Does The Federal Government Have The Authority To Compel A Woman To Get An Abortion?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ThisIsNotMe, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. ThisIsNotMe macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #1
    Since the government now has the authority to compel someone to purchase a private product with private money for private use from a private company or face possible punishment where does that authority end?

    Using the same logic the federal government could now pass a "tax" saying that anyone who has more than 1 kid would face a $100,000 tax penalty. The act of the person having a child has no bearing on their income nor is it an act of interstate commerce - like the purchase of health care.

    What I find most interesting about this situation is the inevitable unintended consequences of such authority being generated by the federal government. Living in California I am reminded every day of the unintended consequences of the progressive expansion of the commerce clause as it relates to the regulation of intrastate commerce and California's ability to regulate medical marijuana.
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    You should have titled the thread, "How Slippery is My Slope?"
     
  3. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #3
    Maybe a move to Canada is in order....:rolleyes:

    The conspiracy theorists are out in full effect aren't they?
     
  4. ThisIsNotMe thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #4
    Its a simple question.

    What behavior can't the federal government compel under the taxing clause of the constitution?

    Just like the regulation of intrastate commerce and its unintended consequences, in 50 years what is stopping something similar from occurring with this new federal authority.
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    Does the government have the ability to conscript every able bodied person? Does the government have the ability to force you to save for retirement?

    Yes.

    Your premise would have to be tested. I see no scenario where the government would compel women to have abortions, but they are certainly making a go of compelling women not to have abortions.
     
  6. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #6
    Nothing really. Just change the Constitution.
     
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    I see no reason why the government couldn't regulate the number of children you have in a similar way to the ACA. That being said, there wouldn't be a requirement to have an abortion, just a penalty for having multiple children. The choice is still up to you, just like with the ACA.

    Just because the government can do something, doesn't mean it is a reasonable possibility with our system of government. The situation would have to be very dire for elected officials to think a regulation like that would be needed.

    In addition, there would need to be a need (at the time) that is reasonably and rationally related to the government's exercise of authority over child bearing couples. I can imagine a situation in 100 years where the oceans have risen, the US failed to wean itself from foreign oil, and we have massive food shortages. Perhaps then, a restriction on children might be wise.
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #8
    So working off this silly theory can the federal government require republican women to have abortions ?

    /wishful thinking
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    I believe the answer would be: Whatever you can get a majority of Supreme Court justices to agree upon.



    Edit: I see my answer was too simplistic.

    First you have to get both the Senate and the House to pass the bill.

    Second, you need the POTUS to sign it.

    Lastly, if taken to court, you need 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices to agree with it.

    Simple, eh?
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    Oh boy- I'm sure there's some tin foil laying around here somewhere...;)
     
  11. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #11
    Well the last part isn't really that bad. The president can just appoint more justices. FDR threatened to do this if the SCOTUS did not approve the New Deal
     
  12. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    You can't "just appoint more justices" considering the fact that their job is a lifetime job and it takes an act of congress to impeach one.
     
  13. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

    Pretty much he could have ran this legislation through Congress, got it passed, and then stacked the court.

    I guess my wording was confusing on my last post since I kinda skimmed over the passing legislation part.
     
  14. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #14
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    The Constitution doesn't say how many Justices there can be.

    Even if more justices could be appointed, they'd have to be approved by the Senate and you'd still need a majority of them to declare something Constitutional.
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16
    Could our government outlaw stupidity? Would it require an amendment to the Constitution?
     
  17. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #17
    Do republican women even have sex??
     
  18. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #18
    And if you take a liberal (not liberal like the political party) interpretation to that, that means it doesn't say you can't appoint more.

    Well the whole premise of what we're talking about is already having the senate/house and president belonging to one party. So going off that, it would be rather easy for somebody to run legislation through like FDR wanted to, appoint justices that are for your party, and then do whatever you want.

    The Constitution is by far not perfect.
     
  19. JBazz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #19
    It hasnt been too long ago that women in America were forced to have abortions and sterilization. My mother worked MHMR and her patients could be forced.

    I am pro choice, but I see several scenarios were gov would love to force abortions like imprisoned women, institutionalized women, etc. do I think it is likely we will revert back to that? No, but it is in the realm of possibilities. Vigilance is needed in giving a voice to the voiceless.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    If.

    If.

    If.

    And ...?
     
  21. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #21
    what are you talking about?
     
  22. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    Although the OP is giving an extreme example I don't think the underlying point is something to scoff at. If you give an entity in power an inch why the automatic assumption that it won't take you for a mile? Being compelled to buy health insurance certainly got me thinking about unintended consequences that this decision could lay the ground work for.

    I got a better understanding of it though after reading this link taking about Roberts' decision.
    As citizenzen pointed out the Justices made a very narrowly defined decision that only impacts this specific law in this specific instance. From what I've read it doesn't seem to lay a foundation of precedent that future laws could be built upon.


    Lethal
     
  23. ThisIsNotMe thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #23
    Yet that isn't how supreme court rulings work.
    The precedent is set and future courts will look to this case to make future rulings.
     
  24. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #24
    That proposal never got past committee and I don't think this ( or any other ) congress would pass such legislation.

    So my statement is upheld 1-0
    :p
     
  25. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #25
    The sky is falling the sky is falling,,,, My god, the government could even compel us to vote Republican. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page