Roe v Wade

[seanfhear]

Elections have consequences. If Hilary had won, do you think the SC would not be similarly stacked in the other direction?

Regarding the bit i have bolded, you said yourself that you had a nagging doubt the constitutional right to abortion might not have been soundly embedded in the 14th amendment. Thats precisely what this SC has said.

I wonder why the Democrats and their fellow travellers are so worried about this going back to the Democracy of the Individual States ?

[SkStu]

I wonder why the Democrats and their fellow travellers are so worried about this going back to the Democracy of the Individual States ?

to be fair, the decision (whether or not it is legally, technically, constitutionally correct) will result in a broad range of unfortunate outcomes so i get why it wouldn't align with the bulk of the democratic party, their values and preference for big government. Equally, republicans in blue states (or at least those that care about this issue) probably wont be too happy with some of the outcomes there (e.g. abortion tourism, late term abortions). Thats kind of why i would have preferred more open debate and dialogue on what is really reasonable and balanced. Stupidly ideological, i know. But "my body, my choice" is not really a coherent argument that holds water for me for the reasons i set out earlier. Neither is "hurr durr Christianity". They're definitely all considerations in what should be a scientific discussion about any rights of the unborn that might be protected.

[Poor Student]

I'm not sure I understand this point, or its relevance. I think the objection here runs deeper than "isn't it terrible abortion rights are no longer a constitutional right". It's every bit as much that the decision seems to be a politically motivated decision by a now highly partisan Supreme Court, deliberately stacked with big C Conservative judges, and the most senior of these has said other constitutional rights should probably be rolled back now too. What other interpretations might this Court now also make? Is the Supreme Court really just making decisions based on dry legal arguments or is it now rewarding a (seemingly now disgraced) former President intent on sowing division?

I'm making the point in respect of Tets' post where he, among other things, discusses how Georgia's democratically elected representatives may outlaw or restrict abortion as being problematic and how states in as close proximity to one another as Irish counties may have differing laws. I'm also speaking to a wider trend I note among some, not all, Irish people discussing US politics who make out that it's inherently strange or anachronistic that US states legislate on their own behalf and indeed differ in legislation.

To my mind the constitutional right to abortion wasn't explicitly provided for by by the 14th Amendment. It was a nuanced enough decision and even the trimester criteria left some level of restriction in place so it wasn't considered an open ended right. This was replaced by the viability criteria of the Planned Parenthood v Casey judgement in 1992. Do you believe the justices who made the decision have acted in bad faith and there's no legal basis for their decision? Do you believe only the conservative judges act in bad faith and the non-conservative judges do not let their views influence their judgements?

[dahamsta]

Church and state today, school prayer. All these cases conveniently lining up for the nutters, yet still no mass protests. What the hell is wrong with them?

[Stuttgart88]

Elections have consequences. If Hilary had won, do you think the SC would not be similarly stacked in the other direction?

Regarding the bit i have bolded, you said yourself that you had a nagging doubt the constitutional right to abortion might not have been soundly embedded in the 14th amendment. That's precisely what this SC has said.

I'm not sure the consequences of a liberal-tilted SC would be as divisive though. You're closer to the ground there than I am, but I'm not sure what major constitutional issues would have changed. I also think it's off that Reps blocked Garland's appointment as it was too close to an election, but then when it suited them proximity to an election was no obstacle to Reps approving a Conservative to the court.

Yes, I do have a nagging doubt and you're the first person to answer my question - though I'd love to hear a logical synopsis of how the decision is justified. I also have doubts that the decision isn't politically motivated though, especially as some of the same judges have previously said they believed the legal precedents in RvW were watertight.

[Stuttgart88]

Do you believe the justices who made the decision have acted in bad faith and there's no legal basis for their decision? Do you believe only the conservative judges act in bad faith and the non-conservative judges do not let their views influence their judgements?

I believe it's possible, yes, especially as they had said previously that the legal precedents were sound. I don't think liberal judges are immune to politically motivated reasoning but I'd say there's less current inclination among liberal judges to reverse long-standing controversial legislation that is guaranteed to raise opprobrium in the current febrile atmosphere.

[John83]

Their whole political system is a joke. First past the post elections that are gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives, a federal system that makes the value of a person's vote depend strongly on where they live, and toxic and polarized media bubbles. It's come to a point where people have no faith in their system at all. I agree with dahamsta here: they're flirting with the idea of a civil war there.

[seanfhear]

Abortion has turned out to happen in much bigger numbers and much later in the pregnancies than the People that brought it in said it would, and believed that it would be. There is nothing what so ever wrong with this issue having a Democratic Evaluation after this amount of time.

With out Democracy, Countries are lost. Why are the pro-abortion People so afraid of Democratic Evaluation ?

[osarusan]

What is interesting is that it in some of these states with harsh anti-abortion laws ready to come into effect, it seems like those behind the legislation never really expected them to come into effect - it was a handy political trick to make a law knowing that RvW made it irrelevant, but now it's suddenly relevant.

[SkStu]

I'm not sure the consequences of a liberal-tilted SC would be as divisive though. You're closer to the ground there than I am, but I'm not sure what major constitutional issues would have changed. I also think it's off that Reps blocked Garland's appointment as it was too close to an election, but then when it suited them proximity to an election was no obstacle to Reps approving a Conservative to the court.

Yes, I do have a nagging doubt and you're the first person to answer my question - though I'd love to hear a logical synopsis of how the decision is justified. I also have doubts that the decision isn't politically motivated though, especially as some of the same judges have previously said they believed the legal precedents in RvW were watertight.

I believe it's possible, yes, especially as they had said previously that the legal precedents were sound. I don't think liberal judges are immune to politically motivated reasoning but I'd say there's less current inclination among liberal judges to reverse long-standing controversial legislation that is guaranteed to raise opprobrium in the current febrile atmosphere.

Just a couple of little bits to address in there...

Regarding the point about it being difficult to see what major constitutional issues would have changed, its a simple case of activism and opportunism with certain groups (many on both sides) scouring the landscape for potential constitutional issues to bring through the State court systems and ultimately Federal / Supreme Court. From what i have read, the scale of activism/lobbying (call it what you will) is just a part of the judicial landscape in the USA in a way that i havent seen elsewhere (back home or here in Canada). Many cases of individuals or organizations that get significant financially backing from a multitude of politically influenced special interest groups to advance their cases. So, while i cant definitively say what issues might have changed, i can say that a heavily tilted liberal Supreme Court would be as easily ripe for picking by these groups as a heavily tilted conservative court. And, and i could be wrong on this, i do believe that the issue that was before the Supreme Court last year that led to this reversal was actually taken forward by the abortion clinic in Mississipi against the State which had legislation on the books that abortions after 15 weeks were illegal.

On your giving the benefit of the doubt that liberal justices are less inclined to let their political bent influence how they rule (I totally disagree by the way - i think they are equally as beholden to their principles and preferences), i will just quote something interesting that i read from C.J. Roberts opinion "both the majority and dissent displayed a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share". That doesnt sound, to me, like anything other than polarization based on strongly held values.

The only other piece i will clarify there is the piece in bold - the court didnt reverse legislation. They reversed a precedent which many, many, many courts do all over the world in keeping with the principles and norms behind the concept of stare decisis. Often courts will look for nuanced differences in a case from the preceding case in order to avoid having to follow the precedent. That (avoidance) is not, however, what the Supreme Court did here. They reversed it, as you point out, saying that the 14th amendment doesnt confer, through their interpretation, a right to privacy and certainly not one that extends a right to abortion i.e. the precedent is wrong. My point here is twofold:

1) Roe v Wade could have been codified many times in the last 50 years, most recently by Obama who had the numbers in senate and congress to do so in the first half of his first term. He ran on it as his #1 priority and then ditched it almost immediately. That legislation would have enshrined RvW. Many of the protests we are seeing are livid with the DNP for this reason.

2) Matters of rights and public mores are actually fairly fluid over a long time horizon. What was considered right or wrong 50 years ago can reverse completely in the court of public opinion. This means that precedents will always be subject to change. We have gone through - and are still going through, i think - a period of rights extension which is a good thing but what are considered rights may look very different again in 50-100 years. I'm not saying they will, it is just how things have tended to play out over a longer time horizon. Already, i think you are seeing some correction of what is (a) "right" by the recent decisions by many sporting authorities to restrict participation by trans athletes in their competitions. There was a huge call for rights-based inclusion going back a few years now, it happened and now people are saying... "hold on a minute, this isnt right". Not the best example, maybe, but just pointing out how it happens.

[SkStu]

Re: Garland v Barrett. Absolute political chicanery, no doubt. But my answer is the same as an earlier post. Elections have consequences. They did what they did because they could. They had the numbers in the Senate both times.

[Stuttgart88]

Not the best example, as you say, but point taken. The trans issue is an interesting one and seems to have its origins from a schism within the feminist movement.

[ontheotherhand]

Abortion has turned out to happen in much bigger numbers and much later in the pregnancies than the People that brought it in said it would, and believed that it would be. There is nothing what so ever wrong with this issue having a Democratic Evaluation after this amount of time.

With out Democracy, Countries are lost. Why are the pro-abortion People so afraid of Democratic Evaluation ?

Not sure that's true Sean? You're also assuming some sort of pure form of democracy which America isn't really. Most States (and arguably the country) are run by whoever has enough money pumped into them for tv ads, smear campaigns and billboards by lobbyists, corporations and worse. There won't be a vote on abortion.

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.
From 2010 to 2019, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively. However, compared with 2018, in 2019, the total number increased 2%, the rate of reported abortions increased by 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased by 3%.
Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. Early medical abortion is defined as the administration of medications(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone (implemented in 2016). In 2019, 42.3% of all abortions were early medical abortions. Use of early medical abortion increased 10% from 2018 to 2019 and 123% from 2010 to 2019. MMWR Surveill Summ 2021;70(No. SS-9):1–29.

[mark12345]

Not sure that's true Sean? You're also assuming some sort of pure form of democracy which America isn't really. Most States (and arguably the country) are run by whoever has enough money pumped into them for tv ads, smear campaigns and billboards by lobbyists, corporations and worse. There won't be a vote on abortion.

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.
From 2010 to 2019, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively. However, compared with 2018, in 2019, the total number increased 2%, the rate of reported abortions increased by 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased by 3%.
Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. Early medical abortion is defined as the administration of medications(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone (implemented in 2016). In 2019, 42.3% of all abortions were early medical abortions. Use of early medical abortion increased 10% from 2018 to 2019 and 123% from 2010 to 2019. MMWR Surveill Summ 2021;70(No. SS-9):1–29.

The specifics you provide are quite helpful. Just thought I'd add a couple more. Per a New York state law of 2019, a baby's life can be terminated up to any point before the mother (who just gave birth) leaves the hospital. To do this is not a crime in New York.
Secondly, the state of Maryland had scheduled a vote this past March to decide the fate of Bill 669. As it happened the vote was postponed. Bill 669 allows for the termination of a baby's life upto 28 days after birth with no crime attached to the person who would do such a thing.
Bit of an outlier that Maryland vote you might think. Not really. Shortly afterwards the WHO made an announcement calling for an end worldwide to restrictions and term limits on abortion.

[osarusan]

The specifics you provide are quite helpful. Just thought I'd add a couple more. Per a New York state law of 2019, a baby's life can be terminated up to any point before the mother (who just gave birth) leaves the hospital. To do this is not a crime in New York.

Post up a link to that if you don't mind. I'd be very interested to see it, as I'd be very surprised if what you posted is true.

[John83]

Post up a link to that if you don't mind. I'd be very interested to see it, as I'd be very surprised if what you posted is true.

NY 2019 suggests it's this: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/ad...-abortion-law/
It doesn't seem to support Mark's claims.

[D24Saint]

I've called America a failing state for many years now, but I think this is the final nail in the coffin, it'll encourage GOP idiots and evilmongers to do worse and worse -- the SC is already taking about going after contraception and gay marriage. I think it's destination Gilead now, with no backsies. Am I wrong?

Unfortunately the checks and balances system of government designed by the founders has failed. They originally thought the courts would be the weakest part of the government as a court has no direct army or police to enforce their rules , they ultimately rely on the consent of citizens. Little did they know that the Supreme Court would become one of the most powerful parts of the republic and an unelected wing of government at that . I’ve no great love for the concept of abortion but I know enough about it to allow women to have their choice on the matter. I voted for it here as the right to choose should be a womens prerogative.

[mark12345]

You would be surprised if what I say is true? You should be fully convinced shouldn't you if you're going to question someone's veracity. I know I'm being a little testy here but when I'm the only one of 37 posters asked specifically to provide a link it gets old. Looks up Maryland Bill 669 with key words 'pregnamt person' and you should get what you're looking for.

[tetsujin1979]

Here's the public record of the 669 bill: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/sb/sb0669f.pdf
Point out where it says "allows for the termination of a baby's life upto 28 days after birth with no crime attached to the person who would do such a thing."

[mark12345]

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/ma...s-after-birth/

Posted the link above from the Washington Examiner. It contains info about the 28 days after birth. I also heard discussion about it on Catholic radio at the time. I would also direct you to Gab.com where you can find a lot of open discussion about everything going on in America right now that the media is not telling you. In fairness, some of the comments are quite off the rails, but it is one of the very few places left where you are allowed freedom of speech