I have a question for you about your own health insurance. The question is motivated by the interesting link you posted.

The question is, what would happen to you, or a member of your family, if one of you contracts a serious illness and at some time during the treatment you wind up getting laid off?

Let’s assume you get another job shortly thereafter. Best of all cases. What would happen to coverage?

Interesting comments.

It is no legal surprise and my entry with the word evolve did not suddenly draw light to the fact that the law has evolved. From Drew Scott to Brown, the law has been evolving.

My point, and your reply indicates that you missed the essence of the material, was that there is a body of law around privacy that predates the 14th Amendment and continues forward to this date. Roe v Wade is not a single legislative moment in time for the court.

Your description of Ginsburg’s comments on Roe v Wade began with “disagree with many learned scholars, included Justice Ginsberg.” Your statement is (wildly) incorrect.

Ginsburg acknowledges, as a matter of known fact, that Roe v Wade was determined on the issue of privacy rights. No contest. What Ginsburg goes on to say is that the justices would have been able to make a more secure and less controversial decision if they had based it on a woman’s equal rights.

Both arguments are a continued evolution of the definition of rights under the constitution, and neither can be legislated or sent to the States.

My point on the 14th is that it gives the Federal government power over the States. Roe v Wade could probably never be sent back to the States for consideration.

The states that ratified the 14th weren’t thinking of abortion rights anymore than they were thinking of Brown v Topeka. But they clearly staked out several legal positions: federal rights over states, privacy over government, and equal protection under the law.

Now it would seem you want to undo some or all of those.

As for the science of birth, the first few stages after conception create a protective tissue that wraps the embryo. It takes several stages more before it creates cells that are able to differentiate into a human.

There are at least 5 different definitions of when a sperm/egg become life, including delivery, being able to sustain itself even if pre-birth, first heart beat, cells that can differentiate a human, and of course conception. It is impossible to say science defines life at conception without defining what you mean and why it is life.

It is, if everything goes right, a self reproducing entity. I suspect that you have deeper feelings for your anti abortion stance than either states rights or just a self reproducing organism.

14th Amendment
It is interesting that you chafe at my use of “we used to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath” yet easily and freely take the argument to its absurd end by stating “repealing the amendment prohibiting alcohol … open the door to legal cannibalism.”

Oh, I did not chafe… I noticed how you had drawn a ridiculous conclusion (“Tradition means nothing”), and decided to point it out. Your example above proves my point perfectly. I was taking it to the absurd end to show that you had gone to the absurd end. Thank you for agreeing with me on this.

You have yet to make a case why abortion should be prohibited. It is not everyone’s definition that life begins at conception.

Science proves that life begins at conception. I don’t have to believe it, but then that would be like saying I don’t believe that there are computers. As far is making the case, I think I did a pretty good job in a previous discussion, but others have done a fabulous job defending the child in the womb. I am far from eloquent in their presence.

The 14th Amendment has a very specific legal intent that was distinct and apart from termination of slavery.

The 14th Amendment was adopted specifically because of the end of slavery, not in spite of it. It has been interpreted by “progressive” courts to mean that a mother can terminate the life of the baby inside of her, which was never the intention of the legislation. Find me one writing, one opinion, one person who was a contemporary of the bill who anticipated freedom of abortion as result of the 14th Amendment, and I will take everything back I have said.

On the surface, it prohibits states from providing some of its citizens with greater or lesser power, such as the right to vote. It was a redefinition on Federal power.

Of course, and it is a stretch that those developing the language anticipated abortion.

The 14th falls under an evolving category of due process decisions that prohibits a role of the government in private matters. It cannot mandate what you watch, listen to, or read. These are not specific in the constitution but are understood as belonging to a category of freedoms.

Ahhh… we have found the word “evolve”. The law evolving is such a subjective term. I can interpret the law anyway I want, as long as I feel that is the right way to interpret. It does not matter what the law was meant to protect (civil rights of blacks), it just matters that I can turn it into a law that helps me accomplish what I want to accomplish.

These freedoms also include what you do with your body, and abortion fits. Far from being a stretch, the 14th has been used to clarify personal freedoms for quite some time. To undo Roe v Wade it is necessary to undo or replace the concept of personal freedoms as it has evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries. You may think of it as an isolated “law.” The history of the court is deeper, more complex, and quite interesting, but it is hardly legislation.

Then you disagree with many, many learned scholars, included Justice Ginsberg who found the rationale for the decision flawed. She agreed with the outcome, but found the argument weak.

Libertarians
We have covered this ground before in previous posts.

Agreed. I am dropping it.

You have yet to make a case why abortion should be prohibited. It is not everyone’s definition that life begins at conception.

The 14th Amendment has a very specific legal intent that was distinct and apart from termination of slavery. On the surface, it prohibits states from providing some of its citizens with greater or lesser power, such as the right to vote. It was a redefinition on Federal power.

The 14th falls under an evolving category of due process decisions that prohibits a role of the government in private matters. It cannot mandate what you watch, listen to, or read. These are not specific in the constitution but are understood as belonging to a category of freedoms.

These freedoms also include what you do with your body, and abortion fits. Far from being a stretch, the 14th has been used to clarify personal freedoms for quite some time. To undo Roe v Wade it is necessary to undo or replace the concept of personal freedoms as it has evolved in the 19th and 20th centuries. You may think of it as an isolated “law.” The history of the court is deeper, more complex, and quite interesting, but it is hardly legislation.

Libertarians
I know quite a few people politically. The libertarians that I know are neither left nor right and reject those labels as meaningful politically, at least for them. None are members of the Libertarian Party. All would reject party.

Some are quite left leaning; many more are right leaning.

We live in a highly complex world. Those complexities are not given well to “less” government. I would challenge anyone to define less government and that it would cost less.

Some, such as yourselves, tend to mean less government as less Federal government. I personally see no “economic efficiency.” I see it costing a great deal more.

We have covered this ground before in previous posts.