If a Supreme Court can mandate women MUST NOT HAVE abortion,

[Higherarky]

could a Supreme Court mandate women MUST HAVE abortion?

[onenote]

1. The Supreme Court isn't mandating

that women can’t have an abortion (at least not yet).

[Higherarky]

9. Not what I asked

but Thanx for your reply

[AZLD4Candidate]

14. Could then explain what you asked since you did say mandate in your OP?

[Higherarky]

15. Sure

My question addressed the possibility; not the probability, or if that is what is actually happening at this point in time.

[AZLD4Candidate]

18. The words possibility and probability were not there.

And to answer your question of your OP. . .no.

[FBaggins]

2. Doesn't matter since that isn't what they contemplate ruling

But no... one does not follow from the other.

[Higherarky]

10. How

How do you reason one does not (would not, could not?) follow from [sic] the other?

[FBaggins]

11. It doesn't logically follow

I'm not sure of a simpler way to say that.

They have the power to say that you can't murder someone (intending an extreme example, not comparing it to the current debate). It does not then follow that they could also force you to murder someone.

Specific to the case in point. If they rule that states can restrict the abortion right because there are countervailing interests related to the supposed child... that same rationale would rebut a claim that they could simultaneously argue that there was a societal interest in getting rid of that supposed child.

Freedom of speech is the opposite of compelled speech. Saying that they can rule on one does not mean that they also do the other. They can tell you that you may not run a red light, but they cannot thus order you to run one as well.

[Ms. Toad]

12. The contemplated ruling is that STATES are free to prohibit abortion.

The parallel question is whether STATES would be free to mandate it.

The Supreme Court is not mandating that you can't get an abortion. That's why you are getting pushback.

[Higherarky]

17. The word "simultaneously"

does not appear in my posts.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. We've had forced sterilization of women in America

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-black-genocide/


https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/543.html

I could see our country doing this - if the GOP gets control. Completely feasible.

[SoonerPride]

4. Once the precedent is set that a women does not control her uterus, then obviously the answer is yes

Of course they can.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. 1927: Buck v Bell, 8-1.

Hasn’t been overturned. Happened 3 miles from my college.

[Irish_Dem]

6. They can mandate anything and we just have to live with it.

[Mortos]

7. The Supreme Court does not make law

They interpret laws to decide their Constitutionality.

[The Magistrate]

8. To Quote Morticia Addams, Sir: Not Anymore...

By annulling this law and upholding that law, the tribunal becomes a legislative council if treated so by a partisan membership. The present majority does not even pretend to consult the Constitution in decisions, save as they may extract from its context some nugget or other that can be tortured into confessing their own political views are indeed the mandates of the founding document.

[markie]

13. the SC can't

but legislative bodies can... and then the SC could rule on whether it is constitutional or not

[Gore1FL]

16. If they rule the government has power over the uterus, the government could control it either way.

If the government can involve itself into productive rights, they can involve themselves any way they deem fit. So yes, if they have the power to deny, they have the power to demand.

[Higherarky]

19. Thanx, Everyone

I appreciate your input.