Infringment has different meanings for arms and abortion

[MikeBjerum]

While on the road today I heard the same story from different outlets several times.  I was driving and thinking, so I missed a couple of details.  Also, I haven't been home long enough to do an exhaustive search, and I may not have time for a couple days.  With all of that in mind please bear with me and help with the research.

It appears that a law requiring a woman to have an ultra sound prior to an abortion is unConstitutional.  Why?  Because it infringes on her Constitutional Right to have an abortion by "infringing" on her by requiring her to pay for an ultra sound which may place an undue financial burden on her.

So ...

If it is an "infringement" on her Constitutional Right by requiring her to pay for an ultra sound ...

What about the financial burden of requiring me to pay for a class to get a certificate so I can pay to apply for a permit to carry ... $200 dollars to get a permit to exercise my Constitutionally guaranteed Right to bear arms is not also an "infringement?"

The thing that kept getting my attention whenever the report came on was that every reporter used the word "infringed."  I can't wait to find the report, because I have questions if the justices actually used that word in their opinion.

[fightingquaker13]

I agree M58, you're just probably not going to like the way agree with you.   The ultra-sound requirement is an infringement. So is any requirement for more than an instant background check to own and carry (as in keep and bare) a gun. Don't make me pass a class (though I think they are useful) to carry concealed. Don't make a woman pay for a medical procedure that she doesn't want (though this might change her mind and that would be a good thing). Still, it is a violation of individual rights either way and the state has no right to demand it. What part of lassiez faire do folks have a problem with?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

I agree M58, you're just probably not going to like the way agree with you.   The ultra-sound requirement is an infringement. So is any requirement for more than an instant background check to own and carry (as in keep and bare) a gun. Don't make me pass a class (though I think they are useful) to carry concealed. Don't make a woman pay for a medical procedure that she doesn't want (though this might change her mind and that would be a good thing). Still, it is a violation of individual rights either way and the state has no right to demand it. What part of lassiez faire do folks have a problem with?
FQ13

The french part.

[fightingquaker13]

The french part.

Ok, I'll translate. Leave me the f..k alone or I'll shoot you twice in the face. Somehow though, it just doesn't sound as classy. It lacks a certain.....a certain.....  je ne sais quoi.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

That's why "diplomatic notes" and "Formal protests" are a waste of time, no one but the frogs know what the hell you said, and since it's in french, no one cares.
Kick 'em in the nuts, ain't NO misunderstanding that.

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

I agree M58, you're just probably not going to like the way agree with you.   The ultra-sound requirement is an infringement. So is any requirement for more than an instant background check to own and carry (as in keep and bare) a gun. Don't make me pass a class (though I think they are useful) to carry concealed. Don't make a woman pay for a medical procedure that she doesn't want (though this might change her mind and that would be a good thing). Still, it is a violation of individual rights either way and the state has no right to demand it. What part of lassiez faire laissez-faire do folks have a problem with?
FQ13

Where exactly in the US Constitution is the "right" to an abortion enumerated? I know a bunch of white liberal activist judges said it's there, but in all my looking, I still can't find it. The right to keep and bear arms (jeesh, FQ, learn to spell, "Professor"!) is very clearly laid out in Amendment 2.

FQ - illiterate in a minimum of 2 languages, perhaps more. How's your Spanish? On second thought, never mind . . .

[BAC]

If that's the case, then the 6 billion page healthcare "reform" is unconstitutional because it places an undue financial burden on all Americans (those of us that actually pay for things themselves) by forcing us to purchase insurance in order to comply with the law.  Welcome to socialism, my friends.   

[jnevis]

If that's the case, then the 6 billion page healthcare "reform" is unconstitutional because it places an undue financial burden on all Americans (those of us that actually pay for things themselves) by forcing us to purchase insurance in order to comply with the law.  Welcome to socialism, my friends.   

Actually that does open a discussion point:
If the courts have determined the unconstitutionality of the ultra-sound requirement, then that is case law to have the health care disaster reviewed.  Using the same "reasonable man" and "undue burden" test, it goes away.

[MikeBjerum]

Everything with this administration is about health care.

It is just one big prostate exam.

Drop your drawers, bend over and grab your ankles 

[ericire12]

What about being required to pay the $500+ for a handgun and then the cost of ammo so that you can exercise your right?

What about govt supplying me with a reasonable quality holster so I can CCW?

If they are going to throw me in jail if a kid gets ahold of my gun and kills someone, then shouldnt they buy me a big old honkin gun safe to lock everything up?