TellTheTruth

Honesty is beautiful.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@Noah59216732 @dignitydh @CJ_liberte Sex is real and materially relevant to people's lives.

Sex-based discrimination/oppression exists, so we need sex-based legal protections.

Gender = stereotypes associated with sex.

None of this should be controversial.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

It is awful to see GC people expressing support for SCOTUS's decision to eliminate our right to bodily autonomy.

This decision also rolls back our right to privacy, which was essential for the protection of same-sex spaces and services.

Too upset. Leaving twitter for a while.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@TrevelyanMiles @okayfineAaron @SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen But courts have to infer rights from the constitution.

Govts don't pass laws restricting the abstract concept of "liberty". They pass laws restricting specific behaviors. The courts' task is to determine whether those laws violate our right to liberty.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@candidlywatchi1 @saxvalhalla @BinocWin @SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen His point is that implied rights are an essential part of our constitutional protections. "Liberty" is an abstract concept, so courts have to draw inferences about what our right to liberty entails.

Why shouldn't it include bodily autonomy?

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@nik_eni @BinocWin @triumph68 @SwipeWright @MsMelChen Thank you for mentoning the 9th.

Everyone saying "bbbbut the constitution doesn't mention abortion" doesn't know a damn thing about constutional law or substantive due process. They've probably never even read the constitution. And yet they think they're con law scholars. -.-

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@BinocWin @triumph68 @SwipeWright @MsMelChen How is it a stretch to interpret the right to "liberty" as including the right to bodily autonomy?

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@someran90340643 @SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen Who is "they"? The founding fathers and lawmakers who subsequently amended the constitution?

By that logic, women shouldn't be recognized as persons in the constitution. We weren't included at the outset and no amendment was passed to include us.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@BMcranty @RobMAGA_V @sweasel @SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen What is remarkable is that these people who support SCOTUS's decision also claim to support: (i) individual librerty, and (ii) small government.

They genuinely don't understand that constitutional rights, including right to privacy = more liberty, less government intrusion.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@RobMAGA_V @BMcranty @sweasel @SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen That's a complete misinterpretation of the case.

This case weas about govt. power vs. individual liberty. The decision enlarges govt. power (both fed and state) at the expense of individual liberty.

Maybe read the decision before talking about it?

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@Cogent_K9 @shamanspirit13 Hell -- even if we agree the fetus is a person -- we can still infer that women have a right to bodily autonomy and they don't have to sacrifice that autonomy to support another preson.

Just like govt. cannot make a man give his kidney to another person to save their life.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

I wish people understood that most individual liberties are protected through inference.

The constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit the govt. from taking your kidney to help another person. Does that mean that states can enact laws to this effect?

[Colin Wright @SwipeWright]

@triumph68 @MsMelChen Where in the constitution does it talk about the right to an abortion?

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@shamanspirit13 "You have a right to chose to have sex."

Where does it say that in the constitution?

See -- even you think that there are *implied* rights in the constitution. Presumably these include a right to bodily autonomy.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@shamanspirit13 And do you think that legislative bodies should be allowed to reverse those laws and require you to donate a kidney to help your neighbor?

The entire point of constitutional rights is that they cannot be legislated away.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@AConcernedPare2 @AlexofAllGames Federal legislation can of course trigger a 10A case -- where the state argues that the federal govt. doesn't have authority to preempt state laws -- but if there's no conflict of federal/state power, there's no 10A issue.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@AConcernedPare2 @AlexofAllGames Federal laws can affect state authority through preemption.

But the scope of state legislative authority under 10A does not depend on the enactment/absence of federal legislation; it depends on whether the constitution has granted legal authority to fed. govt.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen Hell -- courts had to infer that women were "persons" under the constitution b/c we never enacted an amendment to this effect.

Do you think that we should backtrack on that inference as well?

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@SwipeWright @triumph68 @MsMelChen Courts have long recognized implied rights in the constitution.

E.g., the constitution doesn't explicitly ban govts. from taking your kidney to help another person. But we can infer limits on the scope of such govt. overreach.

How is this different?

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@TakillaMocking @AnonyBrowBrow @sorenaldaco I just expressed my opinion. I don't presume that it holds weight. But policymakers should give weight to the findings from national health authorities in UK, France, Sweden, Finland, and Norway on the perils of these medical interventions.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@AConcernedPare2 @AlexofAllGames I should calrify that "separation of power" is a broad term which could also encompass federalism concerns.

But issues related to the sepration of pewer between govt. brances are distinct from those involving allocaiton of power between fed/state govt.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@AConcernedPare2 @AlexofAllGames See *that* is a good point -- you're talking about the division of power between judiciary and legislature -- which is a separation of powers issue.

And this case is absolutely about separation of powers.

But that has nothing to do with state's rights or the 10th amendment.

[TellTheTruth @TellTheTroooth]

@AlexofAllGames @AConcernedPare2 Yeah.... no lawyer with even half an ounce of integrity would characterize this as a "state's rights" or "tenth amendment" case.

There is plenty to debate here. But you're just demonstrating profound ignorance of con law.