards Red States know this simple fact, and are trying to get it changed at all costs. Even your Catholic Missionary citation says it is a constitutional right. Encyclopedias say it. Law School sites say it. This is not debated anywhere else, SW Conservatives are so god damn stupid.

Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade (1973) is the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

-Encyclopedia Britannica

In 1973, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, changed the legal status of abortion by striking down a Texas law that criminalized abortion except as a means of saving the mother’s life. The case pitted individual privacy rights against States’ interest in regulating the life of the fetus. Interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Right of Privacy maintained by the Ninth Amendment, the Court ruled that a woman’s personal autonomy and reproductive rights extend to her decision to terminate her pregnancy.

-Cornell Law

Every other site is debating on what the new SCOTUS will rule or if it will make it to them, why are SW conservatives always so behind? You guys literally get stuck on accepted definitions and legal rulings while everyone else is debating in 2019.

Embarrassing.

You are correct that it´s a right that is derived from the judicial branch's legal interpretation of the fourteen amendments, but you need to recognize that it´s not explicit in the constitution and that the "right" is only there because the justices go by the living constitution more than if they had gone by originalism

And also that at any point another supreme court may find that understanding to be in error if any other case like the Alabama law is brought forward.. Which is why as you say the more nuts states are making laws that is pretty much a hair away from banning abortion outright. But it´s interesting that no one speaks about places like North-Ireland or Ireland or a number of Catholic countries that have the same stand.

So blaming it on politics is a bit meh, when it´s all down to religion more than politics.

I'm well aware it is not explicitly written in the constitution and it's an interpretation (like many rulings), I'm just stating the current status of it. This is going to be quite interesting to watch if it goes to the right leaning SCOTUS.

Also, originalism only when it fits their political leanings. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism

Indeed. And a possibility that many on the right are hoping for.