Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

That's not true. Hyperbole. Be honest. It definitely has the heartbeat restriction now.

Actually, it is true and not hyperbole since they count the time of pregnancy from the 1st day of the period before.  Do us all a favor and stop posting in this thread since your lack of a vagina makes you wholly unqualified to have a fucking opinion.

[wildcat09 29349]

14 minutes ago, Bravo said:

That's not true. Hyperbole. Be honest. It definitely has the heartbeat restriction now.

Suck my dick.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

This is a crazy comment. How many women are posting in this thread? Also, you can totally get an abortion up to 6 weeks roughly. It is not outlawed. That was not at all an accurate statement. You can't deal with any counter thought. This is a fact if you want to state facts.

You really are not very smart are you?  Your have to know you are fucking pregnant to get an abortion.  You have to make a fucking appt and have the pregnancy confirmed.  Did you know that not all Women are regular with their cycle?  Did you know that as you get older, weird shit happens with your period? It is an effective abortion ban.  Go fuck yourself.

Edited December 2, 2021 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Neonmoon 38129]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Abortion is currently outlawed in Texas.

 

13 minutes ago, Bravo said:

That's not true. Hyperbole. Be honest. It definitely has the heartbeat restriction now.

Most women don’t know their pregnant until after supposed heartbeat arrives. So yes, Texas has effectively banned abortion. 

[Bullneck 19079]

 

The Supreme Court is about to lose its legitimacy.  Overturn Roe v. Wade and there will be 13 justices.  

The will of the people will not be denied.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Bullneck

[Neonmoon 38129]

13 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Someone made an absolute statement which was factually untrue. I called him out for hyperbole. Now we are using hedge words like "effectively". I also look forward to Penelope shouting down all the other male posters in this thread because they lack a vagina and have no right to comment.

 

No one with a functioning brain believes Wildcat was being literal with his statement you dumb motherfucker. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Neonmoon

[Anastasis 23469]

13 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

The Supreme Court is about to lose its legitimacy. 

If SCOTUS makes decisions that I don't like based on legal merits rather than non-legally rooted policy implications, they lose their legitimacy!

This is the logic involved here.    

Edited December 2, 2021 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29349]

Anastasis is trolling. Nobody engage with his dipshittery.

[Anastasis 23469]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Anastasis is trolling. Nobody engage with his dipshittery.

Not trolling.  Started out by asking for some actual legal analysis of the arguments in front of SCOTUS taking place today. 

Sorry for expecting too much. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

22 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Someone made an absolute statement which was factually untrue. I called him out for hyperbole. Now we are using hedge words like "effectively". I also look forward to Penelope shouting down all the other male posters in this thread because they lack a vagina and have no right to comment.

 

Since you are being an absolute dumb motherfucker, yeah, you get shouted down.  Unlike you, most of the other men talking on this thread actually believe in a woman's right to choose.  If they come here saying I do not know what I am talking about like you fucking did, then yes, they will get shouted down.  You, as a man, have zero right to an opinion as it isn't your body that gets hijacked.  I suggest you sit down and shut the fuck up.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Not trolling.  Started out by asking for some actual legal analysis of the arguments in front of SCOTUS taking place today. 

Sorry for expecting too much. 

You schtick is old and tired.  Please go away.

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You schtick is old and tired.  Please go away.

No.  It's a discussion board, Penelope.  We are talking about a case in front of SCOTUS. I don't think it unreasonable to see if there is any actual legal analysis to be offered by the posters here.  Perhaps unreasonable to expect any to be offered. But not unreasonable to ask.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No.  It's a discussion board, Penelope.  We are talking about a case in front of SCOTUS. I don't think it unreasonable to see if there is any actual legal analysis to be offered by the posters here.  Perhaps unreasonable to expect any to be offered. But not unreasonable to ask.  

And there are multiple ones upthread.  I cannot fucking WAIT to see you #bothsides this. It is your schtick.  And it is old and tired.  

[Poolflood 845]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it was a conservative court that decided it.  And the reasoning, extending rights of privacy and autonomy at least implicitly recognized in the BIll of Rights and elsewhere, is seductive.

But, it does suffer from the creation of a fundamental right that is only barely hinted at in the Constitution and beyond the comprehension, for the most part, of the Constitution's drafters.  It is also frail in that it is dependent on ever-changing medical science to measure the right granted.  That is, if medical science could make viability earlier than first trimester, Roe would apparently have to yield to that science.

Of the more blatant departures from the text and structure of the Constitution, I like Roe v. Wade, along with the related "privacy interest" cases, like Griswold,   They are solid examples of that type of interpretation of the Constitution.

I don't disagree with Roe v. Wade.  But doctrinally speaking, some of the criticisms leveled at it are valid, as far as they go.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

The Notorious RBG on Roe.

Had some windshield time to listen to most of the orals.   Sotomayor was on fucking point.

Don't see completely overturning Roe or Casey.  Not argued today but the effect of the TX law would seem to cross the undue burden line that Casey drew.

[Anastasis 23469]

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

And there are multiple ones upthread.  I cannot fucking WAIT to see you #bothsides this. It is your schtick.  And it is old and tired.  

Yeah, there were some good posts by JJ, Twice, etc. .  Still haven't seen much in teh way of analysis of the arguments made today.  fenix had a post I remember seeing but wasn't much context I could track.

[Anastasis 23469]

Here is the transcript of the arguments today. 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/19-1392_gfbi.pdf

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

4 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

The Notorious RBG on Roe.

Had some windshield time to listen to most of the orals.   Sotomayor was on fucking point.

Don't see completely overturning Roe or Casey.  Not argued today but the effect of the TX law would seem to cross the undue burden line that Casey drew.

I have read a lot of her thoughts on Roe.  I agree with the logic, but I am not sure how the right to choose or abortion access would have been made more certain.  That would have required legislators with integrity, which have been in short supply for a very, very long time.    Even though a majority of Americans have supported the right to choose since the 70's, it seems like a lot of politicians are willing to ignore the will of the people for re-election, and apparently, restricting a woman's access to make healthcare decisions about her body gets assholes to the polls.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Here is the transcript of the arguments today. 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/19-1392_gfbi.pdf

 

That's a pretty vivid illustration of my point that "legal arguments" at the Supreme Court, at least on a case like this, aren't really legal arguments.

Interestingly, one of the chief modes of argument is the appearance of the Court in overruling a long-standing precedent shortly after a dramatic change in the composition of the court.

There is a shit ton of Socratic lecturing from Sotomayor and Breyer about the appearances of the thing.

Also, it appears that the State of Mississippi can advance no real reason for the 15 week limitation other than "new court."  Everything else is just a rehash of things that have been considered before and dispensed with.

Edited December 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a pretty vivid illustration of my point that "legal arguments" at the Supreme Court, at least on a case like this, aren't really legal arguments.

I just started reading the transcript and am struck that the greatest potted plant on the Supreme Court, justice Thomas, who never asks anything, asks the first question and follows up on it too.

[Sawbonz 27547]

Why not pass a federal law protecting the right to an abortion up to viability (yeah I know that’s a moving target) with exceptions after that for rape incest and health of mother? Seems like it could get bipartisan support in the house and might kill the filibuster in the senate. 
 

need to get talk about it started now and run hard on it in the suburbs in 2022

[JimmyJames 12271]

Liberal justices next giving speeches disguised as questions. Not particularly helpful.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Why not pass a federal law protecting the right to an abortion up to viability (yeah I know that’s a moving target) with exceptions after that for rape incest and health of mother? Seems like it could get bipartisan support in the house and might kill the filibuster in the senate. 
 

need to get talk about it started now and run hard on it in the suburbs in 2022

I'm not sure a law, if one could be passed, which is dubious, would really solve the problem.

One of the problems with abortion is that you are pitting one fundamental right, to individual privacy and autonomy, against a state's pretty compelling interest in protecting human life (setting aside for the moment what is a human life and when does it start).  States rarely can articulate such a compelling interest when they restrict civil rights.

That's why Roe was reluctant to create an unfettered right to abortion.  It had to balance that against the state's interest in protecting life, which is what underlies virtually the entire body of criminal law.

States have that police power and it might be problematic to pass a federal law that abrogates it.  It's really easier to do it at the Constitutional level.

[JimmyJames 12271]

This Stewart guy, who Justice Roberts refers to as “general” Stewart, is actually doing a good job arguing on behalf of Mississippi. Not that it really matters anyway. This oral argument is all for show.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Liberal justices next giving speeches disguised as questions. Not particularly helpful.

I think it is, actually.  It's kind of a theater of the absurd, actually, so what the hell.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Potted plant Thomas now questioning the other side. He has never spoken this much before by far.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Ok I read the transcript. Not particularly closely but here goes.

Thomas and Alito will vote to overturn Roe and Donkey dong Doug and Amy likely will as well. The 3 libs will of course not do so and Roberts and Gorsuch are looking for a middle ground.

Which would be exactly what the owners want. No true resolution. Guess we shall see what happens.

[workswithseed 2103]

20 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Don't have to call out @DDD Dad like that.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663]

A constitutional right to privacy has been recognized both before and after Roe. Unless that right is no longer recognized, affecting a myriad of situations, I don't see how Roe can be overturned in whole. If that right is abrogated only with regard to abortion specifically, the justices will have to get into the weeds of the specifics of abortion in particular and they will have to show their ass on their personal opinions. I think the ones who voted to take the case are dumbasses because they voted to deligitimize the court with regard to almost any expected split.

[NWBuck 8552]

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

The Supreme Court is about to lose its legitimacy.  Overturn Roe v. Wade and there will be 13 justices.  

The will of the people will not be denied.

Have you MET the Democratic Party??

[TwiceHorn 31452]

One of the more amusing interplays was between the MS AG and Sotomayor.

He was trying to argue that Roe wasn't the kind of decision the Court "traditionally and historically" made because it wasn't supported by the text.

Sotomayor said the history of such decisions goes back to McCulloch and is the very reason we're here.  Although I suppose you could argue that McCulloch has more structural support than Roe.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

52 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

A constitutional right to privacy has been recognized both before and after Roe. Unless that right is no longer recognized, affecting a myriad of situations, I don't see how Roe can be overturned in whole. If that right is abrogated only with regard to abortion specifically, the justices will have to get into the weeds of the specifics of abortion in particular and they will have to show their ass on their personal opinions. I think the ones who voted to take the case are dumbasses because they voted to deligitimize the court with regard to almost any expected split.

One of the best possible resolutions of this would be to dismiss as cert improvidently granted.

I mean really.  There's nothing new here at all except Barrett and Kav.

[Bullneck 19079]

10 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

A constitutional right to privacy has been recognized both before and after Roe. Unless that right is no longer recognized, affecting a myriad of situations, I don't see how Roe can be overturned in whole. If that right is abrogated only with regard to abortion specifically, the justices will have to get into the weeds of the specifics of abortion in particular and they will have to show their ass on their personal opinions. I think the ones who voted to take the case are dumbasses because they voted to deligitimize the court with regard to almost any expected split.

Good read. Thanks for this.

I'll be getting my legal advice from Chuck Norris Action Jeans from now on. 

[elfenix 34231]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, there were some good posts by JJ, Twice, etc. .  Still haven't seen much in teh way of analysis of the arguments made today.  fenix had a post I remember seeing but wasn't much context I could track.

i didn't hear much of it because i was ridiculously busy.  basically heard a few questions lobbed to prelogar and then a couple to stewart.  one was from justice barrett trying to establish the point that the right to have a family as you see fit is satisfied so long as adoption is available, particularly with state safe harbor laws (e.g. drop an infant off at the fire station) in place.  which went something like, the reliance interest in legal abortion is satisfied by being able to rely on safe harbors.  i think.  i could be wrong.  they then got into contraception being cheaper than abortions. 

[Storm the Field 5294]

Kavanaugh lobbed the MS lawyer some insultingly hittable meatballs.

"Now, just to clarify, you're not arguing that this court should ban abortion, correct? And if we overrule Roe, then states that want to allow abortion could still do so, correct?"

That's a question my wife would ask, not a Supreme Court justice. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Storm the Field

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Kavanaugh lobbed the MS lawyer some insultingly hittable meatballs.

"Now, just to clarify, you're not arguing that this court should ban abortion, correct? And if we overrule Roe, then states that want to allow abortion could still do so, correct?"

That's a question my wife would ask, not a Supreme Court justice. 

As twicehorn stated it was basically all theater. That question perfectly illustrates that fact. 

[Foosters 17850]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, there were some good posts by JJ, Twice, etc. .  Still haven't seen much in teh way of analysis of the arguments made today.  fenix had a post I remember seeing but wasn't much context I could track.

Below is analysis from random dude on Reddit:

 

I listened to most of the oral arguments this morning and jesus christ, what a fucking mess. I honestly can't think of another SCOTUS oral argument I've listened to or read that was so... all over the place. The only thing that is clear is that there will be one of two outcomes: (1) abortion will flat-out no longer be a protected right, or (2) the viability ban from Roe will be eliminated and replaced with something like a "reasonable possibility" standard. In either case, Roe and Casey will effectively be overturned, whether explicitly or not.

Here is a link to the oral argument and a searchable transcript for reference, but because I'm a big nerd here are the key points I took away from each Justice.

Roberts was hyper-focused on the 15 week aspect. Prelogar essentially kept saying that the state isn't asking you to replace the viability line with a clear/brightline 15-week rule and Roberts kept finding a new way to say "but the thing before us today is 15 weeks" (despite that not being how precedent works). (See oral argument at 50:21 and 1:39:00).

Alito essentially implied that Roe and Casey were equivalent to Plessy. (See oral argument at 1:33:10). He also asked originalist questions about history, 1868, the founding, etc.. And when Rikelman gave killer answers to every single one of his questions, he just came back with another question that he obviously saw as the next reason why Roe and Casey were not supported by an originalist reading. This was one area where Rikelman's advocacy skills really shined, so I'd recommend checking it out. (See oral argument at 1:13:43).

Kavanaugh spent most of his time essentially setting the stage for why stare decisis wouldn't prohibit SCOTUS from overturning Roe and Casey. He spent like five minutes just listing decisions liberals love that he thought overruled precedent just to prove his point and own the libs -- Baker v. Carr, Brown v. Board, West Coast Hotel, Miranda, Lawrence, Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Obergefell. (See oral argument at 1:19:38). The problem is that some of those cases didn't overrule any SCOTUS precedent (e.g., Baker v. Carr didn't overrule Colegrove (the majority just said that the "[a]ppellees misconceive the holding of that case" and that the "holding was precisely contrary to their reading of it.") and Miranda). Anyway, Kavanaugh's position was pretty clear.

Thomas brought up a case out of South Carolina where a woman had been convicted of criminal child neglect because she ingested cocaine during her pregnancy (a post-viability case) and asked if the state had any interest in enforcing such a law against the woman if it was pre-viability. (See oral argument at 47:42). Thomas also hinted that "liberty" rights were not really Constitutional rights and that cases like Meyer, Griswold, Casey, Loving, and Lawrence "all of those sort of just [came] out of Lochner and [SCOTUS] has dropped part of it." (See oral argument at 1:11:00). In other words, Thomas said the quiet part out loud -- he believes substantive due process rights originate in the discredited Lochner doctrine. So the only logical outcome is that all substantive due process rights may be at risk (like all of those from Meyer, etc. mentioned above).

Gorsuch was pretty much a mix of Kavanaugh and Roberts, focusing on replacing the viability line. He was also kind of a dick about it. (See oral argument at 1:45:00).

Barrett primarily focused on safe haven laws and strongly implied that even though Roe and Casey focused on the burden of parenting, safe haven laws essentially eliminate this concern entirely. (See oral argument at 54:47).

Breyer decided to use his time to pontificate almost incoherently about the institutional integrity of SCOTUS and stare decisis. (See oral argument at 1:08:17).

Kagan basically said what Breyer said, but with much more clarity, sass, and strength. From 32:54, to Stewart of Mississippi:

Kagan: "You come here very honestly saying 'we want you to discard the entire setup and then even if you don't do that, we want you to discard the viability line . . . '. In the end, we are in the same exact place as we were [50 years ago]. Except that we're not, because there's been 50 years of water under the bridge; 50 years of decisions saying 'this is part of our law, that this is part of the fabric of women's existence in this country.' And that places us in an entirely different situation than if you had come in 50 years ago and made the same arguments. I guess I just wanted to hear you react to that."

Sotomayor spent most of her time screaming into the void that is the public dialogue. She clearly did the obvious math that Roe was going to be overturned and decided to make a plea to the public for the record. My favorite quotes were around 27:18 of the oral argument:

Sotomayor: "How is your interest anything but a religious view. The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It's still debated in religions. So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that's a religious view, isn't it? Cause it assumes that a fetus is life at... when? When do you suggest we begin that way? . . . ."

Stewart: " . . . I think this Court in Gonzalez pretty clearly recognized that before viability we are talking with unborn life with a human organism. I think the philosophical questions your honor mentioned, all those reasons -- that they're hard, they've been debated, they're important -- those are all reasons to return this to the people, because the people should get to debate these hard issues and this Court does not in that kind of circumstance."

Sotomayor: "When does the life of a woman and putting her life at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor -- and that's 75% of the population -- and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi who elect abortions before viability. They are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life -- 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term than it is to have an abortion before viability. And now the state is saying to these women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice, because we believe... what???"

Given the above and everything I've seen from these Justices before, I'm gonna take a complete shot in the dark and say these are the chances each Justice signs on to a given holding:

Justice	No Right to Abortion	Eliminate Viability Ban and Replace Undue Burden	Uphold Roe and Casey
Roberts	3%	87%	10%
Alito	95%	5%	0%
Kavanaugh	25% 45%	75% 55%	0%
Thomas	98%	2%	0%
Gorsuch	49%	51%	0%
Barrett	34% 40%	65% 60%	1% 0%
Breyer	0%	0%	100%
Kagan	0%	0%	100%
Sotomayor	0%	0%	100%

Based on this wild conjecture, I would guess the opinion will come out like this:

• Barrett or Roberts writes the majority opinion to eliminate viability ban and replace the undue burden standard. All conservatives sign on except for maybe Alito or Thomas, either of whom might concur instead and write/sign on to an opinion stating there is not right to abortion.

• Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor all sign on to a dissent written by Kagan. Sotomayor may also write an additional dissent focused on the substantive/moral arguments and I'd give a slim chance that Breyer writes a dissent focusing on the integrity of the Court just to make sure he's added to this footnote in history.

EDIT: I’ve relistened to the oral arguments several more times and some commentary on it, and it has me wanting to change my percentages for Kavanaugh to 45% / 55% / 0% and for ACB to 40% / 60% / 0%.

The main reason I’m making that shift for Kavanaugh is because of one line he said multiple times at 41:42 and at 1:16:49:

“The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice.”

Prof. Leah Litman at the Strict Scrutiny podcast pointed out that this line sounded very rehearsed and work-shopped and sounds like something Kavanaugh would love to have in an opinion. Given his list of allegedly overruled prior cases, I think his percentage to eliminate a federal right to abortion should be increased from where I had it.

I also changed Barrett’s percentages after reviewing her history again. Specifically, I relistened to her confirmation hearing and reviewed her Notre Dame speech where she said:

"The implications of our Catholic mission . . . is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God."

I also thought about why she asked her question about safe havens and realized that the only reason could have been to say that “there is no undue burden in requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term so long as you relieve her of her duty of being a parent.” ACB did mention that this didn’t eliminate the bodily autonomy argument (when she also cited vaccinations), so I’ll still put her chances lower than Kavanaugh’s for eliminating the right entirely. But nonetheless, I thought she deserved a lower percentage on a second look.

I don’t think either change will result in a different outcome from what I said, but I think it makes my prediction a bit more tenuous.

I also want to add a prior prediction I made that the Texas ruling will come out before the Dobb’s opinion so that the Court can say “look, we’re not crazy”, thereby shifting the Overton window and giving them space to gut Roe and Casey.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[David Dennison 18854]

19 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Kavanaugh lobbed the MS lawyer some insultingly hittable meatballs.

"Now, just to clarify, you're not arguing that this court should ban abortion, correct? And if we overrule Roe, then states that want to allow abortion could still do so, correct?"

That's a question my wife would ask, not a Supreme Court justice. 

They want people to understand that overturning Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

Putting aside the legalese, and I appreciate the Surly law dogs for their input:

Ive learned one thing working in politics: Occam’s Razor is mostly right.  The GOP got the refs they wanted, the refs took the case with the intent of functionally killing abortion, and they will.  The only question is whether Barrett decides to do it subtly (remove viability) or just shoot it in the town square (no right)

[wildcat09 29349]

I think we see six votes to overturn Roe and Casey, with at least 3 concurring opinions. Roberts is going to lobby ACB and Kavanaugh hard to completely gut Roe without expressly overturning it, but I don't think he'll succeed. And when he realizes he can't convince them, he's going to join the majority so he can write the opinion and make overturning Roe sound more judicious and minimalist than Thomas would. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

It’s unnerving that Thomas is alluding to strike down a whole bunch of other rights as well. Like damn dude. 

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think we see six votes to overturn Roe and Casey, with at least 3 concurring opinions. Roberts is going to lobby ACB and Kavanaugh hard to completely gut Roe without expressly overturning it, but I don't think he'll succeed. And when he realizes he can't convince them, he's going to join the majority so he can write the opinion and make overturning Roe sound more judicious and minimalist than Thomas would. 

I agree with this. Barrett wants to kill it.  It’ll all come down to whether Robert’s can convince her to do it quietly. 

[Disco Strangler 1866]

Thomas is a self-hating and fairly ignorant asshole.  He would reverse Loving if given the chance even though he is married to a white woman.

[Foosters 17850]

41 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

It’s unnerving that Thomas is alluding to strike down a whole bunch of other rights as well. Like damn dude. 

Do you even Federalist Society, bro?

[tantric superman 4667]

15 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

A constitutional right to privacy has been recognized both before and after Roe. Unless that right is no longer recognized, affecting a myriad of situations, I don't see how Roe can be overturned in whole. If that right is abrogated only with regard to abortion specifically, the justices will have to get into the weeds of the specifics of abortion in particular and they will have to show their ass on their personal opinions. I think the ones who voted to take the case are dumbasses because they voted to deligitimize the court with regard to almost any expected split.

Don't I solve that simply by stating that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn fetus.  The state doesn't have a compelling interest in stopping sodomy, birth control, or the mongrelization of  the races because there is no life (with a full set of chromosomes) affected by that decision.

You can discuss how all societies criminalize murder and you don't have to make a stretch that protecting fetuses is a compelling interest.

At least that's the way I'd approach it if I didn't give a fuck about women or their rights and I had a fucked up view of what the Constitution means.

Edited December 2, 2021 by tantric superman

[Goofyboy 3284]

it’s a long shot - but can’t Congress pass a bodily autonomy law and put this whole thing to bed??

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

3 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

it’s a long shot - but can’t Congress pass a bodily autonomy law and put this whole thing to bed??

certainly works if you're holding a gun

[Anastasis 23469]

6 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

it’s a long shot - but can’t Congress pass a bodily autonomy law and put this whole thing to bed??

They have to first pass a vax mandate law. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663]

35 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Don't I solve that simply by stating that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn fetus.  The state doesn't have a compelling interest in stopping sodomy, birth control, or the mongrelization of  the races because there is no life (with a full set of chromosomes) affected by that decision.

You can discuss how all societies criminalize murder and you don't have to make a stretch that protecting fetuses is a compelling interest.

At least that's the way I'd approach it if I didn't give a fuck about women or their rights and I had a fucked up view of what the Constitution means.

If the Court recognizes any privacy right to reproductive decisions, then it's in SCOTUS's purview to protect that right rather than throw it to the states to allow an interest in protecting the unborn to completely override that right. And I'm sure many would disagree, but I don't see what the State's compelling interest is in "protecting the unborn"  before viability in a secular republic. In a non-secular one, sure...which is why this particular SCOTUS will fail to recognize that a pregnant person's right to privacy/autonomy trumps the State's interest in the pre-viable pregnancy. 

[Anastasis 23469]

7 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

State's compelling interest is in "protecting the unborn"  before viability in a secular republic. In a non-secular one, sure...which is why this particular SCOTUS will fail to recognize that a pregnant person's right to privacy/autonomy trumps the State's interest in the pre-viable pregnancy. 

 

Appreciation of the intrinsic value of human life does not require a secular prism, imo.