NeuroTypical

Possible overturn of Roe vs Wade?

Recommended Posts

Our Supreme Court might actually do it.  A 50 year attempt to force a national consensus about when life begins, where there was just no consensus to be had, might be abandoned in the next judicial season which is starting now.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the possibility.  But growing numbers of smart people are suggesting it’s coming.  Like constitutional law professor (and one of my favorite AM talk radio hosts for 2 decades) Hugh Hewitt: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/11/29/john-roberts-v-roe/#slide-1

The entire cobbled-together façade of jerry-rigged, ad hoc, and incoherent abortion case law will be swept away, and the half century of strained readings and outright judicial inventions overruled. The repeated attempt by the Supreme Court to legislate at one remove from representative state and federal elected legislatures will, blessedly, end. Abortion will be legal in many states — even late-term, “partial birth” abortions — and, in other states, almost never allowed after a heartbeat is detected in the unborn baby. The Court will walk away from the now obviously failed effort to forge a national consensus by diktat where none can be had.

I’ve got to go study up on prohibition, when the whole nation got together to try to do something, and ended up abandoning the project, giving control back to the states.

I’m in the reading and learning phase right now.  If anyone has any articles on the subject, especially from folks who like Roe and want to see it preserved, please post the links.  I don’t want to live in an echo chamber.

Share this post


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

I’ve got to go study up on prohibition, when the whole nation got together to try to do something, and ended up abandoning the project, giving control back to the states.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try not to get your hopes up. Remember in 1991ish when Pp vs Casey was argued before the court? Conservatives said the same thing. It hasn’t happened yet. I’m not even saying if it should be over turned or not (even some pro choice liberals have problems with it), it’s just something I’ve heard before. 

Share this post


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

Are you talking about alcohol prohibition here? That failed because it made crime go through the roof.

That’s a reasonable argument, but the polarized nature of abortion just makes it a polarized argument, totally unpersuasive to folks who see things differently.

 Behold, the counter-argument, from the viewpoint of abortion as murder:

 Yes, both prohibition, and Roe, made crime go through the roof.  Abortions have increased over the decades.  There are around twice as many abortions in the US than there are COVID fatalities.  Ever thought about that?  ~800,000 abortions vs ~360,000 COVID deaths as of October.

Legalized abortion has been the most effective eugenics program the US ever had, with entire generations of black babies exterminated before they were even born:

AE08B0B5-06B3-452E-8A7D-47DEB3F686A5.thumb.jpeg.054453b02943b0b22fb07ea8cc23c9c8.jpeg

Yeah, look at what abortion did to human life.  It’s a crime.  You want to compare Capone’s tiny evil blip with the wholesale slaughter of mostly-black babies, be my guest.  Just looking at the number of lives taken, I can’t imagine we’ll ever see double digits of “dead women from coat hanger abortions”.  Especially since there are lots and lots and lots of states who will choose to keep things the way they are, or even expand access to abortion.  Possibly even more stories about how it should be legal after birth.

[end soapbox example]

 See @Godless, there’s just no meeting in the middle.  This exact same argument has been made for 50 years, and although you and I are the best argues in the world, we’re not gonna resolve the issue in Oct 2021 on an obscure Internet forum.

 I’d be interested to hear someone take on the article’s arguments.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


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

 

That’s a reasonable argument, but the polarized nature of abortion just makes it a polarized argument, totally unpersuasive to folks who see things differently.

 

It’s by far the most loaded topic out there, that's for sure. 

Share this post


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

it’s just something I’ve heard before. 

Same here.  For decades.  The article addresses the obvious difference: We’ve never had a 6:3 split in SCOTUS before.  And RGB’s replacement Amy Coney Barrett, coupled with Gorsich and Kavanaugh, it’s not a small difference.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One difference between prohibition and Roe, is that Prohibition forced the states to prohibit an activity whereas Roe forced them to permit it.  I think @Godless’s point is that Roe didn’t create a black market the way prohibition did.

And I sort of agree with @LDSGator’s cynicism here.  SCOTUS rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NeuroTypical said:

Same here.  For decades.  The article addresses the obvious difference: We’ve never had a 6:3 split in SCOTUS before.  And RGB’s replacement Amy Coney Barrett, coupled with Gorsich and Kavanaugh, 

Understand totally. Just don’t get your hopes up. Regardless of the justices personal feelings it’s incredibly hard to overturn “settled law”.

Share this post


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

 

 

 See @Grunt, there’s just no meeting in the middle.  This exact same argument has been made for 50 years, and although you and I are the best argues in the world, we’re not gonna resolve the issue in Oct 2021 on an obscure Internet forum.

 

I don't want to meet in the middle, really.   I wouldn't meet in the middle on murder or rape, either.   I'm also not under the delusion that anything we argue here is going to change anyone's mind.  The only reason I bother to address these issues are the same reasons I address what ExMos post here and elsewhere:   Truth matters and I refuse to let someone own the public soapbox and create an illusion that their opinion is public opinion.   

I'll always speak out against wolves in sheep's clothing, even if it is unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will begin with a disclaimer - I am not a legal expert and am often confounded with the lack of logic in legal proceedings.

One of the problems, as I understand from my personal research is the problem of defining, for example how many whiskers are necessary to establish or define that a man has a beard.   If we are to define a beard as 1,000 or more whiskers it is basically impossible to notice that 999 whiskers is not a beard without specifically counting all the whiskers.  However, 3 whiskers is obviously not a beard.  What happened with Roe vs Wade is not an effort to define life but rather to define "human" life.

Human life is protected under the constitution.  Human life is protected differently than all other forms of life.  What happened with Roe vs Wade is that it was argued that during the first trimester of pregnancy it is empirically (scientifically) impossible to prove that a fetus is a living human being.  One has to admit that this particular argument was brilliant in a legal or empirical sense.  This is because, in reality, human life is not really that well empirically (scientifically) defined.  Scientifically we cannot even establish is a virus is a life form.

So we have a problem - how many human cells define a human organism or human life form?  We kill human cells in the form of cancer all the time.  In addition we do not seem to have much problem turning off life support for a person in a coma that cannot recover.

We also need to recognize that abortions occur naturally - we call these miscarriages.  Most of us understand that there are circumstances when an abortion is needed - an example would be to preserve the life of the mother.  We may mitigate an abortion when a developing fetus is sufficiently deformed and incapable of survival - creating other pregnancy problems.   I am not sure, despite that many may claim otherwise, that there is never, under any and all possible circumstances a need for an abortion.  Where do we legally draw the line?

Besides the legal problem there are moral implications.   There is a difference between morals and laws despite the fact that all laws are morals.  The difference is that not all morals are laws.  In the same manner that all humans are life forms but not all life forms are human.

This thread also brings up the problem of murder.  Some think of murder in terms of the 10 commandments and the concept of "Thou shalt not kill".  But then argue that self defense is not killing.  Protecting someone else is often defined as not a breaking of the particular commandments.  And so there are arguments that mitigate killing (murder?).

In summary - I believe that we can specifically define circumstances that allow abortions.  But at the same time - that there ought to be - and we should define circumstances when abortions should be illegal.  I have opinions about when abortions should be illegal that I believe are firmly based in empirical (scientific) logic.   I also am aware of what some define (myself included) as a grey area (like rape) where it is possible to mitigate personal choice as a legal element.  I firmly believe that there are current legal presidents that have risen from Roe vs Wade that need to be revisited and legally redefined.  I also believe that those that fear evolving law are intelligently bankrupt.   It was my understanding that the divine plan of salvation was put before a great counsel in the pre-existence.  I believe it is tyranny to be governed by law in which one has no input.  And yet if we cannot abide by law we cannot have relationships and without relationships we cannot have societies or civilization.

 

The Traveler 

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some the greatest crimes and tragedies that one person (or group of people) have inflicted on another has been enabled by seeing them as 'less' than human...  Holocaust, Racism, Slavery etc.

In many of these cases we have said NO and Never again.

To justify abortion we have to call the unborn... not human...  That is only way we can feel good and justify our actions, of what would otherwise be horrific.  Given that these unborn simply need a bit more time to be unarguably human... It seems that saying that they are not old enough to be human.... is as weak as saying someone is not human because of skin color, or ethnicity, or religion   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, a glob of cells like a wart or tumor (or sperm or unfertilized ovum cell), isn't human life, and folks should have the right to do whatever they want with their cell globs.
I agree, a living, breathing human being, deserves equal protection under the law.  And taking human life is pretty much almost always wrong.

Yes, we have to have a solid line, specified by law, between cell glob and human life.  We need that line, so when someone makes a part of a pregnant woman dead, we'll know who to arrest for murder, and who to protect the right to choose.  And it's hard to know.  Absolutely every definition suggested, comes with a host of reasonable sounding counter-arguments.

Since God is basically leaving this magic line up to His children to figure this out for themselves, I'm left with my principled constitutionalist perspective, that the states should decide for themselves, and the federal govt should keep the crap out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Some the greatest crimes and tragedies that one person (or group of people) have inflicted on another has been enabled by seeing them as 'less' than human...  Holocaust, Racism, Slavery etc.

In many of these cases we have said NO and Never again.

To justify abortion we have to call the unborn... not human...  That is only way we can feel good and justify our actions, of what would otherwise be horrific.  Given that these unborn simply need a bit more time to be unarguably human... It seems that saying that they are not old enough to be human.... is as weak as saying someone is not human because of skin color, or ethnicity, or religion   

I very much agree but feel impressed to add an additional thought - which is: That regardless of such great crimes and tragedies committed (with one exception that I do not understand or have any experience) that in this life - one can have a change of heart and mind and that they can repent and G-d will forgive them.  Regardless of what anyone has done concerning the unborn - they can repent (enter into divine covenant) and have full fellowship with the Latter-day Saints of G-d. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I agree, a glob of cells like a wart or tumor (or sperm or unfertilized ovum cell), isn't human life, and folks should have the right to do whatever they want with their cell globs.
I agree, a living, breathing human being, deserves equal protection under the law.  And taking human life is pretty much almost always wrong.

Yes, we have to have a solid line, specified by law, between cell glob and human life.  We need that line, so when someone makes a part of a pregnant woman dead, we'll know who to arrest for murder, and who to protect the right to choose.  And it's hard to know.  Absolutely every definition suggested, comes with a host of reasonable sounding counter-arguments.

Since God is basically leaving this magic line up to His children to figure this out for themselves, I'm left with my principled constitutionalist perspective, that the states should decide for themselves, and the federal govt should keep the crap out of it.

I have no problem with a line... I have a problem when we are hypocrites about the line.  Take fetal homicide laws.  If a person attacks a pregnant woman, and causes her to miscarry... not only can the attacker be charged with the assault on the mother, but for killing the unborn child as well (where these laws exist).   To me this law just feels right and correct.  But if it is right and correct... then I can not turn around and say but it is ok if the mother gets a doctor to do it or does it herself.

We can either have fetal homicide laws or we can have legal abortions but it is very hypocritical to do both.  And I prefer the first

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the possibility.  But growing numbers of smart people are suggesting it’s coming.  Like constitutional law professor (and one of my favorite AM talk radio hosts for 2 decades) Hugh Hewitt: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/11/29/john-roberts-v-roe/#slide-1

I would love to see it happen, but I don’t see it happening (I would love to be wrong). The article provides for the possibility that it be overturned based on two related options. Precedent can be ignored if 1) there is a previous precedent that fits better, and/or 2) the current precedent is so gerrymandered that continuing to apply it in future cases loses predictability (stability).

I wish the article included more detail on what he thinks the previous precedent is (or is it implied that this isn’t really an option and I missed it?) and how future applications of Roe and Casey are untenable.

As for the 3/6 prognostication: the insurance tax known as the Affordable Care Act still stings too much for me to count on Roberts upholding the doctrine he previously espoused; even at his nomination I don’t think anyone pretended Kavanaugh was a Gorsuch or Scalia; and Barret was asked multiple times about vacating Roe and it will echo into future nominees and hearings if she does (not to mention what congress may try when they consider phone calls and rallies impeachable offenses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While this doesn't deal directly with the specific issue of abortion, it does contain some good material on how national differences can be addressed:

12 November 2021 - Charlottesville, Virginia 
News Release

President Oaks Urges a ‘Better Way’ to Resolve Our Differences ‘Without Compromising Core Values’

The Apostle delivers the University of Virginia’s 2021 Joseph Smith Lecture

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-oaks-university-virginia-summary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  In this aspect, the agreement is that in cases of rape or incest that a medical professional can perform an abortion (after prayerful consideration) in many instances. 

Quote

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). The 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.

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.

Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.

The above instances in which abortion is allowed in the US (but not other nations) is due to Roe vs. Wade in most areas today.  Prior to that, even for some of the instances listed in the handbook, the abortion would have been illegal in many states.

What the church does NOT agree with are later rulings which have altered WHAT Roe vs. Wade means or represents, ESPECIALLY rulings made in the 90s (PP vs. Casey).

Elective Abortion is against Church policy. (clarification, elective abortion for personal or social convenience).

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

That said, I think the push on abortion is too focused and other areas (for example, perhaps looking at the more recent rulings of Gay Marriage with an eye that at the time, the Federal government actually neglected it's duty in defending Federal policies in the Court cases of the time) should be looked at with more scrutiny that may have a better chance to find a more favorable footing or investigation of how they are actually implemented in relation to society and religion than an entire overturn of the Roe vs. Wade argument.  A Modification of Roe vs. Wade may be possible, but I do not feel the legal tide has turned enough for a complete overturn of Roe vs. Wade has occurred yet, nor do I think people truly have the stomach for what would happen if it were completely overturned (as it has also impacted other medical cases in regards to doctors having the ability to make choices for patients based on precedent set by the earlier case).

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little faith in the integrity of the Supreme Court.  However, as much as I would love to protect the lives of the innocent unborn children of God, I find myself even more excited about the plausibility that the Church releases a statement in support of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade (if it comes), in hopes that it will convince at least a few of the members of the Church (in my area that includes our Bishop's wife and the Stake Young Women's President) to stop supporting so called abortion 'rights' and the pro-choice movement.  I doubt most who support such things will change their ways, but perhaps a few could be swayed by an official First Presidency statement.  Anyway, we'll see if any of these hopeful things come to pass sometime next year I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, person0 said:

I have little faith in the integrity of the Supreme Court.  However, as much as I would love to protect the lives of the innocent unborn children of God, I find myself even more excited about the plausibility that the Church releases a statement in support of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade (if it comes), in hopes that it will convince at least a few of the members of the Church (in my area that includes our Bishop's wife and the Stake Young Women's President) to stop supporting so called abortion 'rights' and the pro-choice movement.  I doubt most who support such things will change their ways, but perhaps a few could be swayed by an official First Presidency statement.  Anyway, we'll see if any of these hopeful things come to pass sometime next year I suppose.

AS the church actually supports Roe vs. Wade...I HIGHLY DOUBT that it's going to release the statement you are hoping for (at least, in it's official policies it supports the decision made by Roe vs. Wade).

On the otherhand, as the Church does NOT support pro-choice (which many get confused with thinking the decision from the 90s equates the same decisions as made earlier via Roe vs. Wade), I could see it releasing a statement regarding the sanctity of life and the respect for it (but probably not worded as strongly as you would desire I imagine) to reinforce it's position that abortion is not something that should be taken simply due to inconvenience or convenience, that it is in fact a heavy matter regarding the life and souls of the children of our Father.

If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, it does not mean the end of abortion in the US necessarily, more than likely it would turn the matter over to the states to decide.  I don't expect it will get overturned in that manner, too many do not want it overturned, including MANY of those who are supposedly against abortion.  IT could mean that NO abortion could be performed in some states, EVEN in cases of Rape or incest.

It could mean if the mother and the babies life is in danger...NO abortion could be performed, even if doing so could save the mother...they would simply die because the medical procedure to save the mother's life would be outlawed...OR the doctor performing it would have performed a felony.

IF enough states push for this idea, that a doctor performs a felony if they perform an abortion to save a mother's life, it could lead to a side effect many have not considered.  The doctor than has a choice, to either commit a crime, violate their oath which means to cause no harm and protect life (because they would literally be letting someone die who they could have saved), or go to a location where they are allowed to actually make medical decisions without the interference of the state.

If enough choose to do the former or latter (Rather than the middle choice) those states which choose a strong arm tactic may find themselves with an even greater shortage of certain types of doctors in medical fields. 

There are long standing ramifications to think about in regards to whether or not it gets overturned.

I personally do not think it will get overturned.  The short term ramifications could be bad, but the long term ramifications could be disastrous.

Instead, I think there could be a dialing back.  The idea tossed forward is that there is no justification under the Constitution in support of abortion...and I agree with that in regards to the LATER decisions of the 90s.  HOWEVER, the initial decision dealt more with liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as whether the state could interfere and demand a medical doctor do something against the best health and ability of the medical community and patient.  The ruling was that the government should NOT be able to force or order a doctor to do something (similarly, it cannot order forced sterilizations or order the deaths of people simply due to medical conditions...etc) against the doctor's best ability to treat their patient.  THE DOCTOR...NOT THE STATE is the one that is allowed to make those decisions.

Instead, I could see a dialing back on how freely we have made it so that it has become simply a matter of choice in whether it is convenient or not. 

Share this post


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

AS the church actually supports Roe vs. Wade...

Not sure what you mean by "support", but I'm guessing it's quite a different definition from what I use...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=abortion&highlight=true&page=1

Share this post


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

Not sure what you mean by "support", but I'm guessing it's quite a different definition from what I use...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=abortion&highlight=true&page=1

I’m confused as well. For a church against gay marriage I can’t imagine them being cool with Roe vs Wade. 

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