By Bryan Caskey
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a case in front of the Supreme Court concerning a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Since Roe, all the court’s abortion decisions have upheld Roe‘s central framework — that women have a constitutional right to an abortion in the first two trimesters. However, the Mississippi law is counter to the core of Roe, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to modify Roe, or do away with it altogether.
If you want to hear the oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s official audio transcript is here.
You can’t always tell from oral arguments what Supreme Court Justices are thinking, much less where they will land in a final decision, but it’s nice to hear the questions they ask. You learn much more about the Justices actually watching them do their job at oral arguments than you get from the Senate confirmation hearings that are essentially an opportunity for Senators to grandstand and audition to be President.
I have no idea what the Supreme Court will do.
Related Posts
Now this is what I would call a controversial topic.
I think it will stand and never be challenged again. Too established in the public domain. If it were to be seriously challenged, it would have been within a couple of years after the SCOTUS decision. Almost 50 years since the decision and yet, it still stands.
Personally, I think it is as much a stain on the fabric of this nation as slavery was but that is my opinion. The conundrum is the same people who are hard core supporters of Roe v. Wade are just as hard core and adamant objecting to capital punishment when the criminal has committed heinous crimes against humanity like mass murder. Will the pro-abortion/anti-capital object to executing the murderer of nine innocent people in a church or will they demand justice by execution?
Either way, it involves the taking or ending of a life.
Think about the composition of the Court if Justice Ginsburg had retired in 2013 and 2014 when Democrats could have appointed her successor.
Which is why Breyer is being pressured to retire before Biden loses the chance to replace him. Which is also why we should have an age limit on justices. 83 year olds are too out of touch with society, especially after 30 years on the bench.
Let’s assume the Court overrules Roe and returning abortion laws to the states. That would make the issue of abortion laws irrelevant in Supreme Court confirmations, right? Or would that continue to be a litmus test in the Senate confirmation hearings?
Of course it will always be a litmus test… Supporting the killing of viable human life is a good test of a person’s character.
Of course it won’t stop being a test in confirmation hearings. I can’t believe someone would actually think such a thing. It doesn’t even make sense.
As the country grows more and more diverse, the court will eventually swing back.
In fact, as they were discussing yesterday on SIRIUS radio, this could actually eventually backfire on the anti-choice side because this issue has not been a large motivating factor for pro-choice people like it has anti-choice people. This could very well change that reality.
But it will always be an issue. If the court sends it to the states to decide, a HUGE effort will be made to make sure it eventually gets back to the court to make sure that all women, in every state, have the same rights.
Why should the Supreme Court be the arbiter of those rights? If it’s a balancing act between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, why can’t Mississippi and New York decide differently? The people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently, so why is that not the right answer?
Because we don’t decide rights based off where one lives in the United States, as was stated in court.
People, like me, who believe this is a woman’s right to make a choice about her body, not the government’s choice, will never accept that a poor woman in Mississippi should have less rights than a middle class woman in Des Plaines, Illinois based on what some politicians or government bureaucrats think.
If it was as simple as balancing the rights of the slaveholder and slave, we could have slave holding states in the South and free states in the North.
Isn’t viability an arbitrary line though? It’s certainly a moving target.
It’s somewhat of a moving target, but mainly because states that want to outlaw abortion keep moving the line.
But I don’t believe it should be 15 weeks in one state, 6 weeks in another, outlawed altotgeher in one state, etc.
The number of abortions after 16 weeks is infinitesimally small – usually only because of serious medical abnormalities with the fetus or serious medical risks to the woman.
We have plenty of laws that vary state to state.
and plenty don’t vary at all.
Why are you so focused on penalizing poor people who happen to live in a state that doesn’t offer them a right to make medical decisions over their own body that someone else does offer them?
You don’t have the right to ban gay people from getting married in South Carolina and allow them to get married in Virginia- no matter how many people in South Carolina want to ban it- or how many consider it against their whatever their religion or denomination happens to be.
So you wanna go full Clarence Thomas, do ya? Ok, then let’s just follow that denial of incorporation to its logical conclusion. If state-level differences in interests should prevail, why stop at abortion? Maybe there’d be states in which the majority wants to end gay marriage. Or even revive sodomy laws. Or maybe they might want to end anti-discrimination laws — bring back just a little bit of segregation. For the good of everybody, y’know. Or why not just go whole hog and have states declare official religions. I mean, if they really wanna, why not let’em? “Justice” Thomas has at least suggested that might be ok. Let freedumb ring!
Because the other cases you’re mentioning are rights grounded in the Constitution.
If autonomy over one’s body isn’t foundational to the Constitution, then we have a problem. According to an orginalist reading, the founders wouldn’t even understand the anti-abortion stance.
And it makes no more sense today than it would have then.
Pretend that this is about an issue that directly impacts white, middle age men and then see how far this idea would fly. It wouldn’t. Beating up on young, often disadvantaged, women is a strange way to demonstrate one’s moral manhood.
But the problem arises when the autonomy of one person over their body conflicts with the right of the child to live.
So how do you enforce the baby’s rights?
In Roe, the Court considered the point at which state interests, including the interest in fetal life, were sufficient to override the rights of the pregnant woman.
After painstakingly evaluating the “medical and medical-legal history” of abortion and the “logical and biological justifications” of viability, the Court settled on the viability line.
So you are ok with women’s freedom to choose up to the point of viability?
After that, then what?
Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, it’s not something the Constitution commands a decision on.
Sounds like Kavanaugh’s maunderings about court neutrality. But there can be no neutrality here. Even a decision by the court to remain neutral de facto renders a decision.
Nonsense. Not at all.
Bryan wrote
“Maybe. Maybe not. The point is, it’s not something the Constitution commands a decision on.
The constitution doesn’t command a decision on many things that we clearly have decisions on – and I’m sure some are you are perfectly ok with that- depending on the issue. (Funny how that works)
The U.S. Constitution is brief and vague.
and it certainly doesn’t demand that women give up their right to their own body so some state legislators in South Carolina can pay themselves on the back because they made them subject themselves to possible death.
“and it certainly doesn’t demand that women give up their right to their own body so some state legislators in South Carolina can pay themselves on the back because they made them subject themselves to possible death.”
Perhaps. But it certainly doesn’t prohibit states (or Congress) from passing laws prohibiting it.
“Sounds like Kavanaugh’s maunderings about court neutrality. But there can be no neutrality here. Even a decision by the court to remain neutral de facto renders a decision.”
Of course- Bryan is wrong.
Kavanaugh’s anti abortion position is clear. We know that because in the Bush administration he was working to undermine the right of women to seek abortion services.
There is nothing neutral about Kavanaugh’s views or role here.
We know that from Kavanaugh’s own record. He was forced to confront the abortion question in 2017 after the Trump administration barred an undocumented minor from seeking the abortion that she wanted.
He purposefully came up with a silly, convoluted scenario he referred to as a compromise when he tried to say the government forcing the young woman to go to an anti abortion pregnancy center.
He purposefully proposed a scenario that would have forced the young woman to delay her choice to seek an abortion until it was illegal where she was at – Texas.
He also proposed forcing her to transfer her to an immigration sponsor – despite her lawyer’s stating on the record that had already spent weeks trying to find a vetted sponsor and that trying to continue this process would needlessly delay her own choice.
Thankfully, his opinion was overturned and the young lady was able to get the abortion she had chosen.
It was laughable that Kavanaugh advocated for neutrality- and it was laughable for him to say the Trump administration simply “wished to help the young woman navigate the abortion decision. LOL
right………
that from Mr. Neutrality himself.
“But it certainly doesn’t prohibit states (or Congress) from passing laws prohibiting it.”
or gay marriage – yet here we are.
Hmm….
In the 51st state of Bryan, what would the Bryan state government allow in a specific situation where a baby whose ability to live is evaluated to be less than 5% due to documented grave medical issues but whose continued presence in the body of the mother is judged by the treating physicians to likely cause her serious, irreversible medical harm or worse?
Sure. That’s an easy hypothetical. A child that has a 5% chance of being born alive vs. serious harm to the mother weighs in favor of allowing the physician to save the mother’s life.
But I’ll give you a hypothetical in return:
Would you allow a healthy mother with no medical complications to abort a child with a 100% chance of being born healthy in the 30th week of her pregnancy because she’s decided that being pregnant is hurting her social life?
” A child that has a 5% chance of being born alive vs. serious harm to the mother weighs in favor of allowing the physician to save the mother’s life.”
What is the physicians disagree? A woman in a rural area has 1-2 doctors available to her. One might not even be an OB/GYN but a family practice doctor.
One doctor says the woman will be ok, the other says she is facing serious medical consequences?
How easy it is then Bryan? I’m interested in your solution.
Now, what if the physician you are asked to see is a doctor that believes women should be willing to risk it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/the-lily/antiabortion-doctor-obgyn-care/
I answered your hypothetical and proposed one to you. I don’t see where you’ve answered mine, and now you’ve asked me a second, modified hypothetical. Will you answer mine?
My answer to your second, modified hypothetical is still the same. If a medical doctor (that the mother is taking the advice of) says the child “has a 5% chance of being born alive vs. serious harm to the mother” then that weighs in favor of allowing the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
“But I’ll give you a hypothetical in return:
Would you allow a healthy mother with no medical complications to abort a child with a 100% chance of being born healthy in the 30th week of her pregnancy because she’s decided that being pregnant is hurting her social life?”
Since almost 99% of abortions (CDC numbers) take place before 21 weeks, I think reasonable restrictions after viability are legitimate except in some circumstances. I think it’s mostly Conservative, right wing fantasy – and wishful thinking- that healthy moms at 30+ weeks are rushing to terminate their pregnancies because of their “social life” concerns. (Such a description is a revealing Rorschach test in my view)
But of course we aren’t really discussing late term abortions here.
The court cases involve access to pre-viability abortion services.
So back at you Bryan
Which of the 3 women in this article do you want the government to force to give birth?
1) Kate Carson, a teacher in Boston
2) Lindsey Paradiso, a wedding photographer in Virginia
3) Darla Barar, a copyrighter in Texas.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump
So you’re conceding that after 21 weeks, it’s almost a zero number? Then you shouldn’t have any problem making that concession.
I answered that question.
I did notice how you changed the subject from pre-viability (the issue at hand) to late term abortions.
But I answered it anyway.
I also noted that you didn’t answer my question of which of the 3 women in the link I provided you’d force to carry to delivery.
You also wrote
“My answer to your second, modified hypothetical is still the same. If a medical doctor (that the mother is taking the advice of) says the child “has a 5% chance of being born alive vs. serious harm to the mother” then that weighs in favor of allowing the mother to terminate the pregnancy”
So what percentage, in the state of Bryan, regarding the baby’s likelihood of being born alive, does the mother’s concern for her health become not important for Bryan?
10%? 20%?
Tough to do it by percentage. You have to listen to the best medical advice.
Would you support your wife decision to kill your unborn child if she so chose to? What if you were against it and she did it anyway? Would you support your son or daughter’s decision to deny you a grandchild because it was inconvenient for them?
“Would I support her decision?”
That’s a good question- but an easy one- and I have some experience with it- sort of.
There are many decisions I might not agree with my wife on- in a few cases they are pretty major ones- but I’ve never arrived at the conclusion that it should be my decision- not hers- especially when it impacts her body- not mine.
For example, after 3 children, my wife didn’t want anymore. I wanted 1 more. What might be a small issue to some people was a major issue for us. But she chose to make sure this would not be an issue for her going forward. It wasn’t my decision. It was her decision.
I supported it because I believe it’s her body and her decision, not mine.
Yes, I would support the decision of my children to do what they think is best for them and their family. That’s a no brainer.
and not in a trillion years would I say “If only the government and government bureaucrats would have passed a law outlawing it”
My goodness…
“did not want any more”
not anymore. Typing too fast.
Barry, you are a good man. Modern Marriage is a partnership; not at so much historically/anthropologically (women and children were/ARE man chattel).
Hahahaha!! Oh, that’s a good’un!
Thomas and Alito have signaled they would take a case regarding gay marriage.
(Gay marriage, never mentioned in the constitution by the way)
There is no child. That’s the fallacy.
At what point is there a child’s life interest?
Birth. Pretty simple standard. When a baby is no longer reliant on the mother’s body to survive and can breathe on its own.
The idea of hypothetical survival is the problem because its an arbitrary attempt at guestimating a standard.
So under your position, a child/fetus doesn’t acquire any interest in life until he or she is born? So, to be clear, a child in the womb has no interest in life, but moving through the birth canal and exiting the womb confers legal rights?
That’s what born means. Always has. Only in the modern anti-abortion position has the idea that the unborn is a child arisen. I’m not usually a binary thinker; but this is one of those cases where that’s the appropriate standard. From that, this debate squares with all other moral questions. Without it, it is a morass of politics.
It can’t be the interest in a child’s life is based solely on his or her location.
Funny argument considering that states, such as SC, are asserting abortion is a states rights issue…
The mother is a citizen under the constitution. The fetus is just a potential citizen, once born.
Can you imagine if people could claim citizenship from conception? Some would demand the complete shutdown of the tourism industry.
Not even the respondents are making the argument you are making. The respondents concede that prohibitions on abortion after viability are valid. You’re so far to the extreme, that you’re actually saying the central holding of Roe and Casey (drawing the line where the state can protect the interest of the child at viability) doesn’t go far enough.
Roe was a political accommodation in that it tried to find this imaginary line of viability. Taking that route was a major mistake, like previous justices trying to find various ways of measuring white and non-whiteness to determine who was entitled to what human rights. However, once the line for such an artificial distinction was determined, it has been nothing but a death by a thousand cuts the last twenty years as the anti-abortion forces stir up one dust up after another to push their goal further.
Now we can’t go back to the one standard that would align with the constitution – is an infant an independent being in its own right? So yes, Roe is flawed but it is precedent. Too bad the small minority cannot just abide by a “fair” settlement.
Which side is it that you consider to be a “small minority?” Near as I can tell, neither is.
And no, there was not a political accommodation. The court removed the matter from the political realm. Which caused both left and right to fight like hell, from 1973 until today, to politicize the composition of the court. Forget abortion. Say the issue was something else, anything you choose. The fact remains that Roe did more damage to the standing in our system of the Supreme Court as an apolitical arbiter than anything since Dred Scott…
“So yes, Roe is flawed but it is precedent.”
At the time of deciding Brown would you have said: “Separate but equal is flawed, but it is precedent”. Would you say Brown v. Board of Education was wrong to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson?
If not, how is the precedent argument different? Why is some precedent different?
Roe was deeply flawed because it was a 3/5’s political accommodation. Maybe it does need to be overwritten – so everyone can see that the new political re-writing of Constitutional law is even worse than Roe. Then we can go back to a a sensible standard that says a woman’s body is her own. Like “don’t like abortion? Okay, don’t get one.” Remember, those who may need an abortion represent a majority of voters.
If anyone thinks, but my wife, my mother, the ladies at church are pro-life, that is because you have yet to state firmly not only will you continue to talk over their voices, you have gone they whole way to constitutionally devaluing their very being to that of a vessel for your sperm. Then see what will come.
Are you claiming that as a rule, women are uniformly pro-choice?
Gallop asked women – 2021
Do you think abortion should be legal under ANY circumstance? 36%
Legal under certain circumstances? 45%
36+45=81% of women
Illegal? 19% (the % of women who think it should be illegal is the same in 2021 as it was in 1979)
Your math is wrong.
No, yours is.
Gallup polling from 1975 through to today shows that those who wish to ban abortion have never constituted a majority. Far from it. They are generally outnumbered even by those who wish to see it legal in ALL circumstances. And are far outpolled by those who wish to see in remain legal under certain circumstances.
Brad, by political accommodation I meant that the court appears to have sought out a “solution” that pleased none of the justices but which could gain support of a clear majority of the court. So we got Roe and its artificial line on legal viability.
Through our history, the court has moved toward the immutable idea that rights are broad, equal and respectful for all of our citizenry. Sometimes, it just takes the court (and country) a long time to get to these universal truths. We often “know” them long before we become able to acknowledge these appreciations, however. That’s just the human condition; however, some are more hidebound about their prejudices than others. That is also a universal truth.
It has been consistently shown for decades that 15-30% of people are anti-abortion. It’s like an immutable truth, swaying only with the specificity and thrust of the polling question. Do most people think that we should have some regulations about such an important, central and moral question? Of course. That said, for around 2/3rds of the population Roe did that.
I know you “hate” the idea that there are legal issues where some voices carry more weight than others (much else could be said about this but let’s stay on track), but sometimes laws have particular impacts on some more than others. It is easy for the unimpacted to say that the law is fair and just – specifically because it does not inconvenience them, or worse. However, history is clear that this kind of myopia is just a kind of privilege speaking, that at some point for all of us our “liberties” will be the fish in the barrel.
Bryan wrote “Your math is wrong.”
I’m really sorry that the fact that the great majority of women believe that abortions should be legal in all circumstances or legal in most circumstances doesn’t reinforce your own beliefs.
Sorry about that.
What do they say about the facts and feelings?
So if a woman is having contractions, Mark believes this is still the last chance to legally kill the fetus. As long as the baby hasn’t crowned abortion is still an option.
Hi, clearly you just dropped in to deposit this nonsense.
The point is that if Roe is overturned and the Supreme Court allows these existing state provocations to stand, then abortion is effectively outlawed across GOP controlled states. So if you think all abortions should be illegal, then yes, I will hold to the opposite viewpoint. There is a reasonable standard in force now, why do some seem so nihilistically set on proving a point to win a battle when ultimately the war is theirs to lose? Americans want reasonable access to abortions. Always have, always will. It’s part of the human condition and universal. No one wants abortion to occur, but it is a reality of life and, frankly, more a woman’s decision than it is the domain of the state.
Save your uninformed blather. Very few late term abortions occur, those that do seem to be related to the kinds of tragic circumstances no one would rightly wish upon another. Like, would you demand abortions be restricted from the 12 year old girl raped and traumatized by her father? Or the mother who learns from her doctor that her fetus is terribly deformed; will suffer greatly once born and is likely to die within days? Because those are the kinds of late-term abortions that do occur. Perhaps you should educate yourself, Mr Pseudonym.
So Mark Stewart would support aborting a fetus during the 8th month of pregnancy. Does Mark know how abortion doctors perform those abortions? Would he be willing to stand there and witness one being performed?
He’s already answered your question above in detail.
Posting this question again seems pointless.
But on point for SDII.
“ At what point is there a child’s life interest?”
, I certainly would never claim the life inside the mom supersedes her own rights, against her own wishes.
Ok. So let’s say the child’s life doesn’t supercede the mother’s? Does the child’s life merit any consideration at all prior to birth?
Sure. That’s what the trimester construct is all about: defining where society’s interest enters in. That construct is the gold standard, as far as I’m concerned.
The notion of viability isn’t at all new. Even the Bible contains references to “quickening” of relevance to this issue. And it differentiates in terms of punishments for violence against pregnant women. To wit: if the violence results in the death of the fetus, it incurs a fine. If it results in the death of the woman, the death penalty is the punishment. So, even in Bible times folks drew a distinction between the born and unborn.
She was a good justice who deserved to serve out her term. Same with Scalia, as much as his views were overall wrong. The same cannot be said of the tainted three – nor of their current two other compatriots. It is a weak, corrupt court today, the likes of which we have not seen for over 100 years and it is a stain on the country. The founding Federalists would laugh in derision at the Federalist Society and it’s bitter smallness. They have nowhere to go but down; squealing all the way, no doubt.
Elections have consequences. Too bad Democrats put up lazy Hillary to run against Trump.
Too bad the electorate did not heed the pre-election warnings about Trump. You hate Hillary; I just don’t care for her. Whatever she was, she was not the deranged Trump and his sh#tshow. Nearly every person has had a personal experience with someome close to them having a serious mental illness/instability. Therefore, how did the electorate not recognize the issue, even through all the pandering?
Trump is not normal politics. Stop framing him as comparable, Doug. All politicians have narcissistic personalities, true. But they do understand and generally adhere to social boundaries. Trump is just a cancer. A menace. That you continue to mainstream him in your commentary is reprehensible.
And yet despite being an obnoxious buffoon, voters chose Trump over Hillary (please don’t go down an electoral college rathole). He won, she lost and the court reflects that reality. Hillary could have won if she tried harder instead of assuming it was locked up.
And so the world hasn’t fallen apart as much as some hoped. Life went on and will continue to go on as Joe Biden sleepwalks through the next three years. The small percentage of voters who flipped the election to Trump flipped it back to Biden and will control what happens in 2024 while the partisan right and left continue to waste their time .
Why does everyone incorrectly say the voters chose Trump? No. They. Didn’t. You can say Trump became president based on our anti democratic election rules. But its just false to say the voters chose Trump. But whatever Doug. You are the most cynical human being I’ve ever come in contact with. Your “arguments” ooze with provocative nonsense aimed not at any sort of constructive debate but rather merely to insult. So have at it. But don’t expect anyone to have a modicum of respect for your juvenile rants. Its all just background noise to me.
I’ll try to go on without your support. All I do is bring facts to the debate. Trump won under the rules set forth in the constitution. He won, Hillary lost of her own doing. She got outworked and outsmarted by a blowhard con man. And she and people like you just couldn’t accept it — making up all kinds of excuses. Now you’ve got a dementia bound low energy puppet in place to hand the presidency back to Republicans because the Democrats are just a bunch of splinter organizations each looking for a cut of the pie. Breyer will hang on until it’s too late and the next Republican president will replace him. Enjoy!
Let’s stop re-litigating the 2016 election.
It has been almost thirty years since the Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion first recognized in Roe v. Wade. Only one justice who participated in Casey is still on the court now: Clarence Thomas.
Change “possibly” to “likely” under a court now more reactionary than it’s been in living memory. Think “reactionary” too strong a word? Well, it’s not just mine, none other than former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried has used that term to describe the current court.
So, yes, this reactionary court is likely to overturn Roe. Which will in turn prompt states across the South and elsewhere to either ban it outright or to put up limits that effectively ban it. Which will achieve nothing other than make it much harder for poor women to obtain abortions. At which point folks like me will join any effort to help those women travel to states where they can safely obtain them. We will create an underground railroad to transport these women to the free states, like Maryland and Illinois. The moralizers will not succeed.
It’s a shame you won’t put the same effort, Harriet Tubman Jr, into counseling young poor women to stop getting pregnant when they can’t afford a baby. Guess it’s too much to ask of them to be responsible pre-pregnancy. Easier to just flush the fetus after.
It’s not mutually exclusive. Pregnancy support groups come in all sizes and styles.
Another example – Many liberals support making the morning after pill much more available to young women so that an abortion isn’t even necessary. Some liberal groups raise money to help defray the costs of the medication as well and have worked hard to lower barriers so women can access the medication and know how it works so they are aware of it’s availability, function, and time sensitivity.
Otherwise, it’s not cheap- often costing about $50. That’s not much money to us, but it can be a lot for a 17,18,19 year old girl – or someone in poverty. Some stores, in some states, make it hard to find, and hard to buy- requiring the customer to ask a store employee to retrieve it for them behind the counter- even though it is an over the counter medication. Again, no big deal for someone like me or my wife, but a big deal for a scared, shy, nervous young girl.
Some stores have even been known to tell customers that a prescription is required. (It’s not- since 2013). This is known because there are groups that go in to buy the medication to test how easy it is for women to buy the over the counter medication and report their findings.
Regarding Roe
I fully expect the Court to reject Roe and Casey. The hearing yesterday seemed to lean heavily in that direction. I was reminded of the reporting- that was not disputed- that Kavanaugh told Senator Susan Collins in a private meeting that Roe was “settled law” but in his questioning yesterday, it was clear he didn’t believe such a thing. So he lied either with Sen Collins or yesterday. Not sure which.
Regardless, I think the result will be to leave it up to states on how to handle abortion. In states like South Carolina, abortion will be illegal in most all cases. In some states, abortion will be illegal even in the cases of rape. (except for politicians, of course, who will travel to access those services as needed).
As stated above, most middle class people and upper income people will not really be impacted the court decision as they, like me, can easily travel and access the proper medical services if needed. This is especially true for middle and upper income people that live in cities, or near cities as they will have simple access to major airports and multiple abortion providers.
Some states will even expand abortion services to attract people from states where the medical procedure is banned. In fact, some states are already pursuing this path.
Those that will not have those rights will be poor women, especially, as one of the attorneys said yesterday to the court- minority women.
If you own a cellphone, you can afford a pill to terminate a pregnancy. And you know what’s cheaper? Abstinence, rhythm method, pulling out, and condoms. Imagine if abortions were limited to only pregnancies that occured accidentally.
I’m not sure if real life works that way, especially since some young people, my son tells me, struggle to pay their cell phone bill.
My 18 year old told me that some of his friends have their cell phones constantly being turned off and back on because they have a tough time paying their bill.
The idea of that surprised me but apparently it is pretty common.
I don’t think the pill being $50 is always the major impediment for the pill. I think the major impediment is that some states and some companies have made the pill difficult to obtain.
Certainly abstinence is an option, but many young people, and most adults reject it as a realistic option. That’s not unusual. Most of their parents rejected it too.
The others you mention are options, but of course human beings make mistakes and accidents do happen. Most Americans believe that the woman is better equipped to make the decision for her body that government bureaucrats. But I realize some people want the government bureaucrats to be able to make the choice for a woman.
Plus, not every abortion is a result of unplanned sex. My aunt and her husband, at the age of about 30, made the decision to abort for personal medical reasons. Thank goodness they did because my beautiful cousin was born about 2 years later. I love playing with her 2 kids around the holidays when they come to visit.
Agree Ken. Good post.
The moralizes will continue to moralize of course. But let’s be clear, they have zero actual constructive ideas for reducing abortions. It’s all about name calling. Pro choice folks are baby murderers. Never mind their approach makes it harder to get birth control. What a vile bunch.
I’m still waiting to hear conservatives say they will foot the bill for raising a child of a mother who decides against abortion. Currently the bill for raising a child from age 0 to age 18 is just under $300,000. Seems like it should get at least a few conservative takers. Oh wait, I forgot, they don’t believe in actually paying the actual value of family values, all they do is talk about them.
Doesn’t every state allow for safe harbor surrender of a child?
How about requiring the impregnator in such cases to foot the bill for the mother’s care and maintenance during the pregnancy? Or having the state cover it.
Yeah, every anti-abortion activist would say how about those morning after pills – let’s give them out like candy.
You mean like child support?
If it were only that easy.
My wife’s best friend just went through a divorce where 3 children were involved.
My wife’s friend has serious issues affording an attorney, what a mess and she’s a college educated accountant.
Some of the answers you folks have are alternate reality solutions. My goodness.
Don’t get me started on the South Carolina Child Support System – FUBAR for YEARS!
Go find your own candidate for support and cough up that $300,000, son.
Then we’ll talk.
Wait, what you we talking about?
What you just scratched out is coming through rather garbled.
What I’m talking about:
The potential abortees you save by promising to pony up the roughly $300,000 needed to see them through to legal maturity. You can even get bonus points by throwing in a college education! You’re saving a life, aren’t you? So you say. That should be cheap at any price!
Maybe teen boys could replace that condom in their wallet with a $50 bill. At least it’s be worth something after sitting there for 6 years.
There was a good answer for that in court
Julie Rikelman, an attorney for Jackson Women’s Health, replied that forced pregnancy “imposes unique physical demands and risk on women and in fact has impact on all of their lives, on their ability to care for other children, other family members, on their ability to work.”
It’s so odd that Amy Coney Barrett and Bryan both mention safe surrender laws like that is the issue for a young girl not wanting to have a baby after second guessing herself, or maybe experiencing medical problems, or even after possibly being assaulted.
I have no doubt well off people – people with means, people with many options think those are the same issue. They aren’t of course.
When my wife heard of that line of reasoning, she was almost yelling telling me that’s not the same issue. I agree.
Such a disturbingly myopic, self-satisfied and naive view. As if carrying a child to term in no way involves even the slightest of burdens.
Isn’t that public school, Medicaid, food stamps, section 8 housing, free school lunch, Pell grants? There already is a safety net for poor people who make the disastrous decision to bring a baby into poverty.
I thought Justice Kavanaugh did a good job clarifying the issue. At one point during oral arguments, he said:
“The problem, I think the other side would say, and the reason this issue is hard, is that you can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem,”
“And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time, and that’s why this is so challenging, I think. And the question then becomes, what does the Constitution say about that?”
Nah, that’s framed to benefit his own personal choice.
They don’t have to pick.
No individual is forced to do anything under current law. It’s 100% the individual’s decision. Someone’s decision might not be my decision. But that’s the case in nearly everything.
Those that are against women having the right to choose an abortion can work every day to help them make another choice. They can’t force them to do anything. But they can try to convince them, encourage them, support them, care for them, etc..
Those that are for women having the right to choose an abortion can work every day to help them, support them, encourage them, care for them to choose what is best for them without worrying about what the government is going to force them to do- possibly against their will where they have no choice.
Safe, Online, Delivered: How to Get the Abortion Pill By Mail:
https://nwhn.org/safe-online-delivered-how-to-get-the-abortion-pill-by-mail/
Except maybe soon in Texas.
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want
Abortion practices, debates, and laws initially developed quite similarly in Europe and the U.S., but at the turn of the twentieth century, cultural attitudes began to diverge. While Europeans continued to believe that abortion was a desperate act of unfortunate women, some powerful Americans began to argue that abortion was an immoral act of sinful women. These divergent perceptions of abortion and the women who have them still affect abortion debates and legislation on both sides of the Atlantic.
Historically, abortion policy has revolved around three main players: government officials, women, and medical practitioners.
The historical record also shows that, for thousands of years, women have limited the number of the children they bore through pregnancy prevention, abortion, and infanticide. Abortion was only recently outlawed, and then only for a period of roughly 100 years. When women did not have legal access to abortion services they still found ways (albeit often unsafe ways) to end unwanted pregnancies.
good post.
I’ve actually done a bit of studying on the issue of abortion regarding Christianity. Abortion was always nuanced. It hasn’t always been seen as “obviously wrong” as some Christians these days pretend.
Pretty good article on the subject- https://theconversation.com/christian-attitudes-surrounding-abortion-have-a-more-nuanced-history-than-current-events-suggest-162560
But the fact is – Abortion will always be around. It will be either safe, or unsafe. Folks who want an abortion are not going to let a court stop them. They never have before. They certainly won’t now.
“some powerful Americans began to argue that abortion was an immoral act of sinful women.”
A key aspect of American Christianity has been shame and control. There have been few better ways to shame someone than call them sinful. Of course it really doesn’t work. One reason is the people doing the shaming are seen as committing so many sins themselves, they are just seen as hypocrites. (Like the pro life politician a few years ago that was trying to get his mistress to have an abortion). But people keep trying.
Sadly, I use to sort of think that way. But I learned a few important lessons from women in my life.
1) My dad told me of my aunt’s abortion in the early 1980s for medical reasons. She’s never regretted it. She’s talked about it only a few times that I know of. She regrets it was necessary. My aunt is a gentle, wonderful soul who has worked her entire life helping everyone around her, often at the expense of herself. Anyone pointing their fingers at her as a terrible human being.
2) My wife telling me that more women than I realize in our circle of friends (including church) actually have had an abortion. Of course it’s not something most people go around talking about. This pretty much confirms some of the statistics I’ve seen about how many women have had an abortion.
My wife sees it the same way I do- we hope no woman has to choose an abortion. We hope that she doesn’t need one. We both hope all women have safe, easy, affordable access to medication so that an abortion isn’t necessary. But we sure don’t want the government preventing it – in most cases.
I believe abortion was actually banned or severely restricted in Europe well into the 20th century. So that part of the story may need some revision.
But the motivation for abortion bans that came about in the US in the late 19th century stemmed in part from white fears over the waves of immigration to the US during that period — involving immigrants who weren’t white, or were of a swarthier complexion (southern and southeastern Europeans). The aim of the bans, then, was the preservation of white supremacy (in numbers) against this foreign influx.
Puritans were major white “founders” of the New World. We/They MESSED IT UP!
Yes, and you’ll see more and more of this. There will be a growing black market.
I much prefer safe, legal, and rare but I’d the court changes the system now, you’ll see a major push to make sure these pills are accessible everywhere- even if on the black market.
All of which just makes him a poor negotiator. There is always a win-win to be found. It just takes work and the kind of humanistic spirit Kavanaugh appears not to possess.
Can you expand on your statement that Justice Kavanaugh doesn’t have a humanist spirit?
His confirmation hearing made clear all that was obvious about him to that point. We can all evolve, so I remain cautiously optimistic Kavanaugh can grow into a better version of his younger self.
He does have much to regret, that’s for sure.
If, heaven forbid, one of Judge Kavanaugh’s family members needed the services of an abortion provider, I think we all understand the services would be there for him.
Again, it will always be available for people like him. Just not poor people.
Pro-Life Republican House Representative Tim Murphy Pressured Mistress to Get Abortion
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-04/pro-life-rep-tim-murphy-pressured-mistress-to-get-abortion
Am I the only one that finds it interesting that there is not a single response from a woman on this thread?
There’s no regular women commenters.
And this is not odd to you in any way? I will refrain from commenting on the subject of abortion here, other than to point out that what a bunch of over 40 white dudes think about it is pretty irrelevant and irreverent, in my humble opinion.
So, under-40s are relevant?
I don’t think someone’s race or gender should prevent them from having an intelligent opinion.
If that’s your position, are there any other issues or topics where women or people of color have irrelevant points of view we shouldn’t consider?
You both miss my point. A bunch of middle aged white guys arguing about a women‘s health issue is not appealing to me. No matter how clever or well informed everyone here thinks they and their opinions are, I do not care what you think about abortion rights. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.
I do ask Bryan for his professional opinion as a lawyer as to whether Kavanaugh’s answer in his confirmation hearing that Roe was “settled as precedent” was a lie?
“I do ask Bryan for his professional opinion as a lawyer as to whether Kavanaugh’s answer in his confirmation hearing that Roe was “settled as precedent” was a lie?”
I’ll be happy to give you my professional opinion as a lawyer for $400/hour. 🙂
Touché! I’ll give you $8 for a simple yes or no.
Yeah, but I’m going to need a retainer.
‘ll take care of the retainer; 2 dollars?
Most women don’t get caught up in this issue as much as middle aged men do.
Oh sure, you have your activists but I’m talking about just your regular, normal folks.
My wife asked Was fired up a little when she first heard about this case but then finally just asked me one overriding question:
She asked me if something happened with our daughter, would we work together, go anywhere to give her the freedom and choice she deserves over her own body.
She knew the answer of course. I said we could and would travel to any country, any state in a matter of 24 hours to do what we need to do. My daughter knows that too. She was happy and then she moved on from the issue.
Guy is correct. This blog is exactly what it is. ANd at times confusing and frustrating.
Too much binary thinking. I am lucky (I guess) to think in terms of probability – Bud is most likely “like” me.
We can be relatively confident of our consciousness once we are born; anytime prior the “confidence interval” decreases.
Brad has stated how much he dislikes statistics, well, ok, but ….
DILEMMAS. All y’all are entertaining me prior to the Utah game; they win, I am Rose Bowl Bound!
FINALLY! GO UTES! GUN VIOLENCE SUCKS! TJ & AL!
Why bother? These fake ‘debates’ have NOTHING to do with abortion:
Yes. Sigh (Strutting??).
One wonders whether Bryan will regret, or congratulate, himself for having brought this up. It is, unfortunately, not a topic that lends itself to civil debate.
But as long as he did, let me share this column this week from Ross Douthat, another pro-life guy who has not given up, for which I congratulate him.
The headline is “The Case Against Abortion“…
If you would like to hear a rational, civil debate, I would encourage you to listen to the oral arguments in Dobbs. It’s really rather refreshing to hear it discussed in an intelligent manner.
I read most of it. Same ole tired argument from the Conservative side of the aisle. Nothing new. Sort of stale.
I prefer this column a bit more in The Post – What the Conservative Arguments Against Abortion Get All Wrong
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/supreme-court-abortion-conservative-argument-wrong/
But as always, no matter what happens, folks with money will be just fine and can seek whatever services they need to seek. At least for my daughter, There will be no changes.
Yes.
Serves little purpose. I’ve read or heard any number of these anti-abortion opinions. (And the NYTimes paywall doesn’t allow access.) Besides, you’ve made it clear on several occasions that you don’t take seriously any of the arguments put forward by those who believe abortion should remain a legal option.
Anyone is free to be pro-life. Just so long as they don’t want to take the abortion option away from everyone else. Plus, as I’ve already pointed out, you won’t accomplish anything much of substance. Banning it in some places merely serves as a kind of onanistic moralizing.
Don’t plant your seed in cement:
Yes.
My Utes won. Rose Bowl Parade – Rose Bowl. Am I dreaming? Thanks for the fish!
“Insane in the membrane – insane in the brain!”
Congrats on the win. The Rose Bowl game is definitely a Bucket List item for me. Hope you get the chance to go see your team play there and take it.
Thanks Bryan; may not sleep. I have season tickets to St. Bonaventure (Bona UB later tonight); will miss the blizzard in Orchard Park Monday when the Bills host the hated Pats. Lake effect – snow; the Bills should have the advantage.
There is a very cynical, dark Bob; I show it at times. I do my best to choose hope and happiness.
This so much happier: “Spectral Mornings! The Human Soul; letting go. May each new dawn always be yours.
Steve Hackett played with Genesis. This song was actually released on his third studio album (1979) as an instrumental.
I am not alone; there is always hope!
Rear Admiral Warthen would agree. My angel mother “Ma” is a Korean War Veteran, as is my angel Dad. They report the posthumous promotion was immediate.
This blog is ok; that idea is not “entirely” mine!
Ken,
I fear some real political violence when the court overturns Roe (not to mention we will start to see a large rise in women getting more abortions from the black market).
I think we are headed for some very rough times.
As I’ve said many times, it won’t impact me or my daughter or friends of mine with daughters. We discussed it some this past weekend. The folks I know have already mentioned that they, like me, can easily travel anywhere at the drop of a hat.
So the court decision won’t impact me and the folks I know either way.
Who will be perpetrating this political violence?
Is political violence different than like…regular violence?
Is yours a serious question?
Here is the easily found definition
“Political violence is violence which is perpetrated in order to achieve political goals.”
Oh, people from both sides of the issue would be equally on the hook.
Political violence begets political violence.
I mean we do have a record of abortion clinic bombings in the United States from right wingers. I don’t think anyone is above reproach here.
and many women are not going to be forced, by some right wing politicians, to do things with their own bodies that they do not want to do. That just won’t happen.
So the stage for such awful things as political violence is set up well and plans should be put in place now for dealing with such acts. Of course, it won’t stop women from getting abortions, but hopefully it will keep people from hurting people to any great extent.
The dumb abortion argument and case dominates everything as usual, and no one changes their mind- ever.
Meantime, more school kids shot this week and now dead.
One of these young people look a lot like my 18 year old senior. This is a national tragedy and no one gives a damn.
Oxford High School students Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Tate Myre, 16, and Justin Shilling, 17, and Hana St. Juliana, 14, were killed in a school shooting.
School districts in South Carolina are finding more and more guns at school.
As the mom of the murderer in Michigan was reported to have texted to her son when bullets were found on him at school, “ “LOL I’m not mad at you,” Jennifer Crumbley texted her son. “You have to learn not to get caught.”
All lives matter. People do care. Why would you think people don’t care about murder victims?
Not everybody cares; I wish they did. But so many do; let the Mothers (with the sperm donor if they happens to be around) make the call on this, case by case, family by family. Isn’t that true choice?
I’ll repeat myself just so i was clear
“ This is a national tragedy and no one gives a damn.”
“The adults have proven they are unwilling to move beyond thoughts and prayers. I am tired of sitting around while adults do nothing.” Eden, 12th grader in Iowa City, Iowa
What do you propose doing?
The United States has a culture of violence problem, especially with younger people who have grown up around guns, and see guns all the time, and even see some of those in leadership essentially worshipping guns.
There are a few things that would be worth trying.
Make illegal gun possession a felony in every state with a minimum 10 year prison sentence.
Do not allow folks that illegally possess a gun to plead it down to a misdemeanor.
Pass a federal law that says those with guns are required to keep them secured in a safe manner. For those that don’t, hold them criminally responsible with several penalties.
A business owner where I live was caught illegally possessing a gun when he was arrested for a violent domestic violence incident. The man’s wife was transported to the hospital with what police said were severe injuries. The police investigated and found the man had numerous weapons in his possession. He’s a convicted felon and is not allowed to possess firearms.
State officials did not purse charges against him for illegally owning guns. No idea why they didn’t. I’ve tried to find out- going so far as to contact a local elected official and they were as perplexed as I was.
In South Carolina, a person convicted of strong-arm robbery is legally allowed to possess a firearm under South Carolina . Numerous law enforcement agencies have pleaded with the GOP controlled General Assembly in Columbia to change this law – with no luck.
In cities like Columbia that have gang problems, a more aggressive approach is needed. Anyone possessing an illegal gun that is proven to be in a gang should go to jail for 20 years- min mandatory.
Change legislation so we can truly study Gun Violence epidemiologically. The NRA WAS about gun safety. Many people made good money changing their mission to the “right to bear arms.”
Part of the “Southern Strategy.”
Thinking of my friend Tom Turnipseed – he loved telling his Lee Atwater – Jumper Cables Story.
As a gun owner, who owns more guns that most of the “gun rights supporters” that I know, we have one political party that is not remotely interested in considering this subject on any level.
So we are stuck.
As a gun owner, I’m quick to point out that guns are almost worshipped in Conservative and Republican political culture. They are an idol in the biblical sense. They carry virtually the same weight as the family bible (actually, the gun is utilized a lot more than the dusty family bible).
In my family, owning a gun was an important responsibility. You didn’t “show off” your guns unless you were hunting with someone or they were in their proper and safe location in your home.
You certainly didn’t leave then in your vehicle parked in the driveway overnight. (Law enforcement in SC tells us that this is the major source of illegal firearms in our state- and it’s an ongoing, major problem that continues to be a major problem)
and you certainly don’t ao what Republican Congressman Ralph Norman did in 2018 when he pulled out a loaded pistol (against SC law) at constituent meeting at a restaurant in Rock Hill.
Not one woman commenting. Not one. A LOT biased.
Tell that to Kyle Rittenhouse’s victims.
I will add that I am seeing s9me promising news. The SCOTUS will reverse Roe and Casey. We know that.
I am seeing a lot of support and planning for groups online to come together to be able to Orchestrate and schedule numerous options for women to be able to travel, by air in most cases, out of states to seek medical help in rushed situations For abortion services should they so desire. This appears to be a very good way to make the Court decision a moot one.
Now this will take a lot of planning and funding but it looks like numerous groups are already lining up these services, along with the funding to make it happen. Major money is staring to roll in with even some purported help from a number of folks like billionaires activists. This is good news.
Obviously it’s awful for women to have to go through this additional work but when rights are taken away, the only acceptable response is to triple your efforts to go around any barriers religious conservatives want to put up to these services and rights.
As I read, religious folks lost the abortion argument on the merits, so they are going to use the courts and law. Ok. Well, we will get around that barrier.
No wonder church attendance keeps sinking like a rock and will continue to do so.
One question. I keep reading here about how if Roe is overturned it will be left to the states to decide. But most reporting on the case coming from legal experts says it will be up to the state or *Congress* to decide. So isn’t it possible that Congress could pass a nation-wide anti-abortion law?
Yes, if Roe was overturned and we went back to the status quo ante, Congress could possibly pass a federal law regarding abortion.
Congress, at any point since roe, could’ve passed a federal law about abortion- but that hasn’t happened
Just like they could’ve passed a law guaranteeing same sex marriage- but of course that never happened
By the way, our bes public polling is very clear: a majority of Americans support both, but our representative democracy is not very representative.
Congress could pass a law guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage right now but the Republicans in the Senate would kill it despite the large majority of Americans supporting it
Congress could pass a law now regarding the right for abortion services, but Republicans in the senate would kill it despite the majority of Americans supporting it.
If only we could get rid of that troublesome Senate!
Governing, even as Chief Justice, is tough. Listen to the arguments carefully – especially Justice Sotomayor. Has the word “stench” ever been used as the Justice used it? It seems NO!
Chief Justice Roberts must find a compromise until this issue is “codified.” We can’t get rid of the “troublesome Senate.”
I did swear an oath to the Constitution. Perhaps some day I will share the story of my maternal great Grandfather. A contemporary of Suasa? Perhaps; I can play that instrument and did in the Navy’s Aviation Officer Candidate School (I faked it to my musician brothers out there – hadn’t played in 7-8 years).
Any moment away from Staff Sergeant Macias, USMC. Music and learning leadership with my Brothers. I played my guitar at night; soothing myself and my three roomates.
Enough. I do use this blog as a journal FYI. I am off the Cuba (not the Island; the Goddess); winter approaches. Time to “hunker down.”
Conservatives have fallen in love with minoritarian preemption. For you all, it’s all about raw power. The Supreme Court being the latest example. The stench of fascistoid ascendancy is obviously quite alluring to your set.
One issue and sore spot with the court will continue to be the increasing diversity in the United States- which clearly isn’t reflected on the court.
Not just diversity in terms of men, women, race, etc..
But the country is growing increasingly liberal from a social point of view- and will continue to do so.
The Court isn’t designed to be representative of the population. It’s designed to be a court. Get the best jurists. That’s the only metric.
If you’re looking for something representative of the people of the United States, may I suggest the House of Representatives?
But of course in reality, the court does respond to public opinion- when they chose to do so. The American public understands that fact.
Again, the SCOTUS overturns decisions by Congress. so passage through the House is not some magic bean.
The court, in an increasing number of decisions specifically mentions the changing opinion and acceptance of certain cultural attitudes, opinions, and actions of the public.
“Scholars increasingly acknowledge a contemporaneous relationship between public opinion and Supreme Court decisions”
Excerpt from…
“How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court”
Casillas, Christopher J.; Enns, Peter K.; Wohlfarth, Patrick C. American Journal of Political Science, October 2010.
and from… “The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making” Blackstone, Bethany; Vining Jr., Richard L. Journal of Politics,
“Recent research indicates that, in addition to this indirect effect, Supreme Court justices respond directly to changes in public opinion.”
Good comment Ken.
Oh, I don’t mind the Senate.
I do mind the Senate not being able to get things passed on issues where a clear majority of the country, in some cases over the course of decades, supports the legislation, bill, etc.
Being governed and ruled by the minority opinion on various subjects is ultimately unsustainable.
We are seeing that crack widen now- drastically.
How safe is gay marriage? Advocates fear increasingly conservative court
“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,” Thomas, joined by Alito, wrote. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’” – October 2020
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/fight-against-gay-marriage-still-alive-well-u-s-advocates-n1242272
The whole question of viability is an interesting one. Legally, it’s defined as “the ability for the unborn child to survive outside the mother’s womb.” Note that survivability in this case would include medical intervention. Which means that viability will change as medical advances allow an unborn child to survive earlier in the pregnancy.
GIven this, an interesting thought experiment … if a fetus could survive and be brought to term outside the mother’s womb from the moment of conception on, would people be in favor of making this medical treatment available to all women at little to no cost? Given the Catholic Church’s position on artificial insemination I think I know what the Church’s response would be, but what about others?
^^^^^^^^ YES!
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
All other arguments aside, this is the only issue to be resolved, once and for all and the basis consists of Amendments 9 and 10 taken together in consideration of whether the 1973 decision was correct or a misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The 1973 decision was passed by a majority of Republican nominated members of SCOTUS, they are as follows:
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)
The two dissenting judges were as follows:
Byron White (Kennedy, D)
William Rehnquist (Nixon, R; chief justice under Reagan, R)
The 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey was a compromise but kept the core of Roe v Wade intact. The court at the time was of a diverse set of judges and a new administration, Clinton, was in power. The arguments by three judges were a collusion between them in private that in essence provided the compromise needed to find in favor of Planned Parenthood.
Yet, neither of the cases actually resolved the core issue, state’s rights. The Constitution and Amendments/Bill of Rights does not address the issue of abortion and who has jurisdiction over any perceived privacy laws, rules, or regulations, i.e., the states, or the federal government.
The decisions constitute a precedent or “stare decisis” and therefore will be difficult to overturn using established legal practices. The only decision that should be made is to determine if the court in 1973 infringed on Amendment 9 and 10 and if so, the current court should overturn Roe v Wade. If not, the decision should be to affirm Roe v Wade’s core.
My position is at this point, irrelevant and the ultimate decision should be free of emotion, politics, economics, religion, or conflicting ideologies about anything other than the constitutionality of the 1973 decision. Once decided, then the other factors argued by factions on both sides can be determined by the guidelines established in the majority opinion by the court if the court decides to undertake a ruling on them.
^^^^^^^^ YES! This has become a precedent issue! Just go for it DUDES. SMH …
Bryan – please explain discussing how it appears this is a precedent issue as all Justices promise to be ultimately faithful to the Constitution. WE CANNOT DETERMINE WHEN CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS! On this Sunday, please understand this is a faith issue. We have freedom of; and freedom from; religion.
Namaste.
Evil has a field day when the devil dances in the hearts of clergymen and women.
Yes.
But IMHO, man hearts are more open to evil.
Yes Joni my dear. Some understand the history of women and children being considered chattel. Old habits die hard.
Joni was honored last night. “Help me, I think I’m fallin’ …”
Sure wish the song was about me; I was too young for a cougar way back then.
Yes Joni my dear. Some understand the history of women and children being considered chattel. Old habits die hard.
Democrats: “SCOTUS is about to overrule Roe/Casey which is super bad, but after they’re done doing that, we can still fight for abortion in the democratic process.”
Sounds like a radical move by SCOTUS to me!
I believe they are wrong; if they are right, then (IMHO) Chief Justice Roberts failed to “herd his cats.” He will continue to remind SCOTUS the arguments seemed to focus on precedent rather than abortion.
It is difficult to argue radical Pro-Life; IT IS! I’m not even sure I am conscious right now; and believe me, that IS NOT a personal problem.
“Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience — and not just any conscious experience, your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it. How does this happen? According to neuroscientist Anil Seth, we’re all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it “reality.” Join Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence.
Are you hallucinating? Discuss among yourselves …
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?language=en
Yeah, thank goodness the SCOTUS has never overturned laws passed by Congress or state legislatures.
After all, why would we give a rip about poor women in Mississippi having the same rights to their body as middle class and rich women in New York or Washington DC? After all, who cares about them anyway, right?
Heck, they can’t contribute to GOP politicians anyway.
Relevant question:
You clearly are against the SCOTUS decision that allows gay marriage. Correct?
“Relevant question:
You clearly are against the SCOTUS decision that allows gay marriage. Correct?”
Explain to me why that’s a relevant question.
Could states not rule for and against allowing gay marriage?
Yet the SCOTUS made a ruling. They clearly felt compelled to dive in the deep end instead of leaving it up to states.
Where is gay marriage mentioned in the constitution?
So again, relevant question:
You clearly are against the SCOTUS decision that allows gay marriage. Correct?
Are you saying gay marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution?
He asked a question Bryan – come on! “Where is gay marriage mentioned in the constitution?”
My guess is Barry is asking rhetorically.
Sorry. Triggers – 24 years ago; the last night with my Dad on this earth. RIP Admiral Warthen; Bob Dole; my Dad; my Mom.
True story – ran into a Navy Seal today (at Best Buy); we always connect in an odd way. Exchanging stories in almost a code, laughing about our darkness. Seal to State Department to making big money – me an aviator to MPA to Social Entrepreneur – we both deserve da MONEY!!!
Come and dance with me … Bill!!!!!
Produced by Alan Parsons. Ambrosia was with Parsons on his “Projects.”
Read all of Poe in college – then on to HP Lovecraft. Darkness within me!
I think it’s difficult for Bryan to lower himself to answer questions from legal ignorants like non lawyers.
We just aren’t smart enough to understand non answers.
I think it’s a class some law schools offer 2nd year.
You know like when he’s asked a clear question and then he doesn’t answer it and then deflects. That’s clearly a 1st year offering.
I also find your response interesting in that you clearly don’t see abortion as murder because why would you suddenly be willing to accept it if a state provides the right of women to decide for themselves how to handle and deal with their own pregnancy.
So it sounds like you oppose it – just because- because no one would be willing to allow states to do such a thing if they truly considered it murder.
Interesting.
I’m here to give you interesting responses. That’s really the goal I set for myself each day – let’s give Barry something interesting to think about.
You do a bang up job of it, I’ll give you that. You undermine your own positions in a very effective manner in the process. Congratulations, I guess?
But again, I can only assume you clearly don’t see abortion as murder because why would you -or anyone- suddenly be willing to accept that a state can provide women the right to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies in one state, but not for women in another state – if you really saw it as murder.
That would be impossible. Of if you could actually rationalize that in some crazy way, that would be pretty damning.
I’m really something.
Bryan, many lawyers see black and white in a shades of grey world. Abortion is VUCA’d up – Volatile Uncertain Complex Ambiguous. Heurism is humans thinking in binary terms.
Please respond to me once in a while. I’d LOVE to play!
I agree, you are.
So it’s ok for women in New York to murder a baby, but not in South Carolina.
That’s some A 101 class rationalizing you have going on. Must learn that in law school or some clerkship or something.
T
I’m not trying to be a jerk to you purposefully.
We obviously disagree on everything and that’s ok.
I guess my main issue with many of your posts is the assumptions I perceive in your posts that if only others here were also lawyers they’d see it the same way you do. Of course if that is the assumption, it’s not true.
But maybe my assumption is off base.
“I’m not trying to be a jerk to you purposefully.
We obviously disagree on everything and that’s ok.”
All good. No offense taken, no apology necessary. I’m sure there are things we agree on.
Like, I’m sure we agree that it’s important for government to have checks and balances.
We do.
I think our differences boil down to:
You see boogeyman on the left
and I see a bunch of boogeyman on the right (and some on the left)
It’s hard to believe that 6-7 years ago I was pretty hardcore conservative. But, no more.
Yes, BUT…
I hate politicians; experts at deflecting truth.
TRUTH!
A name change due to encrypted password technology. May need a booster soon. Dang COVID (am I twilighting?).
Regarding abortion
Tv’s Dr Oz announced his Senate candidacy last week for Pennsylvania. The NJ resident will run in the GOP primary. Some a Republican support has started to come his way.
Last week, Oz—a few days into his Republican Senate candidacy—said he was “OK with the Supreme Court making the right decision” on Roe, “based on what they think the Constitution says.” In 2019,, he thought there was something weird people who wanted to overturn the law and said so.
Oz actually spoke at length about this while defending the right to abortion access with conviction and in great detail, drawing on his own personal experience with abortion to argue that it was in the best interest of public health and women.
Now that he’s a Republican senatorial candidate, sure, scrap it.
Oz has also talked about how Medicare of All is a good idea, or some form of it.
Let’s see how quickly that portion changes….