Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Major Abortion Challenge

Over the strong opposition of pro-choice groups, the Supreme Court just granted cert in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 19-1392.  The case could prove a turning point for the Court on reproductive rights. The Mississippi law at issue banned abortions after 15 weeks — seven weeks earlier than past laws passing constitutional muster.  State legislators have been passing laws like live torpedos on the water and this one just hit with a 6-3 conservative court.

The decision comes a year after pro-choice groups were able to secure a plurality decision in June Medical Services v. Russo (2020). That victory was attained only because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the Court and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence in the result.  However, the Roberts concurrence was also concerning for pro-choice advocates. He only voted with his liberal colleagues because he felt bound by stare decisis to follow the 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that addressed a virtually identical law.  He felt that the record did not allow him the flexibility found by his four conservative colleagues in voting in favor of the state law.

The concern for pro-choice groups is that Roberts noted in this concurrence that “no one asked the Court to reassess the Constitutional validity of the undue burden standard.”  This case could afford such a review.  The law was blocked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Obviously, all eyes will be on Justice Amy Coney Barrett who, as an academic, wrote extensively on what she saw as flaws in the Roe progeny.  As I wrote at the time, Barrett was the ultimate deliverable for the pro-life movement by former President Donald Trump. In her confirmation, Judge Barrett had an interesting exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. in which she identified Brown v. Board of Education as such super precedent. However, when pushed on Roe, she noted  “I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall into that category.” That led to an audible gulp from pro-choice groups.

What is also notable is that this case will be heard in October and could be decided by June 2022. Any major change in the abortion standards would then occur before the 2022 election for the control of Congress. It could also rekindle demands on the left to pack the Supreme Court.

 

130 thoughts on “Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Major Abortion Challenge”

  1. in 1973 seven moral incompetents in long black robes stared into the 14th amendment

    -a reconstruction amendment-

    long enough until their eyes saw something that wasnt there

    and nobody else had ever seen before

    and wasnt celebrated at the time of its ratification or at any time during the subsequent 100 years

    there was a maximum total of 4 million slaves in america from 1790 to 1880

    there have been roughly 60 million abortions in america since 1973

    24 million of those were black babies

    by a factor of six roe v wade was without a doubt significantly worse for the black community in america than slavery

    its the worst thing we have ever done as a country to anybody…anywhere in the world…at any time…for any reason

    worse than what we did to japan and even worse than what germany did to jewish people in world war ll

    “woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil”

    may God forgive us all for not doing every. thing. in. our. power. to. stop. it.

  2. There is no such thing as banning abortion. The only thing you can ban is legal and safe abortion.

    1. You’re so right.

      You’re so much more right than you know.

      That’s what “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did.

      Ignore the law – do whatever the —- you want.

  3. A zygote is an extant human being within days of fertilization.

    Abortion within days of fertilization, and thereafter, is homicide.
    ____________________________________________________

    Zygote

    A zygote is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote’s genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage.

    – Wiki

  4. I really think abortion should be decided by each state. That way, the laws can reflect the people of each state, and there is the option of moving to another state that better reflects someone’s values.

    It was my understanding that Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to give speeches, prior to becoming a Justice, that she felt Roe v Wade had a downside. SCOTUS forced, without a vote, the entire nation to accept abortion at a level that was too low for some and too high for others. People felt like they had no say in the matter, and fought it. If I recall correctly, she had said that abortion laws evolved in Europe gradually, at the will of the people.

    Such an important issue should be voted on by each state. That way, the laws can periodically change to reflect the values of the state, and residents aren’t stuck with something the majority doesn’t like. NY, for example, appears to be a very dangerous place for unborn children to be.

    1. The central issue in abortion is at what point, if ever, does an unborn child have the right to live? Is it when their heartbeat can be detected, when they can feel pain, if they are healthy, if they are viable, or if they’ve drawn breath in the birth canal? This is a cultural or religious issue, not a biological one. The human fetus is either alive, or it is not. The purpose of an abortion is to kill a human fetus. Some cultures don’t consider a person to have any right to life until 8 days after birth, or in some Brazilian tribes, even up until they can prove they don’t have any learning disabilities. Up until that point, the parent has the right to kill the child at any time.

      This is a right’s issue. At what point does the woman’s right to do what she wants to her unborn child get superseded by the child’s right to live?

      Abortion concerns whether a woman has the right to kill a completely separate human being inside her body. Most people in the US feel there should be some limits. For instance, most would oppose aborting a fully viable, healthy human fetus, which requires the mother go through labor anyway. Yet, there are studies that show that women abort healthy late term babies for the same reasons why they abort early term babies – loss of a job, loss of a relationship with the father, not ready for a baby, etc. Dr Kermit Gosnell certainly did a booming business aborting healthy late pregnancies.

      Then there is the troubling remnants of eugenics, in which Downs Syndrome babies are targeted for destruction.

      Since a woman has to undergo labor to receive a late term abortion, if a father wants the child she does not, should he have the right to his live full term infant?

      The problems with leaving the decision up to a woman and her doctor are that a third person is involved, the baby, and the reality that there are doctors who would approve of aborting healthy fetuses at any time in gestation for any reason.

      Most people do think there is a point where the unborn have the right to live. The question is, what is that point? Each person in each state needs to figure this out.

      Personally, my own views on abortion have evolved as I’ve matured. The fetus is definitely not the “ball of cells” that propaganda leads girls to believe. The blastula stage is fleeting. I think if people could see the fetus moving, and what it looked like, more would feel troubled over abortion. But it’s out of sight out of mind. Abortion is sad.

      In an ectopic pregnancy, removing the doomed fetus is the only way to save the mother’s life. There are medical emergencies as noted where the mother will die if she continues with her pregnancy. But there are also mothers who just want to get rid of the child as inconvenient or unwanted. It saddens me that any mother would rather abort a full term, healthy baby, which requires labor, rather than give the child up for abortion. She’s already undergone the full pregnancy by that point. Will undergo labor. The late term abortion is more risky, and takes longer, than just delivering the infant alive. But she’d rather the child is dead than give him up?

      It’s definitely a deeply emotional issue. But we can’t keep kicking the can down the road or expecting the court to figure this out for us. Just vote, in each state, whether abortion should be allowed or not. It’s not a Constitutional right, in my opinion, and therefor should be left up to the people.

      1. Contrary to the lies you hear on Fox, doctors are not ready, willing or able to “kill” a healthy third-trimester fetus. This is some of the rhetoric used to fire up Evangelicals and Trumpster disciples, and it is a lie. Late-term abortions are very very rare, and almost always occur because the child has so many anomalies that it will die shortly after birth, but not until after undergoing severe pain, struggling to breathe, lacking a cerebral cortex (anencephaly), or other severe birth defects. While dying, babies with congenital heart anomalies suffer the same kind of pain as that an adult undergoing a heart attack. A heart transplant cannot be done on the spot, so they must suffer. Everything you regurgitate about the alleged prevalence of late-term abortion is something you heard on the alt-right media to which you are devoted. Cite the “studies” you claim support the notion that there is a widespread practice of doctors aborting healthy late-term fetuses. You can’t because that’s not true.

        An ectopic pregnancy will end without a baby because the fertilized egg got implanted some place other than the uterus–i.e., the fallopian tube, which cannot stretch as it grows, so removing the tube with a fetus is not considered an abortion. When the tube ruptures, which it eventually will, the woman may die of internal bleeding before she can get to the operating room. Extra-uterine pregnancies do not end well.

        The court has already “figured it out for us”. There’s Roe v. Wade. It’s the law of the land. There is no such thing as a state-by-state Constitutional right.

        1. Nastycha………..You could live comfortably off the rent $ Fox news pays to live inside your head.

          1. “…the rent…to live inside your head.”

            Incendiaria……..Such an old and overused expression, and it’s not even original. No surprise there.

        2. Natacha claimed: “doctors are not ready, willing or able to “kill” a healthy third-trimester fetus.” If that’s true, then why was Dr Kermit Gosnell kill so many healthy third trimester fetuses?

          She also said, “Late-term abortions are very very rare, and almost always occur because the child has so many anomalies that it will die shortly after birth, but not until after undergoing severe pain, struggling to breathe, lacking a cerebral cortex (anencephaly), or other severe birth defects.” She has already been shown data that this is not true. Links (again) below.

          The situation that she is describing is actually euthanasia. One can make an argument for euthanasia of a non consenting person (the fetus), essentially that they are better off dead. The fetal anomaly argument not only covers non viable pregnancies, but also those with genetic defects, such as Downs Syndrome. This is the field of eugenics. What would the Downs community think of the argument that they are better off dead?

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

          “Essentially, Roe allowed abortion without any regulation in the first trimester of pregnancy, but made abortions in the second and third trimesters contingent upon demonstrated threats to the pregnant mother’s health. Along with rape and incest, therefore, medical necessity became the pathway to unrestricted abortion access. It should be noted that varying definitions of medical necessity for abortion have ricocheted along a continuum with consideration of a “broad range of physical, emotional, psychological, demographic, and familial factors relevant to a woman’s well-being” at one extreme and “conditions which place a woman in danger of death” at the other.1,2 However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has provided a number of reports over 2 decades which have identified the reasons why women choose abortion, and they have consistently reported that childbearing would interfere with their education, work, and ability to care for existing dependents; would be a financial burden; and would disrupt partner relationships.3 A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. The study further concluded that late-term abortion seekers were younger and more likely to be unemployed than those seeking earlier abortions.4 It is estimated that about 1% of all abortions in the United States are performed after 20 weeks, or approximately 10 000 to 15 000 annually.”

          While I do agree that late term abortions are rare, as they constitute only 1% of total abortions, the question is why are they rare? Is it because states can require a nebulous “medical necessity” to get a late term abortion? Is it because late term abortion requires labor, a couple of days, and you can’t just get it taken care of in an hour at a local clinic? Is it because most people shudder to think of killing a healthy, viable, full term child in the womb? You would think at that point the woman would give the baby up for adoption, especially since she has to go through labor. But apparently, most of those 1% of people actually do decide to take the extra step, after labor, of killing their healthy baby.

          But that doesn’t pull on people’s heart strings like a woman faced with a pregnancy with a fatal abnormality. Nor does the selective genocide of Downs Syndrome babies.

          There certainly is a process in place to debate euthanasia of unborn, and therefore non consenting, babies with fatal or debilitating abnormalities, and about eugenics in general. Legislators could work with the medical community to actually define the criteria for medical necessity so that climate change, stress, economic hardship, don’t fall under the amorphous “medical necessity.”

          What about the selective abortion of female children? If a genetic marker for being gay is discovered, should a mother be allowed to selectively abort babies who will be gay?

          As for your straw man arguments, I never said there was a state by state constitution. I said abortion is not a constitutional right, and should be left up to the states to decide. I don’t know why your’e arguing about ectopic pregnancies, as I gave that very example of a life threatening pregnancy.

          Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to say that abortion should have been decided by each state. Was she wrong?

      2. Excerpt from a piece written by Dr. Jen Gunter, OB-GYN:

        What About Kermit Gosnell?

        Kermit Gosnell’s was a criminal and a physician who preyed on women, working in disgusting conditions (his clinic was fetid with cat urine, for example, and heused dirty equipement). Two women died at his hands and the criminal case brought to the grand jurty documented 7 cases of induction of labor with murder of the infant after delivery.

        His activities were reported to the authorities on several occasions and nothing happened for years. Women getting dirty abortions apparently isn’t a tragedy. So much for all the laws designed to make clinics “safe.” I have personally reported a physician for egregious abortion care and nothing happened. So yeah. It’s about laws that punish women, not laws that protect women.

        Gosnell took advantage of poor women who were desperate. That is the very thing that happens when legal, safe abortion becomes impossible to obtain or practically impossible due to cost.

        When the authorities finally acted on the complaints he was arrested. No special law was required to convict Gosnell. The laws on the books worked when someone bothered to enforce them.

        Those who throw around Gosnell’s case only mention the infants, not the women who died. Not all lives matter for “pro-life,” eh?

        Does infanticide happen outside of criminal back-alley situations?

        No.

        So why the Infanticide Claims?

        Lies and ignorance. Propaganda. Accomplished by perverting the narrative of babies born to die.

        The forced birthers are trying to rename a fetus a baby or an infant or a person. This is to raise funds off the misery of women. If they cared about fetal life and the survival of newborns they would advocate for free maternity care, mandatory vaccines, gun control, and banning tobacco. This is also about power and controlling women’s bodies.

        Legal, available, affordable abortion prevents back alley and clandestine procedures. If you want to prevent infanticide from predators, stop writing laws that restrict abortion.

        It’s that simple.

        1. Natacha – late term abortion is risky to the mother. Do I also need to mention the nurses who were traumatized by all the abortions of healthy, full term pregnancies?

          You can’t have it both ways, arguing that women don’t abort full term, healthy pregnancies, and then bring up Kermit Gosnell’s aborting full term, healthy pregnancies. Got it? He aborted full-term, healthy pregnancies. You claim the women were “desperate”, but earlier abortions were legal. If you mean “desperate” because they really, really, really did not want that baby to be born alive, or that their reasons were financial, then yep. As stated, financial hardship is one of the reasons why women abort full term, healthy babies, a practice that you claim doesn’t exist.

          There comes a time when the decision tree narrows down. A full term pregnancy requires labor, period. If the pregnancy is aborted, then it’s labor plus a couple of days plus the baby is killed and dismembered in utero, removed in pieces. It adds time and a bunch of steps to just delivering the baby alive.

          Unfortunately, there are thousands of women every year who decide their healthy, full term baby should be killed rather than adopted out. That’s the ugly side of abortion, and the reason why those in favor of it demand it be ignored, in the effort to focus on the even more rare fetal anomaly.

          “Forced birthers”? You do realize that late term abortion requires labor and delivery, right? Once you past a certain gestation, you ain’t getting out of childbirth, even if you have the baby killed in the process.

      3. “. . . a completely separate human being inside her body . . .”

        I gather that you do not realize the contradiction in that statement.

    2. I think, Karen S., you should move to Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, one of the Carolinas or Georgia, because these states better reflect what you think are your “values”. You really are out of place in California.

      There is no state “value” when it comes to restricting reproductive freedom based on the religious belief that life begins at conception, any more than there is a state “value” in limiting or restricting the right of every citizen to cast a vote. That’s why there’s a Constitution.

      1. Natacha – plus there are all the homeless drug addicts, high taxes, high gas taxes, constant fires, high cost of energy because CA required electric companies to invest in diversity training and expensive unreliable wind and solar, then there’s the critical race theory in the schools which teach kids to judge each other based on skin color, the poor reading and math outcomes in public schools, and the regular release of dangerous felons into society.

        Yeah, CA is a Democrat wonderland, with a hegemony reaching back for years. It’s what the rest of the country could become. I’d love to escape CA.

        I just had a homeless drug addict grab me and lift me off my feet inside a restaurant a few weeks ago. It’s super fun here.

        Sorry to break it to you, but the overwhelming majority of the country want some limits on abortion, which would prevent a woman from aborting a full term healthy infant, at the very least. That’s not a far right position; it’s statistics. Rail against it all you like or spit into the wind. It’s all the same.

        Oh, and those ID laws you claim restrict the vote are associated with an increase in minority votes. That’s because black people are not incompetent and can get ID just like anyone else, to the total shock of racist Lefties. Hence ID laws are not in any way repressive of voting rights.

        1. Sorry to break it to you, dearie, but most American support the right to abortion. Why not check out the Pew Research website for this information?

          Critical race theory is only taught at colleges. Fox News constantly spreads the lie that it is taught to school children, and they get parents fired up to object, only to find out, when they show up like the dopes that they are at school board meetings, that this is not taught in grade, junior high or high school. But, hey, they still believe.

          You keep arguing that full term healthy infants are routinely aborted. THAT IS A LIE. It doesn’t happen, and you can’t prove otherwise. But, continuing to spread this lie makes the Trumpster disciples feel good because they are saving babies. It’s hogwash.

    3. “I really think abortion should be decided by each state.”

      Abortion was legal across the land, and a decision between patient and Doctor before Roe.

      Usually at a local prosecutor level . Prosecutes, city, county, district, were elected by the people. Doctors had wide latitude to treat their patients. But if a particular Doctor became indiscriminate, and citizens started to question the Moral bearing if the Doctor. then an elected Prosecutor, motivated by the citizen might question the legal standing of taking a healthy human life, for no reason other than convenience.
      The people created the rules they choose to live under. An interesting concept for a Representative Republic.

    4. “That way, the laws can periodically change to reflect the values of the state . . .”

      Since when did the will of the majority (whether national or state) become the proper basis for objective law?

  5. Of course, the ones who want to outlaw abortion are against sex education, contraceptives, and are against women’s personal rights. God and religion should be in government and schools. And they hate any kind of healthcare that government could do. Otherwise, government should stay out of people’s lives.

    1. Wow fish.
      Can I paint with such a broad brush about the “kill all babies” crowd”?

      While I suppose some people you describe exist, it is by no measure representative.

    2. Do you mean biological sex education, or the Planned Parenthood information seminars given to children, which teach them how to engage in bondage, anal sex, group sex, and other detailed demonstrations?

      Are you referring to the biology class, or the how to be a porn star class in schools?

      1. You’ve been watching that alt-right crap and regurgitating it again, Karen. Planned Parenthood does not advocate or teach “bondage, anal sex, group sex” or any other kind of sex acts. You think the nonsense you’ve been suckered to believe makes you a conservative, but that’s not true. It makes you a gullible disciple.

        1. Look, Natacha, would it be too much to ask if you could please take 5 minutes to research a topic before declaring it isn’t true?

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/california-approves-controversial-sex-education-framework-for-public-schools

          “California’s Board of Education approved the final version of its radical sex education framework for public schools last week, amid great protest from parents and teachers.

          The curriculum encourages discussions about a wide range of progressive social issues, including gender identity, LGBT relationships, and transgenderism in classrooms.

          Two of the recommended books drawing the most ire from parents were Changing You, which includes cartoon illustrations of female and male genitalia for young children, and S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties, which provides high schoolers with descriptions of how to perform anal sex and bondage.

          There was a big protest about this a couple of years ago in Sacramento.

          1. And in Massachusetts:

            https://newbostonpost.com/2020/01/13/pornographic-comprehensive-sexuality-education-in-massachusetts-public-schools/

            “In schools across the Commonwealth, “Get Real” and other Comprehensive Sexuality Education curricula like it are used to instruct middle school and high school kids how to participate in dangerous and unhealthy sexual activity. Comprehensive Sexuality Education does not refer to sex education programs in general, but rather to a specific form of graphic, here’s-how-you-do-this manual that claims to be “age appropriate and medically accurate.” It is designed to change the sexual and gender norms of society, promote high-risk sexual behaviors, and encourage even the youngest of children to experiment sexually.”

          2. The Washington Examiner is NOT a reliable source of anything, just like Fox, OAN, News Max and Breitbart. I don’t believe anything they publish, because they are alt-right.

  6. NEW COP SHOW: “ABORTION SQUAD”

    This series will be produced in Atlanta so that Hollywood liberals can’t interfere. It concerns a special police unit in a large southern city charged with enforcing abortion restrictions. The Detectives of said unit are White male Baptists who have pledged allegiance to Donald Trump. They are morally and politically ‘reliable’. Each week the unit investigates an illegal abortion. Watch them slap women around. Doctors get kneed in the groin! Our boys are free to roughhouse because they’re dealing with ‘murderers’.

      1. And they could wear tri cornered hats with blades on them that could be boomeranged out to decapitate entire clinics in one throw!!

        eb 1066

    1. Wait!

      That’s exactly what “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did by suspending habeas corpus, denying the right to secession, violently suppressing political opposition, smashing printing presses, blowing up press buildings, throwing publishers in prison, forcing innocent Americans to die in his illegal war, confiscating private property, being derelict and failing to deport illegal aliens, fixing elections in 1864 and, ultimately, killing 1 million Americans to end no-wage labor which should have been accomplished voluntarily in the free markets of the private sector through the generous application of freedoms and economic tools such as advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.

  7. Unlike others I am not nearly as worried about the issue. It is no slam dunk the Supreme Court will over turn Roe v. Wade. I am not so sure the Roberts changes his opinion and I think Cavanaugh goes with Roberts. The real dark horse for me is Gorsuch. I actually think he upholds Roe v. Wade. He looks at what the law actually says and rule from there. The law states about viability and this law stops it before viability. I can see the Court coming up with a better definition to use, but viability is still the line for now. I can see Gorsuch holding that line because it is defined.

    More importantly for me, I think Roe is really about privacy clothed in abortion rights. I am always surprised that never gets argued.

    I had a mother as a nurse that volunteered at Planned Parenthood prior and post Roe v Wade. Regardless of what one thinks about the issue, women dying of or being permanently injured by septic abortions disappeared overnight.

    1. QM:
      I’m guessing they’ll permit restrictions earlier in gestation given the progress medical science had made since 1973 on viability. The libs love science, right?

      1. The absolute lowest line of viability right now is currently at about 22 weeks, but the vast majority born at that age don’t survive and of those that do most but not all are severely disabled. Some hospitals still do not attempt resuscitation of babies born to women in premature labor if born at that age, and have a policy to resuscitate those at 23 weeks or above. I am using the term “baby” to indicate a fetus that is born or expected to be born. Many pro-choice people see a line at “viability”, not the 24 weeks. The numbers who think aborting a healthy 36wk fetus that doesn’t harm the life or health of the mother would be fine is a small minority. BUT, healthy 36wk fetuses are never aborted unless a woman’s life is in jeopardy-labor is induced.

        1. Zygote

          A zygote is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote’s genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage.

          – Wiki

        2. Absolutely. The vast majority of late term abortions happen for health reasons, not because someone just decides to give up on a pregnancy. Stop ignoring the moratorium and insisting on making sense on this blog! It’a true thorough-going illness I tell you.

          EB

  8. As I’ve written before here on this blog, I grew up with my mom who worked in a hospital in Ohio pre Roe vs. Wade. It was a small hospital, and when a young woman would get on the radar who was a likely candidate to seek out what was available for abortion services at that point (likely a clandestine one in Cincinnati, Dayton or Indianapolis that had high rates of leaving women with raging infections afterward that often went septic) my mom and her cohorts would pool their own money together to take the woman to NY where abortion was legal and done in much more sanitary conditions. They did this for two reasons mainly: one was immensely practical >> they didn’t want to be on the other end of septic infection arriving on their doorstep. The other was more hunanitarian and morally driven >> they were acting as their sisters’ keeper and loving their neighbors as themselves…, you know, that kind of stuff.

    Anyone who doubts that these conditions would be the immediate result of the SCOTUS flipping Roe vs.Wade is wildly naive. In states that would move to block abortion in the south and midwest it immediately would take its place amongst the issues crippling the country that boil down to one side recognizing the public health implications of an issue while the other side rails on about individual rights around said issue. It would be a ^huge* step backward.

    But as Turley says: “As I wrote at the time, Barrett was the ultimate deliverable for the pro-life movement by former President Donald Trump. In her confirmation, Judge Barrett had an interesting exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. in which she identified Brown v. Board of Education as such super precedent. However, when pushed on Roe, she noted “I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall into that category.” That led to an audible gulp from pro-choice groups.”…

    This is the culmination of a decades long g special interest movement and there is virtually no way the Court would take the Mississippi case up if they were just going to affirm existing law. It would render futile the gamesmanship of McConnell’s gignapping seats on the Court. It would render a talking point of the Republican party moot to just affirm present law. This is literally the explosive, near orgasmic, moment evangelicals have been hoping for a couple of generations…

    And for the Republican party it would equate to the dog catching the car. It would ensure losing the suburban and women vote across states both red and blue. It is absolutely what the right has wanted to campaign on but never see the day the resultant policy change would come to pass. So the hopeful part of me is curious if this is an entreaty by Roberts to send signals he’s okay with expanding the Court. By taking the Mississippi case on the one hand, and then scheduling it before the election in ’22 the stakes have dramatically amped up. Otherwise Dems are just going to rightly campaign on the fact women of means from regressive abortion states will be able to travel for abortions while poorer women wouldn’t be able to. It would be an absolute nightmare for Repubs to have to campaign against that. Expanding the court would do two things for the conservatives: they’d be able to dilute out anti abortion sentiment at the SCOTUS level, and they’d be able to blame the means by which it happened on Dems. To not do it leaves Conservatives wildly exposed in an election they hope would give them control of the House, so let’s watch McCarthy twist on this. We know McConnell is going to roll the dice, it’s been his lifework to rig the Court for this moment.

    EB

    1. Guess your mom was an enabler who got her virtue signaling on with little regard to the emotional devastation the young female would feel later. She’s quite a heroine. Dogooderism is a selfish disease.

      1. “they were acting as their sisters’ keeper and loving their neighbors as themselves”

        If the human life they where helping to extinguish was a female, were they helping to be that sisters keeper too? I guess all of that help also resulted in neighbors we would never get to know.

        1. And the chance for you to torture them once they were actually a fully functioning human, right?

          For the sake of reading comprehension, may i call attention to an earlier sentence: ‘It was a small hospital, and when a young woman would get on the radar who was a likely candidate to seek out what was available for abortion services at that point (likely a clandestine one in Cincinnati, Dayton or Indianapolis that had high rates of leaving women with raging infections afterward that often went septic) my mom and her cohorts would pool their own money together to take the woman to NY where abortion was legal and done in much more sanitary conditions.’

          The thing that made these women likely ‘candidates’ was their asking questions about how to get an abortion and how they’d go about it. Expressed interest on the part of the woman. You know…, verbalized intent. To not pay attention would be stupid. See, my mother and her coworkers actually cared about the women they were providing services for and weren’t acting as patriarchal and chauvinistic sorts with deep misunderstandings of their own religion..Practicing medicine often presents choices between between options that are going to sting on many levels and if you’re truly wanting to help your constituency rather than force your ideology on them you have to guide people to where they’ve expressed interest in going.

          There are people in the world who have to walk that path, cap. Just letting you know because you may get an oportunity to be one at some point.

          EB

          1. Maybe “caring for these women” would have including helping them decide against killing a living unique human life. This would be caring for two human lives.

            “And the chance for you to torture them once they were actually a fully functioning human, right?”

            I’ve never tortured anyone, so I’m not really sure where you are going here.

            1. “It was a small hospital, and when a young woman would get on the radar who was a likely candidate to seek out what was available for abortion services at that point (likely a clandestine one in Cincinnati, Dayton or Indianapolis that had high rates of leaving women with raging infections afterward that often went septic) my mom and her cohorts would pool their own money together to take the woman to NY where abortion was legal and done in much more sanitary conditions.:

              Exactly what did I share that made you think that didn’t happen and that my mother’s action weren’t a last resort? I mean, other than the fever dream between your ears.

              And, in the interests of reading comprehension, answer my specific question with a specific answer.

              EB

            2. Jim, are you blogging from the 1950’s? You sound like a self-righteous bore who’s highly concerned with policing women.. ..What a jerk..!

      2. Yeah, you’re right. Virtue signaling was her main concern. Bahahahahahahaha.

        EB

        1. EB:
          She told people about it even you. That’s the tell. She’s the Pharisee in the front row. Kindness is private. Self-aggrandizement isn’t.

          1. Thing is, she didn’t tell people though because the people in the hospital knew they were on shaky legal grounds. I knew about it because, well, because I lived with her. Both she and my father had the kind of work they did that they told people,about it and the kind of work they didn’t tell people about. By necessity. In hindsight, and with distance, I can tell life forms such as yourself about it when your ignorance makes it necessary.

            Do you have to always be so dense?

            EB

            1. ” … my mom and her cohorts would pool their own money together to take the woman to NY where abortion was legal ….”
              ********************************
              Yeah, real Underground Railroad stuff.

              1. Mespo, why are you so concerned with what women are up to?? It shouldn’t be your business! You should be more concerned with the beer guzzling guys who keep guns too handy.

                1. Actually Mespo probably looks down on the beer guzzlers. Martinis in travel cups at the range for him.

                  EB

                2. Aninny:
                  You only like women who’ve survived the journey through the birth canal. I like em all. Even the helpless ones you forget about.

                  1. You only like women
                    who’ve survived the journey
                    through the birth canal.

                    I like em all.

                    Even the helpless ones
                    you forget about.

                    Oh I like em all
                    since they’re typically
                    their own men.

                    Mespo 2021

    2. Interesting observations, I do however think if Roe ends up being undermined and states start a patchwork of legal and illegal states where abortion would be allowed the restrictions won’t stop.

      It can be assured that in states where abortion could end up being illegal they would make it a crime to travel to other states to have the procedure done. From putting restrictions on organizations to making if a crime to cross state lines for seeking an abortion.

      The mere reality that all these restrictions could become more prevalent would only embolden the most zealous advocates to continue to legislate more stringent legislation.

      I predict the court will not completely undermine Roe, it seems more likely they will make it more permissible to enact restrictions on the narrowest possible interpretations.

      It could also setup a new precedent on an argument of personal liberty for women. The 14th amendment could be invoked given the inequalities of how the law is applied.

        1. Wait, what? I thought the right-wing wanted the government out of people’s personal life.

          1. FishWings, that’s the biggest irony. Conservatives who are always complaining about big government interfering with their personal choices as attacks on personal liberty and freedom are advocates for big government to interfere in personal liberty and freedoms of women. It’s ok as long as it doesn’t apply to them.

              1. Mespo, I never said conservatives what to be free from government. They DO want to be free from government intrusion into their private lives. They don’t want government telling them how to run their lives, how to behave, etc. BUT they are all for it when it comes to women and their own private decisions.

                Many conservatives chafed at the idea of government telling them to wear a mask because they saw it as an infringement on their liberty to CHOOSE whether to wear one or not.

                Apparently it is perfectly fine when it involves women and their own choices.

    3. I once went to a GYN clinic for the deposition of a physician there. Off the record, I started talking to him about abortions, which were performed at that clinic, and he said something that amazed me. Essentially, he said that no one enjoys performing abortions, but they realize that if this service is not provided by properly-trained physicians, women who are desperate (for reasons they don’t have to share, but oftentimes are ugly, like rape and incest or because they are carrying an infant doomed to death shortly after birth due to congenital anomalies) will attempt to abort themselves. The danger of a self-induced abortion is serious and maybe life-threatening. He said that as a gynecologist, this procedure must be provided as part of womens’ health services. He felt like you couldn’t consider yourself to be an advocate for the health of women and refuse to protect them from the danger of self-induced or back-alley abortions. So much for calling doctors like him “butchers” and “murderers”. The service is offered for compassionate reasons.

      I really don’t understand how the so-called pro-lifers don’t understand or apparently don’t care that everyone does not agree that life begins at conception. Whether life begins at conception is a matter of faith, not science, other than determining the age of viability, which is where Roe comes into play. It is a fundamental tenet of American law that the government cannot force citizens to live pursuant to the beliefs of any secular religious belief system. Those opposed to abortion shouldn’t get one, but they also shouldn’t force their beliefs on others–I’m talking to you, Amy Covid Barrett.

  9. Inhabitants of Earth need only heed the laws of physics extant after the Big Bang.

    The laws before that are entirely irrelevant and immaterial.

  10. Abortion is a state issue. Roe v. Wade was a hard decision making bad law. Poor reasoning, flowery language and judicial busibodiness all formed a perfect storm to defeat the public weal. The pendulum needs to swing back to some form of sanity.

    Whizzer White said it best:

    “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

    — Doe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting).

      1. Good retort. Voltaire needs to stand aside there clod. Btw White was no loser. Loses are anonymous folks taking potshots at their betters.

        1. You’re in good company then.

          And despite some fantastic accomplisments on the gridiron — when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

          EB

  11. Keep women appointed, available, and taxable. The audicity of shared/shifted responsibility and dream of every feminist and masculinist. Perhaps not.

    While slavery and diversity were America’s original sin, elective abortion, the wicked solution, and Cecile Clinics, are America’s progressive sin. Restoring the letter and spirit of the Constitutional is a good start to restoring civil and human rights, acknowledging the dignity and agency of women and men, and to mitigate progressive corruption. Baby… fetal steps.

  12. In the late sixties/early seventies I went to a lot of meeting with women pushing the so called “choice” aspect of abortion as a right of privacy. I came to believe that it had nothing to do with a woman’s rights it had to do with population control. I asked too many questions and was ‘dis-invited’ to attend. I have not changed my mind in 40 years. I believe in contraception including “the morning after pill”. There have been 50+ babies aborted in the last 40 years, the majority of which have been minorities…looks like Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists are on there way to getting their wish. 79% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. Abortion must be racist. I came across the following article:
    https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/106562/witnesses/HHRG-115-JU10-Wstate-ParkerS-20171101-SD001.pdf

    1. The sad statistic I ran across is that 1/3 of all black children conceived are aborted. Margaret Sanger would be grinning ear to ear. It’s all about money in my opinion. With all the methods available to prevent pregnancy, you would think abortion would be rare. This is a men and women’s issue. Good men get “clipped”. Took a lot of pressure off both of us. We had two children and she came up pregnant a third time. Unfortunately she miscarried. Still think about the child and that was 30 years ago. We had a name selected and everything. Never leaves you.

      1. KHS71……..The statistic that rips my heart out is the % of Down Syndrome fetuses/babies aborted each year in the U.S. it’s about 75%.
        For several years I have read that in Iceland it’s almost 100%.
        It makes you wonder how the Kennedys can be such hypocrites as they simultaneously support, organize and run Special Olympics while supporting the Democrat$ who are fine with 75% of Downs fetuses being snuffed out??

  13. The Court is falling all over itself to appease leftists into not packing and it’s not going to work. Like so many people who think of themselves as highly intelligent, they can’t see the handwriting on the wall. The Court is going to get packed but first, they will rule in favor of whatever they think their leftist overlords want them to rule in favor of so people like JT can say “Even a conservative Court knew it was the right thing to do!” There is no Constitutional right to abortion. I’m not anti-abortion 100% but that’s just a fact. To find abortion “in the penumbra” of the Bill of Rights is an absurd falsehood.

    1. Not unlike “finding” an individual’s right to own a firearm within the meaning of “A well regulated Militia.”

      1. Not unlike “finding” an individual’s right to own a firearm

        ? Because the founders knew the real danger was the government trying to disarm the army?

        Tell is all. Exactly what is the purpose of the 2cnd ammendment?

        1. The government will call upon a self-trained People to stand, when there is a foreign or domestic demand that we kneel. The spirit and standard differs markedly from the Twilight Amendment that socially justifies and legalizes elective abortion for light and casual, and profitable causes.

        2. The purpose of the Second Amendment guarantees the Boogaloo Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys, the Base and the Atomwaffen Division, etc., to take back the government by force to re-install Trump as president which was stolen from him by the American Marxists.

          What else?

          1. guarantees the Boogaloo Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys,…

            Thanks for the response. I assumed you are ignorant of the entire subject. Your response removes all doubt.

            1. Iowan2,

              Which paramilitary group did I leave out? The Michigan Militia? Tell me. I’m willing to learn.

        1. Probably borrowed from the English Bill of Rights of 1688:

          “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

          Our language is more absolute and it is an individual right.

            1. “The roots of the Second Amendment stretch back to 10th Century Britain and the rule of King Alfred (the only English monarch to be given the epithet “the Great”). Alfred, who consolidated the southern wield of England against Viking invasions by uniting the Angle and Saxon tribes into a unified force after years of in-fighting, considered all freemen of the realm as soldiers in waiting. To accomplish this rather audacious purpose, he required that each adult male subject possess weapons to comprise a ready-force to defend the crown and the kingdom.”

              Had the American framers intended to enshrine an individual right to bear arms, they would have been *unmistakeable* in stating so instead of obfuscating their intention by prefacing this amendment by referencing a well-regulated militia.

              1. JS:
                That’s the right (née privilege) in the context of a monarchy as I wrote. Free men view it differently. But maybe you like a monarchy.

                  1. Not really. And I don’t have time to flesh out all the law and history for you. It’s done nicely in Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. And just so you know, your side lost in a rout.

        2. It wasn’t, it never was. Scalia’s opinion in the Keller decision went beyond the “strict textual” interpretation of the 2nd amendment. He directly violated his own philosophy in order to square the circle he wanted.

          The 2nd amendment’s intent was to have individual militias in a time when an full army was not what they wanted since it could be used again its population like the British were doing at the time.

          The British army was used as a police force/military as a means to keep order in the colonies.

          An individual right to bear arms was not the intent. It was the right of each state to have its own “well regulated” militia and the right of states not to have those who were part of those militias to bear arms to be infringed by the federal government.

          1. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            Seems pretty simple.

            1. “the people” is plural…., i.e. the militia. If it were meant to be individual primarily it would’ve said ‘a person’.

              EB

            2. Jimm22, “ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

              Seems pretty simple.”

              Nope. The term “the people” is not a reference to people pet se. it’s a reference to the state. Not individuals. The constitution refers individual rights when it uses the phrase “persons”.

              “People” didn’t mean what you it means today.

          2. Ah in colonial times as today, every able-bodily man in the state was/is in the state militia. So your argument dies there as it did in Heller for more reasons than this.

            1. And we know the bogus arguments of the gun rights advocates-

              Weapons don’t kill people, people do.

              By that logic, bazookas should be legal since they too are harmless inanimate objects unless utilized by an evil person, but in the hands of a righteous person, it’s simply a defensive weapon.

              1. JS:

                “By that logic, bazookas should be legal since they too are harmless inanimate objects unless utilized by an evil person, but in the hands of a righteous person, it’s simply a defensive weapon.”
                *********************************
                They are legal (like 50 Cal. machine guns and Laws rockets) if registered and fees paid. And your smug dismissal of the rights of righteous free persons is precisely why they are legal.

            2. Mespo, “ Ah in colonial times as today, every able-bodily man in the state was/is in the state militia. So your argument dies there as it did in Heller for more reasons than this.”

              Nope. Today we have an active military which makes state militias a thing of the past. In order to have a right to bear arms you would have to be a member of a state militia specifically regulated by your local government.

              That no longer exists.

              “ They drew from their knowledge of the militia system in England to develop their own military forces. The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen to participate and to provide his own arms. Militia control was very localized, often with individual towns having autonomous command systems.”

              https://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/8military/milita01.htm

              Today every able bodied males citizen is not required to participate in a state militia. And those who favor strict interpretation of the constitution this would exclude women from owning a weapon.

    2. Planned parenthood, not limited to elective abortion, was legalized under the Twilight Amendment (“penumbras and emanations”), but the collateral damage is not limited to social and medical progress, but extends in diverse ways to deny civil (and human) rights when an issue is judged to be politically congruent. A progressive path and grade.

    3. “There is no Constitutional right to abortion.”

      Nor is there *listed* in the Constitution a right to: drive a car, eat a taco, go on vacation, host a barbeque.

      Your view of the purpose of the Constitution is backwards. It is *not* a limitation on (or a permission to) *private* action. It is a limit on *government* action. So the real question is: Where in the Constitution does it grant government the power to ban abortion or to control a woman’s body?

      Those who can think in principles realize that the right to choose (or not choose) to have an abortion is included in the rights to: life (the woman’s life), liberty (her convictions and ideals), property (her body), and the pursuit of happiness (her goals and values).

      1. Funny how it took until 1973 for this right to abort to be “discovered” since it’s so manifest. Dumb ol’ Madison and Jefferson. You’ve got a simplistic view of abortion deciding that the unborn child has no rights whatsoever to protection from the state at some point in its gestation. I’ve written many times that a zygote isn’t a human being like an acorn isn’t an oak tree but the fact is without zygotes and acorns there are no mature adult anythings. Thus the lives-in-waiting are worthy of state protection.

        1. “You’ve got a simplistic view of abortion deciding that the unborn child has no rights whatsoever to protection from the state at some point in its gestation.”

          Rights pertain to an individual — not to less (a fetus), or to more (a group).

          “Thus the lives-in-waiting are worthy of state protection.”

          Because, of course, the purpose of a woman’s life is to be a brood-mare.

          1. Sam:

            “Because, of course, the purpose of a woman’s life is to be a brood-mare.”
            *************************************************

            Of course, people have no obligation to society for anything. It’s do what you feel — until of course, what you “feel” compels you to put a revolver to your head. I’ve seen it plenty of times. The worst fate for anyone is a life sentence of licentiousness and narcissism ending up where it always ends up.

            But no matter, argue the biology all you want but no court can do anything about the female’s natural role which a lot of women happily embrace. Oh and there’s hope for you; they can get the sex change if they want it. Or, of course, you can take it up with the Almighty.

            1. “Of course, people have no obligation to society for anything. It’s do what you feel . . .”

              You are embracing a false alternative: duty versus temptation. The third, rational option, is choice based on reason.

              Your view that religion saves one from temptation is as old, and as worn out, as Augustine.

          2. Sam:

            “Rights pertain to an individual — not to less (a fetus), or to more (a group).”
            *******************************
            Oh and just to clarify your cluttered mind, we’re talking about the right of the state to choose what to protect and how to protect it. And, of course, groups have rights not just individuals. Been sued by a corporation, union, government agency or HOA lately? Tell the courts they don’t have rights and see how far that goes.

            1. “. . . your cluttered mind . . .”

              My congratulations. It took you longer than I anticipated to degenerate into ad hominem.

  14. Unintended consequences. This ruling could also have an impact on IVF (in vitro fertilization) for women that have problems becoming pregnant. IVF creates extra embryos and then throws away used embryos into trash dumpsters. Last I heard about 500 embryos get thrown into the trash every year from IVF, not including abortions. Then Congress opposed allowing those 500+ IVF embryos to be used for stem cell research, used to save lives.

    Although most Americans, of both parties, are opposed to late term abortions, this ruling could also drastically affect IVF. Those that want government bureaucrats to make those decisions for women may want to factor that in. Do we really want politicians making those choices for us?

  15. Abortion is fully constitutional and completely immoral.
    _____________________________________________

    “If there is no solution, [there is no problem]. If there is a solution, [there is a problem].

    – The Dalai Lama
    _______________

    There is a solution to abortion and there is a problem with abortion.

    The solution to abortion is adoption.

    1. Yes, the third choice: abstention, prevention, adoption, then compassion.

      Finally, Pro-Choice, the wicked solution. Can they abort the baby… fetus (if they are socially distant), cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?

      Speaking of Planned Parent/hood, Cuomo et al are in the news. Social progress with “burden” relief.

      Think of “our Posterity”, granny, too. The American way is Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

  16. Things go wrong in pregnancies after 15 weeks.
    • Women get cancer and must begin chemo-radiation immediately.
    • Women get in car accidents and have a brain-dead fetus still growing
    • Women have heart attacks, and can no longer carry the pregnancy without risk of death
    and on and on…..

    It is absurd to think that being prevented from aborting under such circumstances is not an “undue burden”.

    Who are legislators to try to anticipate every possible pregnancy complication? Answer: Incompetent, lo-info, closed-minded….stupid.

    The present policy, which has buttress of 4 SCOTUS decisions supporting it (Roe, Casey, Texas, and Louisiana), is not likely to change much.
    But, oh, will the “hair on fire” media types milk this for everything possible, not to mention the fundraising juice for pols.

    I’ve listened carefully to each of the current 9 Justices testify, speak and write. I’m not seeing any concern.

    1. It’s true things go wrong and a pregnancy may not be viable. The examples you list don’t fall into the arena of, “I just want to get rid of this kid.” As for precedents, they are not written in stone, and, as Professor Turley says, the groundwork for dismantling them has been laid. I’ll bet there were a fair few people who nailed their flags to the Dred Scott mast – and its progeny.

    2. Self-defense is a human and civil right. Nature’s choice is Her choice, an act of Gaia. The issue is elective abortion or planned parenthood. This is why advocates for the wicked solution tried to establish “rape-rape culture”, a handmade tale to socially justify denying civil rights and life deemed unworthy of life or profitable in parts.

  17. This quote is a footnote in a brief filed:. “In days of old, when knights were bold, and rubbers weren’t invented. They tied a sock around the ____ and babies were prevented.”

    1. They tied a sock around the …

      I’ve been pondering the face diaper. Compare/contrasted with latex condoms. And the absurdity of thinking a sock won’t stop sperm, but a mask stops cold a virus.

Leave a Reply