Could you cite this, please? I'd like to pass it along.

(Reply) (Thread)

The facts on the regulations came mainly from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/law-threatens-kansas-abortion-clinics_n_887123.html , corroborated by other news stories found through Google. The prose is my own.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Thank you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What is it I hear from the left, incessantly about limits to rights like freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms?

Oh, right, No right is absolute and there's nothing wrong with reasonable and common sense regulations, even licensing and regulations to keep people safe. Quick, tell me what constitutes a sporting shotgun that is legal for import.

Despite my own distaste for the above regulations I have to point out the basic problem here. People want "reasonable" restrictions to long standing rights but don't want ANY restrictions on one fabricated out of whole cloth in a court room. How exactly does that work again?



Oh, and by the way, the smaller government ideal is that state and local government matters more than not a leviathan. 50 states, NOT one ruled from DC

(Reply) (Thread)

When a right is "regulated" to the point of, and with the intent of, negating it in toto, we're talking about a whole different matter. Which state had firearms legislation that made it impossible to legally own any firearm whatsoever? What part of campaign finance reform banned political advertising altogether?

That is what we are talking about here, and why your equivalents are not equivalent. The new regulations in Kansas will, a couple of hours from now, make it impossible to legally have an abortion in Kansas.

The right to privacy is "fabricated out of whole cloth in a court room" only if you believe that the rights of individuals should be construed as narrowly as possible, and the prerogatives of government as broadly as possible, which is a pretty odd position for you to take.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

When a right is "regulated" to the point of, and with the intent of, negating it in toto,

Did you see Chicago's argument that a total BAN on firearms ranges (which were required for the training time in order to get a firearms owners license) was the same as "regulation" of same? The city argued that a power to regulate a given place for safety was the same as prohibiting said place in toto. You needed the range time but without ranges you had to travel outside the city multiple times to get the license to own the firearm. Would a 100% ban on abortion clinics inside Atlanta city limits be a valid regulation?

Michigan requires registration of firearms under the auspices as a 'safety inspection' of the firearm. Massachusetts and California only allow certain firearms to be sold, (Model X in nickel satin is legal, Model X in matte black is a felony to own). Would a ban on all anything but name brand Birth Control be valid (cheaper generics not being allowed) as a restriction?

New York has a variety of restrictions on firearms ownership. Expensive license to own, license to purchase etc, And it's not just New York, DC, New Jersey, Maryland and others.

Which state had firearms legislation that made it impossible to legally own any firearm whatsoever?

That is what we are talking about here, and why your equivalents are not equivalent. The new regulations in Kansas will, a couple of hours from now, make it impossible to legally have an abortion in Kansas.

It's a matter of degrees of restriction isn't it, I think the Chicago example serves but to show that it's not the only example.... Several states have it structured such that it was next to impossible to get a gun lawfully unless you're REALLY well off. DC currently allows handgun ownership (Now, after Heller), but federal law prohibits purchase of handguns from out of state FFL's which is a problem for DC as there are now NO FFL's in operation with in the district, so residents can own firearms BUT they're not legally allowed to go out of state to do so, by FEDERAL law.

Tell me, where are the gun stores inside the City of Atlanta? How do you think that situation came to be?

The right to privacy...

No the right to an abortion. That's not the same thing as the right to privacy.

Tell me, when Obama Care mandates as to what is and is not serviceable as a medical procedure as per cost and what tracking requirements are predicated upon what medical services are performed, how is the right to privacy infringed upon? Does the Right to privacy NOT cover anything BUT abortions?

Moreso, how does the right to privacy NOT get infringed upon when there's a requirement for a federal form to be filled out for a firearms transaction (ATF form 4473 and bound book), a check via a data base, a federal excise tax paid on the firearm and ammunition, a federal license requirement for the professional seller of the firearm and, in some states, a mandate for registration of the firearm as well as training requirements and licenses to OWN said firearm?

Again, does the Right to Privacy NOT cover anything BUT abortions? Because, last I checked, I have to tell the fed.gov a WHOLE lot about what I make and do every year under penalty of law.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

tell me, when has the government told you exactly what you can or cannot do with YOUR internal organs. Right to privacy my ass, it is right to YOUR OWN FUCKING INTERNAL ORGANS. Oh wait, men do not have anyone legislating their internal organs...

Guns are not the same thing. Health insurance is not the same thing. In fact, bitching about paperwork seems pretty damned shallow in comparison.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

tell me, when has the government told you exactly what you can or cannot do with YOUR internal organs. Right to privacy my ass, it is right to YOUR OWN FUCKING INTERNAL ORGANS. Oh wait, men do not have anyone legislating their internal organs...

This goes with your right to your own life and your own right of self determination. You have the right to do with your body as you will. Noone has or should have the power or right to come and take that life from you or direct your life where you don't want to take it.

Laws against suicide and drug use violate this principle too.

Guns are not the same thing.

Guns are a means to self defense and ultimately to defense of one's own life. So, they are, in fact the same thing. Where do you think the classical 2nd amendment principle's derived from? It wasn't because they were cool. It was for people to defend their lives and their well being. That is most certainly the same thing.

Is is legitimate to say that the government can tell you you have every right to an abortion but no right to defend yourself from a rape and murder?

In fact, bitching about paperwork seems pretty damned shallow in comparison.

We're talking government power here to regulate things to the extent that while possible, it's well nigh impractical to exercise said right. If something is a right but a government can regulate it out of existence is that right being infringed or not? If your contention is that it is, but only in the case of abortion as a right but Not THOSE other rights rights in the exact same context then you are not being intellectually honest.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Right to privacy my ass...

It does appear that I do need to point out that Roe v Wade, as determined by the Supreme Court, was based not on 9th amendment grounds as I think it should, but based on right to privacy as it derives out of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. So, while you and I both may disagree with what they stated in the opinion, right to privacy is what they think it derives from.


You'll also note that while I am arguing against the decision in it's extant form, I by no means disagree with the right to determine what one does with one's own body. I am, in fact disagreeing with the route taken, it's legal justification, and not the actual destination. My view is by no means isolated.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Every case of civil rights as applied to the states involves the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The prevailing judicial view is that the 14th "incorporates" the bill of rights -- though not in whole, and the rights are treated on a case-by-case basis.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

14th amendment incorporation to the states of what right though? Where in the Bill of Rights is the right to privacy articulated? The 14th extends the pre-existing right from federal protections to state and local protections. Interesting though that the courts seem to ignore the P&I clause.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Privileges and immunities makes more sense to me as a vehicle for incorporation, but there is a long history of substantive due process in constitutional law, so I guess that made more sense to the Court through incremental legal reasoning that doesn't make a lot of sense to non-lawyers long after the fact.

The right to privacy is not in the Bill of Rights in so many words; the Founders were more specific. They cite the right to be secure in one's home, person, papers and effects, beliefs and associations. In short, they constrained any government interference that they could have foreseen at the time.

If you're going to be that painstakingly literal, where in the Constitution is the right to buy or sell arms? Where is the right to buy or sell ammunition? Where is the right to carry concealed? In the Founders' time, we can assume most weapons would be carried in the open.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

...only if you believe that the rights of individuals should be construed as narrowly as possible, and the prerogatives of government as broadly as possible, which is a pretty odd position for you to take.


No, I actually believe that the rights of individuals should be construed as broadly as possible, and that power granted to the government be as NARROWLY construed, but the party of big government (and a lot of Republicans also at the same trough) has a love affair with regulations, prior restraint, licensing and restrictions on a whole lot more than what the bible thumpers seem to want to implement (not that they're right either). However I fill out ZERO federal forms with regards to my religious practices. I'm curious how it is that I have to ask permission and fear for legal repercussions where it concerns other things that are NOT the liberal favorites. Obama Care, the left's darling, is HARDLY an example of narrow constraint of government power under restrictions articulated under law (the 6th circuit says it IS a new exercise of government but says it's still legal, how is that narrowly exercised power?). When is a restriction on government not a restriction at all? When it's been whittled away by court decisions to mean exactly the opposite of what it says (see also Kelo v. City of New London, Gonzales v. Raich, Wickard v Filburn for prime examples) or to when the government simply says it can do what it want's and just try to stop them.

Not to say, again, that I don't disagree with the above proposed regulations on abortions in Kanasas. But then I don't think that the Right to Privacy is a very good articulated source for the Right to an Abortion (right of self determination and 9th amendment, but then that would acknowledge a portion of the constitution resoundingly ignored by MOST government). I am of course noting that there are OTHER rights not articulated under the constitution which SHOULD still be protected.

But, don't sit there and tell me that all these other government forms I have to fill out and all these other government mandates for penetration into what I say, do, buy and purchase, medically, politically, morally, defensively and recreationally are NOT violations of my privacy. Don't tell me that the greatest intrusion into medical practice, operations and law by the government EVER is somehow NOT a violation to the right of privacy.

Again, using the petard metaphor, the Democrats have been cutting this fuse shorter and shorter for years and suddenly they just cut it down to a nub and it's an extraordinary, dire and horrible problem? But only for this one medical issue? Cry me a river.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)