Abortion law. Historical precedence.
After the american revolution, abortion was legal and practiced (mostly by midwives) in all colonies. Recipes for abortifacients (sp?) and contraceptives were openly advertised and traded. 1/3 of all puritan women at the time were already pregnant when they married. Opposition to abortion arose as a response against midwives. Women were forced out of medicine and abortion was criminalized. Effective contraception also became illegal and only a man could obtain condoms.
Prior to 1973, abortion was regulated individually by the states. Some states such as new york, had already de-criminalized abortion before roe v. Wade.
In 1960, the pill was invented, however, contraception was still mostly illegal. In 1965, the supreme court found in griswold v. Connecticut that a right to privacy does indeed exist and it protects fundamental decisions on planning children. While this was a step in the right direction, this right to privacy, at first, only extended to married people. In 1972, the supreme court found in eisenstadt v. Baird that single people also have protection under the law (the 14th amendment) and denying them contraception is unconstitutional. Justice brennan, writing for the majority held, "if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion tino matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to whether to bear or beget a child." ( http://www.Oyez.Org/oyez/resource/case/630 / )
in 1973, using griswold and eisenstadt as precedent, roe v. Wade was heard before the supreme court. In roe, several important factors emerged. While the right to privacy was used as precedent, a right of bodily autonomy resulted in roe. Meaning that it is unconstitutional to compell women to remain pregnant when it poses risks to their health and life and that men did not have to take these risks. Therefore, equal protection under the law (14th amendment) meant that a woman could choose not to undergo these risks. Thus women have a right to their own bodies and to decide what is best for their own bodies.
Also, the trimester framework was established. During the first trimester, the state could not prohibit abortions because the state's interest did not outweigh a woman's right to bodily autonomy. In the second trimester, the state's interest in the safety of the procedure could allow the state to impose certain restictions but could not enforce a complete prohibition. In the third trimester, the state has the right to prohibit abortions except in cases where the health or life of the woman is at stake. Only approximately 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester and can only be obtained when the woman's life and health are in jeopardy.
The backlash ensues.
Justice blackmun who penned the roe opinion thought that the court was putting an end to the abortion debate once and for all. On the contrary, the decision only fueled a resulting backlash.
The court once again was asked to question its standing on abortion in planned parenthood v. Casey in 1992. At the time, choice supporters feared that this decision would eliminate roe and the decision of restricting abortion would again fall to the state's. In planned parenthood v. Casey, the supreme court upheld the fundamental principles of roe. However, they replaced the trimester framework with a viability standard. Now, a woman has the right to seek an abortion before viability. After viability, the state may restrict abortion to cases where the life, health, and future fertility of the woman are at stake. The court also ruled that the states could impose various restrictions and rulings even if said restrictions made obtaining an abortion harder. Thus, the undue burden standard was established. A state may impose restrictions as long as they do not present an undue burden to the woman seeking an abortion.
Today.
Roe still stands today but much of it is a front window display. Women in many states find their states restrictions make it very hard for them to exercise their right to a safe, legal abortion.
Should roe fall.
Should roe fall, it is estimated that more than 70 million women in 30 states would lose their right to a safe abortion the very next day. The 30 states are: alabama, arizona, arkansas, colorado, delaware, georgia, idaho, illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, louisiana, michigan, mississippi, missouri, nebraska, new hampshire, north carolina, north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, pennsylvania, rhode island, south carolina, south dakota, texas, utah, virginia, and wisconsin. Only an estimated 20 states would maintain a woman's right to choose. Women who live in the 30 "risk" states would soon find themselves travelling a great distance to obtain an abortion.
Also, the legality of abortion has mattered very little in the history of humanity. Women have always sought an abortion when they felt for whatever reason that they could not continue a pregnancy. A legal abortion tends to be safer than an illegal abortion. Therefore overturning roe is likely to result in the amount of deaths and injury seen before roe was decided. Before roe (and after should it ever be overturned), women were maimed and died from illegal, botched, and home abortions. Whole wings of hospitals were devoted to women recovering from horrific infections, loss of blood, and other related symptoms from attempted home abortions. Many women lost their lives trying to exert control over their lives and bodies.
After the american revolution, abortion was legal and practiced (mostly by midwives) in all colonies. Recipes for abortifacients (sp?) and contraceptives were openly advertised and traded. 1/3 of all puritan women at the time were already pregnant when they married. Opposition to abortion arose as a response against midwives. Women were forced out of medicine and abortion was criminalized. Effective contraception also became illegal and only a man could obtain condoms.
Prior to 1973, abortion was regulated individually by the states. Some states such as new york, had already de-criminalized abortion before roe v. Wade.
In 1960, the pill was invented, however, contraception was still mostly illegal. In 1965, the supreme court found in griswold v. Connecticut that a right to privacy does indeed exist and it protects fundamental decisions on planning children. While this was a step in the right direction, this right to privacy, at first, only extended to married people. In 1972, the supreme court found in eisenstadt v. Baird that single people also have protection under the law (the 14th amendment) and denying them contraception is unconstitutional. Justice brennan, writing for the majority held, "if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion tino matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to whether to bear or beget a child." ( http://www.Oyez.Org/oyez/resource/case/630 / )
in 1973, using griswold and eisenstadt as precedent, roe v. Wade was heard before the supreme court. In roe, several important factors emerged. While the right to privacy was used as precedent, a right of bodily autonomy resulted in roe. Meaning that it is unconstitutional to compell women to remain pregnant when it poses risks to their health and life and that men did not have to take these risks. Therefore, equal protection under the law (14th amendment) meant that a woman could choose not to undergo these risks. Thus women have a right to their own bodies and to decide what is best for their own bodies.
Also, the trimester framework was established. During the first trimester, the state could not prohibit abortions because the state's interest did not outweigh a woman's right to bodily autonomy. In the second trimester, the state's interest in the safety of the procedure could allow the state to impose certain restictions but could not enforce a complete prohibition. In the third trimester, the state has the right to prohibit abortions except in cases where the health or life of the woman is at stake. Only approximately 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester and can only be obtained when the woman's life and health are in jeopardy.
The backlash ensues.
Justice blackmun who penned the roe opinion thought that the court was putting an end to the abortion debate once and for all. On the contrary, the decision only fueled a resulting backlash.
The court once again was asked to question its standing on abortion in planned parenthood v. Casey in 1992. At the time, choice supporters feared that this decision would eliminate roe and the decision of restricting abortion would again fall to the state's. In planned parenthood v. Casey, the supreme court upheld the fundamental principles of roe. However, they replaced the trimester framework with a viability standard. Now, a woman has the right to seek an abortion before viability. After viability, the state may restrict abortion to cases where the life, health, and future fertility of the woman are at stake. The court also ruled that the states could impose various restrictions and rulings even if said restrictions made obtaining an abortion harder. Thus, the undue burden standard was established. A state may impose restrictions as long as they do not present an undue burden to the woman seeking an abortion.
Today.
Roe still stands today but much of it is a front window display. Women in many states find their states restrictions make it very hard for them to exercise their right to a safe, legal abortion.
Should roe fall.
Should roe fall, it is estimated that more than 70 million women in 30 states would lose their right to a safe abortion the very next day. The 30 states are: alabama, arizona, arkansas, colorado, delaware, georgia, idaho, illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, louisiana, michigan, mississippi, missouri, nebraska, new hampshire, north carolina, north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, pennsylvania, rhode island, south carolina, south dakota, texas, utah, virginia, and wisconsin. Only an estimated 20 states would maintain a woman's right to choose. Women who live in the 30 "risk" states would soon find themselves travelling a great distance to obtain an abortion.
Also, the legality of abortion has mattered very little in the history of humanity. Women have always sought an abortion when they felt for whatever reason that they could not continue a pregnancy. A legal abortion tends to be safer than an illegal abortion. Therefore overturning roe is likely to result in the amount of deaths and injury seen before roe was decided. Before roe (and after should it ever be overturned), women were maimed and died from illegal, botched, and home abortions. Whole wings of hospitals were devoted to women recovering from horrific infections, loss of blood, and other related symptoms from attempted home abortions. Many women lost their lives trying to exert control over their lives and bodies.
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
|
I thought someone was eager to discuss the law which is why I started this thread? Was I mistaken?
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
I have an uncomfortable feeling that roe v. Wade was just thrown into my face..... Well since we went there lets discuss, as I have mentioned in my previous post I dont quite understand "reproductive rights" based primarily on roe v. Wade itself. The following section of roe should shed some light: this is the only time roe cited a legal situation for abortion.
"(2) within 20. Weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after 20. Weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that [410 u.S. 113, 147] the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].
You see this passage effectively outlaws abortion for women who simply find pregnancy to be inconvenient; it did however protect women from dangers to their body, which can in no way be perceived as some type of "reproductive right"
"(2) within 20. Weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after 20. Weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that [410 u.S. 113, 147] the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].
You see this passage effectively outlaws abortion for women who simply find pregnancy to be inconvenient; it did however protect women from dangers to their body, which can in no way be perceived as some type of "reproductive right"
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
| neo_1978 wrote: |
| well since we went there lets discuss, as I have mentioned in my previous post I dont quite understand "reproductive rights" based primarily on roe v. Wade itself. |
reproductive rights are based on a good number of precedent cases, not only roe. One precedent cited for griswold (which for the life of me I can't remember at this time) was a case involving forced sterilization of common criminals after their third conviction. This practice was found to be unconstitutional because it unduly suppressed that person's right to reproduce. Therefore, a right *to* reproduce was established long ago (i want to say that case was sometime in the 1800's, post civil war era, ugh, it's driving me nuts that I cannot remember it).
Another case, where mentally disabled people were being sterilized was also reversed. People have for a very long time had a "right" *to* reproduce. The right to keep from reproducing by various methods came later with griswold, eisenstadt, and then finally roe.
Another case, where mentally disabled people were being sterilized was also reversed. People have for a very long time had a "right" *to* reproduce. The right to keep from reproducing by various methods came later with griswold, eisenstadt, and then finally roe.
| Quote: |
| the following section of roe should shed some light: this is the only time roe cited a legal situation for abortion.
"(2) within 20. Weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after 20. Weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that [410 u.S. 113, 147] the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years]. You see this passage effectively outlaws abortion for women who simply find pregnancy to be inconvenient; it did however protect women from dangers to their body, which can in no way be perceived as some type of "reproductive right" |
also found in roe: "thus, it was recommended that abortions in the second trimester and early abortions in the presence of existing medical complications be performed in hospitals as inpatient procedures. For pregnancies in the first trimester, abortion in the hospital with or without overnight stay "is probably the safest practice." an abortion in an extramural facility, however, is an acceptable alternative "provided arrangements exist in advance to admit patients promptly if unforeseen complications develop." standards for an abortion facility were listed. It was said that at present abortions should be performed by physicians or osteopaths who are licensed to practice and who have "adequate training." id., at 398...The constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as union pacific r. Co. V. Botsford, 141 u.S. 250, 251 (1891), the court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the constitution...*on the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree*."
specifically stated by justice blackmun who penned this opinion, are areas and zones of privacy that do exist under the constitution. The court also found in the very sentence above that the woman's right was not absolute.
The court then begins to define when a woman can obtain an abortion, "although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach...Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the state's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which *a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy*."
the early stages of pregnancy are safe times for a woman to exercise her rights as is stated above. Moreover, roe specifically defines personhood as well in the following: "the constitution does not define "person" in so many words...But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has *application only postnatally*". Persons protected under the law are born.
The court also went to great lengths within roe to give adequate attention to the age old question of "when does life begin?" and should it matter within the law?
Then the court gets specific on when abortions may be performed: "this is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a state may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health...*this means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the state, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the state*...*if the state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother*."
specifically stated again in the conclusion of roe, the court explicitly spells out this new ruling. Before the end of the first trimester, the woman has a right to obtain an abortion without state interference. At viability, the state's interest in protecting maternal life begin to outweight. A woman whose life or health is in danger is always covered by the right to an abortion.
Roe can be read in its entirety here: http://www.Tourolaw.Edu/patch/roe/
specifically stated by justice blackmun who penned this opinion, are areas and zones of privacy that do exist under the constitution. The court also found in the very sentence above that the woman's right was not absolute.
The court then begins to define when a woman can obtain an abortion, "although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach...Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the state's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which *a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy*."
the early stages of pregnancy are safe times for a woman to exercise her rights as is stated above. Moreover, roe specifically defines personhood as well in the following: "the constitution does not define "person" in so many words...But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has *application only postnatally*". Persons protected under the law are born.
The court also went to great lengths within roe to give adequate attention to the age old question of "when does life begin?" and should it matter within the law?
Then the court gets specific on when abortions may be performed: "this is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a state may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health...*this means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the state, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the state*...*if the state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother*."
specifically stated again in the conclusion of roe, the court explicitly spells out this new ruling. Before the end of the first trimester, the woman has a right to obtain an abortion without state interference. At viability, the state's interest in protecting maternal life begin to outweight. A woman whose life or health is in danger is always covered by the right to an abortion.
Roe can be read in its entirety here: http://www.Tourolaw.Edu/patch/roe/
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
I am certainly happy that those who have been appointed to interpret supreme court decisions have some idea of what they are doing...You see its not difficult to see your agenda in your interpretation of these decisions, and it is still odd that you read and "understand" this much case law and you still can't classify "reproductive rights" as natural or personal, I mean after all that was the original question. And oh by the way are you yet worried that your newly elected president owes a huge favor to your arch enemy....The religious right, just checking..You know those vacant federal judge seats, not to mention the supreme court seat soon to be vacant would be very bad for your cause if they were to be filled with conservatives....
Oh it so nice to not really care either way, besides im in the military, so ive my fair share of killing so I cant really condemn anyone who gets an abortion.
Oh it so nice to not really care either way, besides im in the military, so ive my fair share of killing so I cant really condemn anyone who gets an abortion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
| neo_1978 wrote: |
| you see its not difficult to see your agenda in your interpretation of these decisions, and it is still odd that you read and "understand" this much case law and you still can't classify "reproductive rights" as natural or personal, |
in every case I have cited, the rights that emerged were defined as fundamental human rights, i.E., natural rights. However, in none of the cases is the term "natural rights" used (to my knowledge I would have to search them all). The term that has emerged the most and with the most frequency is *fundamental human right*.
| Quote: |
| and oh by the way are you yet worried that your newly elected president owes a huge favor to your arch enemy....The religious right, just checking..You know those vacant federal judge seats, not to mention the supreme court seat soon to be vacant would be very bad for your cause if they were to be filled with conservatives.... |
first, I have no enemies that I know of. I don't feel that "the other side" is my enemy. I simply feel that they are misinformed.
Secondly, I have no problem with the religious right as long as they keep their religion to themselves. I don't want it forced on me.
Thirdly, I am well aware of the frightening prospects of neoconservatives reaching both the federal and the supreme courts. I am a member of several internet watch groups and have written quite a number of letters to my congress persons urging them to vote against or fillibuster certain candidates.
Fourthly, to overturn roe, the court would have to overturn all the precedent cases as well and all of the cases that have used roe as their own precedent (namely lawrence v. Texas). We would cease to have many rights that we enjoy today. Essentially a vast majority of privacy, autonomy, and even speech and assembly rights would have to be overturned as well.
Secondly, I have no problem with the religious right as long as they keep their religion to themselves. I don't want it forced on me.
Thirdly, I am well aware of the frightening prospects of neoconservatives reaching both the federal and the supreme courts. I am a member of several internet watch groups and have written quite a number of letters to my congress persons urging them to vote against or fillibuster certain candidates.
Fourthly, to overturn roe, the court would have to overturn all the precedent cases as well and all of the cases that have used roe as their own precedent (namely lawrence v. Texas). We would cease to have many rights that we enjoy today. Essentially a vast majority of privacy, autonomy, and even speech and assembly rights would have to be overturned as well.
| Quote: |
| oh it so nice to not really care either way, |
out of curiosity, if you don't care either way, why are you so concerned over natural vs. Personal rights?
| Quote: |
| besides im in the military, so ive my fair share of killing so I cant really condemn anyone who gets an abortion. |
I am sorry for you. You seem to have an aversion to your job and I also support your right not to do it. I also support other organizations devoted to bringing the military home as quickly as possible.
A small question. I thought you were a law student?
A small question. I thought you were a law student?
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
All good questions and yes i'm a student of military law also known as the uniform code of military justice, and no I dont have and bad feelings about what we do, its part of our job and not our choice. And you are the first one to ever tell me that all cases citing roe would be overturned if roe were changed, i'm not aware of what procedure would allow that, do you happen to have a resource?
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Oh, by the way, don't take my inquiry about a source the wrong way, I must confess i'm not all that familiar with the procedures of the court as the law I study has only been affected by the supreme court on very few occasions.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Okay well there is only one law in my eyes and the supreme court is not it. There is only one judge either way you look at it...
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
| neo_1978 wrote: |
| all good questions and yes i'm a student of military law also known as the uniform code of military justice, and no I dont have and bad feelings about what we do, its part of our job and not our choice. And you are the first one to ever tell me that all cases citing roe would be overturned if roe were changed, i'm not aware of what procedure would allow that, do you happen to have a resource? |
i've never studied military law or even read up on it but I think that all facets of the law are interesting in their own way.
As for your question of the procedure to overturn all cases resting on roe, there isn't one to my knowledge. However, it follows a logic that if you overturn something that is somewhat like the middle card in a house of cards, then other cards or rights would fall as well. Most likely it would not happen all at once, but it does seem to me that other challenges would quickly arise to strike down the other rights that have come about since roe. The first case that I think would be challenged right after that would probably be lawrence v. Texas. There are also some other cases, ones involving compulsory blood testing by the police that also could be challenged successfully as they are based on the right to bodily autonomy founded in roe.
To answer your question, it would not happen all at once. However, there is a propensity for it to occur gradually through new challenges being raised.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
| jlee77 wrote: |
| he can be a law student in the military. And you knew that as well but are catching on to being abnoxious which is what this forum is about so congrats!!! |
I believe it's spelled obnoxious, with an '.O'. If you're going to be insulting me, the least you could do is spell it correctly.
Actually, this whole thread is about the law which you commented on in a different thread. I made this thread specifically for you since you were finding other subjects "completely boring". You said you were interested in the law and that you had been around the law for quite some time. I started this so you would have a place to post and on a subject you actually found interesting, instead of sociology.
Actually, this whole thread is about the law which you commented on in a different thread. I made this thread specifically for you since you were finding other subjects "completely boring". You said you were interested in the law and that you had been around the law for quite some time. I started this so you would have a place to post and on a subject you actually found interesting, instead of sociology.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Thanks for the reply jenn, I could easily see all those cases reviewed under the new circumstance if roe were to be overturned, but a direct overturning of those cases would be unlikely due to other circumstances unique to each case...But like you pointed out i'm having trouble find the exact course of action.
And military law is quite interesting, much faster than civilian law, not always as "fair" but that is a vague term at best...
And military law is quite interesting, much faster than civilian law, not always as "fair" but that is a vague term at best...
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
| jlee77 wrote: |
| oh, and you are extremely obnoxious. Tata! |
pot...Kettle...Black. And, yes, I do know that I just called myself obnoxious but I can understand how someone like you would think that about someone like me. In fact, I find you calling me that rather ironic as well. That's quite a few ironies all packed into just a few days.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Anyway.
Neo, i'm curious. I have been hearing reports about lawsuits being filed by soldiers against the various branches of the military because they are having their tours of duty expanded. From a military law perspective, do their arguments hold water? Will they be taken seriously? Do they have any chance of winning at all?
Peace,
jenn
Neo, i'm curious. I have been hearing reports about lawsuits being filed by soldiers against the various branches of the military because they are having their tours of duty expanded. From a military law perspective, do their arguments hold water? Will they be taken seriously? Do they have any chance of winning at all?
Peace,
jenn
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Very good question and that is a very interesting facet of military law, as many don't know this but when a civilian takes the oath to enlist in the armed forces they voluntarily relinquish their rights....This being said, its quite hard for a member of the military to sue the government. Well its difficult for anyone, much less someone without the rights that a civilian would enjoy. So with that fact in mind, as a general rule, these types of suits rarely have merit. Now in these particular suits, it seems the soldiers are on very shaky ground, they are trying to fight a policy enacted by the very congress that is mostly still in office following the last election. Without a full understanding of military law that would seem as a mute point, but for a member of the military the process is different. Whereas a civilian would hire a lawyer to fight their battles, service members most often petition their congressional representatives to plead their case....So a paradox exists in asking a politician to argue against his own decision. So to sum up, these soldiers have little chance of overturning the stop-loss policy in its current form, unless the public outcry becomes loud enough to embarrass those in charge.
My personal opinion, which counts for very little considering my rank, is that these few soldiers show that the majority of our service members are dedicated and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. I am not condemning these men, but after serving I cannot imagine leaving my peers to do the work I should be helping with, and these men signed on for one-year contracts while we have active duty marines, sailors, and soldiers that have been in country for 21 months at last count ..So I will leave you with those facts to form your own opinion about these men .
Please forgive the long post, you have hit on a subject that is close to home...
My personal opinion, which counts for very little considering my rank, is that these few soldiers show that the majority of our service members are dedicated and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. I am not condemning these men, but after serving I cannot imagine leaving my peers to do the work I should be helping with, and these men signed on for one-year contracts while we have active duty marines, sailors, and soldiers that have been in country for 21 months at last count ..So I will leave you with those facts to form your own opinion about these men .
Please forgive the long post, you have hit on a subject that is close to home...
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
| neo_1978 wrote: |
| very good question and that is a very interesting facet of military law, as many don't know this but when a civilian takes the oath to enlist in the armed forces they voluntarily relinquish their rights.... |
excuse my stupidity, but is there a list of what rights they lose ie a contract? Is it clearly outlined?
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
I don't know about that, moira, but I do know that when you join the military, they ask you to sign a loyalty oath and a few other contracts on top of that. However, it is unconstitutional to force or demand a civilian to sign a loyalty oath. So, right there at the beginning, they have to do something that a civilian is protected from doing at all.
I'd be interested in hearing a run down of their rights as well. I do understand that due to the structure the military has to be, that they couldn't have soldiers arguing rights in a battle zone.
I'd be interested in hearing a run down of their rights as well. I do understand that due to the structure the military has to be, that they couldn't have soldiers arguing rights in a battle zone.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
I expected that to be hard to understand, just understand that members of the military lose all rights under the traditional bill of rights, but also gain rights under the ucmj upon entering into the military...Which is effectively when they take the oath. Now, the rights under the ucmj are quite different than what is found in the bill of rights. Here is a decent site for a breakdown of the ucmj.
Http://www.Au.Af.Mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.H tm
don't forget to fix the h in the link, why is this forum so quirky about that????
Http://www.Au.Af.Mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.H tm
don't forget to fix the h in the link, why is this forum so quirky about that????
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Neo, american legal codes are rooted in british common law.
A case example was sent to me, referring to a case in the middle ages, called the "twin slayer," where abortion was found to be legal.
Here is the reference that was sent to me. I am sure you can get it through your law library
the title is:
the phoenix of abortional freedom: is a penumbral or ninth-amendment
right about to arise from the ashes of a fourteenth-century
legislative common-law liberty?
Pages 335 to 410
by cyril c. Means, jr.
A case example was sent to me, referring to a case in the middle ages, called the "twin slayer," where abortion was found to be legal.
Here is the reference that was sent to me. I am sure you can get it through your law library
the title is:
the phoenix of abortional freedom: is a penumbral or ninth-amendment
right about to arise from the ashes of a fourteenth-century
legislative common-law liberty?
Pages 335 to 410
by cyril c. Means, jr.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Steen,
thanks, I will look it up and give a review as soon as I track it down. Not surprising, as the practice of abortion was around long long ago...
thanks, I will look it up and give a review as soon as I track it down. Not surprising, as the practice of abortion was around long long ago...
|
Did you find this post helpful?
You marked this post as helpful! I changed my mind
Saving 
|
We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here. |
The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment.
Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment
or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information
written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or
prevent any disease without the supervision of a medical doctor. Posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author,
and not the administrators, moderators, or editorial staff and hence eHealth Forum and its principals will accept no
liabilities or responsibilities for the statements made.
This page was last updated on May 19, 2013.
© 2010 eHealthForum.com
This page was last updated on May 19, 2013.
© 2010 eHealthForum.com