In the aftermath of the historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, politicians and pundits have denounced the Supreme Court justices and the Court itself for holding opposing views on the interpretation of the Court. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the justices “right-wing politicians” and many journalists called the Court “activists.” Most concerning were legal analysts who fueled misleading accounts of the opinion or the record of this Court. Notably, it is precisely what the Court anticipated in condemning those who would make arguments “designed to stoke unfounded fear.”
Vice President Kamala Harris and others repeated the claims that same-sex marriage, contraceptives, and other rights are now in danger. The Court, however, expressly and repeatedly stated that this decision could not be used to undermine those rights: “Abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.'” The Court noted:
“Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.” The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a “potential life” as a matter of any significance.”
Indeed, I cannot recall an opinion when the Court was more adamant in prospectively blocking the use of a holding in future cases. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, suggested that the Court should reexamine the rationale for such rights but also emphasized that the majority of the Court was clearly holding that the opinion could not be used in that way. Thomas wrote:
“The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
Nevertheless, on CNN, legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers echoed the common claim that this decision could now be used to unravel an array of other rights and “criminalizing every single aspect” of women’s reproductive healthcare. However, Rodgers went even further. She suggested that states could ban menstrual cycle tracking: “Are they going to be able to search your apps—you know there’s apps that track your menstrual cycle. You know how far are these states going to try and go?”
On ABC, legal analyst Terry Moran declared “We are in a new era where the reaching for the center to keep the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public, to keep the debate going, is over.” I do not want to be unfair to Moran. I understand that Moran was referring to how the Court would be perceived by the public, though many citizens obviously support this ruling.
The comment reflects the view of many that the legitimacy is now lost because a majority follow a narrow constitutional interpretative approach rather than the preferred broad interpretative approach. That sounds a lot like your legitimacy is based entirely on whether I agree with your constitutional views.
Moran said that this reflected a “new era” of the “activist court.” However, the Court has actually rendered a high percentage of unanimous or near unanimous cases. I have been writing for a couple years how the Court seems to be speaking through its decisions in issuing such rulings in contradiction to such claims of rigid ideology. Justice Stephen Breyer and other colleagues have swatted back such claims that this is a “conservative court” driven by ideology.
Even ABC itself has recognized this record, writing in an earlier story:
“An ABC News analysis found 67% of the court’s opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.
That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade, according to SCOTUSblog.”
None of that has stopped legal analysts from portraying the court as “activist.” Of greater concern are the attack on the justices themselves, including the entirely false clam that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch committed perjury in their confirmation hearings.
One can obviously disagree with this interpretation. I have long disagreed with some of these justices on rights like privacy. However, this is a good-faith constitutional view that is shared by many in the legal profession. Of course, few law professors share this view because there are comparably few conservatives left on law faculties. There are even fewer conservative or libertarian legal analysts with mainstream media. That creates a misleading echo chamber as legal experts and media figures dismiss the decision of the Court as “activist” and “political.”
During the Trump Administration, many of these same figures denounced former President Donald Trump for his attacks on judges who ruled against his cases. Many of us noted that those judges had good-faith reasons for their rulings and their integrity should not be questioned. Yet, it now seems open season on any justice or judge who follows a more narrow, textual approach to constitutional interpretation.
Media figures and legal experts are not just content with disagreeing with the Court’s analysis but want to trash these jurists as craven, unethical people. Politicians like Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., called the justices “far-right, racist.”
There was a typical exchange on CNN Tonight between conservative former Politico reporter Carrie Sheffield and former Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-IA). Sheffield said:
“I personally prefer that, but I know that people on the other side don’t prefer that. That is the beauty of federalism to say that people will migrate. They will vote with their feet at the end of the day. So, as much as I would like to see a federal ban, I know that is politically unlikely. So, that, I think, is the best compromise. In fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg said …”
Sheffield was then cut off by Finkenauer, who said, “Do not say her name tonight from your mouth.”
That is a curious moment since Ginsburg herself criticized the opinion as going too far. At The University of Chicago Law School, Ginsburg stated on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that Roe gave
“the opponents of access to abortion … a target to aim at relentlessly and attributed not to the democratic process, but to nine unelected old men.” She added that “the history of the year since then is that the momentum, momentum has been on the other side. The cases that we get now on abortion are all about restrictions on access to abortion and not about expanding the rights of women.”
On “The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations” in 2019, Ginsburg noted:
“The court had an easy target because the Texas law was the most extreme in the nation,” she maintained. Ginsburg explained that based on the Texas law at the center of Roe v. Wade, “abortion could be had only if necessary to save the woman’s life” with no exceptions for rape or incest.
I thought that Roe v. Wade was an easy case and the Supreme Court could have held that most extreme law unconstitutional and put down its pen,” she added. “Instead, the court wrote an opinion that made every abortion restriction in the country illegal in one fell swoop and that was not the way that the court ordinarily operates.”
Finkenauer’s insistence that pro-life advocates could not utter the name of Ginsburg did not apply to pro-choice advocates, even those who blame the late justice for the Roe reversal. I wrote during Ginsburg’s service that she was taking a huge risk by declining to retire to guarantee that her seat would be filled by someone appointed by a Democratic president. I specifically noted that Roe could be reversed and her legacy lost due to a desire to remain on the Court for a couple more years. I was criticized for that column. However, now liberals are raising that decision and blaming Ginsburg for Dobbs.
Hollywood Reporter columnist Scott Feinberg tweeted “the terrible irony is that her decision to stay too long at the party helped lead to the destruction of one of the things she cared about the most. Sadly, this will be a big part of her legacy. Journalist Eoin Higgins was more direct “Thanks especially to RBG today for making this possible.” In a particularly offensive posting, writer Gabrielle Perry declared “Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slow roasting in hell.”
This reckless rhetoric is becoming the norm in our discussions of this and other legal controversies. We are losing a critical mass of mature and sensible voices in discussing such cases. Instead, analysts are expected to reinforce a narrative and amplify the anger in the coverage of such cases. That is a great loss to our profession and only will fuel the unhinged rage of some who only consider the conclusion, and not the analysis, of this opinion.
315 thoughts on “The Dobbs Decision Unleashes Rage and Revisionism”
Most states are going to allow legal abortions, some may be more liberal than the federal government would be. What’s all the screaming about.
Take a look at the map of states that have a ban that has either already taken effect or will take effect within the next few weeks:
Other states are likely to join them.
Some women scheduled to have abortions on Friday, sitting in the waiting room, were refused abortions in some of those states because the ban took effect immediately.
Women in huge swaths of the US will not have access to legal abortions in their states.
This will also have implications for the treatment of miscarriages (pharmacists are already refusing to fill prescriptions for drugs that manage miscarriages, because those drugs are also used for elective abortions). It will have implications for endangering women’s health when they have ectopic pregnancies. Some conservatives are calling for national abortion bans, so it’s not as though it’s going to end here either.
Society can’t demand that you donate blood to save someone’s life. Society can’t even demand that you donate your organs after you die to save someone’s life. But you want women to donate the use of their bodies for 9 months to save an embryo.
The SCOTUS decision is not a ban…can you not get that through your head. It puts this issue back into the states hands where it should have been from the get go. Women that want to puree their babies out of convenience or comfort just have to make a little more effort now. Miscarriages will always be treated as they have , so where you think otherwise is deceitful at minimum. There are consequences to not taking precaution to avoid pregnancy.
Can you not get it through your head that I said STATE bans?
And when it all shakes out almost all our states will be more “progressive” (for those that use that term relative to killing babies) than the most progressive countries in the EU
For comments on JT’s this thread is remarkably coherent and even, at times, thoughtful.
The crazy Left, who loved to loudly proclaim their veneration of and fealty to democracy after the Jan 6th dust up, now want no parts of it after SCOTUS handed an issue ripe for the voters back to them. Yeah they are crazy —- and transparent tyrants, too.
The US is a constitutional democracy. We want SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If you’re now going to complain that the word “abortion” doesn’t appear, lots of words don’t appear in the Constitution. For example, “privacy” doesn’t appear, but you still have a right to privacy. The phrases “Electoral College” and “congressional districts” do not appear, yet they’re required by the Constitution. The list of words that don’t appear in the Constitution is long, and that does not imply that the Constitution says nothing about the underlying concepts.
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Women should not be forced into involuntary servitude in service of an embryo. You cannot even be forced to donate blood to save someone’s life, which is extremely simply, safe, and brief, but you think it fine and dandy for a woman to be forced to donate the use of her body for 9 months.
It took two people to make that baby. If she doesn’t want to be pregnant, then she shouldn’t have sex. Upwards of 75%+ of abortions are elective. It isn’t just about the mother; it is also about the father and that new life they created together. No one should be treated as disposable or inconvenient.
Even, this, though, doesn’t get to the nuances of the argument.
Consent to sex isn’t consent to bringing a pregnancy to term, and in some cases, the pregnant woman or girl was raped — yet some state laws have no rape exception.
All of the abortions we’re talking about are elective/induced. The only other type of abortion is a spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage.
You claim that “No one should be treated as disposable or inconvenient,” but the fact is: when my friend’s son needed a bone marrow transplant, he couldn’t demand that anyone donate marrow to save his life. Luckily, someone volunteered. When a friend needed a liver transplant, he couldn’t demand that someone donate part of their liver — or even demand that a liver be taken from someone who had just died — to save his life. He died while waiting for a liver transplant. In ALL other situations, the potential donor has bodily autonomy and can refuse to let others use any part of their body, even if it means that the other will die.
Yet you want to demand that women donate the use of their bodies for 9 months, a MUCH more significant demand than bone marrow donation. Why do treat pregnant women so differently, why do you value an embryo over an actual person?
“Consent to sex isn’t consent to bringing a pregnancy to term, and in some cases, the pregnant woman or girl was raped — yet some state laws have no rape exception.”
Rape or incest should definitely be exceptions.
Sex has a fairly high likelihood towards pregnancy when not protected or managed. Evolution sorta geared species towards procreation being the tendency following intercourse.
Creating a new life with another person demands responsibility. This isn’t just individual autonomy anymore. Three people are involved. When two people join in intercourse, that seriously complicates the situation.
A person’s a person, no matter how small.
This argument is too serious to be bifurcated into pro-life/pro-choice. There are crucial nuances and perceptions that are being and have been driven over roughshod.
But in some states, rape and incest are NOT exceptions.
You believe that embryo is a person, and I do not, and our constitution does not.
If you think an embryo is a person, then you’d have to conclude that a frozen embryo bank may have hundreds of thousands of frozen people sitting in it, and should count towards the determination of congressional seats.
If you think an embryo is a person, then you must object to IVF embryos being discarded, despite never implanting.
If you think that an embryo is a person, then you’d have to conclude that throughout human history, many more people have died prior to birth than were ever born, as ~1/2 of embryos don’t even implant.
“Creating a new life with another person demands responsibility.”
It does. But the egg and sperm were already alive, and you’re eliding when that responsibility becomes important. You seem to believe that it’s at conception, and I do not. Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a pregnancy to term. Women should not be indentured servants to embryos.
“This argument is too serious to be bifurcated into pro-life/pro-choice”
I have no problem having a serious, complex discussion with you. I suggest that you start by reading the diverse views in biology, so there is no consensus agreeing with your belief that an embryo is a person: https://web.archive.org/web/20030511191256/http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=21&id=162
“But in some states, rape and incest are NOT exceptions.”
I agree that that is a problem. On that note, though, it should still be a choice, depending upon the age of the person in question. I know a person who is the product of a teenage rape and the person is very happy their mother chose not to abort.
“You believe that embryo is a person, and I do not”
Why not? Also, it is rather more complicated than the direction this seems to be going so far.
“and our constitution does not.”
It does not say anything on this matter.
“If you think an embryo is a person, then you’d have to conclude that a frozen embryo bank may have hundreds of thousands of frozen people sitting in it”
“and should count towards the determination of congressional seats.”
No. And, it is more complicated than that.
I already told you why not:
First, for me, THE most important aspect of personhood is a functioning brain. For me, when brain death occurs, the person is dead, even if their body is still alive. This is also a legal definition of death. If you believe that brain death is not the death of the person, then you presumably object to beating heart organ donation after brain death. With an embryo, there is no brain functioning as it does in people who’ve been born; the person hasn’t yet developed. This is one of the reasons that a fetus doesn’t survive if born prior to viability: the brain is not sufficiently developed to regulate the body.
Second, assuming that an embryo is a person leads to all sorts of side-effects that I disagree with, such as counting frozen embryos as people in the census.
What do you mean? In what way / why is it only “sort of”? You say “it is rather more complicated than the direction this seems to be going so far,” but you’re choosing not to explain your own more complicated thinking to help the discussion go in a different direction.
“[our constitution] does not say anything on this matter.”
Not using the word “abortion” or “fetus,” but in many other ways. As the Justices noted in Roe, “The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.” The Constitution does not define many things — “privacy,” for example, does not appear. But what it does say has implications for the meaning of “privacy,” and in the same way, what it does say has implications for the meaning of “person”: “in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”
“No. And, it is more complicated than that.”
So explain, and help me understand what you *do* believe and what you think the complication is.
TRUE in large measure,, but what about the TOO MANY CASES where a woman is physically forced to have sex against her will, including all kinds of rape and/or incest..???
If the Constitution protected a right to bodily autonomy, explain Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buick v. Bell
What about these?
In the latter, the explanation is again that SCOTUS screwed up, just like they did here. BTW, it’s Buck, not Buick.
In the former, the explanation is partly that all rights have limits (e.g., despite the 1st Amendment, perjury is illegal), and smallpox is a deadly communicable disease that endangers other people, whereas pregnancy is not (and no, an embryo is not a person), and partly that SCOTUS screwed up, as they should have allowed more exceptions.
“People have a right to bodily autonomy. ”
1. So you’re say that yet to be born person in the womb has Con Rights, like Due Process Rights. That’s what you’re saying isn’t it!
2. bodily autonomy, my body my choice, so you are also saying it’s OK for Govt/Big Phama to Mandate Experimental mRNA Shots even today when it’s known they are causing far more harm the even the Bio-Weapon is that the Govt released on us!
There is no “person in the womb.” Personhood begins at birth.
“you are also saying it’s OK for Govt/Big Phama to Mandate Experimental mRNA Shots”
No, I’m not saying that.
“even today when it’s known they are causing far more harm the even the Bio-Weapon is that the Govt released on us!”
You’re a nut!
“There is no “person in the womb.” Personhood begins at birth.”
What do you mean? There is a little person in there. It isn’t a kitten.
More nuance needed for such a serious issue.
“What do you mean? There is a little person in there. It isn’t a kitten.”
game, set, match!
“It isn’t a kitten.”
Duh. That doesn’t imply that it’s a person. Your unfertilized eggs are alive and human, but they’re not persons. Sperm are alive and human, but they’re not persons. Personhood is a biological and legal construct. Read why there is no agreement among biologists that personhood begins at fertilization: https://web.archive.org/web/20030511191256/http://www.devbio.com/printer.php?ch=21&id=162
Legally, personhood begins at birth: that is when rights attach and when that human being is counted in the census.
For me, THE most important aspect of personhood is a functioning brain. For me, when brain death occurs, the person is dead, even if their body is still alive. This is also a legal definition of death. If you believe that brain death is not the death of the person, then you presumably object to beating heart organ donation after brain death. With an embryo, there is no brain functioning as it does in people who’ve been born; the person hasn’t yet developed. This is one of the reasons that a fetus doesn’t survive if born prior to viability: the brain is not sufficiently developed to regulate the body.
There is plenty of nuance in my thinking. You’re the one who seems to be oversimplifying it by insisting that personhood begins at conception.
“Your unfertilized eggs are alive and human, but they’re not persons.”
I would say they are not human exactly, yet. Yes, they are the cells of a human (rather than a cat’s cells). But, there is no direction until sperm and egg unite.
“Legally, personhood begins at birth”
But, there are legal consequences for violence that causes the death of an unborn baby.
“[birth is] when that human being is counted in the census.”
“You’re the one who seems to be oversimplifying it by insisting that personhood begins at conception.”
Not at all. I think our perceptions and definitions of personhood, legal stuff, humanity, and ‘sacredness’ need clarifying.
“I would say they are not human exactly, yet.”
And I would say that “human” as an adjective applies to all sorts of things that aren’t human beings. For example, human eye is not a human being, but it is human (adjective). A car is not a human being, but it is a human (adj.) invention.
“there are legal consequences for violence that causes the death of an unborn baby.”
Only if that violence occurs without the pregnant woman’s consent (some people consider abortion violent, but there are no legal consequences for legal abortions). There are also consequences for unagreed-to violence that causes other results (e.g., the death of a pet against the owners’ wishes, the destruction of a work of art against the owner’s wishes). In and of itself, that there are legal consequences does not imply that an embryo is a person.
“I think our perceptions and definitions of personhood, legal stuff, humanity, and ‘sacredness’ need clarifying.”
Then I invite you to clarify for me what your own thinking is and ask me any good-faith questions you have about mine.
Sorry for the delay. My gardens and kids have been keeping me rather busy as of late.
I am cautious about moving ahead too quickly with this discussion because it can devolve quite rapidly.
“THE most important aspect of personhood is a functioning brain.”
Do you place ‘personhood’ then at around 8 weeks, since that is the beginnings of brain function?
You say that ‘legally, personhood begins at birth.’ Ok. But, I do think Mespo brings up an important point–what about the element of human life?
In what way does that factor in?
Also, what are your thoughts on this new life being the creation of two people, not just of the woman? That new little life is half of the man’s, since his sperm contributed half of the baby’s genetics and began its life. Are we erring where Solomon did not in far too many circumstances?
“There is no “person in the womb.” Personhood begins at birth.”
What do you mean? There is a little person in there. It isn’t a kitten.
More nuance needed for such a serious issue.”
It’s that stupid “personhood” versus “human” debate. Personhood does commence at birth but that doesn’t answer the quesyion that matters which is when did that group of cells become human life. That requires protection not just the “person.”
I’ve often asked my woke brothers and sisters what if a zygote “identifies” as a person? Does that help?
I would note that it is likely that an infant is not sufficiently developed to meet many definitions of person.
Human development does not have many bright lines it is a gradual process. It begins with fertilization, and ends with death.
We make arbitrary legal distinctions throughout. We do not hold children under 10 accountable for crimes, we do not allow those under 16 to drive those under 18 to vote and those under 21 to drink
All those and many other distinctions are arbitrary.
But we make them in law regardless, because we need lines in law – even imperfect ones.
We do not say you can vote when you reach some near impossible to measure state of development.
Viva/Barnes will likely go live @ 7 or 8 pm tonight for a couple hours & Roe will be among the topics.
Barnes’ opinions, like Turley’s & others are arguments that are likely to succeed in court, not necessarily the argument I’d like to make. Aka: Religious Exemption against Mandatory Vaxxes is Succeeding in court, but the Individual Rights was pursued in court as much.
BTW: RFKjr & Barnes have Vax cases coming up the next few months.
It’s has been being posted of Youtube & Rumble.
You need another Experimental mRNA Booster Shot.
And if some women want an abortion all they need to do according to sources I’m reading/hearing is go get those mRNA shot/s.
Reports have been out for a least around year the mRNA were causing 82% of pregnant women to have Miscarriages, a better rate the the Day After Pill.
And as a Bonus Prize that mRNA Craps is causes mass Sterilizations.
And as a Bonus Prize that mRNA Crap is causing mass Sterilizations.
I must agree with ‘Personhood begins at birth’ I.E., BIRTH is the key word. I have such a clear memory of my Eminent Biology Professor making it clear in the great lecture theatre that there is no person until it is born. I also have great recollections of how youth and raging hormones often lead to a lot of reckless sex which does not yield ready, willing and able parents.. is it fair to bring a human being into that world..?
It is manslaughter if someone recklessly causes an accident that kills a child that a woman is carrying. States do define personhood occurring before birth. Your eminent profession was a left-wing idiot.
Babies are viable outside the womb at 5 months. Justify killing them at 9 months!
Why would I justify something I don’t agree with?
Why would you stupidly assume I agree with it?
Do you understand the difference between things done with and without consent?
Really? And what was your Eminent Biology Professor’s explanation of what happens to transform this blob of pain-capable cells into a person when it passes through the birth canal into the world? Are you saying location is everything? You do know that pro-abortion peeps in many states, particularly California, don’t consider birth to be the end point of being able to kill the product of an unwanted pregnancy, don’t you? Torturing a pain-capable unborn child to remove it from a woman who doesn’t want it doesn’t seem to bother the “any time for any reason” abortion activists.
If you’ve the time Chk that Viva/Barnes for Sunday today on Youtube 4 a reveiw of The Row v Wade ruling.
If you don’t want the baby keep your legs closed
Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
And many women/girls are raped.
“Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.”
Consent to sex is not consent to a lot of things, but it isn’t consent to kill either. This type of argument is specious.
Exactly and specifically what quality do you have that defines you as “human” that a zygote (1-celled human being) lacks? The lack of an answer proves beyond any shadow of a doubt your own definition of abortion is to murder an innocent unborn human being who committed the alleged capital crime of requiring residence inside another human being. Abortion by your own definition is the extermination of an inconvenient life and nothing else.
Further, by your own definitions than any man who fathered a baby and does not want to contribute to that baby’s well-being could legally, morally and ethically absolve himself of that responsibility. He can simply tell the mother to exterminate the child or raise it without him.
I didn’t say that it’s not “human.”
“Person” and “human” aren’t synonyms. “Person” and “human being” aren’t synonyms either.
So your question — “Exactly and specifically what quality do you have that defines you as “human” that a zygote (1-celled human being) lacks?” — is based on a false assumption.
As I pointed out elsewhere: there can be a living human being with beating heart after brain death, but legally, the person has died. Do you disagree? Do you object to beating heart organ donation after brain death because you believe that it’s killing a living human being? Do you likewise consider it murder?
“He can simply tell the mother to exterminate the child or raise it without him.”
The 1st Amendment protects his right to say whatever he wants, but if a child is born, then the parents either have an obligation to take care of it or to put it up for adoption. This is not about what happens after a child is born. This is about whether the woman’s body is used against her will, essentially enslaving her for 9 months.
My friend’s son required a bone marrow transplant to save him from childhood leukemia. He could not demand that anyone donate that bone marrow to save his live; it had to be voluntarily donated. Why do you think society can demand that a woman unvoluntarily donate the use of her body for 9th months, when pregnancy is riskier than donating bone marrow? Society can’t even require that someone donate their organs after death. In every other situation, people have this kind of bodily autonomy, but you want to make an actual person — the pregnant woman — subservient to an embryo (not a person, but perhaps capable of later developing into a person).
“but legally, the person has died. Do you disagree? Do you object to beating heart organ donation after brain death because you believe that it’s killing a living human being? Do you likewise consider it murder?”
Your worldview is backward. The brain-dead person will never regain what you call personhood but left without the ‘weapon’ of death, that little personhood you fail to see has a long future ahead.
“My friend’s son required a bone marrow transplant to save him from childhood leukemia. He could not demand that anyone donate that bone marrow to save his live; it had to be voluntarily donated. Why do you think society can demand that a woman unvoluntarily donate the use of her body for 9th months, when pregnancy is riskier than donating bone marrow? Society can’t even require that someone donate their organs after death. In every other situation, people have this kind of bodily autonomy, but you want to make an actual person — the pregnant woman — subservient to an embryo (not a person, but perhaps capable of later developing into a person).”
Society requires people donate their bodies all the time. Military drafts ring any bells? Forced community service for crimes? We deem certain values more important than you getting to do what you damn well please. A life in utero seems sufficient reason since survival of the species ranks right up there with self-defense and punishment for crime. I still would like to know why a child gets punished for the actions of the mother or another person. Maybe you could explain that to me.
It’s mobocracy by any definition. Petulant people not getting their way will now cause harm to other people because they can not grasp law and life.
Where is a picture of the actual current court? This one is years old. Just like school history books keeping Obama and never showing Trump! Your stupid
I think it might be “You’re stupid,” there Mr. Hawking!!
This is the modus operandi of the Left. Oppose their policy, and they will make unfounded and slanderous claims. Exhibit A: The Supreme Court concluded that the unborn was not covered in the Constitution and sent abortion to the states and feds. Democrats now claim that unless a mostly male Court rules in their favor, then contraception and interracial marriage will become illegal. It’s obviously untrue. It’s dangerous, as making the tremendous false logic leap that sending abortion to the legislative process will unleash massive racism is going to stoke a mob.
Remember how they said Trump was a seditious traitor when he told his rally “let your voices be peacefully heard”? Remember when they ignored their own rhetoric promoting riots? Well, now Democrats are telling their people, who have a years’ long history of rioting, that the Supreme Court is racist, will make contraception illegal, will make interracial marriage illegal, and will unleash Jim Crow. What do you think so many of their voters, with a well established history of violence, is going to do with that propaganda? Remember Chuck Schumer, pushing all those lies about Trump, telling the public that the nomination of Kavanaugh has “unleashed the whirlwind”? Now we have Jane’s Revenge promising violence, an assassination attempt against Kavanaugh, terrorizing Justices in their homes, and more.
What’s to stop Democrats from whipping up activists with lies until they murder all the conservative Justices? Look how close it came with Kavanaugh. Democrats have opposed providing security to Supreme Court Justices. Why?
Justice Thomas makes clear in his concurrence that he also wants to overturn the court’s rulings on same sex marriage, homosexual sex, and birth control:
“in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [birth control], Lawrence [sex between people of the same sex], and Obergefell [same-sex marriage]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous” … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.” (internal citations omitted)
Did you bother to read what he wrote?
What do you have to say about what he wrote?
And I’m remind you that you asked me to apologize to you for making a mistaken claim about you, and I did, and I asked you to correct multiple false claims that you made, and you didn’t.
You’ve added more false claims here, like “Democrats have opposed providing security to Supreme Court Justices.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t lie or make false claims.
Reexamining the rationale is a jurisprudence exercise. It does not mean that Clarence Thomas thinks birth control should be illegal. Case in point – this ruling does not indicate whether abortion itself should be legal or illegal, but rather referred it to the legislative process.
There are laws that might have been based on faulty reasoning by a past SCOTUS that would be perfectly just if they were legislated through Congress or State governments rather than by SCOTUS.
The argument about activists judges legislating from the bench is a sound one, whether or not I agree with particular laws upon which it is based.
Again, there is a proper legislative process, as well as overwhelming public support for birth control.
If you don’t know, then you have a bad memory. Reread our exchange here, which you never followed up on, despite my asking you there AND in subsequent exchanges we had elsewhere:
Again, Karen, Thomas argued for “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions.”
Karen: most of the blather you put out is false or misleading or the regurgitation of the slop you got off of Fox. You gave an excellent example: after lying repeatedly about his “landslide victory being stolen by a rigged election”, and going on “Stop the Steal” tours to rile up the faithful, telling them that if they didn’t “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, your hero threw in the comment about being “peaceful”. Trump was told by everyone in his orbit, other than Giuliani, that he lost the election. He still won’t stop lying about this, despite 38 audits, 60+ failed lawsuits and inciting a riot to try to prevent Biden’s victory from being certified. Yet, you still believe that it’s Democrats who are violent. Your eyes cannot see and you ears cannot hear the rioting that your hero fomented on Jan 6th. You are a disciple, and as such, not credible.
An undeveloped fertillized egg is NOT an unborn baby–saying so is unhnged rhetoric. Historically, there was no baby or life to protect until quickening, somewhere in the second trimester.
Thomas DID say that the decisions on Obergefell (marriage equality), Lawrence (consensual sex between adults) and Griswold (the right of married couples to use contraception) “should be revisited” since, according to him, they rely on the same sections of the Bill of Rights that Roe relied on.. Of course, being the intellectually dishonest hypocrite he is, he left out Loving v. Virginia that struck down miscegenation laws, because that would invalidate his marriage to his white wife, who was directly involved in the insurrection.
ALL the audits found Problems – man y very significant problems.
More than 100,000,000 people in this country beleive the election was lawless and fraudulent.
YOU along with the democratic party, the left, the media even the government have FAILED to persuade them otherwise.
I would note we have heard this “all the institutions support us” nonsense before – such as the collusion delusion, and the Ukraine is just russian disinformation hoax.
You are not trusted – because your judgement is abysmally poor.
The people you are arguing with do not care about your appeals to the same authorities that were WRONG repeatedly over the past 6 years.
Right now we are watching the destruction of an economy that was chomping at the bit in jan 2021. We have seen twice as many covid deaths under Biden as Trump – when Biden has a vaccine, we see inflation spiraling out of control a recession in the wings, a war most of us know would not have happened under Trump, just a relentless drumbeat of FAILURE.
All from the same people who tell us that Biden won the 2020 election without Fraud.
All you had to do to prevail after your Fraud was to not F#$K everything up. You are too stupid to even manage that.
Doing NOTHING would have resulted in a permanent democratic majority.
But you BLEW IT, and you keep lying and blaming others.
Only left wing nuts beleive you anymore.
Wise people do not listen to people who have been wrong about everything in the past.
And you do not have the integrity to reflect on your own failures and recognize your own mistakes.
What a fertilized egg is, is a subjective question.
Even what constitutites a human is.
Regardless, the egg identifies as human.
Thomas did not write the decision in Dobbs.
What he said reflects a SINGLE vote.
If J6 was an insurection – then so was the collusion delusion or the Biden laptop hoax or Clinton and democratic congressmen’s efforts to get electors to flip in 2016. or the BLM riots. and on and on.
When there is a right wing Insurrection – you will know it.
What I cannot understand is why there are people who so vehemently do not want to apply the legislative process by duly elected representatives to the abortion issue, to the point that some commit violence. They want no responsibility or control over the issue.
Repealing Roe v Wade gives people a say. It does not automatically make abortion illegal. It is an utter falsehood that unless a woman has a pretend Constitutional right to abortion, that mixed race marriages and contraception would be illegal. It’s breathtaking false logic. Even Roe v Wade acknowledged there is a State interest in protecting the potential human life the woman carries. SCOTUS concluded that this issue was not covered in the Constitution, and therefor sent it back to the states and feds.
Liberal states will have extremely permissive abortion laws. The idea that this is a “victory for life” does not take into account the predicted response by NY and CA. They will pass abortion laws that will allow abortion up until the moment of birth, no questions asked. That whole scandal of making babies born alive after abortion “comfortable” while the mother decides if he should be saved is just the beginning. If they model it after the gory Women’s Health Act which recently failed to pass, then Partial Birth Abortion will be allowed again. Then they will proclaim that any state with laws short of that is declaring war on women.
Meanwhile, conservative states will pass abortion laws that reflect the values of their own population.
Studies show that most Americans support abortion in the first trimester, even if they wouldn’t get one themselves, but that support sharply wanes in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.
If the poll asks if abortion should be allowed in the 3rd trimester to save the mother’s life, then people support it. This neatly avoids the fact that the way to quickly end a viable pregnancy that is life threatening to the mother is by emergency delivery, whereas third trimester abortion takes 2 days, carries more risks to the mother, and results in a stillborn.
Europe passed abortion laws via the legislative process, which evolved to reflect their society’s views. They didn’t claim the Magna Carta included rights to abortion.
Americans who favored abortion wanted it taken out of their hands. They were glad that unelected Supreme Court justices, mostly male, fabricated a right to abortion out of thin air. Then they promptly went bananas every single time a Republican was able to appoint a conservative justice, knowing full well that since abortion and pregnancy are not mentioned in the Constitution that Roe v Wade was ALWAYS at risk of being overturned. If it was really “established law” then they wouldn’t have worried. It’s particularly ludicrous how Pro Choice activists keep saying men should have no say over what women do with their bodies, or the little bodies they carry, when Roe v Wade was decided by men.
Perhaps now that abortion is now back in the hands of a somewhat resentful people, there might be less terrorizing of Supreme Court justices, less Machiavellian dirty tricks against conservative justices like Kavanaugh.
People. Govern yourselves. If you can think of a perfect abortion law then there is a legislative path to that.
What I foresee is that the Biden Administration will keep trying to ram through the gory Women’s Health Act, and that Democrats will continue to employ dirty tricks like the Russia hoax against all future Republican candidates. Their goal will be abortion until the moment of birth with no questions asked.
Clearly, the same Left that looted, committed arson, assaulted and killed people in Democrat cities for a year are still willing and able to commit domestic terrorism to get permissive abortion laws.
It’s beginning to feel like the Purge, but year round.
“It does not automatically make abortion illegal.”
It automatically made abortion illegal in multiple states. Patients in doctor’s offices waiting for abortions on Friday were turned away on Friday in those states.
Can you deal honestly with that fact and correct your statement, or are you going to once again run away from your mistakes?
“Patients in doctor’s offices waiting for abortions on Friday were turned away on Friday in those states.”
There is no reason for me to help someone who insults me regularly.
Grow up and ask without using an insulting name, and I will provide a link.
In other words, you made this claim up and have repeated the falsehood multiple times. No surprise.
And there’s an extremely easy way for you to test your conjecture: grow up and ask again without insulting me.
As soon as you ask without the name-calling, I’ll provide more than one link.
Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as liberty and privacy, are not subject to “the legislative process” or the voice of someone else. No one “attempted to kill’ Kavanaugh. You keep repeating the lies about third-trimester abortion that have no basis in fact. You also don’t know much about how abortion has been manipulated by Republicans to try to gin up an issue to create a loyal base. Up to Reagan, it was not any issue at all. Then Republicans, who keep losing the support of the American people, started harping about ‘unborn babies getting murdered”, as a hook to gig the gullilbles like you and Evangelicals. THAT”S why Roe has always been worrisome–because the far right never stopped harping about it. How is it any of your business whether some woman you don’t know chooses to end a pregnancy prior to the age of viability? Where’s your scientific proof that a fertilized egg is “life” entitled to protection under the law? Historically, there was no protectable life until quickening, sometime around the second trimester. The point at which there is “life” is determined by religion, not science, because it is a fact that up to the age of viability, a woman’s body must be used to continue the existence of a fertilized egg. Now, women who don’t believe that an undeveloped fertillized egg has equal rights to her are forced to live under your views, because her decision whether to proceed with the pregnancy was taken away from her by people with no stake in the outcome of how her life will unfold, and she has no say. You’re just another disciple who believes what is served to you by alt right media.
For there to be attempted murder, the perpetrator has to take a substantial step toward commission of the act. The man who was arrested wasn’t even on Kavanaugh’s street, and he called the police because he knew he needed and wanted help. More of the over-wrought lies you like to believe.
“Rights guaranteed by the Constitution,”
So if I have the right to control of my body – why can you force me to covid test, mask, and vaccinate and worse still vaccinate my child ?
YOU burned ‘my body, my choice” to ash. You have no one to blame but yourself.
A woman’s body is used to sustain the child after Birth – does not mean you can kill infants ?
Roske brought an knife and a gun across country
Your argument that Republicans “ginned up” the issue is false and irrelevant.
The catholic church has opposed abortion since hundreds of years before Reagan was born.
Casey – the state of the law prior to Dobb’s was a challenge to a restricive abortion law passed by a DEMOCRATIC Govenor – Casey.
Regardless, a super majority of people want abortion to be legal, rare, and early.
You would be much more persuasive if you were anywhere near the wishes of that majority.
Dobb’s is closer to the super majority view than what the left wants.
If you have the political support for your position – there will be no red wave in November.
I notice that in a dozen or so states a human being is a fertilized egg.
As it stands now, between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs, hereafter referred to as children, never fully implant. They die.
That’s a mortality rate of 1/3 to 50%.
There seems to be a remarkable lack of concern about this.
Not entirely? Women have been jailed for miscarrying.
Where in this country has a woman been jailed for miscarrying?
There seems to be a remarkable lack of concern about this.
Being wholly ignorant of biology is not much of an argument. In all of nature, reproduction failure rate is huge.
No, actually, it varies a great deal by species. Humans have a much higher rate of embryo loss than many other species (total rate for humans — embryo death prior to implantation + miscarriage + stillbirth — is about 70% in humans).
Thanks for pointing out how accurate I am.
No, your claim was “In all of nature, reproduction failure rate is huge,” and that’s false. It’s true for humans, but it is NOT true for “all of nature.” Humans have an unusually high rate of embryo loss.
Go ahead and test your claim: choose 5 other species and tell us their failure rates.
Well now, animals don’t possess knowledge. People do. With knowledge comes responsibility and a Christian duty to act. There has been some research with some success. But it should be major policy to increase implantation rates to nearly 100%. We’re talking about human life here. And infant mortality rates. You are clearly rationalizing because you want to cling to some explanation for the lack of concern.
Please explain how you are equating the deliberate killing of a healthy, unwanted fetus, with the natural failure to implant or loss of unviable embryos?
Most Americans support abortion in the first trimester, but that support falls to 19% in the third trimester, and that mostly when the life of the mother is in jeopardy or the fetus is not viable.
Roe v Wade itself remarked on the State’s interest in protecting unborn life, allowing abortion restrictions.
Even under Roe v Wade, there came a point in gestation where the clock ran out on a woman’s right to choose. Did that mean that Roe v Wade “forced” women to have kids? Third trimester abortions require labor and delivery after the unborn child is killed in utero. Thus, by the third trimester, biology “forces” the woman to give birth or have a C-section, whether she orders the unborn child killed or not. Abortion restrictions under Roe v Wade, and after it, determine at what point a woman cannot kill her unborn child. No matter if someone identifies as Pro Choice or Pro Life, almost all Americans believe that at some point, it’s not only wrong to have an abortion, but should be illegal. The disagreement is where that point is. I heard Joy Behar with my own ears say that third trimester abortion is “murder.”
Also, if you think there isn’t a lack of concern for difficulties getting pregnant, or miscarriages, then you should spend some time at an OB’s office.
You’re not getting me to switch topics. I didn’t address any of this stuff.
Humans are primates — a kind of animal.
We have freedom of religion in the US. You can be Christian and follow the duties you believe that creates for you, but you cannot force others to join you in your “Christian duty,” because a lot of us aren’t Christian.
Your claim that “it should be major policy to increase implantation rates to nearly 100%” is biologically ignorant. The most common reason for failure to implant is that the embryo dies prior to implantation, and the most common reason for embryo death is that the DNA is seriously flawed: there are multiple copy errors in the DNA, and the cell cannot properly function and divide. Learn more biology.
I don’t think you appreciate the spirit within which my comment was made. I may not have made that clear. Let’s face it, nobody here thinks a holocaust is happening because of implantation failure. Perhaps over time, we will improve implantation rates due to medical research. But not because of an exorbitant amount of money on an annual basis. We do, however, spend exorbitant amounts of money on an annual basis to keep a 2-month olds alive — as we should. I am willing to note that our good and decent society makes this distinction, as it should, and take it to its logical conclusion. Others would rather avoid that.
Of course an embryo is human. Do you think it’s a sea turtle?
Of course data on failure to implant and miscarriage are studied by the medical profession, as well as infant mortality rates. Where’s the “gotcha” in tracking these statistics? There is an entire medical profession “concerned” about miscarriage. They are called OB/GYN and high risk fertility experts.
When there is failure to implant, it is not considered a miscarriage. Nor do mortality rates include failure of implantation as they should — shouldn’t they?
Medically, the beginning of pregnancy is implantation, not fertilization. Failure to implant isn’t a miscarriage, as the pregnancy never starts if the embryo dies prior to implantation.
And if you’re going to argue that fertilization should be considered the beginning of pregnancy, you’d better think about who is pregnant with IVF embryos sitting in a petrie dish, and whether you’re also planning to outlaw IVF because of the high % of IVF embryo death, both in vitro and in vivo.
Who elected Lou Dobbs to anything?
John Austin an English jurist in “The Province of Jurisprudence Determined” postulated what law is, not what it should be, and that it cannot be natural law, but as a command by the sovereign.
David Miller “The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought” said “Law consists simply of the enforceable commands of government. It does not depend for its validity on any other criteria, and there are no religious or normative values by which it can be deemed invalid.
I bring these two discourses up to illustrate that the prime Document of these United States is the Constitution. If any sovereign (political party) wishes to give law to the abortion issue there are no road blocks to do so. Abortion was born without the necessary laws of the sovereign, but by the courts without the rights to make law(s) for the sovereign.
A CNN Reporter ambushed Arizona Republican Governor candidate, Kari Lake, a former TV News Anchor. It did not end well for CNN
I’ll do an interview with you… as long as it airs on CNN+, does that still exist? I didn’t think so because the people don’t like what you guys are peddling which is propaganda. thank you
The Roe decision was always illogical. The decision recognized that the life of the unborn child was entitled to some kind of legal protection, even against its mother. But it then decided to set forth a universally binding judge-made rule for protecting that interest: in the first trimester, a state legislature could not prevent abortion; in the second trimester, it could regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother; but in the third trimester it could ban abortion where the child could survive outside the womb. Obviously, the Court was balancing the interest of the child in holding onto existence with the interest of the mother to avoid the discomfort, cost, or other type of burden in birthing the child. This type of balancing is at the heart of the legislative process, which applies at any level of the criminal and civil law, e.g., when is free speech protected and when does it “go too far”. If it is conceded that the Court is not a legislature, then was illogical to prohibit the operation of the legislative process in this single context. If you concede that both the unborn child and its mother have protectible interests, then it must be the province of the legislature in a democracy to draw the line where the interest of one prevails over the interest of the other.
One interesting aspect of Alito’s opinion for the court is how it elevates the tests articulated in Glucksberg to be the exclusive tests of fundamental unenumerated rights protected by substantive due process. If a claimed unenumerated right is not deeply grounded in the nation’s historical traditions or essential to the concept of ordered liberty (whatever that may mean) it is not protected by the Constitution. Under this test, Lawrence and Obergefell would have come out the other way. Griswold v Connecticut may have as well, though Harlan’s concurring opinion in that and his dissenting opinion in Poe v Ullman would suggest otherwise.
So if those opinions were wrong, the question would then be whether they nonetheless would survive a stare decisis analysis. I suspect they would. I also doubt there will be four justices to grant cert on a case challenging any of these precedents, especially after the strong statements on this topic by Alito in his opinion for the court. Thomas might, if the question posed related to substantive due process as a concept, but few if any others would.
Why do you omit Loving from your analysis? It also “would have come out the other way,” as it “is not deeply grounded in the nation’s historical traditions.”
Given how dishonest the Justices were at their confirmation hearings — Alito, for example, lied about how he’d go about analyzing a challenge to Roe: https://www.nycsouthpaw.com/p/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-alito?s=r — I have to wonder why you believe that you know what they’d do.
Why do you omit Loving from your analysis?
You are just ignoring the reconstruction amendments?
I’m not. Nor was Daniel.
That also applies to Obergefell and Lawrence.
Why is balancing the interests of the child vs the mother best handled by the legislature vs the Court?
Because, to be accurate. It’s balancing the interest of the mother vs the LIFE of the child
If you read Roe, you’ll find that the Court was actually balancing the interests of the state against the interests of the pregnant woman. It did not in any way suggest that the embryo or fetus itself has legal interests.
The Roe court must have been impeached and convicted for egregious and aggravated subversion, usurpation, dereliction, failure to fulfill the oath sworn to by Justices, and possibly treason for aiding and abetting enemy propaganda and indoctrination.
You’re a boring, bigoted, dishonest troll George.
Well said, Mahl.
Isn’t this decision becoming moot?
“Contraceptives” are used to “prevent pregnancies.”
Factual situations under that legal construct fall under Griswold, not Roe.
Within a short period of time, such as any day now, abortions, if that’s what you want to call them, are going to be achieved with contraceptives, if that’s what you want to call the pills.
Some are out already. Newer and more diverse pills are in the works,
As far as I know, Griswold did not delve into the particulars of pregnancy. So I would think unless Griswold stated otherwise that you would look to the common law for guidance — not a medical dictionary. And that opens up a time span of up to 25 weeks after fertilization in which you can prevent pregnancy as the common law understands the term.
If anyone is aware of more precise definitions of these terms in Griswold, I would certainly appreciate the info. But I’m not aware of any.
No, the decision is not “becoming moot.”
Contraceptives — including morning after pills — are not 100% effective. Women sometimes have ectopic pregnancies or encounter other health- and life-threatening complications. Men and boys sometimes rape women and girls. Embryos and fetuses are sometimes diagnosed with conditions that are incompatible with life after birth. Women’s circumstances change: partners become abusive, they lose their job, one of their kids is diagnosed with a serious condition and needs all their energy, …
“that opens up a time span of up to 25 weeks after fertilization in which you can prevent pregnancy as the common law understands the term.”
This is total BS. Medically, pregnancy begins at implantation.
And state anti-abortion laws can outlaw abortion starting at conception, and some do that.
Some pills are contraceptives (preventing conception).
Some pills are contragestives (preventing implantation).
Some pills are abortifacients (ending an established pregnancy).
Don’t pretend that pills in groups 2 and 3 are in group 1.
For controlling law, it doesn’t matter when pregnancy begins medically. It matters when it begins legally.
That goes for pills as well. To my knowledge, Griswold didn’t legally differentiate groups of pills.
Griswold ruled on contraceptives, and it makes no distinction between contraceptives and contragestives. It did not rule on abortifacients, which are not contraceptives.
I don’t know where you get your assumption about the common law definition of pregnancy, but the federal government defines it consistent with the medical definition, and state definitions vary: https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/05/implications-defining-when-woman-pregnant
This is fair enough. Having said that, if long-standing federal policy is at odds with Griswold, then in a court of law, Griswold wins. The legal definitions of pregnancy and contraceptives are open to question, which is how I started off my comment if you’ll recall. I’m not taking a position, legal or otherwise. Nor am I looking to be callous about the issue. But this is a legal blog of sorts.
Four (4) Jan6 protestors were KILLED not two like I thought reading the media. Two were apparently killed by flash bangs while they weren’t close to the Capitol building.
The scenes from the video are horrific and worse than I have seen before. The murder of Ashli Babbitt can be seen clearer than ever. The police suddenly abandon their post in front of a window and then one sees a hand with a gun in it waiting to kill. The hall was empty and police appear sporadically down the hall. There was no threat to anyone. Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed on purpose though she was no threat.
One can see attempts to save Roseanne Boyles live after being beaten. You can see how the police hindered the rescue and continued spraying pushing people on top of the fallen.
This was not anything I have seen before.
The police enticed, attracted and attacked.
I couldn’t bear to watch more at this time. It is brutal, bloody and heinous.
8:00 door open
10:30 Roseanne Boyland.
Justice Robert’ opinion on Dobbs decision: ”
“Both the Court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share”.
I would add that in this country both sides “display a relentless freedom from doubt on the [moral] issue that I cannot share”.
Roberts is clearly a criminal of high office, failing to keep his sworn oath, failure to support the Constitution, deliberately subverting the Constitution, and attempting to usurp the power of the legislative branch.
There is but one side, the “manifest tenor” of the literal words of the English language in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Those words do not engender a constitutional “right” to abortion.
Those words inexorably lead to the potential for legislation on the counterintuitive premature termination of pregnancies.
Well they went after President Trump with every taxpayers dollar they could. But Joe could fornicate with Jill as Joe’s wife had cancer… for two yrs he had an affair with now, jill Biden. Joe then divorced dying wife to marry Jill. But Joe isn’t immoral.
Now we have to pay back all the money the Ukraine gave Hunter to pretend to be on a board and power influence.
The democrats… that D stands for.
But it’s all the GOP’s fault that Joe and Barry made your dollar worth a dime.
Abortions on demand are not a health care issue. It’s a moral issue and a choice of to fornicate without protection or not.
Dumbed down masses don’t bother to read about the millions who get hpv which then turns into cancer….
The party of hedonistic extremophiles.
Abortions on demand are not a health care issue.
Two lives enter an abortion center. Only one leaves alive.
Seven men decided Roe v Wade. Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision was decided by 4 men, 1 woman, all arguing that abortion must be decided through the democratic process. Democrats are against democracy. Democrats have been breathlessly stating they are saving Democracy from non-Democrats. Yet, they do not trust democracy to settle abortion. They do not trust women since most ProLife people are women
Biden went full blown tyrant on the issue:
I’m not prepared to leave [abortion policy] to the whims of the public at the moment in local areas.
– Joe Biden
OK, Jon, you start your usual diatribe and attempt to defend the politicians pretending to be judges in today’s little piece by playing little games with the facts. While Alito tried to claim that the Dobbs ruling wouldn’t affect Obergefell, Lawrence or Griswold, Thomas says otherwise: He specifically said the SCOTUS should revisit these rulings. They rely on the same Constitutional provisions as Roe. Of course, he left out Loving v. Virginia, because that would affect him. At the time when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, it would have been illegal for him to marry a white woman, so if we’re going to go back to that time to decide the historical precedents of rights and privileges, someone should slap the cuffs on Thomas. States are already in the process of banning RU 486 and IUDs, plus attempting to criminalize interstate travel to obtain abortion services. How long before the radical Republicans go after consensual sex between adults and marriage equality? Turley tries to make the distinction that abortion involves “potential life”, but everyone does not agree that a fertilized egg or fetus in the primitive stage of development is a “potential life” whose existence trumps a woman’s right to choose whether to remain pregnant. In fact, history does not recognize the “potential life” of a fetus until quickening–the point at which fetal movement can be perceived, which coincides roughly with the holding of Roe. That was true at the time of the ancient case Alito relies on, written by a judge who not only believed in witchcraft but that witches were responsible for bad things and should be executed. No, what the SCOTUS did is bend history and the Constitution to support their predetermined outcome, after lying about their views to gain the power to do this. Respectable historians say Alito doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.
And, your effort to defend Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch from the blatant lies they told to get onto the SCOTUS and shove their minority beliefs onto the majority also falls flat. Even Republican Sen. Susan Collins said they lied. They lied to get the power to force people to live by their values and beliefs, which run counter to the values and beliefs of 2/3 of Americans. The presence of these 3 on the SCOTUS is wrongful: they were nominated by an invalid election cheater. They were chosen by the Federalilst Soceity precisely because of their views on the right to abortion. Trump didn’t know any of these people, and nominated them because he thought it would help him politically. Trump is on the record of being pro-choice before he ran for office. Gorsuch took a seat rightfully belonging to Merrick Garland, who was cheated out of his seat by McConnell on the flimsy premise that the election was a year away, but when RBG died, McConnell allowed Barrett to be seated with an election just weeks away. Dozens of witnesses begged to be heard on Kavanaugh’s nomination, but were dened by Republicans, so they could attack Dr. Ford and call her a liar. I’m just glad that you don’t have any credibility any more. You sold that to Fox. Of course, we all know, even the disciples, that the REAL reason for today’s piece was to attack mainstream media and legal analysts that disagree with you. That’s waht Fox does, but people are waking up to the reality that the rights and privileges we thought were protected are now gone. The minority of radical conservatives has power and they’re using it to force others to live according to their standards.
VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT IN NOVEMBER! IT’S YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY.
Hey Natasha, get ready for 2024, when Trump returns. It’ll be like the second coming of Christ. The heavens will open and the trumpets will sound.
Yeah, that’s what you said in 2020, and then in 2024 we were going to get Ivanka, and then Don, Jr., then Eric, and then Barron. You are delusional. The fact is that the majority of Americans find Trump repulsive, as do a growing number of Republicans.
Current Polls have Trump beating Biden by 5 in 2024 – that is a POPULAR MAJORITY much larger than Biden’s alleged majority.
Whatever the majority of americans think of Trump – they clearly think less of Biden.
RETROACTION AGAINST THE “EARNEST OF THE EPOCH,” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Karl Marx congratulated and commended Abraham Lincoln, as “…an earnest of the epoch to come…,” for his leadership “…through the matchless struggle…” toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.” Karl Marx, Letter to Abraham Lincoln – https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Next stop for the Supreme Court, SECESSION, which is/was fully constitutional, and Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments,” which are as invalid and illegitimate as “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s denial of secession, and every other pursuant act of that criminal of high office.
Oh, and, on January 1, 1863, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” and, therefore, requiring the compassionate repatriation of those who could not become U.S citizens (In any case, illegal deportation is as legal and moral as illegal immigration).
If one cannot be in the U.S., presumably, one cannot vote in the U.S., as they did in the last election.
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup
George the Nut, you’re also a misogynist.
FACT: Dr. Ford *is* a liar.
“Even Republican Sen. Susan Collins said they lied.”
FACT: They did *not* lie. They answered questions about precedent. They did not say they would not overrule. Every single justice that has sat on the Supreme Court in the last 30 years has voted to overturn some precedent. Respect for precedent does not make it binding. RINO Collins should know better, be better, and is using inflammatory reckless rhetoric to cover her own a$$.
“They lied to get the power to force people to live by their values and beliefs, which run counter to the values and beliefs of 2/3 of Americans.”
In fact, it is the OPPOSITE. This is what DEMOCRATS have always done! This is what Joe Biden did to get elected! He promised to be moderate, a uniter who would “heal the soul” of the nation — outrageous lies. Biden is not only NOT a uniter, he is one of the most dangerously divisive and destructive presidents we’ve ever had.
“All [Biden’s] done in his decades of elected life is pander, manipulate, and lie. It’s made him the chief gaslighting crook in DC.”
Notwithstanding JT’s assurances, the substantive due process standard set forth in the majority opinion definitely put those other rights and decisions at risk in future cases, especially with the Thomas opinion pointing the court and potential litigants in that direction and the majority opinion showing that they are willing to overturn precedent on precedent (Roe and Casey).
Illogical, indefensible prior decisions by the Supreme Court are at risk and rightly so. If you want to change the Constitution then you have to actually change it through the Democratic process, not by reinterpreting it to suit your preconceived views. This is a great victory for the Rule of Law.
The Constitution was already changed (e.g., with the 14th Amendment).
“This reckless rhetoric is becoming the norm in our discussions of this and other legal controversies. We are losing a critical mass of mature and sensible voices in discussing such cases. Instead, analysts are expected to reinforce a narrative and amplify the anger in the coverage of such cases. That is a great loss to our profession and only will fuel the unhinged rage of some who only consider the conclusion, and not the analysis, of this opinion.”
I agree 100%. You will notice that Turley complains generally, that is, not excluding Fox News, Newsmax, etc. His criticism applies across the board, both Left and Right. Predictably, the Trumpists will insist that this fueling of unhinged rage exists strictly or primarily on the Left.
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup
HYSTERIA AND INCOHERENCE
“…women’s reproductive healthcare…” is a hysterical and incoherent, oxymoronic contradiction in terms.
Women attempting the impossible by attempting to reject the role that God and nature assigned them are hysterical and incoherent.
Abortion is distinctly not healthcare.
Abortion is homicide regarding the nascent human being in the womb of the woman seeking “healthcare.”
Abort means to terminate.
In order to terminate, there must be a living, growing, healthy, normal and very young human being in the womb of the woman seeking “healthcare.”
Abortion is the antonym of healthcare.
Understanding that doctors’ actions provide healthcare, antonyms of the verb doctor include blemish, break, damage, deface, disfigure, flaw, harm, hurt, impair, injure, mar, ruin, spoil, vandalize, wreck, cripple, disable, maim, mangle, mutilate, misadjust.
Abortion is the brutal and diametric opposite of healthcare.
Pregnant women are manifestations of the highest functioning and healthiest human beings on the planet.
“One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.”
– Paul Simon
Calm and rational women have no other course than to grasp and understand that there is a second party, a second person inside the women seeking “…women’s reproductive healthcare.”
Abortion aborts the life of another healthy human being.
Abortion is not healthcare.
Abortion is homicide.
You display your hysteria daily George.
Here is a dirty little secret about the Bill of Rights.
It does not proscribe all unfair, bnjust, or unethical laws and policies.
Is it fair a young civilian adult’s life could be ruined due to mere possession of a plant, even though neither the state nor the feds allege that the adult had an intent to distribute it to kids?
Is it fair that the state can order someone to be forcibly sterilized?
Is it fair that the state can require someone to be vaccinated, upon pain of a fine?
How can the policies above be fair, just, or ethical?
The Bill of Rights does not proscribe the above.