Biden to support ending filibuster to protect abortion access

[Terraceth]

"Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons,"

It does say that. Where does it say the federal government can't?

"e) Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

Is not the federal government elected representatives?

If the state has a power that the federal government doesn't, then logically the federal government can't override the state power. That's just common logic.

I agree. But where does the Supreme Court say that abortion regulation is a power of the states that the federal government doesn't have? They don't say it at all in the opinion as far as I can tell. There are some powers states have that the federal government doesn't have, and vice versa, but there are powers that both possess in which case the federal government wins out in any contradiction of those shared powers.

[Sparko]

It does say that. Where does it say the federal government can't?

As I already said, if the constitution doesn't give the federal government a power (scotus said abortion is not a constitutional right) then the power remains with the people and the states. (Which SCOTUS also said.
"Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons,")

How are you not getting this?

[Terraceth]

As I already said, if the constitution doesn't give the federal government a power (scotus said abortion is not a constitutional right) then the power remains with the people and the states.

The federal government has the ability to regulate commerce among the states (the Commerce Clause). That's right there in the Constitution. Abortion is commerce given that people pay for it.

It's not as if there's not precedent for the federal government relying on the commerce clause to pass abortion legislation. The federal government relied on that to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which restricted abortion.

(Which SCOTUS also said.
"Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons,")

That quote in no way rules out the federal government. It's true it puts the emphasis on states, but that's because the law in question was a state law.

[Sparko]

The federal government has the ability to regulate commerce among the states (the Commerce Clause). That's right there in the Constitution. Abortion is commerce given that people pay for it.

Wow that is really a stretch. It's not commerce. It's "healthcare" but again, the SCOTUS already ruled that it is not a constitutional right and the states have the power to regulate it. Not to mention, at best your idea would only allow them to regulate interstate abortion (as in making sure women have the right to go to another state to have an abortion), not abortion itself.

[Terraceth]

Wow that is really a stretch. It's not commerce. It's "healthcare"

Almost everything in healthcare is commerce. You get a service and pay for it. Even things rendered for free are still having someone else foot the bill.

And, again, this was the logic used to defend federal abortion restrictions.

but again, the SCOTUS already ruled that it is not a constitutional right and the states have the power to regulate it.

Which, again, is irrelevant to the issue. The states have the ability to regulate a number of things the federal government can overrule them on.

Not to mention, at best your idea would only allow them to regulate interstate abortion (as in making sure women have the right to go to another state to have an abortion), not abortion itself.

While there have been varying opinions on exactly how far the commerce clause extends--some take a very limited view, others take a more expansive one, others in between--current precedent would seem to render it as constitutional. Granted, the SCOTUS can always overturn precedent as they just did, but they'd have to do that in order to say it exceeds the Commerce Clause.

Certainly, it's hard for me to see how a law restricting abortion nationwide would be allowed under the Commerce Clause while a law requiring access nationwide wouldn't be.

[Sparko]

Almost everything in healthcare is commerce. You get a service and pay for it. Even things rendered for free are still having someone else foot the bill.

And, again, this was the logic used to defend federal abortion restrictions.

Which, again, is irrelevant to the issue. The states have the ability to regulate a number of things the federal government can overrule them on.

While there have been varying opinions on exactly how far the commerce clause extends--some take a very limited view, others take a more expansive one, others in between--current precedent would seem to render it as constitutional. Granted, the SCOTUS can always overturn precedent as they just did, but they'd have to do that in order to say it exceeds the Commerce Clause.

Certainly, it's hard for me to see how a law restricting abortion nationwide would be allowed under the Commerce Clause while a law requiring access nationwide wouldn't be.

I can see you are not going to change your mind and neither am I. I guess we will see if congress ever passes such a law.