The Big One? The Supreme Court Accepts Case That Could Deliver A Lethal Blow To Roe

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the Supreme Court accepting a major new challenge over abortion with Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  After years of exaggerated coverage of the threat of past cases, this could well be “the big one” for pro-life advocates seeking to substantially curtail Roe and Casey.

Here is the column:

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the first arguments in Roe v. Wade, a case that not only would transform constitutional law but political divisions in the United States. Since then, pro-life advocates have launched continuing challenges to try to dislodge the decision. Over the years, pro-choice groups at times exaggerated the risk of a serious threat to Roe and its progeny. Now, however, reality has caught up to the hyperbole. The court just accepted review in a Mississippi case that could deliver a crippling, or even lethal, blow to Roe.

But President Biden has a familiar back-up plan.

Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would seem, on its face, to be an incremental — not existential — threat to Roe. The Mississippi legislature moved to ban abortions after 15 weeks, seven weeks earlier than past laws passing constitutional muster. However, Dobbs is the long-awaited “clean case” — one that has a straight, unimpeded shot at the key controlling abortion case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case which effectively reframed Roe around the key criteria that the Constitution forbids bans on abortion before a fetus has achieved viability.

The court has long preferred off-ramps and nuanced decisions in abortion cases, a recognition of the political and social importance of Roe. Yet Dobbs is about as nuanced as a punch in the jaw. The case was accepted for one question only: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” The court could have just as well asked: “Whether we can gut Casey and return key choices over reproductive rights to the states.”

The court’s acceptance of the case may reflect that it finally has a stable majority to reverse major aspects of Casey. This comes a year after the justices fractured over Louisiana’s limitations on abortion clinics; in that case, Chief Justice John Roberts supplied the key vote in concurring with the results. Roberts’ concurrence, however, was disquieting for many pro-choice advocates. He voted with the liberal justices only because Louisiana’s law was virtually identical to a Texas law upheld earlier by the court, and he felt the record left little flexibility. However, he went out of his way to criticize the precedent built on Casey and stressed that “no one asked the Court to reassess the Constitutional validity of the undue burden standard.”

The biggest change, though, is that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the court then, and now Justice Amy Coney Barrett sits in place of the late Ginsburg. As a law professor, Barrett wrote extensively and passionately on what she saw as the deep flaws in Roe and in Casey. Her nomination was the single greatest deliverable ever made by a president to pro-life voters. In Barrett’s confirmation, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., pressed Barrett on whether she viewed Roe in the same way as Brown v. Board of Education, as a “super precedent.” Barrett responded that “Roe doesn’t fall into that category.” That led to a virtually audible gulp from pro-choice groups.

None of that bodes well for pro-choice advocates who strongly opposed acceptance of this case. The White House seems to be preparing for the worst-case scenario. In response to the acceptance of Dobbs, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said: “The president is committed to codifying Roe, regardless of the … outcome of this case.” In other words, Biden wants to make Roe controlling by federal legislative rather than constitutional authority.

(Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

It was a telling and ironic response. Roe was deemed a great victory because it removed abortion rights from legislative discretion by making it a constitutional imperative. Now, Biden is planning to snatch away any legislative discretion given back to the states by preempting state laws on abortion. Before Roe, abortion was viewed as a core state issue that left policies to the voters of each state. The Biden administration would effectively seize any legislative discretion and federalize abortion law.

It is a signature move for the Biden administration, which is becoming the most hostile to state’s rights in modern history. President Biden has shown little patience with states adopting opposing policies in a variety of areas.

For example, in the COVID-19 relief bill, states were given billions of federal dollars with a key, unprecedented catch: They had to promise not to cut taxes, even if the windfall of federal money left them with more money than they needed.

Biden seeks to negate another Supreme Court decision through legislation: In 2018, the court delivered a blow to unions when it ruled that government employees could decline to pay union dues — so Biden wants to preempt states’ right-to-work laws. While Congress has long passed major labor laws, the Pro-Act would effectively take away the ability of states to make choices in this area.

Then there is HR 1, a bill that would effectively federalize elections, including negating state identification law, redistricting rules and a host of other limitations.

In a widening array of areas, the Biden administration would achieve a national consensus by imposing a federal mandate on states. Some of the administration’s expansive claims already are being challenged and could ultimately reach a Supreme Court with a majority of pro-federalism justices. However, the effort to supplant states on abortion could prove the most difficult to sell to justices, if they use Dobbs to return some discretion back to the states.

There are obvious limits to the pro-choice values of the Biden administration: They clearly do not extend to state autonomy or authority. When it comes to the right to choose on key policies — from elections to unions to taxes to climate change to abortion — states would have fewer and fewer choices to make. They are left with the same freedom that automaker Henry Ford gave every customer: to choose any color of his Model T “so long as it is black.” In the next two years, many states are likely to object that they have been left with a type of Model T federalism in which they are free to choose any option — so long as it is Biden’s.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.   

186 thoughts on “The Big One? The Supreme Court Accepts Case That Could Deliver A Lethal Blow To Roe”

  1. Why is Brown a super precedent? It is unconvincingly reasoned, and based on social science and psychology that is now badly outdated. Given the history of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedents, the case that segregation is unconstitutional is flimsy, to say the least.

    The proper way to end segregation would have been through the 15th Amendment. If Southern states had been forced to allow blacks to vote, as the 15th Amendment clearly requires, segregation could have been ended by legislative action in the state legislatures. Perfectly constitutionally.

    1. If segregation had been ended in the way that I suggest, it would not have expanded the power of courts, and thus of lawyers. Perhaps that was the real reason.

    2. Ya’all ignored the law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, and proceeded to arbitrarily bestow favor through the criminal and improper ratification of the 13th and later the 14th and 15th through the generous application of brute military force under the duress of barbarian post-war military occupation. Under “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, America was not different from Nazi Germany. Immigrants must have been “…free white person(s)…” upon the issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863. Slaves became illegal aliens and must have been deported. Geez! You talk law, you destroy law. How does that —- work? There is law. America is a society of laws. You move right on forward with your anti-law criminal acts. You seek power for power’s sake, you demand “diworsity”, affirmative action, quotas and compulsory integration in a nation of “the pursuit of happiness” on merit and “freedom of assembly,” while you pay masses of fake, unassimilable immigrants to vote communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democracy, RINO). You gain power. America dies. Great. You’re a Great American Patriot.

  2. Ernie Sanders has gone to Hell. He supports the Hamas Holocaust against the Jews in Israel

    1. Maybe if Israelis hadn’t cut the cord to the PA system during Ramadan prayers in the courtyard of one of the oldest Mosques, this whole thing wouldn’t have started.

      1. Just how many American Hating Terrorist group do you & your friends support anyway???

        And how is it you as Communist are able to get along & support Islamic Nut Jobs?

        1. Oky, the Left can’t seem to make a good decision even 50% of the time.

          If they have to choose between a free Western country or the Palestinians which target civilians, would kill people for apostasy, seek to kill Jews, and want to abuse women’s and gays’ human rights…they pick the Palestinians. Even though the Muslim Arabs in the region of Palestine already did get their own country…Jordan.

          When faced with allowing biological males to compete against biological females in women’s sports, taking the top honors and scholarships as the girls can’t compete, or keeping the division for biological females, they choose to allow the males to compete.

          Defund the police, or increase patrols to make communities more safe? They defund police.

          Condemn a year of Leftist riots, arson, looting or excuse it? They excuse it.

          The list just goes on and on.

      2. Hamas was stockpiling bombs and chunks of concrete at Al-Aqsa, to drop on the heads of Jews praying at the Western Wall. That’s why security forces were sent there. They didn’t just sashay over and cut the power for no reason, laughing maniacally. You should have asked why.

        Hamas has a long, well documented history of storing weapons, and fighting from, hospitals, mosques, and other locations that use civilians as human shields, or are located in mosques. This is so that if Jews try to defend themselves, Hamas will accuse them of targeting civilians or mosques. Israel does its best, broadcasting their intentions to bomb a particular target far in advance, urging people to evacuate.

        When Jews control areas with Muslim holy sites, they allow Muslims to pray. Israel does not allow Jews to pray at the Temple Mount, only Muslims, in an effort to keep the peace. When Muslim control Jewish holy sites, they prevent Jews from praying there. The only times security forces sweep the mosques is when bombs or other weapons are stored there. Then it’s opened back up again for Hamas to start the process all over again.

        On the regular ploy of claiming Al-Aqsa is under seige to whip Palestinians up to commit violence against Jews.

        Hamas wants Jews dead. It wants the country of Israel destroyed, turned into a Muslim country where women are stoned. How do you negotiate with a group who wants all the men, women, and children of your group dead? But you blame the Jewish people?

        In their own words, this is what Hamas’ Covenant states:

        “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” the Hamas Covenant reads.

        “The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’….There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Palestine is an Islamic land,” the Covenant later argued.

        “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised,” the Covenant added.

        1. Karen,
          Why do you apparently disagree with George Washington, whom in his Farewell Address forbade “permanent foreign entanglements” which describes the US relationship with Israel? (See his Farewell Address.)

          1. George Washington did not disparage long term alliances but he did wish to take a rather isolationist position. At the time, France, England, and Spain regularly warred. The British Royal Navy officer’s chances at a good living depended upon the regular wars between European powers, in which time he could capture prizes.

            Geopolitics have changed since the 1700s. We don’t war with Canada, the UK, France, Spain…The West does not war with itself any longer, but rather has trade agreements, shares aid, intelligence, technology, etc.

            I imagine that Washington’s prohibition against foreign entanglements might have been used to delay the US getting involved in WWII. It took Pearl Harbor for us to come roaring awake and stop the Nazis and the Japanese.

            We’ve given billions of dollars in aid to Africa since the 1950s. Are you saying that we should stop giving billions to Africa every year because George Washington wanted the fledgling new country to avoid foreign entanglements? Or is it just the Jews that you don’t want receiving aid?

            Without our help replenishing the Iron Dome, Hamas has proven that the anti-semitic enemies surrounding Israel would destroy it. After all, it’s only the size of New Jersey. Hamas fired around 4,000 rockets at Israel in this last aggression alone.

            Anti-semitism has really taken off among the Left. BLM has anti-semitic underpinnings, and has always supported terrorist Hamas. The Squad is openly anti-Semitic. Pro-Palestinian protestors have attacked Jewish people in multiple states, including NY. I saw a video of two cars flying Palestinian flags chasing a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke into a parking lot. He ran for his life and managed to dodge as they tried to run him over. There are many attacks in NY, including in the diamond district, the traditional workplace of Hasidic Jews.

            This is Hamas’ own Covenant, written in their own words, they admit that their goal is to kill all the Jews and conquer Israel:

            ““Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” the Hamas Covenant reads.

            “The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’….There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Palestine is an Islamic land,” the Covenant later argued.

            “The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised,” the Covenant added.”

            So I ask you, why don’t you want to protect the Jews from the holocaust the anti-semite terrorists would inflict upon them? Would you stand by and let another genocide happen?

            Israelis warn people to evacuate targets before they strike. They have an embargo on the Gaza Strip because Hamas keeps trying to get bombs from Iran to kill Jews. But Palestinians in Israel itself serve in the Knesset, and the same law applies to them as to anyone else.

        2. The roots of Palestinians in this region go back just as far as those of Jews. Israel controls the area, backed by the U.S., and refuses to agree to a two-state form of government because they want the Palestinians under their control. Israel does not respect the boundaries of Palestinian territory and constantly tries to build and push into Palestinian land. I am not Jewish or Muslim, but I do know enough to know that Ramadan is sacred and when you mess with their prayers during this season, you are starting trouble. Not everyone agrees that Hamas is a terrorist organization–they didn’t start this current flare-up.

          The hatred and distrust is not one-sided at all, and the rest of the Muslim world does not like it when the US always takes Israel’s side in every conflict, including providing massive financial aid and weapons and the one-sided reporting that blames the Palestinians for everything. There are many in Congress who oppose continuing to provide financial aid and weapons to Israel. There is a push by right-wing Israelis to not have a cease-fire because they want to kill as many Palestinians as possible before they are forced to back down, and Netanayu is open to this because he’s up for re-election. One reason Israel backed down is because of dwindling support in Congress for handing them whatever cash or weapons they want at US taxpayer expense, plus the fact that the rest of the Muslim world has more than sufficient resources to step in and help Palestine if necessary, including Lebanon, which is ready, willing and able to finish the fight, if need be. It has the power and resources.

          You don’t have a complete picture of the issues because you rely on alt-right media which only reports Israel’s side of things, but as some on this blog have asked: why does the US stick its nose into these fights, anyway? It’s because of all the wealthy Jews in this country. The result is that the US is pissing off Muslims in other parts of the world for our one-sided support of a regional conflict. Part of what emboldens Israel is the money and weapons supplied by the US. If that stops, maybe there will be peace.

          1. On the KGB collaboration with the PLO to spread anti-semitism through propaganda. The goal was to destroy the Western Jewish state, and to replace it with a Muslim state. Note that this capitalizes on the anti-semitic collaboration of Hitler and Arabs against the British Mandate. After all, Hitler was not going to be content with killing all the Jews within his own immediate reach. he wanted them wiped out.

            This propaganda campaign was quite successful. Left leaning people, like Natacha here, have normalized anti-semitism.

            Leftists always do hate it when the US “always takes Israel’s side”, interfering with the repeated attempts at genocide of the Jews.

            Hamas’ own Covenant declares its goal is the destruction of Israel and death to Jews.

            This is what the Left supports. But we’re supposed to be the racist ones.

            Reject racism. Reject anti-semitism. Reject the Left.


          2. Natacha said, “why does the US stick its nose into these fights, anyway? It’s because of all the wealthy Jews in this country.” It’s “all about the Benjamins”, eh Natacha?

            You have branded yourself indelibly as a bloody anti-semite angry that the US interferes with terrorists trying to kill all the Jews. Perhaps this is why you’ve repeatedly taken issue with the US providing military support, including replenishing the Iron Dome. It sounds like you’d prefer Israel didn’t have the Iron Dome, so those Hamas terrorists could blow up as many Jewish kids as possible.

            It sounds like you don’t take issue with Hamas using Palestinian kids as human shields, using hospitals. apartment buildings, and mosques to use as bases of military operations. Israel didn’t “mess with Ramadan.” Hamas was throwing bombs and large rocks on Jews praying at the Wester Wall, once again using a holy site as a shield to try to kill or maim Jews. Israel swept Al-Aqsa, removed the bombs and rocks, and then reopened it. But there run the naive sheep bleating that Israel was in the wrong to go get those bombs.

            There never was any “Palestinian land.” The Romans called the area including Judea “Palestine” after the Philistines, an extinct sea faring people, to punish the Jews after they tried to throw off the empire. It was never a country. It was never a language. The region was part of the Ottoman Empire. After the Turks lost WWI, Britain and France carved up countries, and created the British Mandate to return the Jewish homeland to them, as an answer to the global diaspora. It was a thinly populated area, according to the records of the Ottomans. Arabs arrived in the area for the jobs that came of the Mandate. 76% of that British Mandate land was given to the Muslims, in mostly what is now Jordan today. So the Jews gave up land right from the start to appease the Muslims. Jordan invaded the West Bank, which was part of the Mandate to be given to the Jews. Israel beat back Jordan, captured the West Bank. Then they gave up the West Bank to try to appease the Muslims. Over and over and over again, the Jews have offered land for peace. Given land for peace. The PLO and Hamas have refused.

            “There is a push by right-wing Israelis to not have a cease-fire because they want to kill as many Palestinians as possible.” You fool. Palestinians live in Israel. Serve in the Knesset. Jews don’t walk around shooting as many Arabs as they can find walking down the street. They fight back against terrorists.

            Meanwhile, Israel warns Palestinians to evacuate targets ahead of time in order to minimize human casualties. Israel has offered land for peace many times, but been refused. If Hamas laid down its arms, Israel would be delighted. There would be peace. If Israel laid down its arms, every Jew would be killed, and the country would become yet another human-rights-abusing Muslim country in the ME. How is Israel supposed to negotiate with an organization that wants all the Jews dead?

            I don’t give a crap if protecting Jews from anti-semitic terrorists who openly say they want to kill them all “pisses off” Muslims or Democrats or a hairdresser in New Jersey.

            Pro-Palestinians demonstrators have attacked Jewish people in multiple states, including NY and Wisconsin. They are in the UK with signs and slogans that they want to rape the wives and daughters of the Jews before they kill them all. Your body of rhetoric has been bigoted against whites, men, the wealthy, and Israel. So perhaps you think the Jews who’ve been beaten up deserved it by way of birth.

            Natacha, based on what you’ve been saying, you are an anti-semite. I don’t use that term lightly.



    “It’s the [human being], stupid!”

    – James Carville

    Washington, District of Confusion

    Washington, District of Corruption

    Washington, District of Crime

    I have never read such a prodigious convoluted mass of prevarication and mendacity in my life.

    There is no confusion regarding homicide.

    There is corruption regarding homicide.

    Abortion is homicide.



    noun: homicide; plural noun: homicides

    the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.



    per·​son | \ ˈpər-sᵊn
    Definition of person

    1 : human, individual

    hu·man be·ing

    noun: human being

    a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens,…


    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

    The Constitution does not provide or deny a right to commit homicide.

    Congress and States may legislate to criminalize or decriminalize homicide.

    If it is a crime to commit homicide against infantile, adolescent, adult and elderly human beings, it is, similarly, a crime to commit homicide against human beings in the earliest stages of development.

    That pregnancy is convenient or inconvenient for the mother is irrelevant and immaterial to the fact of homicide.

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

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

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

    “If there is a solution, [there is a problem].”

    – The Dalai Lama

    There is a problem: Abortion.

    There is a solution: Adoption.

  4. “Over the years, pro-choice groups at times exaggerated the risk of a serious threat to Roe and its progeny. Now, however, reality has caught up to the hyperbole. ”

    Turley, this is a laughable statement. Since ‘reality’ has caught up, the ‘hyperbole’ really wasn’t hyperbole was it?

    And pro life advocates have not only waged campaigns to challenge Roe they’ve waged campaigns to murder doctors who would perform them. Just to be clear.

    But I suspect, the raison d’etre of this post is the turn you took to go anti-Biden. And we can see thatl, indeed, that’s what you did.

    1. Campaigns to abort doctors? Hyperbole. One, two wayward individuals over more than half a century.

      Pro-Life people are not Pro-Choice. They don’t exercise liberal license to indulge diversity dogma and wicked solutions.

    2. Women and men have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. There is no mystery that when a man and woman have sex, pregnancy (i.e. evolution of a new human life) is a possible, even probable outcome. Recover women and men’s dignity and agency. Restore civil (excluding the Twilight Amendment) and human rights. The collateral damage from social liberalism has left a long and bloody trail justified by a handmade tale.

      That said, first, slavery and diversity. Now, planned parent/hood including elective abortion a.k.a. reproductive rites.

  5. Before Roe, abortion was viewed as a core state issue that left policies to the voters of each state. The Biden administration would effectively seize any legislative discretion and federalize abortion law.

    It is a signature move for the Biden administration, which is becoming the most hostile to state’s rights in modern history.

    That’s the heart of the issue and one where this conservative court would establish a multi-generational legacy, by striking down federal authority over this issue and putting it squarely under the control of the states and their constituents. If Roe is so popular, then there should be no opposition to state’s controlling abortion legislation. Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights includes the 10th amendment.

    1. And what happens when a state makes law that women are NOT to cross state lines, which they are sure to do. Some states tried to make doctors criminals by doing abortions. The “State Right’s” issue is code in todays environment, been used by the far-right for years.

      1. And what happens when a state makes law that women are NOT to cross state lines, which they are sure to do.

        Ooh, spooky. When all else fails, fear-monger. Besides, the fact it would be unconstitutional, how do you suppose it would be enforced? Put a checkpoint at the border to ask, are you transporting any fruits, vegetables, ammunition or unborn children?

        1. Red states have put in law, mandatory waiting periods, counseling and ultrasounds, restrictions on insurance coverage for public or private health plans. Work requirements. Don’t think for one minute if they can do that, they wouldn’t put in place names and dates by state, that is watched over by “researchers” Not to mention how cops would know in a minute the flow of cars going to and from states. Do your own homework next time.

          1. As long as we’re wishcasting, or doomcasting, whichever best describes you, then I’d love to see state’s rights prevail.

      2. FishWings – only a totalitarian state prohibits residents from traveling. Papers, please.

        Please note that it is Democrats who seek to restrict movements and activities of the populace with vaccine passports. Don’t have a vaccine passport? Then you can’t board a plane or a bus or even get a job. Strange, as if the other passengers on the plane, the pilot, and the cabin crew are all vaccinated, then what’s it to them if you aren’t.

        Totalitarian states build walls to trap people inside. They enact check points and/or facial recognition software to ensure the population complies. They create social credit systems to ensure dissidents have no quality of life, and can’t function in society.

        Free states enforce border security to keep people from skipping the legal immigration system to get in.

        State’s rights is code for what? Self determination?

        A country’s laws reflect the entire country’s values. A state’s laws reflect that particular state. You’ll notice that ranching states have cattle laws that perhaps might not be on the books in Rhode Island. That’s because each state reflects those particular people and their needs.

        Abortion is not a Constitutional right. If the federal government makes federal abortion laws, it’s going to create laws that NY and KY both hate, one for being too restrictive and one for being too permissive. This fosters dissent and acrimony.

        Let the states figure out what they want in their own state. This will lessen the angst and anger in the debate, because people will feel like they have some local control of the issue. Nothing’s being rammed down their throats by either the federal government or the SCOTUS.

        1. Roe vs Wade IS a constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion. The court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. LOOK IT UP…..but I’m sure you won’t.

          1. Fishwings, I don’t know why you assume I haven’t read the opinions on Roe v Wade, privacy, etc.

            Roe v Wade indicated the mother has a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, and that states could not ban the procedure in the first trimester.

            Nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments does it expressly state that a woman has the right to kill an unborn child. If it did, then SCOTUS could not overturn it. This is why Roe v Wade is in jeopardy. You will recall that the SCOTUS made rulings on slavery that were subsequently overturned. A ruling is not the same as a Constitutional Amendment. It’s just how the SCOTUS interpreted the application of the Constitution at the time.

            If the blanket term “abortion” was a Constitutional right, written into the constitution, then any restrictions on abortion at all could be argued as unconstitutional. It would be like Canada, where all abortions appear to be legal for any reason at any point in gestation. Then US nurses would be in the same boat as Canadian ones with the issue of being forced to assist in abortions.

            Honestly, why do you keep questioning my intelligence or claiming I won’t look anything up, when you should know by now I always look up opposing opinions when someone actually gives me one that isn’t just an insult.

            I keep telling you that people on all sides of this issue need to have difficult discussions to figure out the abortion issue. I’ve repeatedly acknowledge that there are good points to be made on both sides, including the issue of life threatening pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies.

            It’s difficult to have a discussion with you when you leap from one false assumption about what I think or care about to another.

            1. I think it probably comes down to the Constitution not regarding having an abortion as being equal to “killing an unborn child”, Karen. A bit of variance in the language there. I know the feelings run strong, but there seems to be a communication issue.

              1. Anonymous – the purpose of an abortion is literally to kill the unborn child. That’s the entire point. You can insert the term human fetus.

                But the fetus is alive when the woman enters the room, and dead when she leaves the room. The purpose of the procedure is to kill the developing child.

                The Constitution doesn’t regard abortion at all. At the time of Roe v Wade, the Court rather broadly applied the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment as the right to get an abortion. But surely you agree that abortion itself isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or its Amendments.

                The reason why I think it would be better to leave it up to the States is because it gives people more control over the matter. It doesn’t allow them to say it’s too uncomfortable of a subject so they’ll just let the Court handle it. The laws on abortion would evolve, one way or the other, to reflect however the majority of voters in the state feel.

                I don’t know what the most fair abortion law would look like, exactly. While I find abortion so sad, my opinion is not more important than any other voter. I think voters in each state should be figuring this issue out, not judges.

                There are plenty of conservatives, however, who do think this is a constitutional matter.

                1. As I’ve shared here many times before, I grew up with a woman who worked in a hospital in Ohio pre Roe vs. Wade and got to see, vicariously what she and her co workers were doing to help women navigate what it took to get an abortion they really needed in a state that was wildly unfriendly to women getting abortions for any reason…, and there is a practical reality involved. That being if a woman really wants/needs an abortion she will do what can to get it. Translation: if the woman has money she will travel to another state to get it. Especially women who may be the offspring of the most steadfast anti abortion politicians in said state/ locale.

                  If a woman is poor in such conditions, she doesn’t experience the same set of rights. Many pregnanicies happeming in less than ideal conditions across the board obviously. Really the only sage guidance being absolutely don’t find yourself in such a situation if you can possibly avoid it. Yes, if the fates have aligned for you take responsibility, do what you know to be right in your own life. But you don’t have control over other women and may not have experienced anything near what they have. A total possibility…

                  Back to my mother…, working in a hospital, there was a practical aspect to helping poorer women get safe abortions (by pooling their own money together to do it regardless of what their personal beliefs about abortion were)…they didn’t want to have septic infection arrive in their ER. And there was a pretty direct causal linkage when a woman got on their radar who was going the abortion route. Smaller hospitals often act as primary care for many local women.

                  But the interesting thing about my mom, to me, was that she was full on Christian, had three kids of her own, a miscarriage or two, and she saw her role as being her sister’s keeper and treating her neighbor as she would herself (even though abortion wasn’t a path she took herself). I thought that was an excellent thing about my mom…, she saw beyond the moral and religious and political mish mash in a state with draconian abortion policy at the time. And she saw what the practical reality was regarding individual states creating their own individual laws around it: a) if you were poor and you lived in a strict abortion state you didn’t have the same rights as if you were poor in a more progressive state, and b) legislation against abortion didn’t stop abortion, it just made it so the women of means can get it much more easily than poor women. This is inherently unfair. Full stop.

                  Okay, enough about my mom. I’ve shared her story many times here and basically when I do, harsh insult is directed back at me, and toward her — so I’ve had my fill of that.

                  1. Anonymous – would you consider it a virtue to help women abort a full term, healthy baby? That requires a couple of days, labor, delivery, and the extra step of killing the full term infant.

                    If the woman really wants that baby dead rather than adopted, would you help her do it so she didn’t find some Dr Gosnell?

                    If a woman really wanted her newborn dead, would you help her do it in order to ensure it was painless? The only difference between full term and newborn is breathing air. Both babies would feel the same sensations, the same pain, the same fear. Why does the act of breathing air make one act a virtue of helping the sisterhood, but the other murder?

                    Did you ever hear the interviews with the abortion nurse who had assisted so many abortions. Then one day she watched the ultrasound the doctor used during the procedure. She saw the fetus struggling. it sickened her. She walked out and never went back. I suppose she used to think she was helping her sisters, too.

                    There are all these little steps that are taken with the conscience (to avoid the “back alley abortion”) until at the end of the day, you’re paying for a bus ticket and abortion appointment for women 7 months along to “get rid of it”, and then going home to your own children.

                    One of my relatives was adopted before Roe v Wade. It’s chilling to think someone might have “gotten rid of” or basically offed him.

                    The purpose of abortion is to kill an innocent young human being. It’s sad. Those are all people that were just wiped out. They never had a life, never accomplished anything, never loved anyone. I always think of my adopted family member as what could have been lost every time someone gets an abortion.

                    Margaret Sanger specifically targeted the black community with promoting abortion. She considered them both unfit, and too fecund. Her legacy is that the black community has more abortions than any other demographic, at 5 times the rate of white women.

                    I wonder how many women would go through with it if their belly were see through. Out of sight, out of mind.

                2. And in regard to a surgical procedure in general: it’s a pretty final act. Yes, an embryo in a uterus doesn’t survive an abortion…, but neither does a tumor being removed. Or a hip joint in a hip replacement, etc. Human tissue and sharp objects are basically a bad combination. I don’t like the harsh reality of it anymore than you do I’d wager, but sometimes it’s the path that presents the least trauma.

                  1. Anonymous – a human baby is not a tumor.

                    The least trauma would be allowing an innocent baby to live instead of killing it.

                    The reality is that a lot of women consider unborn children an inconvenience. There are some who want to “get rid of”, or more accurately, kill, that inconvenient baby at any point in gestation. Before the baby breathes air, it’s a virtue to kill it, to some. After the baby breathes air, it’s a reprehensible murder of an innocent baby.

                    Those who want to limit abortion believe that the baby is the same person before and after they breathe air. Just because the mother doesn’t see the baby struggling, doesn’t see the expression on his or her little face, and can’t hear the cries, because her big belly is opaque, doesn’t affect the similarity between killing a healthy fetus and a newborn. Air. That’s the difference, when it’s a viable fetus.

                    Maybe if the woman who thought she was helping the sisterhood actually saw what happened inside the womb in an abortion, she would have felt a few qualms.

                    1. Appreciate the morality which I take to have religious roots, Karen. But I think your viewpoint is too self centered for my personal tastes, and sadly, I can see another discussion blooming where the character and judgement of my mother is either called into question in an unwarranted way, or even becomes insulting to her from a place that is short on understanding of what it’s like actually working within the healthcare system and trying to do the most good for the most people.

                      I reiterate, I appreciate your morality and always look favorably toward people who passionately have beliefs. I just think I’ve outlined out some aspects of the ‘situation’ that involve seeing things from more than a personal point of view and think we’ve probably reached a sizable impass in our discussion.

                      All best in working toward what you feel is right, I’ll do the same. Hopefully in the larger realms we’ll come to a public consensus. Public polling across the board has indicated we already have. The Supreme Court, if it holds to precedent, already has. But clearly there is a powerful minority that believes the issue is still to be decided and has proven quite adept at carving out enough political capital,to influence placement inside the judiciary. Being someone with a good deal of experience within athletics I’m always appreciative of entities that, strategically, can gain outsized power enough to affect the results of the contests they find themselves in. I’m a big fan of the underdog finding a way to become victorius. I have to say i admire on some sort of strategic level the manipulative skills that have politically played into how the abortion issue has arrived at the place it has (although I think the campaigns to murder doctors who performed them in the 80’s and 90’s were despicable). In the end though…, as has been mentioned in several contexts of this discussion, the issue is ultimately settled outside the realm of political ideology of a powerful minority — and a reversal of policy in the face of that reality would prove to be explosive.

                      Now let’s all go out and do our absolute utmost to protect the young in the best ways we possibly can.

          2. Fish wings says “a constitutional right to have safe abortions….”
            “Safe”?? For whom? Do they have tiny safety helmets for the fetuses to wear as they’re being suctioned out of the womb?

          3. Roe Vs Wade created a quasi-civil right to elective abortion. The rite of elective abortion for social progress and other light and casual causes is found in the Twilight Amendment (penumbras and emanations), a rite to abort a life in privacy, behind a wall.

            That said, Pro-Life is Pro-Choice: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. Rediscover women and men’s dignity and agency. Dump the Twilight Amendment and its diverse precedents for mischief and violence.

          4. NY allows doctors to abort partially born babies. Look it up.

        2. First of all, there are NO vaccine “passports” in the sense of a document issued by the federal government, and the Biden Administration is not going to establish any “vaccine passport” system. My state issues a card with the date, time and place I received my doses, with a sticker from Moderna providing the batch number and other identifying information for each injection I received (which, nowadays, is typical for ALL vaccines, including pediatric ones). Even if I didn’t have this, anyone who wanted to could check with the State Board of Health’s website to confirm that I have been vaccinated. Airlines, hotels, the EU and most other countries are requiring proof of vaccination–why? To upset alt-right disciples like you and tromp all over your perceived “rights”? No. It’s to prevent the predictable spread of COVID. Most colleges and universities are also requiring proof of vaccination for in-person classes staring this fall. This has nothing to do with Democrats, but never let the facts get in the way of your irrational hatred of Democrats.

          I hate to break it to you, Karen S., but the SCOTUS held in Roe v. Wade that prior to the age of fetal viability, there is a Constitutional right for a woman to choose abortion. That is the law of the land, and has been since 1973. “States rights” is a code phrase for denying people their Constitutional rights. There is no such thing as “local control” of a right guaranteed by the Constitution, which is one reason we have a Constitution in the first place. Just like a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice (double jeopardy), or have a confession admitted into evidence if they haven’t been advised of their Miranda rights, a woman has the right of self-determination prior to the age of fetal viability, and this right does not depend on what state she resides in. Hannity, et al, are lying to you.

      3. Fishbreath………..How about women grow up and take responsibility for their actions?
        Since nowadays we’re fairly sure women are not 2nd class Americans, how about they start acting like they’re not ?
        I’ve been on all sides of this issue for 50 years, and this is where I’ve landed.
        Women have let liberals convince them that their precious and powerful uniqueness in carrying children in their wombs is not an amazing gift! Imagine!!
        Manipulated women should rise up and embrace and celebrate the uniqueness! Eff the libs. I’ m SICK of their control over women!!!!!

        1. The Left usually makes the rape argument, but they ignore that the majority of abortions are performed on women who voluntarily had sex and just had an unwanted pregnancy.

          One of my relatives was adopted. We have no idea about his conception. What if it was non consensual? Should he have been prevented from being born because of the sin of someone else? Considering the reality of human evolution and the rule of the club, it seems likely that every single human alive today descended from rape at various points in their lineage. About 10% of the men in the region of the Mongolian Empire are descended from Ghengis Khan.

          If the act was consensual, is it ethical for the mother to kill a human for her convenience?

          It’s definitely a fraught issue. I think rape and consensual acts should be debated as the separate issues that they are.

          1. No. It’s not legal or ethical to kill a human for convenience or any other reason. The issue is whether a fetal that is not capable of life outside of the womb is entitled to protection, and that is where the dispute comes in. You believe that life begins at conception, and that is based on religion, but not everyone agrees, and no one in the US can be forced to live according to the rules of a religion they don’t practice or agree with.

            1. natcha…….Science, not religion, dictates when life begins, you moron. Nice jab, though, at people of Faith.

  6. What is the threshold to deserving human rights? Viability? Breathing air? Genetic acceptability? Gender? Ability to feel pain? Detectible heart beat? A father who wants the baby?

    None of this is based on science. A fetus is human and alive. The right to live is purely cultural. There is a tribe in Brazil which still kills twins as supposedly “evil”, and will kill any toddler who shows developmental delays. You’re not considered a “person” with rights until you meet a strict set of criteria that can take more than a few years after your birth.

    Stop kicking the can to the Supreme Court. Have the difficult discussions and try to figure out, as a nation of voters, when a human gains human rights in our country. If this is left to the people, then it can keep evolving to reflect the values of voters. By leaving this up to the states, then the laws will reflect the will of the voters in particular regions, making this even more palatable to the people.

    Give us back control over this important issue.

      1. I’m not sure what the answer is but a statement like “23 weeks” is obviously inaccurate. If 23 weeks was right, then no doctor should try to save any baby born before 23 weeks and no one could prosecute for a 22 week baby killed in the murder of the mother, or killed in a car wreck.

        1. 22 weeks is where doctors will perform rescue care on an unborn embryonic infant.

        2. If the pregnancy was terminated wrongfully, as in the case of wrongful death due to negligence or murder of the mother, it’s not the same thing as deciding whether to terminate.

          1. If a man discovers his girlfriend is pregnant, and he puts an abortificant in her food without her knowledge, is it loss of property, or loss of life? Did he “murder” her unborn child, or is it property damage?

            If a pregnant woman gets in a car accident, and her unborn child dies, is the person at fault guilty of property damage, or manslaughter of her unborn child?

            Is an unborn human being property, or a person?

            1. Would depend on the state. There are statutes covering this situation, which is not relevant to the issue at hand.

              1. The relevant issue at hand is elective abortion of a wholly innocent human life. A woman has four choices before electing to abort her child for social and/or medical progress. The Pro-Choice religion denies a woman and man’s dignity and agency. The people know this, which is why abortionists doubled-down to deny civil rights of men through establishment of the so-called “rape culture”, warlock trials, guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Roe vs Wade and successive opinions were motivated and decided with a handmade tale.

        3. Highlyeducated – Anonymous has chosen viability as the threshold for human rights.

          That’s definitely more restrictive than “breathing air”, which is the last step before infanticide of a live born infant. There are people who would argue that Anonymous was too restrictive, and there are those who would argue he/she is not restrictive enough.

          1. Actually, I just cited the viabilty number for the sake of discussion. What I believe personally is in the right of the woman to choose, including late term abortions since those are done for health reasons. Doctors will not do late term abortions for no reason. I respect whatever level of determination you’d use in your own life to determine what would be appropriate given all the factors that figure into a decision on such a weighty matter.

            It’s a fascinating issue from a male point of view…, my view siding with the right of the individual and how it fits into that of public health. if this were more of a public health question, I’d certainly grant leeway toward those concerns. I definitely think gun policy and the pandemic we’ve recently experienced fit that category of public health territory. Ditto climate policy. But with the issue of individual pregnancy, I definitely side with a woman’s right to choose.

            Easy to say of course because I’m male. Which kind of speaks to the point, no?

            1. Anonymous, you said, “including late term abortions since those are done for health reasons.” No, they’re not. Every time this comes up I post links to articles that discuss decades of data that discovered that most late term abortions are done for the same reasons as early abortions – financial, loss of a relationship with the father, loss of job, busy with work, not ready for children, etc.

              You might be surprised to know that health reasons are not, in fact, the reason for most late term abortions. They are certainly a reason, but not the most common one.

              Of course there are doctors who would be willing to perform late term abortions for no reason whatsoever. In Canada, you can get an abortion at any time up until birth regardless of the reason. And it’s publicly funded.

              Since the facts show that there are doctors willing to perform late term abortions on healthy infants, and in fact there are Canadian doctors and nurses protesting being forced to be involved, then do you think there should be a limit to a woman’s right to choose?

              She has to go into labor and delivery for a third trimester abortion of a healthy, viable baby. She’s not getting out of labor or the risks of childbirth past a certain gestation. Should she have the right of taking the extra step of having the healthy fetus killed before she delivers him or her? Or should the child have the right to be born alive and adopted to a family who doesn’t want them dead?

              What about a father who’s had regular updates on the healthy pregnancy. The baby is 39 weeks. Due next week. They break up. She now hates him and makes an appointment to have an abortion, which will require a couple of days, labor, and delivery. The fetus is perfectly healthy, viable, ready to be born. He’s got the ultrasounds taped to his fridge and can’t wait to be a father. Should she be allowed to kill that full term baby just to spite him? There are 325 million people out there. Just like there are men who kill their pregnant girlfriends, there are pregnant women who get abortions because they want to hurt the fathers.

                1. Remember the entire conversation about what if a viable baby was born alive? The baby would be made comfortable while the mother decided what to do…

                2. Then there’s this nugget:

                  “Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist for the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, gave startling testimony during the Florida House debate over a state Infants Born Alive Act in 2013. She said that helping a healthy newborn who has survived a botched abortion “inserts politics where it doesn’t belong.” She suggested that such infanticide is part of “a woman’s ability to make her own personal medical decisions.” Representative Jim Boyd asked her “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child who is struggling for life?” Snow replied without hesitation “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.””

                3. A former employee of third-trimester abortionist George Tiller, Luhra Tivis, wrote:
                  “I witnessed evidence of the brutal, cold blooded murder of over 600 viable, healthy babies at seven, eight and nine months gestation. A very, very few of these babies, less than 2%, were handicapped.…I thought I was pro-choice and I was glad to be working in an abortion clinic. I thought I was helping provide a noble service to women in crisis.…I was instructed to falsify the age of the babies in medical records. I was required to lie to the mothers over the phone, as they scheduled their appointments, and to tell them that they were not “too far along.” Then I had to note, in the records that Dr. Tiller’s needle had successfully pierced the walls of the baby’s heart, injecting the poison that brought death.”

                  Luhra Tivis. “Where is the Real Violence?” Celebrate Life (American Life League), September/October 1994.


                  For many years, abortion-rights advocates have asserted that abortions after 20 weeks are performed because of maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.[8] However, wider data from both the medical literature and late-term abortion providers indicates that most late-term procedures are not performed for these reasons. Previous survey studies of late-term abortion patients have confirmed that most late-term abortions are performed because of a delay in pregnancy diagnosis and for reasons similar to those given by first-trimester abortion patients: financial stressors, relationship problems, education concerns or parenting challenges.[9]..

                  The authors acknowledge that, in fact, wider “data suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”[11] The study explores reasons for delay in seeking abortion services, comparing first-trimester and late-term abortion groups. While there are numerous limitations to the study, the authors suggest that the characteristics of women who seek both first-trimester and late-term abortions are substantially similar.”

                  Note that abortions after 20 weeks, commonly referred to as “late term”, requires labor. The mother is not getting out of labor and delivery at that point; she just does so one piece of baby at a time. A leg. An arm. The crushed head.

                  If the baby is healthy and viable, what argument can you make for why the baby shouldn’t have the right to live? The “mother” is going through labor and delivery anyway. Baby is past the viability stage.

                  Canada allows abortion of any gestation for any reason. The Left appears to be fighting to emulate this. NY has gotten closest.

              1. And yes, seeing the pain people can cause themselves and others is truly one of the toughest things to stomach. The amount of pain in the world is truly overwhelming for me personally on many days…, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I’m not in control of other people’s lives. As a good friend used to tell me: one of the toughest things to do on this planet is to learn to keep your nose between your toes. So I hear you. But sorry, women who carry a baby to term have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, even if there are sometimes shaky intentions involved. Religious dictums don’t change that. Psychological and political belief structures don’t either past a certain point.

                1. Anonymous, it’s not the women’s bodies that’s the problem. It’s what they ask the doctor to do to the baby’s body that’s at issue. She’s delivering a baby that she’s asked the doctor to kill for her.

                  That’s not a good thing. It’s not a shaky intention.

                  It’s not “my body my choice.” It’s “my body, and this other person’s body, my choice, and how dare anyone wonder what that other person would want.”

                  1. I respect your moral convictions, just don’t see exactly eye to eye with them.

          2. Thus the progressive path and grade of planned parent/hood and other planned population schemes.

            Normalizing elective abortion a.k.a. reproductive rites under the Pro-Choice religion is the feminists and masculinists’ dream. Keep women appointed, available, and taxable.

          3. No. The SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade provided fetal viability as the threshold point as to when a state may outlaw abortion. No state is REQUIRED to outlaw abortion. There is no practice of “infanticide” in this country, and yet you continue to bring this up as if it is a thing.

    1. The issue was decided back in 1973, but you don’t like it. So what, and who cares? According to Roe v. Wade, the age of viability is the point at which states can regulate abortion, because that’s the point at which the fetus can live outside the womb. Prior to that point, a woman has the right to decide whether to terminate. It is the right to control her own body and to make her own decisions about her life. Such decisions prior to the age of fetal viability are based on the right of privacy in reproductive matters, and follow a line of abolished state laws that, among other things, outlawed teaching of contraception, even to married couples and inter-racial marriage. What’s your interest in deciding the fate of the pregnancy of someone you don’t even know? What gives you the right to have any say about someone’s pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability? It’s none of your business, and in a free country, women should have the right to make their own decisions.

      1. Viability is merely a technological issue. Currently (not at the time of Roe), we have in vitro fertilization and surrogate pregnancy. That means even a zygote or blastula or whatever is in some sense “viable”. On the other hand, even two-year-old children usually can’t take care of themselves, although every now and then there’s a story about one who survived for days on crackers or peanut butter they found on the bottom shelf after grandma had a heart attack and died.

        Too bad the court didn’t follow Holmes’s dictum that “my right to swing my fist stops at the point of your nose” and say a woman’s right to control her own body stops at the point where it contains someone else’s body.

        1. I know, I like to release zygotes and blastulas in the street, racing them to see if they can survive.

    2. Karen, you seem to be making a case for socialized medicine. Though I doubt you care that much.

      1. Anonymous – you lost me there. Where did I make the case for socialized medicine, in which all doctors are employees of the state, there is no private insurance, it’s all paid for through taxes, and if you don’t like your healthcare you can’t exchange it for any other private care policy?

        Because I’m pretty sure I haven’t made that argument. I’m not too keen on massive, months’ long wait times and the requirement for a GP to refer you to a specialist rather than getting to pick that specialist myself.

  7. By requiring states not to cut taxes, Democrats hope to erase the financial incentive to move to red states.

    They clearly see the flaw in their own tax policy. Instead of competing by lowering taxes themselves, they simply try to remove competition by trying to force red states not to lower taxes.

    It’s similar to how Democrat run teachers unions keep trying to do away with the competition from Charter schools. They capped enrollment in charter schools at pre-pandemic levels in CA, to stem the tsunami of students applying to charter schools. They required charter schools to teach Common Core, so that they could not market an alternative to the dismal CC in public schools. The ultimate goal is to get rid of completion, because public schools just can’t compete on a level playing field with any success.

    If you can’t beat ’em, cheat.

    1. Kind of what happened in the last election. The Rats have been cheating in elections for years, they just maxed out the cheating in the last election.

  8. Just let the states decide abortion laws. That way the laws will naturally evolve as the will of the people. No one will be stuck with anything forever. If you don’t like a law, there is always the possibility of changing it.

    Such an issue should always be voted on. I don’t think it’s right to skip the vote and have the Court decide on a whole new “right”.

    This also means that there would be states where people to for more permissible laws. Organizations could provide travel to those who would want to travel to those states to get abortions perhaps at later gestation than permitted in their home state.

    It is my understanding that Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to say that abortion laws evolved at the will of the people in Europe. It wasn’t forced upon them, but rather reflected their own changing views.

    Leaving this up to the states means leaving it up to the people.

    1. The will of the people in the USA is pro-choice in every poll there is. And please stop with the state’s rights BS, these days everyone knows what that means.

      1. Polls also show the majority of Americans do believe there should be at least some limits on abortion, as well.

          1. Anonymous, you asked what I think the limits should be. Good question, as a vote on the matter affects other people. My opinions have evolved over the years, and I actually don’t know what a perfectly fair law would look like. This is one of the reasons why I wish more people would discuss their points of view rather than just insult – it’s to help me determine what law I would want to vote for.

            I think preventing the abortion of a healthy, viable fetus should be a no brainer. I think allowing the termination of life threatening pregnancies, like ectopic pregnancies, makes sense. Preventive measures like Plan B also seem straightforward, as it prevents implantation.

            I’m uncomfortable with the eugenic aspects of aborting Downs Syndrome children.

            I think a fetus is a live human being, so abortion debate needs to acknowledge that killing a non consenting human is central to the procedure. People who don’t want limits use euphemisms for killing the fetus. They focus the entire argument on the mother, and usually get angry at any considering given to the developing offspring.

            I didn’t really think about the abortion issue until I had an early ultrasound of my son. I think I was 10 weeks along, or thereabouts. I remember seeing his little heart beating like a hummingbird’s. I could see him moving around. That was at 10 weeks. 10. weeks. Since I was over 35, I had more ultrasounds than most. Every few weeks, I got to see him develop, do his flips in there, until he filled up the space. I felt such an overwhelming surge of protectiveness and love for him. I wonder what pregnant women considering an abortion would think if they saw an ultrasound, and realized it’s not just a ball of cells in there. There’s this vague idea that abortion just removes a ball of cells. That’s the blastula stage, and it lasts but a moment.

            1. Appreciate hearing your thoughts, and yes, the first unltrasound experience is wildly powerful. I’d take it even further…, back to the thoughts involved with initial fertilization of the egg. The intertwining of the thought forms involved with what will later become a human life…

              Really hard to see that process affected negatively in any of the ways it can be. However…, a woman who bears the burden of the pregnancy has the right to choose what she wants to do and how she wants to handle it. Full stop. No matter what belief structures from outside are involved. And there is also the way of thinking that holds that limiting a woman’s right to choose is a process that has been used to keep women not in full citizenship so to speak over history. So we don’t know what other people are experiencing and what the full weight of circumstance is putting upon them. Sad but true.

              Best thing is to enjoy the personal experiences we have, being grateful that the fates have aligned to make it possible for us to experience them. It”s not the same for everyone whether we like it or not. A little understanding along those lines goes a long way.

              1. Just as an aside, I worked in a biogenetic lab at Yale in the early 80’s — right when microinjection became legal in the States (having been banned since WWII due to the experiments the Germans did in those times). So I got to see up close the natural processes involved…, but also the strictly scientific ones as microinjection of cells is essentially the first step in cloning. Two of the post docs in the lab were up for the Nobel for their work…, and they basically hated each other. Lol.

                Wild experience seeing the science. The reporting of the science which is another thing altogether. The politics. The random reporters accosting me as I went about my work trying to gain access to the principle scientists, etc. Eye opener on every single level.

        1. Roe covers the “limits”. You really should read up on these things, Karen, instead of parroting what you heard on alt right media. The “limits” are the age of fetal viability, which is the point when states can regulate.

          1. Roe does not define medical necessity. Are you kidding?

            I don’t think you understand the point of discussion. What would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned? Should states decide abortion laws? Should there be any limits on abortion and if so, what are those limits?

            You seem to be really lost.

            1. Roe doesn’t have to define “medical necessity”. You are the one who doesn’t understand how simple the Roe holding was: states cannot regulate prior to the age of fetal viability. The limits are defined by Roe. As with the Mueller Report, you haven’t read Roe, but pretend to know all about it based on what you heard on the alt right media you follow.

              If Roe is overturned, then we go back to where we were pre-Roe. Women got abortions then and will get them again, only they might not be as safe, and they may have to travel to Mexico or Canada. Women of means were always able to get abortions. Republicans, who already aren’t popular with suburban and educated women, will see a backlash the likes of which they cannot fathom.

              You just don’t seem to understand that this is a settled issue, and one which most Americans are satisfied with.

              1. Natacha – then why are you worried about Roe v Wade, if it’s all decided, a definite Constitutional right, and there’s no question about it? If it’s settled, “the law of the land”, then stop worrying about abortion cases being heard by SCOTUS.

                It’s all settled, remember?

                1. Yeah, I know that, but Amy Covid Barrett, Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh don’t.

    2. The reason we have a Constitution that enshrines certain values of the founders is to protect citizens from “states rights”. “The people” don’t have any right to force their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them because the Constitution protects the right to privacy from government interference. Roe v. Wade held that prior to the age of fetal viability, a woman has the right to decide whether to proceed with a pregnancy or to terminate, and that right is included in the right of privacy contained in the Fourth Amendment.

      1. The reason we have a Constitution that enshrines certain values of the founders is to protect citizens from “states rights”.

        Did you get that little nugget from the 1619 project? The federal constitution was to protect the rights of the citizens and the individual states from encroachment by the federal government. The 10th amendment to the federal constitution was put there for a reason.

  9. They don’t want the gubermint to tell them to wear a mask during a pandemic, they don’t want the guberment in their personal lives, they don’t want gubermint and their regulation’s, BUT……. regulate the vote and a women’s right to choose, and well, well, well, that’s a different story.

    1. Too bad but in a pregnancy situation about half the time only one female gets to choose but it affects two. Amazing how many people ignore the state’s rights and the unborn child’s welfare.

      1. Are you for helping a hungry child? Are you for helping a child with no home and support? Well get used to it, because it will come. More than you care to think of.

        1. FishWings – do you need to be or own a slave to oppose slavery? Are you a hypocrite for opposing slavery if you’ve never rescued a slave personally? Can you oppose car theft if you don’t own a car?

          Everyone has the right to come to their own opinions.

          Abortion is a contentious, emotional issue. Each state needs to have the painful debates necessary to hammer out when an unborn child has a right to live that supersedes the mother’s rights. Everyone does have the right to do what they want to their own body. The question revolves around the other person’s body.

          The overwhelming majority of people in America do think that at some point, an unborn child has the right not to be killed. Most think a full term healthy baby has the right to not be killed. I can’t understand why women would demand to take the extra step of actually having the viable infant killed, since they’re going through labor and delivery anyway. But there are a surprising number of women who do abort late term, healthy infants. Kermit Gosnell had plenty of customers who were full term, with healthy fetuses. At that point shouldn’t the baby have the right to live, and be given up for adoption?

          The people of the United States need to come together, state by state, and hammer out what they want for abortion laws. It would be grand if people could have that discussion without calling one side murderers and the other side the Handmaid Tale or making fun of accents. You’re never going to get good legislation, or even a decent, intellectual conversation if all people do is insult and fight.

          Are we a mature enough people to have the tough discussions, or not?

          1. We have law to cover abortion–Roe v. Wade, decided in1973. It is the law of the land, but you and the alt-right don’t like it, so you pretend that it’s an undecided issue. The majority of Americans do support Roe, which has been under attack since it was decided. You have this dumb idea that this issue needs to be re-visited, but it doesn’t. You also have this dumb idea that Roe contains no limits on abortion, but that’s not true, either. The age of fetal viability is the point at which states can regulate. There are a couple of states that allow third-trimester abortions, such as Colorado, but they are the exceptions. What about states’ rights for these states? Well, no, you don’t want that, either. It’s only states’ rights when it comes to limiting abortion rights.

            You keep repeating the same lies about full-term infanticide and Dr. Gosnell. He was reported to law enforcement over and over again, not just for the infants, but because of filthy conditions and infection that caused women to die, too, but it took years to stop him. He was stopped, so why do you keep harping about him? And, he was prosecuted under existing laws–no special laws needed. He is an outlier, and your continuous harping about him as if what he did is routine or widespread is disingenuous. Abortions in the third-trimester are very rare, and almost always are done to save the mother’s life or because the fetus has anomalies that are incompatible with life. DOCTORS DO NOT KILL FULL-TERM HEALTHY FETUSES. No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it is still a lie.

            There’s nothing left to “discuss” other than people like you want to outlaw abortion despite Roe. The majority of Americans support Roe, so to get the Evangelicals to the polls to “save babies”, McConnell stacks the SCOTUS with radical right-wing judges. Abortion is a decided issue, but they’re trying to re-open it solely for political reasons, and people like you fall for it. The SCOTUS is supposed to follow stare decisis, which means that every time new judges are added, already-decided cases don’t get reversed–they are supposed to follow precedent.

        2. Fishy:
          Are you for helping a hungry child? Are you for helping a child with no home and support? Well get used to it, because it will come. More than you care to think of.”
          Oh so it’s an economic decision for you. It’s cheaper to kill ’em is your principled argument. How’s about we make people raise their own kids or jail ’em if we have to pay for their kids?

          1. Don’t you just love how the libs always want to pawn peoples responsibilities on others? If you have sex and you get pregnant, you give birth and you raise the child.

      2. But you don’t do that in your own life, and you don’t force your personal views on others. That’s what makes you so star spangled awesome.

        1. Anonymous – does the public have the right to oppose infanticide of a born infant? After all, that also involves a separate human, but it interferes with the parent’s decision.

          1. We’re back on that crap again. Get this through your skull, Karen S.: doctors don’t kill healthy full-term infants. We already have laws on the books outlawing that. Not everyone agrees that life begins at conception.

            1. MD’s take an oath, just like I did as a dentist, to do no harm…is abortion breaking their oath?…I think it is!

              1. That’s awesome for you.

                As a vegetarian I’m no fan of the means by which meat is produced for the market. I do know it’s a matter of personal choice though and am of the opinion that I’m cool with what you do, now you be cool with what I do.

          1. You see, right there. We’re never going to be able to hammer out good legislation if all people can do with this issue is ad hominem. If you aren’t capable of acknowledging that there are good people. with sincere opinions and good points to make on all sides of this issue, then you aren’t capable of contributing to a solution.

            It really is too bad that people give themselves permission to act this way in political discussions. It’s knee jerk at this point, because insults don’t involve any thinking at all.

            1. Ha. I suspect it was to me. But I was responding to Mespo. My bad if I posted in the wrong place.

              1. No, not to you Anonymous, Now Anonymous the stupid is another story.

              2. I’ve notice that in posting replies, sometimes the post gets misplaced. I don’t know why.

      1. Karen S. Prior to the age of fetal viability, the only one with a “SAY” in a woman’s pregnancy is the woman herself. This is a Constitutional right, included in the right of privacy. What legal authority do you claim gives the government the right to a “SAY” in someone’s reproductive decisions prior to the age of fetal viability? Tell us. The SCOTUS said no such right exists, and in fact, the Constitution protects a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own body. What business is it of yours, anyway?

  10. Expand the court, not even to Turley’s proposed 17-19. Thirteen should be enough to wash out the bible thumpers into a more reasonable position.

  11. And a fine, fair welcome to the Tucker Carlson staffers reading these comments, periodically stepping in to whip things up.

  12. Since going on the Fox payroll, you, again, have become sadly predictable, Turley. Instead of admitting that the wrongful presence on the SCOTUS of Gorsuch (who took Merrick Garland’s seat), Kavanaugh (whose opponents were denied the ability to testify by Republicans) and the radical Amy Covid Barrett, chosen primarily for her anti-abortion stance to mollify Evangelicals (because they mostly vote Republican), is a threat to stare decisis, just as opponents claimed would happen, you turn this into yet another attack on Biden. Biden is motivated by wanting to protect the rights of the majority of Americans against the tyranny of radial right-wingers. And, according to Fox/Turley, this is a bad thing. Just like Trump not being able to cheat or bully his way into a second term because the American people never wanted him in the first place and never warmed to him, now we have to have “election reform”–fixing “problems” that didn’t exist in the first place. The net result is that it will be harder for minorities and Democrats to vote. And, this is a “good thing”–right? Because Republicans know their support continues to slip, so they have to gerrymander districts, make it harder for Democratic voters to vote, take power from local election officials and give it to state legislatures who can monkey with the votes–anything to stay in power.

    Here’s the thing, Turley: most Americans do not agree with the radical right-wing views of these three. You talk about “stacking” the SCOTUS, well, that’s exactly what the Republicans have done. Most Americans are not Republicans. In fact, only 25% of Americans identify as Republicans. Most Americans support the holding in Roe v. Wade. The so-called “pro lifers” position is based on religion, not science, and they don’t have the right to force the rest of us to live according to their beliefs.

    1. Natacha, was Robert Bork “denied” his seat? Your litany of seats on the Court is banal, uneducated and counter to a document known around here as the Constitution. Read it sometime, study the powers of the Senate and then get back to us.

      1. Our constitution plus the bill of rights and the 25 amendments plus the federalist papers got us where we are today…I have almost no respect for the far left today…I can read and make my own decisions about how I live my life and how I treat others…in my opinion the America I grew up in is finished…the far left thinks all us country folks who just want our freedom and to be left alone are just too stupid to read and reason so we should not vote…let us educated kings and queens tell you what to do…we have power over you…we have the military…all the money and wealth…just do as you’re told and we will let you barely survive or else…big tech and bid government want total control of every living creature on earth…they expect to be worshipped as a false idol/god…that has never worked out to well throughout history…the poor always unite and take back what was stolen from them…even in the animal kingdom they don’t behave very long in cages…well neither do humans…will someone come along and re-unite America?…THAT IS THE QUESTION THE WORLD IS ASKING TODAY…it is NOT Biden/Harris/Pelosi folks!!!

  13. A social contract with two parties: the People and our Posterity.

    Abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. Elective abortion in self-defense. Viable until Nature (Her choice) or mother (her choice) determine otherwise. Planned parent/hood (e.g. reproductive rites) is a wicked solution (e.g. “burden” relief, clinical cannibalism).

    Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, without diversity [dogma] (e.g. ageism). Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature. Reconcile.

    Baby… Fetus… Baby Lives Matter

    1. Maybe not. However, as elective abortion has been normalized, reversing or reforming legalization would only be the first step… a baby step to recover human rights and restore civil rights. First, slavery and diversity. Now, planned parent/hood (e.g. reproductive rites).

  14. If had to hazard a guess, Roberts will cave to the left and Kavanaugh will join him. I think they fear the Democrats will use any substantive attack on Roe as a pretext to scrap the filibuster and pack the Court. Whatever happens, court packing will be Banquo’s Ghost at the hearing.

      1. Nope. He only did what your guys would have done under the same circumstances. But we would never pack the Court.

        1. Except they didn’t. They should have because they’re not dealing with characters bargaining in good faith, clearly. But they didn’t. Rick Wilson is on the money when he says Dems have never understood how to ‘drag them’. Your side sent people to overthrow an election and kill representatives on January 6th. They’re seeking to fix every election possible going forward. Time to put Repubs balls in a vice.

          1. Nope. Wrong, again. You guys have a penchant for criminalizing everything and everybody you don’t like. Infantile politics.

            1. Yeah, I know I’m being extreme and everything, but count me in for criminalizing lynch mobs.

              1. Disavow Antifa and BLM and I’ll believe you. I didn’t support the Capitol riots. I want them prosecuted.

                1. And I want a team of Clydesdales.

                  Thing is, Antifa isn’t an actual organization and people got arrested on the spot, teargassed, shot with rubber bullets and often smoked in the face with batons on location. Then got arressted and prosecuted later.

                  Whereas trumpers barged into the Capitol, built a gallows out front, attacked Capitol police, looked for Pence and Pelosi to hang them and then took selfies of themselves, posting them online before going back to their hotel rooms and leaving town before they got arrested.

                  So no, I’d never go for your ridiculous demand because a) you’re a snowflake, and b) you make no sense.

  15. Each thinking person has to decide for themselves when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. In todays world, as long as you can read, you should know how to prevent a pregnancy. It’s just an education by some adult or an adult online. Listen to women who had an abortion and regret that decision. About 50% of all black pregnancies are aborted. Where do you draw the line? At a heartbeat? In some of the most liberal states it’s 1 day before delivery. If a pregnant woman is killed why is it a double homicide? Are we heading towards a communist regime where the government decides who lives or who dies? Hitler would put people in pits and the woman would hold up her baby, begging for mercy, and then watch as the bullet went through the baby and mother. Are we moving towards this type of evil regime again? I think we are…over 30% of the US population under 30 believe communism is a wonderful form of government.

    1. hjf1949, here you go again, along with every Trump-supporting tub of lard, blaming women for getting pregnant. The idea seems to be that only sluts wind up with unplanned pregnancies. And they should punished with unwanted children as an example to other sluts.

      No wonder Republicans are losing suburban women.

      1. naturally anonymous mocks everyone they disagree with…yes I am a religious conservative and vote…my right as a citizen…and as an adult who votes I have a legal right to my opinion…reveal yourself anonymous!…you are the reason we are so divided as a country…it’s called free speech!!!

      2. There YOU go again, along with every other lib never holding the person responsible for making bad decisions.

        1. Jim22, nobody should be ‘punished’ with an unwanted child. Because ultimately the child will be punished for being unwanted.

          1. Yes, people… persons: men and women need to lose their Pro-Choice religion. Reversing legalization of planned parent/hood (e.g. reproductive rites, clinical cannibalism) is the first step, baby… fetus step to restoring human and civil rights. First, slavery and diversity. Now. the wicked solution.

          2. The libs always amaze me how the turn something a sacred as life into “punishment”. Maybe if more people experienced the sacrifice of being a parent, we would have less killing of unique human life of value. Instead the libs just want an out for being inconvenienced.

    2. Remember to that the govt. incentivizes having babies that can’t be supported.

      1. Liberty, Bill Clinton signed Welfare Reform 30 years ago. Since then ‘careers’ on public aid are less than certain.

    3. If you believe that each “thinking person” can decide when life begins, then why are you trying to shove your beliefs down the throats of people who don’t agree with you? Roe says that it is at the age of viability, but the radical right-wingers don’t accept that. The belief that life begins at conception is based on religion, not science. It is a fundamental tenet of American law that no one can be forced to live according to the beliefs of any certain religion. And, you are just repeating the Fox News slop when you claim that “most liberal states” allow abortion 1 day before delivery. That’s a lie. Why do you believe lies? Because they align with your religious beliefs? The bottom line is: if you believe abortion is wrong, then don’t get one. If you believe that every person has the right to decide for themselves whether abortion prior to the age of viability is appropriate because they don’t accept your religious view that life begins at conception, then butt out and don’t try to force your beliefs on others.

      1. don’t you understand it’s just my opinion…this thread is just an opinion site…how can I shove anything down your throat?…SCOTUS has the final say period…Natacha why do you think many Americans are becoming ex-patriots and moving to other countries?…second passports are very east to get…and since we are now a socialist country there is no reason to live here…I am just very tired of being attacked ever time I comment on an issue…enjoy socialism Natacha and the very high taxes that go with it…you want everything free…well wait until you see how expensive free really is!

        1. Very high taxes? Where? You better check the Forbes 500 and see who pays high taxes, spoiler alert…….Not very many. The middle class pays a higher share of their income in taxes than the very rich. It’s socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the rest.

            1. There’s only so much you can get from the middle class and working people. Thatcher like St. Ronnie of Reagan ran up debt for the tax cuts that only 10 to 15% got. The UK and the USA has two different systems but they both stole from the poor to give to the rich.

          1. FishWings, I remember when Bill Maher had his epiphany on TV. He said, on camera, that the rich pay the freight in CA. He’s right.

            Some rich people don’t earn wages. Their income is through investments. People who would punish success want to tax investments at extraordinary levels to ensure that the rich can’t earn wealth from investments. That kills investment, 401K, pension funds…

    4. It is scientifically indisputable that the life of each human being begins at conception. The question at hand is whether and under what circumstances the law allows the intentional killing of unborn human beings.

      1. And, as we witnessed recently with planned parent/hood (e.g. New York, Michigan), when and by whose choice is a life deemed worthy of life. Whether it is one-child (i.e. minority choice) or selective-child (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), there is a progressive path and grade.

    5. The communists and socialists (e.g. national, democratic) have their planned population schemes, their final solutions, their wicked solutions, their Great Leaps (i.e. mass abortion), then they tried one-child (i.e. dictatorial abortion). They have settled on shared/shifted responsibility through selective-child a.k.a. reproductive rites and normalization (e.g. Pro-Choice religion), which denies a woman and man’s dignity and agency. Even teenagers know that with sex comes responsibility that may include pregnancy (i.e. conception of new human life). There is no mystery, only probability, which is why they tried to deny civil rights, and hold warlock trials, while absolving their witch partners. They failed to establish their so-called “rape culture”.

  16. Nothing says “small government” like forcing women to give birth.

    Also, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

    Unborn = born, apparently.

    1. Is a small govt. one that doesn’t protect unique human life of value?

    2. X:

      Nothing quite says Big Government like consigning the unborn to a gruesome death in the name of getting some women’s votes.

      1. The authoritarian dream to infantalize people… persons: men and women, through sustainable denial of dignity and agency. Also, social progress: keep women appointed, available, and taxable. The feminist and masculinist dream.

  17. If Roe had just given a blow she would not have gotten knocked up.

  18. I pray to God every day that Roe is overturned. That would teach those commie lefty treasonous women that think they have control over their own bodies. If the Blessed Virgin Mary had had an abortion, Jesus would never have been born. Then where would the world be? Mired in sin, violence, destruction, war, plague, injustice. Oh wait…

    1. Al:

      “That would teach those commie lefty treasonous women that think they have control over their own bodies.
      Only some “commie lefty treasonous women,” Al. Only some — the ones you favor.

    2. Social liberalism Progressive dysfunction. The fifth choice. Pro-Choice religion. In Stork They Trust

  19. In reality, most people who claim to be pro-life really only mean pro-life up until birth. Most of them support pro-death policies e.g. death penalty, killings by bombs, bullets, and missiles.

    1. I am pro life and against the death penalty. Oddly, my view on switched as I got older. I switched on the death penalty when I actually knew someone who got murdered and saw what it did to that family. I came to the realization that killing this murderer, would do nothing to help this family.

      1. The challenge with the death penalty is that in our legal system the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (contrary to recent trials, but still the letter and spirit of the law).

      2. It is not logically inconsistent to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, with one being the killing of the innocent and the other being the killing of the guilty. Or at least someone who was arrested, prosecuted, and found by a jury to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, as defined by each juror. Which, of course, can present a problem.

        Throughout the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of a person accused of a capital crime, there is ample opportunity for the government to display its incompetence, bias, and inconsistency. Because it is hard to rectify an unjust execution, perhaps that is reason enough to oppose the death penalty, even if you believe that the death penalty, unlike abortion, is not inherently immoral.

      3. Treason against the United States and it’s people could be a call for the death penalty.

Comments are closed.