NeuroTypical

Possible overturn of Roe vs Wade?

Recommended Posts

There are problems with definitions.  Not just in providing a definition but in understanding it.  Extremes tend to disrupt logic.  Since all life as we know it will eventually end in death one would say that to be pro life is in essence being pro death.  When in truth we should all respect innocent life and natural death.  We should understand that we should not think we can determine what should live and die - especially with humans.  But we do control such things - especially with what we eat and use.  But such things should reflect respect (with gratitude and thanksgiving) for the sacredness of life that is not our own.  

It is my opinion - that even with something as unfortunate as abortion that there should be some allowance for extreme circumstances.  But Roe vs Wade has become so disrespectful of innocent human life that many have lost essential elements of their humanity and are angry for any degree of accountability - especially personal accountability for the innocent unborn. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2021 at 2:25 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Interestingly enough, the current church policies (from what I understand) actually AGREE with the original Roe Vs. Wade arguments, which are to allow medical doctors the ability to decide what is the best course in regards to their patients health, including if that individual requires an abortion.

This is false. I would rather JAG jump in here and respond, but until he does, I can't just let such a counterfactual statement stand without response.

Roe v. Wade is based on an intentional twisting of the so-called Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The tortuous reasoning taken by Blackmun et alia was that the Constitutionally unspoken but widely recognized "right to privacy" protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. Yet these same justices then proceeded to specify that, bizarrely, the rules for this "right-to-privacy abortion" actually change during the pregnancy, being unlimited in the first trimester but increasingly subject to limitations in the second and third trimesters. (Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court subsequently overturned this arbitrary trimester system.)

The Church did not approve of any of this so-called reasoning, either overtly or behind the scenes. The Church made it clear that it considered elective abortion to be a grave sin and akin to murder.

So no, the Church absolutely did not "actually AGREE with the original Roe Vs. Wade arguments". If you continue to maintain this, I invite you to submit some evidence for this extraordinary claim.

On 11/15/2021 at 2:25 AM, JohnsonJones said:

While some may cheer about Roe vs. Wade going away, I'm not sure people realize the full ramifications if it were eliminated completely.

Does anyone ever realize "the full ramifications" of any major change in law or social interaction? Such a thing is impossible for mortal humans. The best we can do is to identify correct principles and then try to live by them. Saying "This here is the right thing to do, but I'm afraid if we do it then bad things might happen" is not a reasonable course of action for a Saint, or for that matter any other honest person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

AS the church actually supports Roe vs. Wade

I addition to the wonderful response by @Vort, I will point you to one of my favorite talks on the subject, "Weightier Matters".  To reaffirm the Church's acceptance of Elder Oaks teaching, it was published in the Ensign 11 years after it was given at BYU.

Pertinent sections from the talk:

Quote

More than 30 years ago, as a young law professor, I published one of the earliest articles on the legal consequences of abortion. Since that time I have been a knowledgeable observer of the national debate and the unfortunate Supreme Court decisions on the so-called “right to abortion.” I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on the moral, ethical, and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogan or sound bite “pro-choice” has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and in neutralizing opposition to it.
. . .
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us.
. . .
In this effort, Latter-day Saints follow the teachings of the prophets. On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.
. . .
In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.
. . .
consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. . . even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape—the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand—is involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences. Using arguments of “choice” to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called “the weightier matters of the law.”

If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

Unfortunately, the "pro-choice" members with whom I have shared this talk have given some of the same justifications that were negated by Elder Oaks as their reasons for ignoring it's message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been years since I read Roe; but my impression is that it’s less about doctor-patient relationships and more about an individual’s right to consequence-free sex, sex, sexity sex sex sex—err, reproductive freedom; with a bit of Dred Scott-esque “the unborn person has no rights the born person is bound to respect” thrown in for good measure.  The idea that Roe or its  progeny safeguards a doctor’s right to *not* perform an abortion, is frankly a new one to me.

There is certainly a possibility that in the absence of Roe/Casey, some state governments would ban abortions in all cases; even the Church-acknowledged hard cases like rape, incest, and health.  This would be a tragedy in its own right.  But I’d rather take my chances on that while hoping that SCOTUS might find that a woman’s right to an abortion in such cases is justified as an extension of the common-law right to kill in the name of self-defense; than allow the current Roe-mandated holocaust to continue unabated.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s been years since I read Roe; but my impression is that it’s less about doctor-patient relationships and more about an individual’s right to consequence-free sex, sex, sexity sex sex sex—err, reproductive freedom; with a bit of Dred Scott-esque “the unborn person has no rights the born person is bound to respect” thrown in for good measure.  The idea that Roe or its  progeny safeguards a doctor’s right to *not* perform an abortion, is frankly a new one to me.

There is certainly a possibility that in the absence of Roe/Casey, some state governments would ban abortions in all cases; even the Church-acknowledged hard cases like rape, incest, and health.  This would be a tragedy in its own right.  But I’d rather take my chances on that while hoping that SCOTUS might find that a woman’s right to an abortion in such cases is justified as an extension of the common-law right to kill in the name of self-defense; than allow the current Roe-mandated holocaust to continue unabated.  

Yes, it was about Doctor's rights overall, something that MANY miss in the case.

The situation was in Texas, where all abortion except that to save a mother's life were considered illegal.  As such, even if the mother was on birth control and an unexpected pregnancy occurred, regardless of the situation, whether rape, incest, or simply that the parents were unfit, it was problematic to have an abortion. 

The suite than was that it should NOT be the state having the ability to interfere, but the medical practitioner's call.

Roe vs. Wade at Cornell Law

One of the key and salient points of the case

Quote
10

James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes and that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

In which, yes, you are correct that it was regarding the Right to Privacy...initially, though it was found that the Constitution does NOT blatantly actually include that right within it.

Thus, the stage. 

Texas outlawed abortion except if the woman's life was in danger.  Jane Roe, a single woman, found herself pregnant and unable to have an abortion.  She went to a medical doctor, who had performed other abortions previously, and been charged with felonies pursuant of the fact in the State of Texas.  Roe felt she should have the right to have abortions without state interference (very much in light of how we see the right to abortion today after the decisions in the 90s) while the doctor claimed that the cases against him were invalid and that in pursuant of them he should be allowed to have the following...

Privacy of the doctor-patient relationship

and the Right to practice medicine.

Thus, they brought the case which eventually ended up before the Supreme Court.  At the time, the state argued that as the baby had already been born (yes, ironically, though Roe vs. Wade is regarding the right to abortion, the actual baby involved was NOT aborted) and thus the case was void.  The Supreme court decided to continue it anyways.

Now, off the top of my head, I believe the relegated the doctor's prosecutions back to the state, but they did latch onto his argument regarding the privacy guaranteed by the 14th amendment and the 9th amendment.  They looked at it more in regards to the 14th amendment as a DUE PROCESS though, rather than specifically privacy.  They also agreed at the time that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, but it was NOT as it was after the 90s decision.  It was a relegated choice...with the pertinent paragraphs as follows.

Quote
95

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling' point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

96

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this 'compelling' point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

Taking into account that the State also has interest in the health of the patient, thus a limit was set, but it would be made by the attending physician in consultation with his patient.

This allows for cases beyond that of simply saving the life of the mother, but also allowances for other reasons such as mental health (which is normally the excuse of why it was given in cases of rape or incest, especially when you have the situation of a young teen who could also be harmed mentally by an abortion itself at that age...the determination being which is more damaging to the youth, the abortion or pregnancy and giving birth).

The Church's official stance is...

Quote

Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:

  • Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.

  • A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.

  • A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

  • Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

    Presiding officers carefully review the circumstances if a Church member has been involved in an abortion. A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, consents to, or encourages an abortion (see 32.6.2.5). However, a membership council should not be considered if a member was involved in an abortion before baptism. Nor should membership councils or restrictions be considered for members who were involved in an abortion for any of the three reasons outlined earlier in this section.

Note, that prior to Roe vs. Wade, these exceptions would be considered illegal in Texas and many other states, with the only one that really was acceptable in many states of the time being the mother's life is in serious jeopardy (health in some states would be inconsequential, unless it was the mother's life, in some states it was still illegal and a felony at best if it was done simply because a mother's health may be in danger...including physical and mental health).

That said, it does not mean one should just go out and have an abortion, it is something to prayerfully consider all the options even if one falls under one of the above circumstances.

However, as the church allows for these exceptions, by policy, the support the decisions of medical care that have come to the US after Roe vs. Wade took effect.

They do NOT support the later decisions explicitly from what I can tell.

Hence, why, from what I understand of Church Policy today, with the exceptions spelled out (which would have been ILLEGAL prior to Roe Vs. Wade for the Church to even promote, much less put in any official document in several states in the U.S.) they church supports Roe vs. Wade as it was initially determined.

That does NOT mean it supports what many THINK Roe vs. Wade said, or what people mean when they talk about it today (normally they are referring to how it is seen AFTER later decisions over the matter, specifically one notorious case from the early 90s) where it is a woman's right to choose...Roe vs. Wade being seen more as granting them the ability to have it determined by a Medical Professional (as determined by the state) rather than simply their own choosing by going to a clinic and having it basically given out without other considerations of the situation.

As the Church probably wishes to keep it's stance with the exceptions, I HIGHLY doubt they will retract something to that effect.  I could see them (as I mentioned before) reiterating the sanctity of life and the preservation of it, but I do not think they will put out any statement telling people that Roe vs. Wade is blatantly wrong (I could be mistaken as well, but knowing that they have Oaks there still as well as the Prophet Russell M. Nelson and Elder Rasband, I don't see that occurring...yet).

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s been years since I read Roe; but my impression is that it’s less about doctor-patient relationships and more about an individual’s right to consequence-free sex, sex, sexity sex sex sex—err, reproductive freedom; with a bit of Dred Scott-esque “the unborn person has no rights the born person is bound to respect” thrown in for good measure.  The idea that Roe or its  progeny safeguards a doctor’s right to *not* perform an abortion, is frankly a new one to me.

There is certainly a possibility that in the absence of Roe/Casey, some state governments would ban abortions in all cases; even the Church-acknowledged hard cases like rape, incest, and health.  This would be a tragedy in its own right.  But I’d rather take my chances on that while hoping that SCOTUS might find that a woman’s right to an abortion in such cases is justified as an extension of the common-law right to kill in the name of self-defense; than allow the current Roe-mandated holocaust to continue unabated.  

I don't think the court will toss Roe vs. Wade itself.  I think there is only one, maybe two, of the justices that have the stomach for it.  The entire case would be built upon tossing out the idea of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process regarding medical rights (and that would extend to other items that have come in lieu of that such as HIPAA and other items which could feasibly be threatened if it were tossed). 

On the otherhand, I could see them scaling it back to the original wording of Roe vs. Wade where it can be taken by the states to require a full medical evaluation by a state certified physician and that the attending physician would have other such things as hoops to jump through to approve the abortion, but I do not see an outright ban.  No state, even Mississippi have gone so far as to request or require that yet, and none have even put on as strong a requirement as those put upon doctors by states after Roe vs. Wade came into effect.  It would seem implausible to toss out that which no state has actually requested.

My opinion is...

It would seem more likely that they take the case into consideration, and how it falls under the interpretation of the Constitution today, which I think could create a scaling back.  This means that it could turn more into how it was done or seen shortly after the Roe vs. Wade decision, later in the 80s, or even as late as the early 90s before (vs. Casey).  At the very least I expect they might consider overturning (vs. Hellerstedt) the more recent cases over the past decade.

Some hope it would be overturned because of the argument that has been held by Thomas.  This is that the original claim of coverage with the 14th amendment does not apply and hence the constitution itself makes no mention of this or any medical preclusions or inclusions.  I find this a dangerous determination if it is what the court decides.  If it is, it opens an entire can of worms that, using that as precedence, could open a whole different section where your right to privacy with medical records and the determinations of medical care are all overturned.  I don't see it happening, even with the court make up as it is, but I have been wrong before.

If it is overturned, several states have laws ready to go (Utah's is more lenient than many, allowing abortion for rape, incest, or medical emergencies which is in line with the Church's policies...but the Church doesn't have it's policies as strongly in other states).

The strictest would be Texas which has legislation in place that would go right back to it's initial law prior to Roe vs. Wade which outlaws all abortion with no exceptions.  If an instance where the mother's life is in danger a doctor MIGHT be able to perform one, but would fall under the scrutiny of the state and if the state judges he was incorrect, could be charged with a felony all the same anyways.

I don't think the Church today would support the ideas as what you would see in Texas law if Roe vs. Wade was overturned.  That could, ironically, place it on the wrong side of the law in some states (if they have a state clause which says an organization cannot take a stance that encourages individuals to act against state law...it could possibly see the Church as an aggressor in this as the handbook is now online for public viewing...with the Church's only defense in such a situation being separation of Church and State...which...by default would mean NO letter for or against the situation by the Church so they could not be seen as pushing a political position).

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2021 at 9:35 AM, Godless said:

Are you talking about alcohol prohibition here? That failed because it made crime go through the roof. Al Capone and his gang never would have been the threat that they were without Prohibition. Banning abortion will have similar results, but with a lot of dead women.

All true, agree 100%. 
 

now let’s talk about gun bans….

Got mad love for you bro, so do not take this wrong way, but the left/right never seems to understand that just banning things they don’t like doesn’t work. That goes for drugs, abortions, guns, alcohol, violent video games, books….

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

All true, agree 100%. 
 

now let’s talk about gun bans….

Got mad love for you bro, so do not take this wrong way, but the left/right never seems to understand that just banning things they don’t like doesn’t work. That goes for drugs, abortions, guns, alcohol, violent video games, books….

You're right, and I have no desire to ban guns. Most people on the far left don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Godless said:

You're right, and I have no desire to ban guns. Most people on the far left don't. 

Understand fully my friend, though I think the hard left wants to ban guns as much as the right wants to ban abortion. Ironically for the same reasons. They think doing so will save lives. So their intentions are noble, even if I disagree with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

the left/right never seems to understand that just banning things they don’t like doesn’t work. That goes for drugs, abortions, guns, alcohol, violent video games, books….

When it comes to societywide policies, I tend to agree to a certain extent.  People will do what they want, and not do what they don't want.  Laws can have an impact, but rarely will they completely stamp something out.  There's always a black market, or at least a border to cross.

That said, when it comes to local actions like this:

image.png.ec2e86fd6ac5f45104c9df6fe826215f.png

Banning things work quite well.  You may notice this happy forum has basically zero spam/pr0n/anti stuff.  The mod team probably bans and blocks between 10-30 spam attempts each year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Banning things work quite well.  You may notice this happy forum has basically zero spam/pr0n/anti stuff.  The mod team probably bans and blocks between 10-30 spam attempts each year.

Yes, agree. A parent banning things from their home is totally different (though, we can and should talk about how that fails too-forbidden fruit always tastes better) than the government banning “X”. Same with forums, etc.

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

When it comes to societywide policies, I tend to agree to a certain extent.  People will do what they want, and not do what they don't want.  Laws can have an impact, but rarely will they completely stamp something out.  There's always a black market, or at least a border to cross.

That said, when it comes to local actions like this:

image.png.ec2e86fd6ac5f45104c9df6fe826215f.png

Banning things work quite well.  You may notice this happy forum has basically zero spam/pr0n/anti stuff.  The mod team probably bans and blocks between 10-30 spam attempts each year.

 

Criminalizing abortion will decrease abortions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Understand fully my friend, though I think the hard left wants to ban guns as much as the right wants to ban abortion. Ironically for the same reasons. They think doing so will save lives. So their intentions are noble, even if I disagree with them. 

😉

223488442_AreYouTwoFriends07052021234753.thumb.jpg.1071cee8666eadaed752d87d3c01d684.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2021 at 11:57 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Banning things work quite well.  You may notice this happy forum has basically zero spam/pr0n/anti stuff.  The mod team probably bans and blocks between 10-30 spam attempts each year.

And I applaud you and your fellow mods for keeping this site clean this way. It makes it a really enjoyable experience to come on here when I’m taking a break from working on my home computer where I just made $19410 on the last three weeks. Everyone is able to get this easy work. Message me and I’ll send you the link for rewarding successs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

And I applaud you and your fellow mods for keeping this site clean this way. It makes it a really enjoyable experience to come on here when I’m taking a break from working on my home computer where I just made $19410 on the last three weeks. Everyone is able to get this easy work. Message me and I’ll send you the link for rewarding successs!

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now