Whose cell/womb is it anyways?

[yossarian22c]

But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

You could ask me right now what I think about some factual topic, but requiring analysis. Let's say it's the behavior of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis. I have read about it, heard testimony, seen the results of some investigations, and I have a private opinion on the matter. Even if I was an expert and had a somewhat more sophisticated opinion it would still be just that. But now if you officially task me with investigating it myself and coming to 'final conclusions' to the best of my ability, that would be something else. Someone can study something all they want in abstraction, but if the task is actually a reality and present-tense decisions need to be made, that colors and changes everything. Of course new study would be needed, which maybe could affect or even reverse your previous position. You should only hope the justices would have that much of an open mind.

If you were before the Senate for a confirmation hearing for Fed chair and couldn't/wouldn't provide intelligent analysis about significant periods in Fed history then you are probably unqualified. If they had a solid legal reasoning that they felt Roe is poorly decided/reasoned they could put those arguments forward then. Judges should view every case on its own merits but to say a supreme court justice can't/shouldn't express a legal analysis of previous significant rulings is disingenuous.

[Ouija Nightmare]

It’s looking more and more like that court deicions is going to play havoc with law.

Smoke around a pregnant women? Off with their heads! Probably cars will either be banned from cities or pregnant women will be banned from exposure to traffic 🤔 hard to say which way that’s going.

Damn near everything affects fetal viability this is going to be a real rough ride. ( maybe not in the next ten minutes… but give it a few years..  there’s going to be more difference in law between Virginia and North Carolina than there is between England and Bulgaria. Laws will be getting generated as fast as legislators can legislate.

Commit a traffic offense? All the female occupants of the car will get pregnancy checks to see the scope of your crimes.

I’m going to grab some popcorn. Lawyers are about to get a taste of what it’s like to work in the tech sector.

[Wayward Son]

You said it, Ouija.

Abortion is going to be Class One Felony Murder in one state, and a protected medical procedure in the state next door.  How long before the Supreme Court is going to have to adjudicate on the difference?

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one. 

[yossarian22c]

You said it, Ouija.

Abortion is going to be Class One Felony Murder in one state, and a protected medical procedure in the state next door.  How long before the Supreme Court is going to have to adjudicate on the difference?

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one. 

And how many women are local prosecutors in Texas or Alabama going to arrest and charge with murder for traveling to California for an abortion? Sure the prosecution probably won't hold up, but it would you want to risk your freedom on that jury trial? Not to mention the cost of a lawyer and harm of pre-trial detention.

[yossarian22c]

...

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one. 

Based on life expectancy, probably a couple decades.

[TheDrake]

...

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one. 

Based on life expectancy, probably a couple decades.

Assuming it stays at 9 justices. Otherwise adding them changes the maths. Also it could become fewer if an opposition Senate means never confirming a nomination.

[Wayward Son]

Here's an article from Politico that summarizes the wildly varying penalties to come for abortion providers and others, from up to life in prison (or possibly death in the future) to perfectly legal. 

How will the States coordinate these penalties?  Will an abortion provider who flees to a Blue state be extradited back to a Red one?  If an anti-abortionist attacks an abortion provider, will he be able to claim defense of the unborn fetus as justification?  Would a jury in a Red State buy that defense?  What if it happened in a Blue state, but a judge allowed the trial in a Red state?  What if the Red state refuses to extradite the attacker back to a Blue state for trial?

And just wait for the divorce proceedings where one spouse testifies the other got or made her get an abortion.  It'll make Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's suit look boring.   Or how about a high-ranking Republican politician's mistress accusing him of helping her get an abortion?  Scandal becomes prison time.

"Let the States decide" sounds so simple, doesn't it?

[yossarian22c]

How long before some personhood amendments that define life starting when sperm meets egg inadvertently outlaw the pill and all other birth control methods that prevent implantation instead of feralization? We're going to create a whole new generation of bootleggers, but instead of alcohol they are going to be smuggling birth control pills and sneaking out of state to get an IUD. Would a man having sex with his wife who got an out of state IUD be guilty of accessory to murder? How about a couple traveling through the state from Colorado, could they be arrested for bringing birth control pills. Having sex in the wrong state, potentially fertilizing and egg and preventing implantation? If life begins at sperm meets egg, that is the country we will live in. For a few years anyway. We'll see how long it takes for Republicans to realize almost no one wants to live the handmaidens tale. Wonder what the extradition battles are going to be like, women fleeing from Texas to California, requesting asylum. Guess it will be interesting if you are a lawyer. Sucks for the average citizen.

[Crunch]

Reading this, I have to ask ... do you guys know how babies are made? I'm serious. Do you?

Women don't get pregnant, ever, unless they have sexual intercourse (or artificial insemination). They literally cannot get pregnant any other way, it's not an airborne virus or something you can get from a toilet seat. I truly think some of you don't really understand that. You pretend like a woman just wakes up one and magically she's pregnant with no idea how it happened. It's absurd.

Also, there's a HUGE variety of birth control methods now. Condoms, the pill, implants, IUDs, etc. Plan B is available OTC if you have a concern. None of these are expensive. They are all insanely easy to get. And, of course, you can always not engage in sexual intercourse - 100% guaranteed to not get pregnant.

Given the clear understanding of how pregnancy happens and the vast array of methods to prevent it, it's nothing more than a failure of personal responsibility to have an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. And that's what it really comes down to - you guys don't want to be held responsible and face any consequences for your actions. You want it so badly, that you're willing to rip the arms and legs off a baby or use a pair of scissors to sever its spine. That's sickening, really horror show stuff, and you should be ashamed of yourselves because you're very bad people. The worst.

[yossarian22c]

...

Also, there's a HUGE variety of birth control methods now. Condoms, the pill, implants, IUDs, etc. Plan B is available OTC if you have a concern. None of these are expensive. They are all insanely easy to get. And, of course, you can always not engage in sexual intercourse - 100% guaranteed to not get pregnant.
...

And if a condom breaks or birth control pills don't work? Just live with being an unexpected parent? And if most of those birth control methods are outlawed by the same people defining life beginning when sperm meets egg? Just enjoy your celebrant lifestyle or your 12 kids?

[rightleft22]

Given the clear understanding of how pregnancy happens and the vast array of methods to prevent it

I also think more focus should be focus on preventing the issue in the first place. That said taking up such a position I would want full free access for all girls and woman to contraceptives and education on the matter. And if such measures still fail everyone involved held accountable not just the woman.

I have little doubt that if men were the ones giving birth that their would be no thought as to whether abortion was moral or not and that it wouldn't even require a law.

[msquared]

Of course rape and incest never happen. And we also see the conservative Legislature trying to make BC illegal.

[msquared]

Let see

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tenn-governor-signs-bill-regulating-172946140.html

TN  is trying to regulate medical abortions. 

Crunch, you seem to be unaware of all of the actions being taken to get rid of all abortions for any reason what so ever. Even ones for pregnancies that will kill the mother.  These Republicans want to get rid of every abortion everywhere.  Not just some some of the time.

[NobleHunter]

Not to mention contraceptives are definitely on the list of "invented rights."

[yossarian22c]

Given the clear understanding of how pregnancy happens and the vast array of methods to prevent it

I also think more focus should be focus on preventing the issue in the first place.
...

As our old friend Pete pointed out frequently Obama deserves credit more than any other politician since Roe for bringing down the number of abortions. Making contraceptives a basic part of all health insurance and expanding coverage has brought the number of abortions in America to its lowest level since Roe became law. Giving people access to health care works.

[msquared]

We can't let those irresponsible people have birth control.  Don't you know that birth control keeps a baby from being conceived and so is murder? And if we let them have birth control they may have sex. Even sex outside of marriage and we all know that is a sin so we can't let that happen.

[TheDrake]

A large number of pregnancies result despite one or more properly used birth control methods. Other women believe they are beyond the age of viable conception - and in fact for them carrying to term is deadly. I think it is probably unrealistic to expect the entire population to practice celibacy except if they are prepared to raise a child, since it will be their own fault. Many of the women who have abortions have already had kids, and have responsibly raised them. In some cases the irresponsible act would be to carry the child to term - like when the child's deformities would mean a short agonizing life in terrible pain.

[cherrypoptart]

Biden and the Democrats who voted for him are for the rights of women, you say?

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/taliban-order-afghan-women-cover-fully-public-2670246

"The Taliban on Saturday (May 7) imposed some of the harshest restrictions on Afghanistan's women since they seized power, ordering them to cover fully in public, ideally with the traditional burqa."

That's Biden's world. That was his decision and that is his Presidency. You don't see much about it in the news though because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. In fact, it not only doesn't fit, it's a total embarrassment. Looking at Afghanistan before and after Biden, the idea that Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights is a bad joke.

You can say what you want about American conservatives and abortion but at least they would have let the Afghan women walk around without the burqa. Most conservatives apparently prefer they didn't even wear a Covid mask. It's ironic seeing the American liberal women fretting about the imposition of the world of The Handmaid's Tale in America while the guy they proudly voted for and still enthusiastically support ushered in that and worse for women in Afghanistan.

Weighed on the worldwide scale of women's rights, the good that conservatives did, especially Donald J. Trump, is far greater than the loss of women's rights Biden and his voters imposed.

[Fenring]

That's Biden's world. That was his decision and that is his Presidency. You don't see much about it in the news though because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. In fact, it not only doesn't fit, it's a total embarrassment. Looking at Afghanistan before and after Biden, the idea that Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights is a bad joke.

It's true, I think Biden should have not only stayed there but also conquered Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and everyone else who don't meet America's standard for treatment of women. Probably best to occupy Russia for a century or two as well, if I'm guessing.

[Ouija Nightmare]

Biden and the Democrats who voted for him are for the rights of women, you say?

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/taliban-order-afghan-women-cover-fully-public-2670246

"The Taliban on Saturday (May 7) imposed some of the harshest restrictions on Afghanistan's women since they seized power, ordering them to cover fully in public, ideally with the traditional burqa."

That's Biden's world. That was his decision and that is his Presidency. You don't see much about it in the news though because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. In fact, it not only doesn't fit, it's a total embarrassment. Looking at Afghanistan before and after Biden, the idea that Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights is a bad joke.

You can say what you want about American conservatives and abortion but at least they would have let the Afghan women walk around without the burqa. Most conservatives apparently prefer they didn't even wear a Covid mask. It's ironic seeing the American liberal women fretting about the imposition of the world of The Handmaid's Tale in America while the guy they proudly voted for and still enthusiastically support ushered in that and worse for women in Afghanistan.

Weighed on the worldwide scale of women's rights, the good that conservatives did, especially Donald J. Trump, is far greater than the loss of women's rights Biden and his voters imposed.

Incidentally which branch of the armed forces are you currently serving with?

[Wayward Son]

You can say what you want about American conservatives and abortion but at least they would have let the Afghan women walk around without the burqa. Most conservatives apparently prefer they didn't even wear a Covid mask. It's ironic seeing the American liberal women fretting about the imposition of the world of The Handmaid's Tale in America while the guy they proudly voted for and still enthusiastically support ushered in that and worse for women in Afghanistan.

Weighed on the worldwide scale of women's rights, the good that conservatives did, especially Donald J. Trump, is far greater than the loss of women's rights Biden and his voters imposed.

Considering Trump criticized Biden for not withdrawing earlier, I don't see how you can believe the situation would have been any better under Donald J. Trump.

Nevertheless, while our actions of not continuing the 20 year war in Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to gain control again, we are still not the ones who are forcing Afghani women wear burqas.  That responsibility goes to the Taliban.  What American conservatives are responsible for is taking away the choice for women to decide whether or not their bodies are more than just baby factories.  They apparently intend to take that choice from individual women and give it to the State governments.  And, I'm pretty sure, in the near future, take that choice from State governments and impose it on all States.  Because how can some states consider abortion murder while others consider it a woman's right??  That won't fly for long.

The bottom line is that we only have limited influence on other nations, like Afghanistan.  But we have a much greater influence on our own.  So we bear much greater responsibility for what happens in our own nation than what we allow to happen in other nations.  And if American conservatives take away a woman's right to say how her own organs should be used, that is a much bigger responsibility than if we allowed another government to abuse women.

Besides, if American conservatives don't give a damn about American women, what makes you think they'll give a damn about Afghani women?

[cherrypoptart]

Fenring

"It's true, I think Biden should have not only stayed there but also conquered Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and everyone else who don't meet America's standard for treatment of women. Probably best to occupy Russia for a century or two as well, if I'm guessing."

-------------------------------------------------

The hard part was already done in Afghanistan. We had it. The women were free.

Let's put it this way for Biden's defenders.

If we knew what did happen was definitely going to happen should we have done exactly what we did anyway?

Someone should ask Biden that.

That's what his defenders seem to be saying, that knowing what we know now it was still the right move to do exactly what we did then, surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban. Since we were assured that wouldn't happen, something just doesn't add up there.

The left had a chance to secure women's rights. They blew it. Gave them all away to the Taliban. And even now defend that as the right thing to do. It's hard to take the conviction seriously after that especially when so many seem to be fine with how it all worked out in the end.

[cherrypoptart]

"Incidentally which branch of the armed forces are you currently serving with?"

We had no combat deaths for over 18 months. Their military was shouldering most of the load and they just needed logistics and support, maintenance for equipment and supplies. We left them high and dry. Just finished watching Homeland and the Pakistani ISI lady called it. She said the Americans would just up and leave, pull another Saigon, and then Pakistan would be left with the Taliban as their next door neighbors which is why they were two-faced in helping us, because they knew we would never stay the course. Twenty years wasn't enough? Well apparently seventy years isn't enough either. Not in Germany and Japan and South Korea. And Trump's deal? Trump never had a deal for the Taliban to take over the country. As soon as the Taliban started taking cities any deal there was should have been off. Unless that was Biden's deal.

Not to get too far off on a tangent though. I do understand that American Democrats are serious about abortion rights, about killing unwanted American fetuses in the womb. I get that. Never doubted it. Just looking at the big picture though, it's still hard to take them seriously when it comes to women's rights. I'm just not seeing it. When they had a chance to secure them for millions of women, not even to win them but just to keep them from being lost, they all said to hell with it and to hell with those women and girls. It's a real stain on the entire Democrat Party and on the whole of America. Nobody can take Democrats seriously and nobody can take America seriously either, not when we left thousands of the Afghans who did to the tender mercies of the Taliban who hunted them down, dragged them out into the street, and executed them for the crime of trusting America and helping us. Only fools will ever make that mistake again, either here or abroad.

[Fenring]

Not to get too far off on a tangent though. I do understand that American Democrats are serious about abortion rights, about killing unwanted American fetuses in the womb. I get that. Never doubted it. Just looking at the big picture though, it's still hard to take them seriously when it comes to women's rights.

If you really want to look at the big picture over the last 50 years then neither party cares about women's rights outside of the U.S.

I won't even bother going into details, but propping up dictators or knocking out anti-U.S. secular governments is obviously bad for women (and others) in those countries, but it's especially bad for women when it's extremist governments being propped up. Even now fighting Russia may mean turning to the Saudis...what do you think about that?

[cherrypoptart]

I've never been one to say that we have to go to war everywhere to fight for women's rights. Obviously that's going to make things a lot worse for everyone, including the women there. Go to war in Saudi Arabia to fight for women's right to abortion there? Counterproductive.

But we had already won in Afghanistan. We didn't fight for women's rights of course. That was nowhere on the agenda. But we had them won already anyway with no need to give them up.

In a way, the Supreme Court decision, if it's legit, makes my point.

America cannot be counted on for consistency. Not by anyone. Not by the people in Afghanistan and not by the women in America if they are for abortion. It's just not in the nature of our system of government. And most of the time that's fine, a little unpredictability makes life interesting and sometimes better. But every now and then it's a complete and total disaster.

[yossarian22c]

I've never been one to say that we have to go to war everywhere to fight for women's rights. Obviously that's going to make things a lot worse for everyone, including the women there. Go to war in Saudi Arabia to fight for women's right to abortion there? Counterproductive.

But we had already won in Afghanistan. We didn't fight for women's rights of course. That was nowhere on the agenda. But we had them won already anyway with no need to give them up.
...

We hadn't won in Afghanistan. The fighting was ongoing. Progress was being made, maybe we needed another 20 years. But corruption and tribalism prevented any real idea of national unity. In the end Afghans weren't willing to fight without Americans standing beside and behind them. That speaks to our 20 year failure there. A lot of things we could have done differently. But at the end of the day it is what it is. We should have been training women to fight in the Afghan army. Maybe they wouldn't have abandoned their posts the second we weren't there to back them up because they had something real to fight for. This is a bipartisan American failure. To claim Trump would have done better is an iffy preposition at best. He announced multiple times he was leaving, he negotiated leaving, to claim he would have reversed course last minute when things were going bad, maybe, but doesn't seem likely.

[yossarian22c]

Probably shouldn't have even engaged on that front. Just another right wing talking point to distract from how unpopular their abortion policies are overall. The leak, Afghanistan, just ignore us outlawing abortions in every state we can.

[msquared]

Well if you are thinking about getting any type of medical treatment, make sure your phone is off and the SIM card is removed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/law-enforcement-may-fully-unleash-200836026.html

[Seriati]

This is an extraordinarily long thread on a SC case for such limited discussion of the merits of the actual case.  Roe was always poorly reasoned, and that's never been a secret.  It's always been a pure judicial power play to usurp the democratic process for deciding whether any restrictions at all can be placed on abortions.  It's never been just about the right to an abortion, but always has also been about the entire made up framework that was opposed by fiat by the decision of the SC.  It was judicial authoritarianism at it's peak, and that's why it's settled virtually nothing over the years.  This opinion does correctly recognize that the SC never had the legal authority to declare that abortions could not be controlled by the people if they so chose.

The SC has no moral authority to dictate to a country whether or not it can make laws where the Constitution is silent.

The reality is that most states will not ban abortions out right, but many will restrict them in ways that overwhleming majorities of their own populations support.  I saw an article on how this is handled in Europe and many of them developed laws on the topic that look like what will probably end up applying here in the US (surprisingly to me, most European countries are actually a bit more restrictive timing-wise than the law that the SC was reviewing), but that allow abortions but also place restrictions on when and how they can occur.  There's always been a majority of the country that favors access to abortion, with limitations on abortions.  The SC's interference has previously prevented that situation from occurring.  I'm hard pressed to understand why laws reached that a majority would support on this issue are "clearly" wrong in a country with our system of government, and protecting Roe from being overturned has compromised legal principals over and over again impacting other rights.

It's also bizarre that so many are taking the position that states are automatically going to go to the extremes on this.  First, it would have to be what the majority of their populace actually wants to stick.  But second, it's not like we don't already rely on the states to make critical life and death decisions on what are laws are.  How for example, self defense operates, or when a killing is a murder, or when an assault becomes a felony, are all already in control of the states.  Third, it won't last.  Most of the hard line politicians on both sides were elected against a back drop where they couldn't achieve their goals.  Now that goals can be achieved, I suspect voters will place a premium on people with the reasonable positions that the voters hold themselves.  Honestly, I didn't care before, but I'll be looking at this going forward because it could matter.

And its beyond stunning that any cares what progressives think on this.  They have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM electing prosecutors to act as mini-dictators and completely ignore the laws of a community, but have a problem with the SC undoing its own theft of authority.  So it's okay for a single person to overrule democracy, but not for the SC to put something back into the hands of democracy?  What  exactly, other than pure political power, is the guiding principal here?

While I get the appeal of claiming that Roe threatens other rights, it's active disinformation to claim that the opinion provides that basis.  First, it expressly disclaims that it means those other rights are in danger.  It literally distinguishes abortion from those rights.  Second, most of them actually rest on (and have always rested on) much stronger legal grounds.  For example, you won't find a right to marriage in the Constitution either, but you will find any number of promises of equality under the law, which means if a state establishes ANY right to marriage it has to do so in a manner consistent with that Constitutional promise.  Virtually none of the list of "in danger" rights actually involve a balancing of conflicting rights that could even plausibly be analogous to Roe.

I don't love the Court digging into this now, and quite probably saving the worst President in history or his party, which gives them even more time to damage our country.  But Roe was never a good decision and it should not have stood this long.  It may also be the case that this court will rule on some of the more extreme laws that are imposed by some states.  There are still other basis to do so, even if they aren't implicated by a proposed 15 week ban.

[wmLambert]

Totally agree with Seriati on this. Moreover; the Constitution wants States to decide mob-rule stuff. Let the States be a laboratory to prove what works or doesn't. Allowing the Fed to force laws on us that are dictatorial is not fair. A Republic allows the individual to be sovereign - not the Government. Our Founders did not want a Democracy for this very reason.

As Greg Guttfeld said, The Pro-Life argument is too simple for Abortion-Rights apologists to debunk. Life trumps murder. There is no Woman's right over her own body that lets her murder someone else. Adoption also trumps any inconvenience arguments.

[Wayward Son]

Funny how you mention the best argument for allowing abortions, and then completely forget about it. 

Here's a question for y'all:  why can't someone force you to give blood to save someone who need it?

And why can't someone or the State force you to risk your life to save someone life? 

[yossarian22c]

...

As Greg Guttfeld said, The Pro-Life argument is too simple for Abortion-Rights apologists to debunk. Life trumps murder. There is no Woman's right over her own body that lets her murder someone else. Adoption also trumps any inconvenience arguments.

By that logic sex leads to so much death that it should probably be outlawed. I mean somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of fertilized eggs never implant or lead to successful pregnancies. How can we allow an activity that we know will lead to killing 1/2 of the time???!!!!!!!

[Wayward Son]

Axios has a good article tracking abortion bans in various states: those that have been enacted, those that were passed but are currently blocked, and those in the legislative process.  So we all know what we are talking about.

[TheDrake]

So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home
Sodomy laws
Forcing all children to attend public school
Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Have fun putting the genie back in the bottle when the supreme court rules that there is no reason why someone's gun ownership should be a private matter.

[Fenring]

So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home
Sodomy laws
Forcing all children to attend public school
Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Ok so if you think these are all "like" allowing governments to rule on whether something is murder or not, I think your analogy is...um...not good. The closest any of these comes is euthanasia and/or pulling the plug, since at least that's on the topic of whether or not someone is being unlawfully killed. These other things don't have anything to do with it. Kids going to school is a matter of civil choices. Now maybe there are other rights involved; like the right of a parent to raise their child without state indoctrination in the public school system. That's a worthy debate but a separate one and it has nothing to do with how life or murder are defined. If you're going to go down that road you may as well say that if we're not careful will start mandating all kinds of things! Oh wait, never mind. And even contraceptives - not even religious people think using that is murder. They may think it's a sin, but for completely different reasons that have nothing to do with criminal law. I would like to parenthetically mention that at present it's quite contradictory for a left-wing argument to involve the premise that the government should stay out of people's private affairs. That is not at all a plausible argument in this day and age given all the simultaneous calls for government to control things ranging from what people say (online or in person) to how they must do things like hiring.

If the argument was coming from an absolute libertarian I would understand perfectly where that perspective is coming from. But coming from the left-wing faction it's plainly clear that the objection has nothing whatever to do with government controlling things they shouldn't, and everything to do with sex culture. Find out what people gain and you'll typically find the motive. If you did a sociological study controlling for sexual mores I'll bet you'll find the dividing line strongly correlated. That said I've known very lefty people who are anti-abortion on a personal level, but I don't think I know of one offhand who thinks the law should reflect that. So the most I've ever gotten is "I would never have one" on the sex-culture side of it. Although there might be some anti-abortion folks in the hippy/granola faction, I'm not sure about that.

[TheDrake]

But the "compelling interest" test only a limitation on trying to extend a right of privacy. I'm not calling them equivalent, I'm saying that if the argument is that the court MUST not extrapolate from the existing document - an argument that has been made here - then unless it is enumerated in the document, it is fair game.

Conservatives aren't making the compelling interest argument, from what I've seen. They don't say, "in this case we are talking about murder, which is a compelling state interest".

[Fenring]

Conservatives aren't making the compelling interest argument, from what I've seen. They don't say, "in this case we are talking about murder, which is a compelling state interest".

I couldn't tell you what conservative lawyers would argue, so I'd bow out of disputing this point. All I was saying is that the argument in the abstract that if the government is allowed to track or regulate abortions then it can regulate anything seems to be spurious. Although I suppose I should mention that it's funny adding home-viewing pornography to your list since that is essentially already regulated in a light-handed manner. They definitely do track porn consumption for certain red flags, which means they do inspect the contents being downloaded even though they perhaps don't concern themselves with material that doesn't raise red flags. But they are monitoring it and policing it for sure.

[TheDrake]

Conservatives aren't making the compelling interest argument, from what I've seen. They don't say, "in this case we are talking about murder, which is a compelling state interest".

I couldn't tell you what conservative lawyers would argue, so I'd bow out of disputing this point. All I was saying is that the argument in the abstract that if the government is allowed to track or regulate abortions then it can regulate anything seems to be spurious. Although I suppose I should mention that it's funny adding home-viewing pornography to your list since that is essentially already regulated in a light-handed manner. They definitely do track porn consumption for certain red flags, which means they do inspect the contents being downloaded even though they perhaps don't concern themselves with material that doesn't raise red flags. But they are monitoring it and policing it for sure.

You are correct. And when it comes to child pornography, the state interest is considered to have become compelling. My point is only that the courts can no longer stop government intrusion if you have no right to privacy.

Here's one article on the subject.

Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”

This line of reasoning has enormous consequences for Americans that go well beyond the abortion debate. For example, the Supreme Court has used the right to privacy to prevent government from deciding what we read or watch in our own homes (Stanley v. Georgia, 1969), to overturn a local housing ordinance that said grandmothers could not live with their grandchildren (Moore v. East Cleveland, 1977), to allow patients to refuse medical treatment for themselves (Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 1977), and to protect gays from being arrested for being gay (Lawrence vs. Texas, 2007). The court even referred to the right to privacy when legalizing gay marriage nationwide (Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015).

Alito in the leaked draft appears to be trying to build a wall around abortion and say that there is a right to privacy and that it can't apply in the case of another life being involved. But the argument made by some on this board is that if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then its crap.

[cherrypoptart]

There's always an easy way to fix this. We can just amend the Constitution to protect the right to privacy. Why don't some Democrats propose it? Sure, they'll need Republican support but if the idea is good enough to get the backing of enough Americans to warrant its inclusion in the Constitution, then they'll get it. If the new Right to Privacy Amendment doesn't have enough support from the public that they tell their duly elected representatives it's want they want, then maybe it doesn't deserve Constitutional protection. Throw up options that either include or disallow various aspects of privacy like abortion. Debate and compromise. Maybe abortion doesn't make the cut but we can save some of the other stuff, or maybe after public debate abortion does make the cut though that appears very unlikely. At least we'll see exactly where we stand right now politically instead of willfully twisting the Constitution to say things nobody who wrote it or supported the Amendments they applied to it ever intended or would agree to. If we want these things to be rights now, we can do it ourselves the way our system of government demands.

I think I'd be on board with it especially if it included rights to digital and online privacy in the same direction the Europeans are going. Get rid of all the information brokers that sell everything they know about you to have it immediately posted on the internet every time you buy something online, apply for a job, or open an account anywhere. Then throw in home phone line privacy against spam calls including from charities and you've got a deal.

[yossarian22c]

Wonder how conservatives will react when gun rights don’t apply to self defense anymore and start allowing states to require gun owners to register for state and local militias.

[NobleHunter]

I know it always fills me with warm and fuzzy feelings when my rights get put up for debate and I have to seek consensus with people who be just as happy if I were dead. That's my favourite feature of a functioning democracy.

If only the founders had foreseen people would take the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list.

[msquared]

A comment from my SIL that she posted on FaceBook.

I believe Pete Buttigieg has the right idea, and here’s why…
Back in the early 90s, Kevin and I lost our first child together. I was in my 6th month of pregnancy. Our child, a little boy, had developed a fetal anomaly in the womb and, by the time this was discovered, he had no chance of survival. I chose to have a third trimester induced delivery, which is technically a third trimester abortion.
We had named him Ian. We had planned for him and we loved him fiercely. The doctors told me I could continue to carry him, that my body would eventually reject the fetus and my labor would start, probably in a month or two.
That would mean two months of walking around with an obviously pregnant belly, of having friends and even strangers innocently ask when I was due, if it was a boy or girl or if I’d felt a kick yet. Two months of a waking nightmare. If I continued the pregnancy, I also ran a high risk of developing complications, some of which could affect my ability to conceive another child, or could even threaten my life. Because of this, I chose to to terminate my pregnancy. A year later, I went on to carry another healthy child, who I am thankful for every day.
Deciding to end this pregnancy was one of the most difficult decisions I had ever faced. It was incredibly personal and very private. Today, I still believe we made the right decision, and I am thankful every day that I had the option to make it.

I remember when this happened. It was devastating to all concerned. But to be forced to go through with it would have been worse.

[Fenring]

I remember when this happened. It was devastating to all concerned. But to be forced to go through with it would have been worse.

I don't know the details of your anecdote beyond what you said, but I believe the vast majority of pro-lifers would absolutely allow a medical procedure designed to prevent harm to a woman, whose side effect happens to be an abortive result. In this case the side effect is in fact the way to protect the mother, but there are other cases (e.g. cancer treatment) where the procedure in question may be fatal to the fetus but where an abortion isn't the purpose of the procedure. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that certain fundamentalists might be even against this, but offhand I don't know which group(s) would actually hold that position. Do you? Or put a different way, who are you actually arguing against here?

[TheDeamon]

Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things .

Fourth Amendment can be somewhat interpreted in the direction of creating a "right to privacy"

[TheDeamon]

In the long long run I suspect a repeal of roe will work against those 'pro choice' as the die has been cast.
Sex has over the years become more and more detached from the notion of relationship, commitment... and within that context procreation.  I don't see that rolling back. If it be at a state level or federal one.

The youth will not allow Sex to be uses as a tool to control them (as the church as used it) Once the baby boomers are gone this attitude to 'Freedom' will prevail, time is on thier side. I don't see anything stopping it except maybe force.  And then everyone loses.

Yes... But also no. Repeal of Roe as it stands will work against the "Right to Life" crowd because of how extreme many of the "circuit breaker laws" are on restricting abortion and contraceptive access.

A large portion of Gen X, and a much larger share of the Xenials, Millenials, and Zoomers are going to find that unacceptable enough that they will act to roll the more extreme laws back without regard to party affiliation in many cases. And the problem with that is we're basically dealing with a pendulum at that point. The counter swing will be a massive setback for the Right to Life crowd, although it'll likely "correct" and move more to the center in the years that follow.

It'll be interesting to see how the fallout settles on this one, as an overturn is likely to take some of the wind out of the sails of the Republicans while it gives the Democrats a boost as a great many Republicans will be afraid to speak against what members of their own party did.

[TheDeamon]

So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home

1st Amendment and 4th Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press (which has been expanded to include media) and protections against unreasonable search and seizure come into play. There also is the 1st Amendments proscription against establishment of a religion. In order to make it not be struck down on religious grounds, they'll need to demonstrate both the "public interest" and "public harm" in John looking at naked women on the Internet in the privacy of his own home.

Good luck building a case that'll stand up to serious scrutiny.

Sodomy laws

Again, they'll have to establish what "the public interest" in the matter is, and what "public harm" is happening as a consequence of sodomy taking place. In addition to the 4th Amendment proscription against unreasonable search and seizure once again... Exactly how are they aware of sodomy happening in the first place?

Forcing all children to attend public school

Hahahahahahaha

Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Have fun putting the genie back in the bottle when the supreme court rules that there is no reason why someone's gun ownership should be a private matter.

Those get to be a bit more interesting, but generally speaking, those rulings aren't very contested at present.

[msquared]

Fenring,

What about all of the laws waiting to go into effect that have no allowance for situations my SIL went through? they are saying no abortions ever for any reason.

[Fenring]

Fenring,

What about all of the laws waiting to go into effect that have no allowance for situations my SIL went through? they are saying no abortions ever for any reason.

Two things about that. 1) De Tocqueville suggests that laws always follow after social values, but in the medium-long term. In the short term a law could be passed that doesn't really reflect public sentiment and in theory this usually corrects sooner or later. That's not really a comfort in the here and now, but in principle lawmakers that try to pass laws that are out of touch should (in theory) be subject to criticism by their constituents. If democracy itself is at a point where it's not functioning properly then this system might well break down, in which case abortion is far from the only problem. 2) The way law works in the U.S. is that one can't tell whether a legislative move is 'legal' until it's made into law, and subsequently challenged in a court. That's an annoying procedure to have to go through, in a way, but it seems to be the way the system works. Afaik (and maybe a lawyer here could add to this) courts don't pre-emptively go after laws they think are bad, but rather have to wait until someone with standing brings a suit to challenge the law. In the case of life-saving procedures that happen to terminate a pregnancy the unfortunate thing is that they will need a speedy decision but I don't know if that would translate into a (very) speedy court case. So I believe a law being passed is not a done deal, as there is still room to sue.

All this to say, I think it's stupid to prevent life-saving procedures, and if one lives in a state where they pass insane laws it's probably time to move? There's obviously a different between a reasonable pro-life law and a stupid one. Even a legislative move that has wide popular support (let's say, preventing murders) can be enacted in bad faith or stupidly, with no eye to reality. Now on its face I don't think it's a good argument that Roe needs to be maintained because otherwise legislators will all turn into Skeletor and institute bad faith laws that don't even stand in agreement with a typical pro-life person. If there are actually such legislators I guess I'm sorry to hear it.

[NobleHunter]

Generally speaking, I had thought Americans preferred to assume that legislators will turn into Skeletor and institute bad faith laws. The idea that the government will abuse any power granted to it seems baked into the Constitution.

Though in this case it's not so much turn into Skeletor but that declare victory and start monologuing. If one is going to comment on how state governments are going to react to the end of Roe, maybe one should pay more attention to what the states have been doing.

[Fenring]

Generally speaking, I had thought Americans preferred to assume that legislators will turn into Skeletor and institute bad faith laws.

I guess it depends on what level of government. I think the older idea was that the more local the government, and the more local people were participating in it, the less this would be the case. Whereas the Federal government, by contrast, is so far removed from ordinary life that few people can say they influence it directly. I personally tend to think that tyranny in the American sense will typically come from a bureaucratic structure, rather than an individual bad actor. So IMO conflicts of interest and structural corruption are a more significant danger than a particular legislator bringing bad bills to vote.

The idea that the government will abuse any power granted to it seems baked into the Constitution.

Isn't this more of an executive concern than a legislative one? Although I would agree at the municipal level that cities pass all sorts of crazy laws at the drop of a hat.

Though in this case it's not so much turn into Skeletor but that declare victory and start monologuing. If one is going to comment on how state governments are going to react to the end of Roe, maybe one should pay more attention to what the states have been doing.

Well I guess we'll have to see. It's unfortunate that if you are right it would mean that well-intentioned pro-life people don't really have people representing their best interests in government. Yes, they'd get their ban on abortion, but not in the way most of them would want if they were asked about situational decision-making. And I'd be the first to agree that if the system is broken (i.e. the 'representatives' only represent themselves, not the voters) then all sorts of mayhem could ensue. But again, the purpose of a SCOTUS decision should not be to prevent bad-faith actors passing bad laws. Their job is to interpret what the current laws say.