I'm curious as to the opinions regarding restriction on guns, in comparison to abortion. I find that when I talk to ultra conservative people, they will be the first to tell you why each and every law restricting gun/gun use is unconstitutional, while every ultra liberal I know will be the first to tell you why every abortion restriction law is equally unconstitutional. So I put it to the group, do they stand on equal footing? If not, what is the difference?

It seems a little redundant to dive into the numerous restrictions in existence that vary from state to state on restricting gun access. In recent days, I have seen quite a few post regarding this topic, so I won't dive into them here. I would say that the restrictions and hoop jumping in Chicago, pointed out to be by The Boo Man, is what led me to want to ask this question.

In regards, however, to abortion laws, I would like to point a few state laws that are particularly frustrating. They seem to be intended to (some time blatantly) eliminate the right to abortion access, regardless of it being a constitutionally protected right, according to the Supreme Court in 1973.

In particular, the laws in North Dakota, where there is one single clinic still able to provide abortions, seems to puzzle me the most. In order to get an abortion, the patient must have an exam, and then wait 72 hours before the procedure. Within that 72 hours, the patient is required to undergo "counseling" at a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Typically those centers are run by Christian non-profit organization, who, in my experience, provide totally false medical information. They also mandate a medically unnecessary, and pretty expensive sonogram.

All of that is astounding, simply because, the state is mandating that a women seek counseling from organizations who are almost exclusively religious groups. Seems like a conflict to me.

The other thing that gets me, is that after the 72 hour waiting period, the doctor must provide state mandated information, regardless of whether or not the doctor believes it. This includes, telling the women that an abortion puts her at a higher risk for suicide. Regardless of the fact that their are no comprehensive medical studies to back that claim up. Then the doctor is again, mandated to provide an ultra sound, that is not medically necessary in most cases, and incredibly expensive for the clinic and/or the patient.



Of course this the most extreme example, but my question is, does it seem unconstitutional? The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to ban abortions, so does that mean instituting massive amount of hoop and red tape is alright? And if it is, then how is it any different from the hoops and the red tape that Chicago is put in place regarding gun laws? I have trouble distinguishing the two, so I am interested to hear some alternative perspectives.

This is sort of apples and llamas. Guns are protected in the constitution. Abortion isn't.

Just because a kangaroo court makes a decision does not mean the decision is constitutional.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 29, 2013, 05:42:22 PM
This is sort of apples and llamas. Guns are protected in the constitution. Abortion isn't.

Well that cut that off at the knees.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 29, 2013, 05:42:22 PM
This is sort of apples and llamas. Guns are protected in the constitution. Abortion isn't.

Well abortion is protected by the constitution, according to the supreme court. Their decision in the 70's explained that because of the 5th amendment, the ability for government to enforce the prevention of abortions is impossible, without infringing on a person's 5th amendment right. So while abortion itself isn't named in the constitution, the protection of a person's constitutionals right is clearly at stake. And I don't value any one right or the other, so the question still is. Is protection of a person's 2nd amendment right, more important then their 2nd amendment right?

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 29, 2013, 08:12:23 PM
Well abortion is protected by the constitution, according to the supreme court. Their decision in the 70's explained that because of the 5th amendment, the ability for government to enforce the prevention of abortions is impossible, without infringing on a person's 5th amendment right. So while abortion itself isn't named in the constitution, the protection of a person's constitutionals right is clearly at stake. And I don't value any one right or the other, so the question still is. Is protection of a person's 2nd amendment right, more important then their 2nd amendment right?

I'm dumb and meant the 9th amendment. Let the ridicule begin, but my point still stands. lol 

The Supreme Court has ruled on both and there is little chance either will change over the next few decades. As a result, both sides are attempting to inhibit the issue they disagree with through regulations.

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 29, 2013, 08:12:23 PM
Well abortion is protected by the constitution, according to the supreme court. Their decision in the 70's explained that because of the 5th amendment, the ability for government to enforce the prevention of abortions is impossible, without infringing on a person's 5th amendment right. So while abortion itself isn't named in the constitution, the protection of a person's constitutionals right is clearly at stake. And I don't value any one right or the other, so the question still is. Is protection of a person's 2nd amendment right, more important then their 2nd amendment right?

Roe Vs Wade was based on due process?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 29, 2013, 08:16:29 PM
Roe Vs Wade was based on due process?

Guess you should have read the case.

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 29, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
I'm dumb and meant the 9th amendment. Let the ridicule begin, but my point still stands. lol 

I still don't see the similarity.  Using the 9th amendment simply means blanket protection whereas the 2nd amendment is a specific protection of a right. The justices simply invented a right with the decision of Roe vs Wade.

You forgot to include voting restrictions in your Rights   No Id, No Vote