Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Contraceptive sells have increased through the roof.  Hording is probably on the rise and accounts for a lot of it, but hopefully this change in law is going to have the positive effect of causing people to take prevention more seriously when abortion is no longer a viable option.  We certainly need to do more to make it easily accessible and affordable/free to high risk populations.  Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a realistic goal (as long as Justice Thomas doesn't get his way with his disgusting ideas on contraception) and this change in law will only improve chances of success where convenience abortions are restricted.  It would be hard to get students to prepare for a test if they know that when they fail, they still get a pass.  Take away the easy pass and students will take more accountability/responsibility and prepare in the first place.  

https://www.ksl.com/article/50432024/amazon-rite-aid-cap-purchase-of-emergency-contraceptives

And with contraception failure we will still have how many unwanted pregnancies?  Are men okay with not having sex with fertile women?  Are they saying no? Are they saying, "well, dear since no contraception is 100% effective and we don't want anymore children we should just abstain."

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, mtomm said:

This is what we are dealing with on the SUPREME Court of the United States. Holy hell. If that doesn't scare all of us it should. 

Clarence Thomas is very stupid or just plain evil.

What, exactly, did Justice Thomas say that makes you believe he is "very stupid or just plain evil?"

Did you actually bother to read his dissent? Spoiler alert: it might not say what you think it says...

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mtomm said:

And with contraception failure we will still have how many unwanted pregnancies?  Are men okay with not having sex with fertile women?  Are they saying no? Are they saying, "well, dear since no contraception is 100% effective and we don't want anymore children we should just abstain."

Double up with different methods.  IUD's alone only have a 0.1% failure rate.  You also have the option of the morning after pill to add to any regimen. 

Fertility awareness is a powerful tool.  There are only about 6 days a month that a woman is fertile and can get pregnant.   Knowing when those days are can be very empowering.  Heck, they even have an app for it that has been approved by the FDA and highly effective. 

Any combination of two or more of those methods will reduce chances of pregnancy to near absolute zero.  

Yes, this will require some education and hopefully government assistance, but if one lives in a state where abortion for convenience is not an option, that should be more than enough motivation to adapt to these ideas and become responsible.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

What, exactly, did Justice Thomas say that makes you believe he is "very stupid or just plain evil?"

Did you actually bother to read his dissent? Spoiler alert: it might not say what you think it says...

 

Did you read the link? 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I did, and it's arguing against a point that was never claimed.

 

From the SCOTUS document

 

From the article

Not what he said at all. 1) The claim was what was being argued by petitioner. 2) The document says "developed using" not "made with".

later in the article

So exactly what the claim was. Fetal cell lines from an aborted fetus was used in the development.

Again, that was not in the claim. The claim was developed using, not made from. And they are developed using, much in the same that using the HeLa cancer cell line doesn't mean that any developed treatments that used that cell line for testing are made from or contain cancer cells.

Actually, in his opinion he isn't even giving credence to their claim only addressing what their claim is. I withdraw my complaint he is stupid. I'm still holding onto evil for other reasons though. 

And can I just say that the HeLa cells lines probably have a much more dark ethical history than aborted fetal cells. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

What about bidets?

I was thinking about that, but it cuts down on needing TP, doesn’t remove the need completely. 
 

My husband’s Father’s Day gift was a bidet that heats the water for his bathroom. For some reason his is the only one with a plug by the toilet. We all love the idea, but it is a bit too bracing straight out of the tap for us.  He has been working hard upgrading the house the past 6 months to make it healthier and happier for me, so I splurged. 
 

I am hoping when my bathroom gets a soaker tub and shower over haul next summer, I will get a plug by my toilet too and then I will get myself a great birthday present. :P 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, pogi said:

The fact that he said Griswold v Conneticut (along with others) should be reviewed in his concurring opinion is disgusting to me.  To call into question contraceptives in the very same swipe of a pen that one is overturning Roe v Wade is madness.  What the heck is he thinking?  Even if it could be over turned, the question is should it be overturned.  Of course not!!!  To bring up the idea while overturning Roe v Wade is absolute extremist craziness to me.    The fact that he said it "should" be reviewed rather than "could" be reviewed in light of overturning Roe v Wade, comes off as political activism to me.  He seems to be on a mission.  I have a strong distaste for activist judges, especially when they are as extreme as him. 

I understand that he thinks that this ruling weakens these other cases, but the other justices seem to disagree.  Alito made it clear repeatedly that this poses no threat to other precedents that do not concern abortion.  Kavanaugh also wrote that "Overturning Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedent", practically calling out Justice Thomas by name. 

The problem for me in his statement isn't the question of could it be impacted or overturned (I don't think it could as the other justices don't seem to be on board with Thomas), but should it be overturned.  Even bringing it into question is what is disgusting to me, especially in the context of what is happening with abortion.      

His argument is over the "Substantive Due Process" principle and it could be because of his view of its history.  Some contend (and I believe Justice Thomas is included in this but I can't find the case where he actually said it) that the first case that actually used substantive due process was Dred Scott v Sandford (the case that ruled that blacks could not be citizens).  Later, during the Lochner era (started with Lochner v New York), the Supreme Court used the substantive due process to strike down state laws that set maximum work hours, minimum wages, etc.  Griswald v Connecticut (contraceptives) was probably one of the first cases where substantive due process was used in the manner we now know.

So, considering that substantive due process has been used for really bad precedents (Dred Scott and Lochner), it really does feel like maybe we shouldn't use it and instead move the rights that we want onto a more firmer legal doctrine.  I don't think he is wanting to overturn those rights, but just wants to invalidate the substantive due process doctrine so it can't be misused.

The wiki article goes over the history and criticism fairly well, I think - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process.  Here's a quote from it that might be helpful:

Quote

Originalists do not necessarily oppose protection of rights protected by substantive due process. Most originalists believe that such rights should be identified and protected legislatively or by further constitutional amendments or other existing provisions of the Constitution. For example, some substantive due process liberties may be protectable according to the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most originalists believe that rights should be identified and protected by the majority legislatively or, if legislatures lack the power, by constitutional amendments.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I did, and it's arguing against a point that was never claimed.

 

From the SCOTUS document

 

From the article

Not what he said at all. 1) The claim was what was being argued by petitioner. 2) The document says "developed using" not "made with".

later in the article

So exactly what the claim was. Fetal cell lines from an aborted fetus was used in the development.

Again, that was not in the claim. The claim was developed using, not made from. And they are developed using, much in the same that using the HeLa cancer cell line doesn't mean that any developed treatments that used that cell line for testing are made from or contain cancer cells.

Even stranger, the article actually does quote that line from Justice Thomas

Quote

Thomas, citing the plaintiffs, wrote that the health care workers “object” to the state’s vaccine mandate “on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

So, it is really odd that they then went and attacked a completely different idea.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

Even stranger, the article actually does quote that line from Justice Thomas

So, it is really odd that they then went and attacked a completely different idea.

Oh, hell!  If someone's just looking for a cudgel to beat someone over the head because the person doing the beating thinks his victim is stoopid, then one ready-made cudgel works as well as any other ready-made cudgel!  And if there are no ready-made cudgels handy, the person administering the beating could always just make his own! <_< *

 

 

* By the way, I understand, completely, disagreeing with someone.  Disagree away!  The problem I have is setting up a straw man that's based on something Justice Thomas didn't write and then taking a flamethrower to that!

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Danzo said:

What about bidets?

To anyone who might be wondering, I can do no better than quote the Great Crocodile Dundee (Paul Hogan).  He and his beloved are staying in an upscale New York hotel, and he goes into the bathroom, sees the bidet, presses the button, and, of course, the stream of water issues forth.  He asks, "Wot's this?"  She says coyly, "You'll figure it out."  Then, she leaves.  After she leaves and upon further reflection, realization finally dawns on him.  Eager to share his newfound knowledge but knowing he probably won't be able to catch up to her, since, now, she's all the way down on street level, thinking quickly, he opens the sixth-floor window of their room and whistles down to the street to get her attention, she looks up in the direction from whence the sound of his whistle came, and he asks, "It washes your back side ... right?"  Whereupon she flashes the "A-OK" sign.

:D :rofl: :D 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mtomm said:

Actually, in his opinion he isn't even giving credence to their claim only addressing what their claim is. I withdraw my complaint he is stupid. I'm still holding onto evil for other reasons though. 

And can I just say that the HeLa cells lines probably have a much more dark ethical history than aborted fetal cells. 

You call someone you don't know from Adam, have never even met, and are extremely unlikely to meet evil?  That's despicable.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, mtomm said:

Did you read the link? 

You think someone should read a stupid predigested gloss on something rather than going to the original source to find out what somebody actually wrote?  Okay. :huh: 

Link to comment
On 6/30/2022 at 5:56 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Outsider’s view: I can see no fundamental difference between pro-choice misinformation and anti-vaccine misinformation. They both seem driven by emotions (including fear) over facts. 

It's not misinformation to point out that government intervention in women's health will impact them negatively.

Look at Missouri's new law. It technically has exemptions for medical necessity but requires a three day waiting period before an abortion procedure. This is effectively a total ban for medical emergencies which cannot wait that long.

Just FYI: the uterus is a very efficient bleeder. I lost thirty percent of my blood within a few hours when my first was born. Miscarriages can go badly and require immediate medical assistance.

 

Link to comment

Here it is:

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-missouri

 

"In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of June 28, 2022:

 

Abortion would be banned if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two trips to the facility. "

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:
Quote
Quote

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a realistic goal (as long as Justice Thomas doesn't get his way with his disgusting ideas on contraception)

Could you elaborate?  What "disgusting ideas" are you referencing here?

The fact that he said Griswold v Conneticut (along with others) should be reviewed in his concurring opinion is disgusting to me. 

Ok, I think I see what you are saying.  Let me lay out a few thoughts:

1. Jurists (typically, at the trial court, "Judge _____________" and at the appellate court, "Justice _____________") are, or should be, try to be very cautious in creating law, which is supposed to be the principal function of the Legislative Branch (Congress), with the Executive Branch executing/enforcing the laws, and the Judicial Branch interpreting the application and, if necessary, the constitutionality of the laws.  

2. As a practical matter, all three branches "create" laws.  You already know how Congress does this.  The Executive Branch does this primarily through "executive orders" and administrative/regulatory rules and regulations (all the federal regulatory agencies - SEC, EPA, OSHA, etc. all fall within the Executive Branch), and the Judicial Branch does this by creating "common law" and "precedent," and also through "judicial review."

3. "Common Law" is "the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."  It originated in the English courts way back in the day, when there were plenty of legal disputes, but far fewer codified laws to resolve them.  So judges started to make up laws to account for these omissions.  Over time, the "judge-made" laws that stood the test of time, that are upheld on appeal, etc., become "precedent," which is "a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."

4. Because we have both Congress and the states' individual legislatures, through the centuries the scope of Common Law has been substantially whittled down.  Because the principal role of the Legislative Branch is to create law, it can enact a statute to regulate an issue previously governed by Common Law, at which point the Common Law becomes subordinated to the statutory law.

5. The U.S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS") plays a fairly specialized role in all of this, in that it is the final say as to A) the interpretation and application of the U.S. Constitution, B) the interpretaton and application of all federal laws and treaties, C) disputes between states or between citizens of different states, D) disputes between federal and state authorities, and E) disputes about state laws that may violate the Constitution.  The ability of SCOTUS to "create law" is almost entire derivative, that is, by "judicial review" of a law enacted somewhere else (a federal statute, a state statute, a regulatory law, etc.).

6. Of particular note is the role SCOTUS plays in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.  This is really where the rubber hits the road, as the Constitution was drafted long ago and is the foundational instrument by which all other laws are made.  This interpretative function ends up playing a hugely important role.  Part of the Constitution, Article V, governs how the Constitution can be amended (changed or added to).  SCOTUS plays no part in this process.  At all.  That non-function by SCOTUS has a bit impact to the extent it affects the philosophical approach SCOTUS takes to interpreting the Constitution.

7. There are two broadly divergent and dominant "branches" of thought on that topic, with one branch (generally referred to as "originalism" or "strict constructivism") positing that "that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified" and/or that the Court "limits or restricts such interpretation only to the exact wording" of the constitution, and with the other branch (generally referred to as "Living Constitution") positing that the Constitution "holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended."

8. "Originalist" justices feel very strongly that the "Living Constitution" approach (Ruth Bader Ginsburg being a notable example) runs the real risks of A) disregarding the text of the Constitution, B) the Constitution being effectively "amended" by fiat of a handful of justices rather than by the amendment process explained in Article V, and C) that it encouraged "judicial activism," in which unaccountable judges misappropriate the functions of the representative legislature.

9. Justice Thomas is an originalist:

Quote

Thomas is often described as an originalist and as a textualist.[126][127] He is often described as the Court's most conservative member,[30][128][129] though others gave Justice Antonin Scalia that designation while they served on the Court together.[130][131][132] Scalia and Thomas had similar judicial philosophies, and pundits speculate about the degree to which Scalia found some of Thomas's views implausible.[133][134]

Thomas's jurisprudence has been compared to that of Justice Hugo Black, who "resisted the tendency to create social policy out of 'whole cloth.'"[135] According to the same critic, Thomas generally declines to engage in judicial lawmaking, viewing the Court's constitutional role as the interpretation of law, rather than making law.[135]

Some critics downplay the significance of originalism in Thomas's jurisprudence and claim Thomas applies originalism in his decisions inconsistently.[136][137][138][139] Law professor Jim Ryan and former litigator Doug Kendall have argued that Thomas "will use originalism where it provides support for a politically conservative result" but ignores originalism when "history provides no support" for a conservative ruling.[137] Others have argued that Thomas employs a "pluralistic approach to originalism" in which he relies on a mix of original intent, understanding, and public meaning to guide his judgments.[136][139] Such critics observe that Thomas's originalism most often seems inconsistent or pluralistic when court decisions intersect issues related to race.[138][139] Robin, while calling originalism "at best episodic" in Thomas's rulings, claims it still plays a significant role in how Thomas envisions the Constitution and "functions as an organizing" narrative for his interpretation.[136]

Thomas is also apparently willing to keep stare decisis at arm's length:

Quote

Thomas spoke favorably about stare decisis—the principle that the Court is bound by its preceding decisions—during his confirmation hearings, saying, "stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."[153] According to Scalia, Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."[153] This assessment is consistent with Thomas's record on the bench: factoring in length of tenure, Thomas urged overruling and joined in overruling precedents more often than any other justice on the Rehnquist Court.[154]

Also according to Scalia, Thomas is more willing to overrule constitutional cases than he was: "If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."[155] Law professor Michael Gerhardt has said that Scalia's characterization of Thomas may be incorrect, given that Thomas has supported leaving a broad spectrum of constitutional decisions intact.[156] Thomas's belief in originalism is strong; he has said, "When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."[157] Thomas believes that an erroneous decision can and should be overturned, no matter how old it is.[157]

10. I think these two attributes together result in Justice Thomas advocating for SCOTUS being as minimally legislative and interventionist as possible.  In other words, he does not like the idea of SCOTUS making up law, or of deferring to its own prior rulings that make up law. 

11. It is this philosophy toward restraining the scope of SCOTUS authority that I think may be causing you to dislike Justice Thomas.  Take a look at what you say here:

3 hours ago, pogi said:

To call into question contraceptives in the very same swipe of a pen that one is overturning Roe v Wade is madness.  What the heck is he thinking?  Even if it could be over turned, the question is should it be overturned.  Of course not!!!  To bring up the idea while overturning Roe v Wade is absolute extremist craziness to me.

It seems like you are okay with an "the ends justify the means" approach to how SCOTUS operates.  That is, if you like the "ends," you don't care whether the "means" SCOTUS uses to reach them matters.  Is that a fair characterization?

Originalists like Justice Thomas are concerned about government overreach and abuse of authority, even when that overreach yields results that people like.  But the problem here is that sooner or later SCOTUS (or some other branch of government) will overreach in a way we do not like.  But since we have already surrendered power to the government by embracing its overreaching and abuse of power as demonstrated over there, we are in trouble in opposing overreach / abuse over here.

Justice Thomas wants to curb that urge.  He wants to limit the role and function of government to its constitutional parameters.  That does not mean he is staking out a particular position on a disputed issue (abortion, contraceptives, interracial marriage, etc.).  Rather, it means that he is saying that such issues are not within the stewardship and authority of SCOTUS to decide, and that such issues must instead be addressed in accordance with the Constitution.  The Constitution allocates some limited responsibilities to the federal government, and leaves the rest for the individual states and the people.  Justice Thomas rejects the "ends justify the means" approach to interpreting the Constitution.  He may very well like the "ends," but he is insisting that we use constitutional "means" to get there.  

Regarding the other cases about which you have some concern, he is not saying they must be overruled, but that they should be "reconsidered" to make sure that Constitutional "means" were used to reach those "ends."

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The fact that he said it "should" be reviewed rather than "could" be reviewed in light of overturning Roe v Wade, comes off as political activism to me.  He seems to be on a mission.  I have a strong distaste for activist judges, especially when they are as extreme as him. 

With respect, I disagree.  I think he is advocating for judicial restraint not judicial activism.  Take a look:

Quote

The Court’s abortion cases are unique, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised." Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” 

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. 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.

SCOTUS should, broadly speaking, not be in the business of amending the Constitution outside of Article V.  SCOTUS should not be fabricating law.  That is the epitome of "judicial activism."

SCOTUS should, instead, constrain itself to its proper role, and refuse to create laws where Congress has failed or refused to do so.

That's a pretty good philosophy, IMO.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I understand that he thinks that this ruling weakens these other cases, but the other justices seem to disagree.  Alito made it clear repeatedly that this poses no threat to other precedents that do not concern abortion.  Kavanaugh also wrote that "Overturning Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedent", practically calling out Justice Thomas by name. 

They may well be right.  Or not.  Time will likely tell.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The problem for me in his statement isn't the question of could it be impacted or overturned (I don't think it could as the other justices don't seem to be on board with Thomas), but should it be overturned. 

Yes.  But he was here speaking of potentially overturning these other cases not because the "ends" were necessarily erroneous, but rather because of the unconstitutional (in his view) means used to reach them.  As you can see from above, he is open to examining whether the "ends" of these decisions can be reached by alternative legitimate (that is, constitutional) means ("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").

And even if such alternative "constitutional provisions" are not found, those "rights" can be A) legislated by Congress, B) legislated by state legislatures, C) found in or added to state constitutions, D) left unregulated.  And at this point, there is  so much popular support for the "ends" of Griswold (re: contraceptives) that the likelihood of one of these alternative (and constitutionally permissible) "means" working is nearly absolute.  The "ends" of Lawrence (criminalizing consensual sexual behavior) and Obergefell (same-sex marriage) are also susceptible to being found using one or more of the foregoing alternatives.  Frankly, I think society has come too far to return to the status quo ante on either of these (in contrast to our national 50-year-long convulsions relative to Roe.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Even bringing it into question is what is disgusting to me, especially in the context of what is happening with abortion.      

Bringing what "into question?"  Constitutional rights that may not exist?  Rights that may have been improperly fabricated and added into the Constitution by a handful of unelected justices?

Ours is a constitutional republic, not a fiefdom of unelected activists who rule by fiat.  SCOTUS has a hugely important role to play, including adjudicating issues pertaining to rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  I am grateful that we have people like Justice Thomas who are willing to go against human nature and resist taking power, and who return social/policy issues to Congress, which is where they belong under our constitutional framework.

I am all the more grateful that Justice Thomas is willing to do these things while knowing that terrible things are being said about him.  I admire a person who is willing to do what is right, even when doing so is not popular.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

Section 3 seems to mean no waiting period…

And this appears to be clarified here:

Medical emergency allows an immediate abortion.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#BOTTOM

Check out this section which discusses the legal burden on the provider:

 3. It shall be an affirmative defense for any person alleged to have violated the provisions of subsection 2 of this section that the person performed or induced an abortion because of a medical emergency. The defendant shall have the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017

Is this (and potential other) details the reason Guttmacher characterized it the way it did?

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...