[andonisus]

You do not have a right to life saving medical procedures. You do not have a right to an abortion. There is no law or constitutional amendment that grants this. This is the flaw in your reasoning.

That being said, I believe women SHOULD have a right to get an abortion enshrined in law. It is up to our re-elected representatives to achieve this, not for the courts to invent rights thereof.

[deathanatos]

You might not have a right to them, but those procedures exist, and citizens would like to avail themselves of those procedures. They could even do so, except for the state's intervention: and that intervention thus deprives the citizen of "life, liberty".

[andonisus]

You left out the “without due process” part. The due process is the state enacting laws to restrict access.

Of course, congress could pass a law enshrining the rights to an abortion tomorrow. This would grant and preserve this right for all Americans, regardless of state, due to the supremacy clause. Hopefully, this does happen.

[deathanatos]

I left it out, as I didn't find it relevant to respond to that particular comment.

A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)

But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.

I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?

[andonisus]

Agreed on bodily autonomy. It is my guess that the court would strike down laws that restrict abortion wholesale (when challenged), but who knows.

Of course, this is only applicable if the Congress fails to act; were they to pass a law that enshrines the right to bodily autonomy, there would be no issue.

[Jason_Protell]

Did you read the amendment? There doesn't need to be explicit protection for medical procedures or abortion. 14A protects people from being deprived of life and liberty by state action or legislation. Eliminating access to abortion can deprive someone of their life and / or liberty, so eliminating access to abortion contradicts 14A.

[andonisus]

> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

There is no federal law granting the right to abortion. Therefore, states may have enact their own laws to either affirm or restrict access to abortion. This process is due process.

[Jason_Protell]

I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.

Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.

If someone needs a life-saving abortion, the state cannot deprive that person their constitutional right to life.

[blindmute]

> Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.

It's not. It's literally not. Stealing food is illegal, even if you were going to die of starvation without it. Breaking into someone's home is illegal, even if you were going to freeze to death outside. And now, in some states, abortion is illegal, even if you were going to die from giving birth.

States or congress should pass a law allowing abortions if that's the will of the people. The court should not invent a law out of nothing; this ruling is legally correct.

[andonisus]

I could say the same about you. There is no right to an abortion. Therefore the state is not depriving a person of anything.

[Jason_Protell]

Have a nice day.

[andonisus]

You do the same!