It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

miss-the-point-the-point-went-over-your-head.gif.ed8cad3651a05e6234f601e30183599f.gif

 

Yeah, wouldn't be the first time for me.  :)  I started the post last night and finished it today - should have read all the comments in between first. 

I mainly wanted a place to put these links, as I go into the wide world to discuss this issue.  There are like two new generations of humans out there, all who have been educated that only the right ever gets violent.   Gotta educate the next generation of kiddos about folks like Boudin, Hodgkinson, Brooks, James, Brown, and the current scary winds of violence starting to congeal right around where the SCOTUS justices are standing.  January 6th is seared into our collective memories, but half of the right and just about all of the left forget the murders, beatings, attempted assassinations, and billions of property damage by the left, that started before our legal institutions even had a chance to do their work.   Lots and lots and lots and lots of folks on the left, a growing number every day, seem to be ok with violence as an acceptable form of political protest.

We're just one Reichstag Fire away from horrible things.  Can you imagine what Biden and the Dems in power do, if SCOTUS is compromised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Vort said:

Have you read the leaked Dobbs opinion, JAG? If so, what did you think? I was stunned by how clear and convincing Alito's prose was. I was simultaneously delighted with Alito's writing and outraged by what he set out as the unbelievably poor reasoning and machinations of the 1973 Supreme Court.

I know that I should be more upset that someone leaked this. I do think that's a real and present threat to the Supreme Court's autonomy. Having said that, I'm very happy to have been able to read that opinion. I'm not grateful to the people who exposed it, but I am happy to have been able to sneak a peek at it.

All 98 pages of it???  Or the 67 pages of the decision (minus appendices).

I doubt many have read ALL of it. 

I've read it and I am uncomfortable with some aspects of it.

Some initial thoughts...

I was bothered by it's indictment of history based upon the 14th amendment in regards to common law, historical precedence, and tearing down how abortion relayed to it's application previously.  Using that same logic we would resort back to Jim Crow laws because traditionally, the Jim Crow laws were practiced in states rather than allowing the rights to minorities that we have today.  Some of those laws are built upon the same references in regards to the 14th on which Roe vs. Wade was built. 

It further is dangerous because it ignores why Casey kept Roe, which was a reference to precedence.  By throwing OUT precedence (and this HAS happened before, it has also had some unseen ramifications when done so.  This is referenced  in the document itself in regards to tearing down prior precedence in favor of the new.  It also recognizes that overruling precedence can be an extremely serious matter.) in this case, it opens an entire can of worms (of which I have referred to lightly above, some of which regards legal decisions for the Church's favor which I'm not going into at length in this thread).

They admit the cases upon which Roe was built upon, and in reference to how Roe was built upon them and the precedence referred, tearing it down also opens up a hole regarding those cases at a later date (for example, the ability to educate children at home, the ability to refuse involuntary medical surgeries, ability to refuse involuntary drug administration, the ability to reside with relatives...etc).

I agree with his statement that Roe does not ensure the right to an abortion (it never did, it was normally left up to the medical provider to determine if it was a medical necessity.  There were many who allowed it to be treated that way as medical providers before Casey, but it was ultimately NOT the woman's right to choose, but the medical doctor.  It was Casey that really changed that perspective).   This was due to confidential information between patient and doctors and doctors knowing how to treat things best.  It was in the concerns of the patient and doctor...NOT the government.  Casey...now that's an entirely different cow and in reality, what they really were trying to address in tearing down Roe.  They are NOT the same thing, but Alito's writing constantly tries to infer that they are.

The five actual items upon which they made their ruling ARE...(these are my interpretations of their statements)

1.  The court made an error in it's interpretation of the Constitution

2.  The reasoning of the earlier court was wrong (I disagree on this statement, as they focus primarily on the historical focus of the earlier cases while IGNORING the entirety of the rest of the reasoning of the case...but...here we are anyways). 

I agree with the idea of Casey doing away with any thought in this regards though, and focusing more on the Due Process than Privacy, and how I also see that as an error.

3.  The Ruling from Roe vs. Wade is not consistent in it's application and therefore not standard in how it is applied (aka...workability in the documents words).  This focuses more on Casey than Roe (probably because Roe doesn't really contain this as much).  There is too much open to interpretation (when does life begin...etc) to really apply it in a manner persistent across all boards.

4.  How it affects other laws.  What has it impacted and how has it influenced laws made before and after it.  Has it weakened certain aspects.

5.  Whether it will uphend reliance interests.  This deals more with Casey than Roe.  They disagree that the reliance of other rights (Such as Gay Marriage...which in my opinion has a great reliance upon the decision of Casey, as well as certain HIPAA regulations being reliant upo Roe) depend upon these as precedence. 

They argue also that these decisions have not ended the debate upon the issue (abortion). 

One arena that concerns me is how this will be handled hereafter if this becomes the official wording (and, it may not.  The ideas may be the same, but the opinion tweaked before it officially is released).

I, personally, am against abortion as I feel it is an item akin to murder.  The CHURCH has exceptions listed though, that of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, generally speaking.  In that light, I support the churches stance on abortion and think that there should be some circumstances where it should be allowed in that case even where it may be outlawed in general.  In addition, it feels an awfully lot like religious bias coming into legal interpretation, which is one area where I feel a judge should be impartial towards.

There are many who feel as I do in regards to abortion being murder, but rather than say that it is their opinion and belief for themselves, will try to extend that belief to everyone else.  If this happens, there will be states that make NO exception and there will be no instance of abortion in those states.

This can also instill fear within doctors.  When a woman has a situation which may warrant extraction of the fetus or baby before it is ready (for example, certain types of miscarriages), even if all healthcare situations say they should, they may instead avoid doing so as it could be seen as performing an abortion.  This could cause a danger to the life and health of the mother.

Obviously, these may be the minority of those who would want such procedures, but the harm caused to a minority is not what I think may justify the outlawing of the majority.

 

Edit:  I just wanted to ADD...this does NOT OUTLAW ABORTION.  In fact, it does the exact opposite.  It hands the matter back to the states to decide and the government to decide.  IF this decision as written becomes the official decision, it actually means abortion is absolutely allowed if the STATE rules it is, and it is NOT if the State rules it is not.  The Supreme doesn't make rulings regarding abortion itself, at least coming out of this decision...IF this is the decision that comes down.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

We're just one Reichstag Fire away from horrible things.  Can you imagine what Biden and the Dems in power do, if SCOTUS is compromised?

No, nothing to see here.  The United states will still be governed by a two party system where all have equal rights for all that are enshrined in the Constitution which are held inviolate by all our elected officials and the bureaucracy behind them.

Wait, what's that you say?  The very origin of the Progressive Party was based on the idea that the Constitution is an outdated document?

But the Democrats of today hold the Constitution in much higher regard than the Progressives of 100 years ago.  They believe in the Great American Experiment.  They believe in our proud history.  They believe that the America of today is the greatest nation on earth.

Right?  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
23 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

We're just one Reichstag Fire away from horrible things.  Can you imagine what Biden and the Dems in power do, if SCOTUS is compromised?

The same things the Qanon crowd did when Trump refused to accept that he had lost? 

No, just what they tried to do.  And no, Trump got on a plane and left, while the fire solidified Nazi power and led to a decree removing civil rights.  And no, there's a difference between hidden arsonists burning an empty building housing a government, and a brash narcissist running a rally and doing a masterful job of whipping up the dumbest, drunkest, fringist, and most mentally-ill in the crowd, and pointing 'em at a full building housing a government currently in the process of kicking out the brash narcissist, to see how far they get.  But yes, to the core of your point, I'd say yes, the impacts of such things can have similar results.  

I see the right split between folks who figure Trump went too far, and folks who want him back so he can go further.  The latter group will always have plenty of sound questions to ask and things to demand people think about - but there's also an anti-government-burn-it-all-down element in that crowd that any Antifa group would be happy to add to their latest direct action.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

No, just what they tried to do.  And no, Trump got on a plane and left, while the fire solidified Nazi power and led to a decree removing civil rights.  And no, there's a difference between hidden arsonists burning an empty building housing a government, and a brash narcissist running a rally and doing a masterful job of whipping up the dumbest, drunkest, fringist, and most mentally-ill in the crowd, and pointing 'em at a full building housing a government currently in the process of kicking out the brash narcissist, to see how far they get.  But yes, to the core of your point, I'd say yes, the impacts of such things can have similar results.  

I see the right split between folks who figure Trump went too far, and folks who want him back so he can go further.  The latter group will always have plenty of sound questions to ask and things to demand people think about - but there's also an anti-government-burn-it-all-down element in that crowd that any Antifa group would be happy to add to their latest direct action.

Perhaps. Whatever the reasons, let’s not forget that the last “insurrection” no matter how laughably inept, was not put on by the left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This can also instill fear within doctors.  When a woman has a situation which may warrant extraction of the fetus or baby before it is ready (for example, certain types of miscarriages), even if all healthcare situations say they should, they may instead avoid doing so as it could be seen as performing an abortion.  This could cause a danger to the life and health of the mother.

It would be much better if these laws carved out exceptions for the scenarios you describe. They should include some statement to the effect to give them an out like, “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality”. If I convince Mississippi’s lawmakers to include such a statement in their abortion law*, will you support the overturn of Roe and Casey so such laws won’t continue to be challenged?

* Don’t read page 6 of the draft too closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Perhaps. Whatever the reasons, let’s not forget that the last “insurrection” no matter how laughably inept, was not put on by the left. 

Meh, that was hardly an insurrection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Meh, that was hardly an insurrection.

Oh, we agree on that. 
 

We differ here: if the Qanon crowd were leftists, the right would think it’s an insurrection bordering on the Storming of the Bastille. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, we agree on that. 
 

We differ here: if the Qanon crowd were leftists, the right would think it’s an insurrection bordering on the Storming of the Bastille. 

The extremists probably would, most would say charge them for whatever crime they committed and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The extremists probably would, most would say charge them for whatever crime they committed and move on.

Heck, most of us didn't even use the I-word when an entire group of leftist occupied a city downtown and directly declared that neither federal nor state law applied within the jurisdiction they occupied.  And that's, like, the textbook definition of an insurrection.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 5:20 PM, JohnsonJones said:

[1] I was bothered by it's indictment of history based upon the 14th amendment in regards to common law, historical precedence, and tearing down how abortion relayed to it's application previously.  Using that same logic we would resort back to Jim Crow laws because traditionally, the Jim Crow laws were practiced in states rather than allowing the rights to minorities that we have today.  Some of those laws are built upon the same references in regards to the 14th on which Roe vs. Wade was built. 

[2]It further is dangerous because it ignores why Casey kept Roe, which was a reference to precedence.  By throwing OUT precedence (and this HAS happened before, it has also had some unseen ramifications when done so.  This is referenced  in the document itself in regards to tearing down prior precedence in favor of the new.  It also recognizes that overruling precedence can be an extremely serious matter.) in this case,

[3]it opens an entire can of worms (of which I have referred to lightly above, some of which regards legal decisions for the Church's favor which I'm not going into at length in this thread).

 

1.  I don't think your reference to Jim Crow is really apposite here.  

The 14th Amendment did not seek to define traditional American notions of well-ordered liberty or to invent any new fundamental American rights.  Rather, it took the bundle of existing rights enjoyed by American citizens (many/most of which traced their origin back through the centuries to the Magna Carta, if not earlier; and many of which in practice had been extended only to white Americans) and clarified that those rights must be extended to all Americans.  Jim Crow, then, was a reaction by state governments who were deliberately trying to undermine the intent of the 14th Amendment and restore the old "traditional rights for me, but not for thee" regimen.

The Dobbs draft doesn't seek to restore that kind of discriminatory regimen.  Rather, it simply says "Abortion was never included in the bundle of rights that went with the founders' notion of well-ordered liberty; and it certainly wasn't seen as such at the time the 14th Amendment was passed; so you can't honestly say that it was contemplated by the 14th Amendment. Like any new right, you can certainly add it into the Constitution by amendment or write it into federal statute; but until you do, it's just not in the Constitution and we're done playing the Roe court's shell game of pretending otherwise."  [My paraphrasing, obviously!]

2.  I don't think it's fair to say that Alito's draft decision ignores stare decisis.  Indeed, that's the focus of the entire second half of the opinion (pp 35-65):  It sets up a set of criteria for determining when a ruling is so bad that it ought to be overturned in spite of stare decisis.  (Factors to be decided including the nature of the original error, the quality of the reasoning justifying the error, whether the erroneous decision is still workable in practice, how the bad precedent has affected other fields of law, and "reliance interests".  And--going off memory here--" I think the court did at some point acknowledge some of the parties' arguments about possible real-world consequences of changing abortion policy; but ultimately decided that that sort of policy analysis is more appropriately left to legislatures rather than courts.)

Really, the more I think about it--it's a long opinion, to be sure; but structurally it's startlingly simple.  It breaks down into the simple propositions that A) The constitution doesn't grant a right to undergo an elective abortion, and our previous holding to the contrary was a mistake, and B) Here are the conditions under which stare decisis doesn't prevent us from fixing a past mistake.

3.  Well, you've piqued my interest; and if you wont' go into them in this thread I certainly hope you'll go into them somewhere:) 

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Heck, most of us didn't even use the I-word when an entire group of leftist occupied a city downtown and directly declared that neither federal nor state law applied within the jurisdiction they occupied.  And that's, like, the textbook definition of an insurrection.  

Right, that was also an insurrection. Hideous, actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Right, that was also an insurrection. Hideous, actually. 

Just a note - I have learned that it is a mistake to look at events and try to understand what is going on.  Rather that we see singular events in context and look more towards trends.  I believe this is true in investing, understanding others, figuring out ourselves, discovering science or politics.  It is the trend of things in context.  It is my opinion that the current politic trends favor civil war.  We are becoming divided and unaccepting of other views.  Anyway that is my view and I sticking to it!!!!!  😨

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just a note - I have learned that it is a mistake to look at events and try to understand what is going on.  Rather that we see singular events in context and look more towards trends.  I believe this is true in investing, understanding others, figuring out ourselves, discovering science or politics.  It is the trend of things in context.  It is my opinion that the current politic trends favor civil war.  We are becoming divided and unaccepting of other views.  Anyway that is my view and I sticking to it!!!!!  😨

 

The Traveler

That’s cool. I totally disagree, but if that’s “your view and you are sticking with it.” It’s pointless to explain any further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/7/2022 at 12:02 PM, mordorbund said:

It would be much better if these laws carved out exceptions for the scenarios you describe. They should include some statement to the effect to give them an out like, “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality”. If I convince Mississippi’s lawmakers to include such a statement in their abortion law*, will you support the overturn of Roe and Casey so such laws won’t continue to be challenged?

* Don’t read page 6 of the draft too closely.

 

I actually support Roe vs. Wade in what it did and the results of it.  On the otherhand I am completely against Casey and have been since it came out.  The unfortunate reality is that people equate Casey to Roe in most instances today, but the reason for Casey was because Roe didn't do what many wanted it to.   (Also a 7 -2 decision, making the majority of the court firmly decide in favor).

Casey basically made it so that the states had a MUCH HARDER Time (depsite outward appearances that they could now make restrictions during the first trimester, the burden of being able to show convincingly that there was a reason and it was not an obstacle instead) putting restrictions on abortions.  The idea of a woman's right to choose really became a reality under Casey.  (A much tighter and controversial decision of 5-4 as well).

IF states were to allow the following I'd probably not have a problem with the repeal.

1.  Make it a MEDICAL decision made by Doctors...NOT the state.  Even if we do not adhere to HIPAA laws (which we should be doing regardless), a decision on whether an Abortion is necessary for the health of the mother SHOULD be a decision a MEDICAL DOCTOR makes...not the government.  This should apply to most of our medical procedures (so, it's not just abortion, and this is an ongoing legality in the US in other areas as well).

2.  In light of #1 above, have abortion legalized for situations involving Rape, Incest, or the health of the Mother.   A victim of Rape or incest should not be forced to carry the baby to term. 

NOW, obviously, these both could be controversial.  I consider abortion akin to murder, but I also follow the church's lead in when it considers abortion allowable (though, even then with a lot of prayer and listening to the spirit for guidance on the matter). 

On the first, it boils down to the idea that I feel medical doctors should be allowed to make medical decisions (I also feel insurance companies should not be allowed to dictate medical decisions or medications that go contrary to the doctor's prescriptions) in regards to their patients.

The second, is purely from the Church's guidance on the matter.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  Well, you've piqued my interest; and if you wont' go into them in this thread I certainly hope you'll go into them somewhere:)

Maybe.  I think it depends on whether discussion goes in that direction.

I also think it would be prudent to see if this will actually be the FINAL decision or the official decision of the court.  Indications are that there are still some discussions going on behind the scenes.  It could be that all this talk is for nothing.

I don't imagine positions will change, but you never know. 

If it is official, and I see signs that start approaching that direction legally, I probably WILL bring it up at that point as a conversation piece. 

I think the next step will be Gay Marriage (which I always felt should be the first on the agenda, not later) if the draft becomes final, but I think we will all have to see what the results will be from the decision as it unfolds first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Perspective is important, and relevant data helps drive relevant perspectives.  From the chief health policy and planning entity for the state of Florida:

image.thumb.png.fa09b8961c21fa2fe04eeca2b5b454c3.png 

 

I'd also like to see statistics reported by race, but for some reason that raises people's blood pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

image.thumb.png.fa09b8961c21fa2fe04eeca2b5b454c3.png 

To dial it down for those looking for percentages (in descending order)

  • Completely elective (just another method of contraception) accounts for 75% of all abortions.
  • Economic/Social accounts for 20% (I have no idea what social means in this context, and I question economic).
  • 1.7% for psychological health of mother
  • 1.5% for physical health of the mother.
  • 1% Severe fetal deformity/abnormality
  • 0.3% Mother's life is endangered
  • 0.1% Rape
  • 0.01% Incest

Depending on where people draw the line of "justification", most conservatives would either be for 4.6% of current abortions to less than 1/2% of current abortions.  I believe most conservative Christians would place it around the 1% - 2% range.

The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was essentially that because of less than 1% justification, abortion should be legal in ALL cases.

(I'm under the impression that the RvW decision was made primarily based on rape, and that mother's life or incest was also considered, but the other reasons at the time of the decision were not part of the argument.  Please let me know if I'm wrong.)

Quote

I'd also like to see statistics reported by race, but for some reason that raises people's blood pressure.

Reported Legal Abortions by Race of Women Who Obtained Abortion by the State of Occurrence

 
Timeframe: 2019          
Location White Black Other Hispanic Total
United States 33% 38% 7% 21% 100%
Alabama 30% 62% 2% 5% 100%
Alaska 49% 7% 40% 4% 100%
Arizona 38% 11% 10% 41% 100%
Arkansas 44% 47% 2% 7% 100%
California NR NR NR NR NR
Colorado NR NR NR NR NR
Connecticut 37% 33% 6% 24% 100%
Delaware 43% 42% 4% 12% 100%
District of Columbia 19% 53% 12% 16% 100%
Florida 31% 35% 5% 30% 100%
Georgia 21% 65% 5% 9% 100%
Hawaii NR NR NR NR NR
Idaho 68% 3% 5% 25% 100%
Illinois NR NR NR NR NR
Indiana 52% 32% 8% 9% 100%
Iowa NR NR NR NR NR
Kansas 54% 24% 8% 14% 100%
Kentucky 56% 34% 4% 7% 100%
Louisiana NR NR NR NR NR
Maine NR NR NR NR NR
Maryland NR NR NR NR NR
Massachusetts NR NR NR NR NR
Michigan 40% 52% 5% 4% 100%
Minnesota 47% 28% 15% 10% 100%
Mississippi 20% 74% 4% 3% 100%
Missouri NR NR NR NR NR
Montana 83% NR 9% NR NR
Nebraska NR NR NR NR NR
Nevada 37% 18% 12% 33% 100%
New Hampshire NR NR NR NR NR
New Jersey 27% 39% 17% 18% 100%
New Mexico 28% 5% 11% 56% 100%
New York NR NR NR NR NR
North Carolina 32% 49% 8% 13% 102%
North Dakota NR NR NR NR NR
Ohio NR NR NR NR NR
Oklahoma NR NR NR NR NR
Oregon NR NR NR NR NR
Pennsylvania NR NR NR NR NR
Rhode Island NR NR NR NR NR
South Carolina 49% 39% 5% 8% 100%
South Dakota 63% 11% 17% 10% 100%
Tennessee 39% 51% 4% 6% 100%
Texas 26% 28% 7% 39% 100%
Utah 60% 5% 8% 27% 100%
Vermont 90% 4% 4% 3% 100%
Virginia 34% 46% 11% 10% 100%
Washington NR NR NR NR NR
West Virginia 83% 13% NR NR NR
Wisconsin NR NR NR NR NR
Wyoming 61% NR NR 29% 89%
Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/4/2022 at 10:37 PM, Carborendum said:

I wouldn't be surprised if leftist groups decide to assassinate some members of SCOTUS.  I'm not predicting they will.  I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised to hear it happening soon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/man-arrested-near-brett-kavanaugh-home/index.html

Well, that happened.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share