Jump to content

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The facts with quotes. 

 

Odd, I heard right-wing propagandists insisting those answers were promises and anyone who said differently were “radical leftists” attempting to stonewall appointments.

Huh……………

Link to comment

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. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Here is the full text of the decision (213 pages!).

A few thoughts:

1. Roe has long been viewed in legal/academic circles as a very poorly-reasoned decision.  This assessment, though not universal, was shared even by many who support abortion rights.

2. Roe has held a place in the public consciousness since it was published in 1973.  However, it was largely superseded by a later 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was also widely viewed as being poorly reasoned.

3. The second-from-last paragraph above includes an important statement about how the Constitution works.  The Constitution's text actually references (in LegalSpeak, "enumerates") some "rights," such as Free Speech, Free Press, etc.  However, it also appears to acknowledge the existence of unenumerated rights (that is, rights which are not recognized in the text, but which nevertheless are to be given constitutional protection).  See here:

These unenumerated rights are sometimes characterized as being found in the "penumbra" of the Constitution:

This is how we end up with "Constitutional rights" that are not actually in the Constitution.  And although this has long been a point of criticism from people on the political "right," those same people would probably not want to fully set aside such "penumbral reasoning."  See here:

Thus, the same legal reasoning that "created" the right to abortion also "created" rights to privacy, parenting, marriage, and so on.

The right to abortion was, in a sense, "found" in the text of the Constitution.  The reasoning in Roe went something like this:

  • A. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution includes the "Due Process" clause, stating that states are prohibited from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
  • B. The word "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment obviously requires some interpretation.  Over the years the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that Americans have what are called "liberty interests," or rights that arise from the reference to "liberty" in the Due Process clause.
  • C. The legal test generally cited by the courts to determine whethere there is a "fundamental" (that is, constitutional) right under the "liberty" provision in the Due Process Clause is that the supposed right must be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S. Ct. 149, 152, 82 L. Ed. 288 (1937), or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S. Ct. 1932, 1938, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531 (1977) (plurality opinion).  In other words, the courts can just make up rights willy-nilly.  They must instead find that the supposed fundamental right (right to privacy, right to parenting, etc.) is, though not in the text of the Constitution, nevertheless something that is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."
  • D. Roe did not specifically apply the foregoing "ordered liberty" / "deeply rooted" test.  Instead, it focused on the right to abortion as arising from the "right to privacy," which in turn arises from the "liberty" provision in the Due Process clause:

 

  • E. Roe went to to apply "compelling state interest" test to determine whether state laws constraining abortion were constitutional:

This is one of the most common criticisms of Roe, it's even included in Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion in Roe:

4. Roe largely operated to restrict (though not totally eliminate) the ability of the states to regulate abortion.  As a practical result, abortion has become substantially more widely available as compared to the pre-Roe era. The decision published today, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturns Roe, which means that "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

5. I think society has changed a lot since 1973.  Birth control has vastly improved, is far more readily and easily available, and is very affordable (often available for free).  Technology has improved our ability to detect a pregnancy in its earlier stages.  "Safe Haven" laws exist in all fifty states.  

6. I am concerned about violence.  I hope that people who will be protesting this decision do not resort to violence as a form of political disagreement.  

7. The abortion debate is not over, and likely never will be.  While those who, like me, are opposed to elective abortion will be pleased for today's decision, there is still much left to do.  We need to proceed with kindness, patience, and equanimity.  We need to acknowledge and respect the strongly-held (and, in many ways, reasonable) concerns held by those who disagree with us.  I think it will be very important that we continue to try to persuade and accommodate as much as possible, and not just rely on legalities.

Changing the law is not enough.  We now need to shift into a "change hearts and minds" way of thinking and acting.  "{O}nly by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy."  (D&C 121:42-43.)

Nobody hardest hit than white, male nerds who un-ironically read Robin Diangelo.

 

The impotent rage is pretty funny.

 

Between this and the gun ruling, it’s been a nice appetizer for Independence Day.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Nobody hardest hit than white, male nerds who un-ironically read Robin Diangelo.

 

The impotent rage is pretty funny.

 

Between this and the gun ruling, it’s been a nice appetizer for Independence Day.  

Independence Day has plenty of appetizers already. I probably eat more on the 4th than on Thanksgiving.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, bearhoof said:

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. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

And we all know we live in a religious theocracy so of course the Latter-day Saint way applies to everyone. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bearhoof said:

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. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.

My son-in-law's father had sex with his sister at a young age and she got pregnant and the baby was born with birth defects. And raised by the grandmother, her and son-in-law's mother, which was not an easy task. This baby grew to be a young adult but recently died because of these defects. It was all kept secret for many years, and his sister and mother kept it secret until just a few years ago. Now they all won't have anything to do with the father since the truth came out. 

If caught early I would hope the baby isn't formed to be able to receive a spirit. But the laws in states that make abortion illegal no matter what, could cause the baby to get older in the womb and then it's even more harmful, if the woman has to find another way to get the abortion that takes money and difficulty in having to leave the state and jeopardize her job. Time is of the essence. And I'm against abortion for the matter of convenience for the woman if that's why she wants one. Since she does have a responsibility but accidents do happen. And if her body could be jeopardized if she is pregnant, hopefully the description I put forth above doesn't happen.  These companies below are going to help those women who need an abortion and their state doesn't allow them:

May be an image of text that says 'COMPANIES PAYING ABORTION TRAVEL COSTS FOR EMPLOYEES Microsoft yelp cíti JPMORGAN CHASE & Co. STARBUCKS COFFEE NETFLIX amazon.com TESLA mastercard. lyAt DICK'S SPORTING GOODS LEVI'S'

Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am still for punching Nazis. I think things have gotten this bad primarily due to Nazis not getting punched enough.

Always be punching Nazis!

All you have to do is label someone a Nazi and you are free to punch them. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, provoman said:

Wouldn’t the 10th Amendment bar Congress from passing a law about it; except maybe a law related to commerce.

In the 1930s the supreme court used the commerce clause to open up a hole in federalism big enough to drive a battle ship through. Part of the "switch in time saves nine".

 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Odd, I heard right-wing propagandists insisting those answers were promises and anyone who said differently were “radical leftists” attempting to stonewall appointments.

Huh……………

And you believed them?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My son-in-law's father had sex with his sister at a young age and she got pregnant and the baby was born with birth defects. And raised by the grandmother, her and son-in-law's mother, which was not an easy task. This baby grew to be a young adult but recently died because of these defects. It was all kept secret for many years, and his sister and mother kept it secret until just a few years ago. Now they all won't have anything to do with the father since the truth came out. 

If caught early I would hope the baby isn't formed to be able to receive a spirit. But the laws in states that make abortion illegal no matter what, could cause the baby to get older in the womb and then it's even more harmful, if the woman has to find another way to get the abortion that takes money and difficulty in having to leave the state and jeopardize her job. Time is of the essence. And I'm against abortion for the matter of convenience for the woman if that's why she wants one. Since she does have a responsibility but accidents do happen. And if her body could be jeopardized if she is pregnant, hopefully the description I put forth above doesn't happen.  These companies below are going to help those women who need an abortion and their state doesn't allow them:

May be an image of text that says 'COMPANIES PAYING ABORTION TRAVEL COSTS FOR EMPLOYEES Microsoft yelp cíti JPMORGAN CHASE & Co. STARBUCKS COFFEE NETFLIX amazon.com TESLA mastercard. lyAt DICK'S SPORTING GOODS LEVI'S'

*OH* so that’s why HR sent out a company wide email this morning for“extending benefits up to $10k to cover travel expenses (accommodations and transportation) for team members and dependents to access healthcare not available in their area”

I did not make that connection till now

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And we all know we live in a religious theocracy so of course the Latter-day Saint way applies to everyone. 

Christ's way will apply to everyone sooner or later, regardless of whether they believe it.

But of course nobody can guess how Jesus would feel about slaughtering an innocent child in the womb... because he never specifically condemned it.  Right?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ's way will apply to everyone sooner or later, regardless of whether they believe it.

But of course nobody can guess how Jesus would feel about slaughtering an innocent child in the womb... because he never specifically condemned it.  Right?

He gave his opinion on it in the Old Testament where it is considered a property offense to kill an unborn child. Or is that one of the scriptures it’s safe to ignore?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Will  birth control be next to being banned?

Not banned, sent back to the states to pass actual bills into laws.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My money is on gay marriage and/or sodomy and then contraception.

Gay marriage is unlikely, simply because they won't retroactively declare existing legal marriage entered into in good faith invalid.  People could lose medical or estate or property claims, and a hundred other repercussions.  I don't see a legitimate way to walk that back.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Yes, that was confusing. Two votes in this decision.

I think most Supreme Court decisions dealing with abortion have been confusing.  The weirdest one is Casey which was a 3-6 decision.  Part of their decision was joined by one set of justices and another part was joined by a different set.  I'm not sure if there is a case that was decided in such a way.  Then you have the more recent June Medical Services v Russo where Chief Justice Roberts disagrees with the decision but still votes for it because of a similar, previous case that he was on the dissenting side (Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt).

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He gave his opinion on it in the Old Testament where it is considered a property offense to kill an unborn child. Or is that one of the scriptures it’s safe to ignore?

No, why ignore it?

A child is a heir.  A loss of an heir can end a bloodline, and all the blessings and rights thereafter would end.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think states have the ability to punish a woman who crosses state lines to get an abortion.  From my previous post (quoting Prof. Glenn Reynolds) :

I would oppose any state law that would seek to do this (punish crossing state lines for an abortion).  Not because I approve of abortion, but because the checks and balances in our system of laws need to be maintained.  

Thanks,

-Smac

What about laws that punish those helping women, including apparently those who cross state lines? (Serious question, I have read several articles and much of the law itself).

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2352120

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Gay marriage is unlikely, simply because they won't retroactively declare existing legal marriage entered into in good faith invalid.  People could lose medical or estate or property claims, and a hundred other repercussions.  I don't see a legitimate way to walk that back.

They won’t? Why not?

What does legitimacy have to do with it? A lot of court decisions have led to legal nightmares where things are up in the air.

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

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