UPDATE: I listened to the entire thing. I predict stare decisis will prevail. The lawyer for the state was particularly weak in his effort to assure the Court that Roe and Casey could fall without endangering any other precedent (e.g., Obergefell). There was some effort to discover a compromise position, drawing the line somewhere other than viability, but nothing emerged. Not that I could hear on this first pass. I will probably say more when I get the transcript.
ADDED: Thinking about Obergefell, I wanted to quote this passage from the Chief Justice's dissenting opinion:
By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.
Boldface added.
That was 6 years ago. What "winds of change" are "freshening... backs" today?
In any case, the question then was whether to take something out of the political arena. The question now is whether to throw something back in after it's been out for 50 years!
AND: On the theme of keeping the government's hands out of our body, Amy Coney Barrett brought up mandatory vaccination.
Posts
113 comments:
We can't listen to the Maxwell sex traffiking case because the Liberal Judge said it was too sensational and impure. I hope Althouse can handle the SCOTUS oral arguements, given their impure nature.
Excerpt from Hizzoner Blackmun's 1973 ruling:
"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."
Sweet.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf
Sotomayor is doing science. Lecturing counsel on how fetal response to poking or other intervention does not prove that the fetus feels pain. Where did she get her PhD in embryology with a side dish of developmental neurology? How did she transcend the boundary between physical observables and the interior life of the mind?
I can wait for transcripts.
So on my toes for this.
Gripped.
Justice Sotomayor seems to ignore that DNA discovery/sequencing, ability to photograph fetus, and probably some other relevant scientific discoveries happened somewhere between now and 'philosophers debating beginning of human life'.
The "1 in 4 women will have an abortion by the time they are 45" statement is incorrect. That number was determined by looking at the abortion rate (number of abortions per 1000 women) and extrapolating that to cover the age range specified, but it (at least as phrased) is based on the mistaken assumption that women have only a single abortion - that each abortion entails a new, unique woman. The analyses I have seen have said that about 45-50% of women having an abortion had already had one or more previous abortions, which would lower the total number of women having an abortion to no more than 1 in 8.
Kagan: Casey has a bit of airy reliance doctrine.
Ha! Thank you Anthony Kennedy for making this argument harder.
This is way more fun.
An actual discussion.
Agree.
I predict stare decisis will prevail.
Really the only winner here, at least for now, until the 2nd amendment stuff comes up and we’ll be back to the living breathing document thing…
UPDATE: I listened to the entire thing. I predict stare decisis will prevail.
If this turns out to be true then any judge taking that position should resign and kill themselves to salvage their family's honor.
That would just be pure cowardice and stupidity.
The Roe V. Wade decision is indefensible in every possible way and is directly erosive so a Republic based on our constitution.
If you want abortion in the constitution amend it. There is no honest intellectual case for supporting Roe.
I like how left bench dropped that ad in for 2nd amendment nuking in the middle of this argument. She was cute with that…
Someone has pointed out on the Scotusblog thread that Dred Scott v. Sandford was overturned not by a Court decision but by amendments to the Constitution. This relates to the question whether the Court has ever said the errors in a previous decision are enough to overturn that decision. Kavanagh apparently brought up Brown v. Board as opposed to Plessy.
I wonder how a vote would go on a constitutional amendment like this: nothing in this Constitution either requires or forbids any specific legislation on abortion, or the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. That seems to be what Kavanagh means by neutrality.
In any case, the question then was whether to take something out of the political arena. The question now is whether to throw something back in after it's been out for 50 years!
Pathetic.
Oberfell is pathetic too. It is interesting that Roberts made a coherent argument. But we all know Roberts will only make a strong argument when he knows the Oligarchy will get it's way.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It is right fucking there. Anyone with more than 75 IQ can figure that one out.
This was all about protecting the Planned Parenthood baby parts selling industry which is now worth billions. Just another leftist slush fund fed with blood.
It is a thing to watch the supporters of Roe fall back on their utterly vapid supporting points and not have any idea how absolutely corrosive and destructive Roe V Wade is to the judicial system.
When the reckoning comes for the Supreme Court it will be because they ignored obvious black and white words and stuffed in a bunch of women's emotional garbage and other progressive stupidity into their decisions.
Liberals: For and against stare decisis depending on whether or not it helps their agenda.
Yes Althouse, the court was wrong to take abortion out of the political process. This case can reverse that error.
I only started listening an hour in, but I don't see how repeating the word Liberty over and over again keeps Roe intact. Stevens seemed to be trying to help bolster the case and it seemed fairly unpersuasive.
Stare decisis... precedents, including slavery, diversity [dogma], and the progressive compromise to restrict women's Choice to the first, second, third, and, in some liberal sects, the fourth (pun intended, but only at the fringe, for NOW) trimester in darkness. Baby steps, I presume, to confront planned parent/hood (granny and baby, fetus for social distance), and avoid another civil war.
Control over one's body is important enough that you can kill another human for it, but not so important that you can refuse a vaccination in case someone catches something from you and dies from it.
I'm suspecting that some other principle is actually driving the controversy, and not this one.
I think that Democrats embrace of the Vaccine Mandate and the "Get the jab or else!" fatally wounded their "keep government hands out of my reproductive system!" argument.
NOt that they really care, mind you. Forcing bakers to cater to gays via use of government force is 100% ok with the abortion fanatics, so using government force to interfere with people's choices is fine... they just have their sacred cow.
Abortion is, of course, a competing religion to Christianity. Moloch worship is all it is, brought back and gussied up for the Age of Science!
Apparently in Moloch worship, the participants would burn the baby alive in the metal arms of the statue of Moloch, and while the baby burned to death, screaming, they would have an orgy to celebrate their new freedom from responsibility.
Isn't that exactly what planned parenthood and the left are doing?
All of these justices have been through the judicial conformation process. Some of their experiences were much worse than others, but going forward are we to think that there's going to be another Ginsburg, who was confirmed 96-3? no one thinks that. Of course, some people don't want to fix that process.
Overruling Roe would go a long way towards fixing that process, which has been warped by the politics of Roe as each side angles to pressure nominees to tip their hands on how they'll vote or try to get assurances that they'll uphold certain decisions (and then fundraise off of their inane questioning).
These battles divide us instead of allowing our representatives to do their jobs and enact policies based on political back and forth and compromise. If abortion supporters think they're correct, then they should have little difficulty convincing their elected officials to support their position instead of trying to do things indirectly through judicial activism. Hell, if abortion is so obviously great, then they can protect it via constitutional amendment.
How reliable are viewing oral arguments versus what the Court eventually decides? I'm not enough of a student of the Court, but it seems to me that reading the arguments and the Justices' comments during that time is not necessarily a good predictor of outcome.
The Chief Justice may have been wrong in Obergefell--because people have had the opportunity to see that, far from causing the end of civilization as we know it, gay marriage had no effect on most people lives. The benefits have been major for those directly affected, minor for everyone else, and there has been no downside for anybody. So the people who didn't like it got used to it and mostly stopped worrying about it.
But the concern is valid as this is exactly what happened in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court stepped in and simply demanded that a vibrant public debate be stopped. Without any constitutional support, it picked a winner and told everybody else get bent.
Roe v. Wade was one of the worst decisions in the court's history, right up there with Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education, and Korematsu. And I have no faith that they will do the right thing in this case. 20 years ago, my con law professor took the position that the court already overturned Roe v. Wade. They just didn't have the courage to admit it. They still lack that courage and likely always will.
Oh boy fireworks at the state house if Roe does fall. Lots of old time Republicans loved that they didn't have to deal with it...lol...
But I hope it stands. Abortion was fairly common up to Roe but always dicey with little recourse for a botched job or death of the mother. But it was everywhere. Everyone knew that one doctor in town.
I listened to most of the oral argument, and I agree with Ann that stare decisis will prevail. Much as I believe Roe was wrongly decided and terrible constitutional law, the real damage was done by the court in Casey. That was the real opportunity the Court had to overturn Roe, and it (and by that I mean Sandra Day O'Connor) whiffed big time. It's simply too late now to fix it so we will have to live with it forever.
In any case, the question then was whether to take something out of the political arena. The question now is whether to throw something back in after it's been out for 50 years!
How could anyone look at the last fifty years and say that abortion has been taken out of the political arena? In reality, abortion has become even more political. One of the major Democratic messages every election is "Vote Democratic or the evil Republicans will take away your right to an abortion"
On the theme of keeping the government's hands out of our body, Amy Coney Barrett brought up mandatory vaccination.
ACB will be a rockstar in the next 10 years.
At some point we have to come to grips with the fact that Americans are not in favor of unrestricted abortion. I think it was Roberts who asked if 15 weeks was not enough time to decide about getting an abortion. That seems like common sense to me, just as ACB's comment.
It was a good argument all around. The Mississippi attorney was the weakest, but had the toughest case to make.
Justice Sotomayor, who is a sharp attorney, resorted to political blustering and came off sounding like a NY bully (shades of Trump?). She's not trying to bully Mississippi, but the Chief, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
I thought both Justice Kagan (who may be my personal favorite) and Justice Breyer were both thoughtful - showing they were weighing the interests and positions of those who are opposed to their well-staked positions - and eloquent. Those who wanted Breyer to leave and be replaced should be thankful that there is not a second political hack on the court.
So it's true... Amy Barrett isn't very bright and is simply a political hack.
Depends what stare decisis means. SCOTUS might not directly overrule Roe/Casey, but the central premise of viability is likely to fall. Three will vote to overturn, three will vote to keep as is, and Roberts, Gorsuch, and Comey-Barrett will decide the fate of Roe/Casey and the viability principle. I predict some messy compromise that leaves Roe technically intact but all its foundations otherwise aborted. States will be free to enact vast restrictions after 15 weeks and will test the law by continually lowering the number of weeks, forcing later courts to confront the issue once again.
Learned long ago not to predict the outcome of a case based on Oral Arguments.
I do like listening to the justices questions (especially the newer justices) to try and see how they think/analyze/analogize.
Except Breyer. His questions are tedious monologues with punctuation at the end.
Didn't listen, but many commentators (including Scotusblog) seem to think the 15-week law will be upheld.
I suppose that could be consistent with Ann's prediction that stare decisis will prevail, since the law could be upheld without actually overruling Roe.
"The lawyer for the state was particularly weak in his effort to assure the Court that Roe and Casey could fall without endangering any other precedent (e.g., Obergefell)." Not an argument I can understand. Endanger the other precedents. It will remain up to the Supreme Court either way.
Like "civility b---", no one worries about precedent unless it supports what they want done. No one in favor of Roe v Wade worried about it then.
I did not get to listen to the entire thing, but what I heard was fascinating. Note that I'm not a lawyer, nor a former law student. I don't know the law (though I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night).
But did they not discuss 'Plessy' and wasn't that overturned without endangering other precedent?
Also one comment caught me. It was stated by one of the lawyers for the abortion clinic (Julie Rikelman perhaps?). She stated that 25% of American women have had an abortion. She stated this in the middle of a rapid response to one of the Justices- bookended by a couple of other quick stats that were inserted and ran past. But that caught me.
Is that a real number- 25% of American women? How was that number arrived at? Where did she get that? That's a lot of abortions. Makes one think it's mostly used as a contraceptive, not as an emergency, last choice-what-can-I-do sort of situation. In other words, it makes the process seem like a battle for a convenience service rather than an epic moral argument.
Out of the political arena for 50 years? Abortion has contaminated every judicial appointment for the last 50 years, to the point that Supreme Court confirmations are literally about nothing else.
Stop this absurd corruption of the purpose of the judiciary. I say this as someone who is pro-choice.
Unanswerable questions properly belong to the realm of politics.
What will the Democrats do if the SCOTUS doesn't overturn Roe v Wade? With this majority? What will they scare their voters with to get them to ignore their own best interest now?
1."The question now is whether to throw something back [into the realm of the political] after it's been out for 50 years!"
Except it hasn't at all worked out that way. Abortion rights was never regarded as a settled political question, in large part because it was (and remains) such a bad decision. It was a results-driven, policy-driven decision that was seemingly completely detached from serious constitutional interpretation. Everyone knows Roe makes no real sense, which is why main argument for reaffirming it lies in stare decisis. Because the decision is so flawed on the merits, it hasn't settled the question of abortion rights in any way that people can respect or find satisfying.
2. "On the theme of keeping the government's hands out of our body, Amy Coney Barrett brought up mandatory vaccination."
And good for her for connecting those dots. I would have a lot more respect for the pro-abortion position if its adherents consistently championed the rights of individuals to control their own bodies, obtain medical care, and make child-rearing decisions free of government interference and regulation. Instead, for example, we now have governors who are purporting to prohibit hospitals from performing any elective surgeries within their states, due to supposed worries about covid. In other words, governors who are directly interfering with highly personal decision-making between a doctor and patient.
Speaking of stare decisis: Roe itself concluded that the woman's interest in her reproductive freedom is paramount in the first trimester, that the state's interest in protecting unborn life is far stronger in the third trimester, and that the middle trimester is, well, in the middle. Arbitrary to be sure, but that's what they said.
In real life, however, the cases have generally proceeded as though the woman's right to choose is paramount throughout the pregnancy.
Fifteen weeks (the MS statute's cutoff) is a bit past the end of the first trimester. Maybe actual stare decisis should find that allowable, and consistent with Roe.
Don't agree with your prediction, Prof. Barrett would seem to be the deciding vote on whether to overrule Roe. And Roberts suggested the law should be upheld w/o overturning Roe. So I predict the Mississippi law will survive.
"I predict stare decisis will prevail."
I predict that it will not, unless you count the following outcome as stare decisis prevailing:
Justice Roberts is in a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to uphold the 15 week ban, assigns the opinion of the Court to himself, and writes the opinion on the basis that a 15 week ban does not unduly burden the right to choose, as women who become pregnant still have 15 weeks to exercise their right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.
No one in the majority quite agrees with him on the reasoning but they concur in the result of upholding the 15 week ban, and write their separate concurrences, with the usual cross-joining of concurrences. Roberts will say, and at least one of the concurrences will agree, that the Court need not overrule Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey to reach this result. The 3 dissenters will concur in this part of the Court's opinion, although perhaps not fully in its reasoning.
It seems to me that something like that will happen or the Court will overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If the votes were there to reaffirm Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey on the principle of stare decisis, I just don't think the Court would have taken the case.
Temujin said Is that a real number- 25% of American women? How was that number arrived at? Where did she get that? That's a lot of abortions. Makes one think it's mostly used as a contraceptive, not as an emergency, last choice-what-can-I-do sort of situation. In other words, it makes the process seem like a battle for a convenience service rather than an epic moral argument.
I looked at this, and it is essentially based on the number of abortions per 1000 women - i.e. total abortions divided by total women in the age range, without taking into account that some women have more than one. From what I have seen, close to 50% of all women who get an abortion have already had at least one, so the actual percentage of women who have had an abortion is likely much lower, no more than 12.5% and likely less than that. Of course, if someone is having multiple abortions, it also suggests that it is being done as a matter of convenience, so not sure which way this should cut.
Well, I predict that the Court will not rely upon the oral arguments in easily rejecting any kind of stare decisis for Roe and Casey (which itself rejected much of the precedent of Roe).
Vaccine mandates aren't the same thing because reasons. There is a vaccine mandate clause in the shadows of the letters, which are microscopically depressed into the paper by the quill with which the document was written. Did I say shadow? I meant penumbra. Silly me. If you ever saw the movie National Treasure, you saw an example of how the Constitution is properly read.
In a vaccine mandate, other human beings have a claim on your freedom, to protect their own lives, but in the case of abortion, there is only one human being involved. You can't call that human being the 'mother' because the foetus has not yet breathed air, so we must use the term "pregnant human being," since motherhood implies a child, and until born, there is no child, no human being aside from the pregnant one.
This stuff is incredibly simple and straightforward, people!
AA might envision the Court having another Brandon-like hissy fit, telling the nation that they have lost patience and that, DAMN IT, Roe is going to stand no matter what!!!, no matter how utterly corrupt it is.
What I heard is more than a few justices wanting the Court to get out of the abortion business altogether. I don't see any Anthony Kennedys on this bench.
That the Mississippi lawyer was crap is irrelevant.
For all the commentsw pro and con and all the complaints about the Supremes, the constitution and law (In general, not this comment thread) think how lucky we are to have a Constitution instead of a "constitution" as the Brits do.
Our constitution has stood the test of time with only 17 changes (amendments) since ratification more than 2 centuries ago.
With only a couple exceptions, all have increased liberty for the individual citizen.
We can argue about the meaning of "freedom of speech" but the fact that we have a right to it is factual. Ditto all the other freedoms enshrined in that wonderful document.
Compare to other countries where the constitution, if they have one at all, changes frequently. Sometimes, as in Britain, almost daily.
God Bless Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Washington and all the other founding fathers for coming up with this wonderful document.
John Henry
Howard, are you really such an ass, or just a troll? What about ACB makes you think she isn’t very bright? Good Lord! And if you want to talk about political hacks, look no further than the “wise Latina”. Ugh.
Conrad, those governors who want to prohibit elective surgeries in the era of Covid must, certainly, have exceptions for abortion, right? Otherwise, make some popcorn cause the shit is gonna get real when the leftists need to ban medial procedures to enforce their Covid tyranny, but can’t ban the abortions they idolize…
Howard thinks everybody is stupid because it's obvious that the Democrats arguments are pro-forma bullshit that anybody can see through, but that they have to say something to justify their votes, and it's déclassé to point that out.
"Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible." - Sotomayor
Tl;dr: Don't say the quiet stuff out loud!
This is why they hate Donald Trump. He showed us for what they are, which is an illegitimate elite which holds onto power through abuse of the powers of police, prosecution, and which skirts the First Amendment by relegating suppression of speech to private companies which now own the national public square.
Blogger Mattman26 said...
Didn't listen, but many commentators (including Scotusblog) seem to think the 15-week law will be upheld.
I suppose that could be consistent with Ann's prediction that stare decisis will prevail, since the law could be upheld without actually overruling Roe.
That would be a satisfactory compromise. The pressing issue, to me at least, is the matter of late term abortions. To see the former Governor of Virginia, a pediatric neurologist of all things, discussing delivering the baby then deciding whether to kill it is the height of something I can't define.
I think Roberts really want to find a way to do what he often does--get to a compromise result. I think he want is to get to an opinion that somehow upholds the challenged law but doesn't formally overturn Roe. He pointed out that viability in Roe was only dicta in Roe and asserted that it was arbitrary. His questions kept coming back to the 15 weeks cutoff at issue and away form other shorter period or total bans. If he's the fifth vote, that's the result.
If it was just about a woman's -- excuse me, a birthing person's -- right to control their own body against the demands of the state, then of course that right prevails.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE, EVEN IF THE MISSISSIPPI SOLICITOR GENERAL IS TOO THICK IN THE HEAD TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
What is involved here is that the birthing person cannot be isolated in her pregnancy, so says Roe. It's not just about her body. It is also about another human life, which the abortionist seeks to kill.
That take the matter out of all of those other cases. Whatever one might say about two people of the same sex asserting that they are "married," it does not involve killing another human being. If we want to compare it to prior assertions of rights, then it is most comparable to those who claimed a right to own property in another human being.
National Women's Law Center: "Abortion is love; abortion is justice."
I am going to either call that one a clear win for the pro-life people, or more likely, this is some kind of spoof account.
Well, I checked, and it could be a spoof account, but it has 80K followers, and seems pretty sincere. "Women aren't the only ones who have abortions!" check.
I listened to the whole thing and believe (based on the questions) that Roe will at least be significantly scaled back and/or portions of the Mississippi law will survive constitutional scrutiny. Chief Justice Roberts appeared to be looking for some type of compromise/narrow issue. However, who are the 5 justices that will vote to maintain the status quo? Based on the questions - which are admittedly an imperfect predictor - I do not see Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, or Gorsuch joining an opinion that does at least uphold parts of Mississippi's law or in some way scales back Roe.
Tim in VT: January 6th show trials.
If, with a supposed 6-3 conservative majority, the Court chooses stare decis on abortion, it will make it utterly clear that the whole system is entirely rigged against conservatives, and that trying to work within the country's institutions is hopeless.
The question in that case will simply be how many Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs will result.
I agree with Ann. And ACB and BK don't want their kids terrorized and kidnapped. So, there's that. I'm sure they think about it. Who wouldn't? Just follow the precedent.
"The lawyer for the state was particularly weak in his effort to assure the Court that Roe and Casey could fall without endangering any other precedent (e.g., Obergefell)."
So how does same sex marriage have anything to do with the unlawful killing of innocents? Stare Decises has to do with court rulings but Common Law went before Roe and Obergefell.
on the theme of keeping the government's hands out of our body
At least until the second or third trimester, to relieve the "burden" of a woman and man's choice, and keep women appointed, available, and taxable. The allegation of a rape... rape-rape society was, ironically, less than viable, and, in fact, mostly false, in an em-pathetic bid to secure reproductive rites, excuse socially liberal orientations (e.g. friendship with "benefits"), and force competing interests to take a knee, that was exposed by #MeToo #HerToo #SheProgressed #TruthThroughProjection.
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx.
As for the non-sterilizing "vaccines"...
The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing
via market-ticker.org
Many decisionmakers assume that the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.
...
In Israel a nosocomial outbreak was reported involving 16 healthcare workers, 23 exposed patients and two family members. The source was a fully vaccinated COVID-19 patient. The vaccination rate was 96.2% among all exposed individuals (151 healthcare workers and 97 patients). Fourteen fully vaccinated patients became severely ill or died, the two unvaccinated patients developed mild disease [[4]]
Mandates that follow the cargo cult with viable legal indemnity, for NOW (pun intended).
Roe was wrongly decided, so it should be overturned.
Because it's a private, personal decision - it's up to the states, NOT the feds.
OR, the woman and her doctor. With the usual gov't regulation caveat - meaning the gov't can still make any regulation.
Many states will then make a state-popular law that either makes it legal or not.
a) Adoption should be the main cultural push, and the "pro-choice" folk should consider the choice to be either keep the baby or give a living baby to some other couple.
b) Abortion is an abhorrent birth control method. If 25% of US women really have had one, which I doubt (due to double, triple & more abortions; a bit like criminals), that makes a mockery of the idea of "rare" - which was always in tension with safe & legal.
Overturning Roe is unlikely to change much politically, tho there seems a lot more potential for (D) MORE gov't safety net and gov't programs for poor children rather than (R) lower taxes & more personal responsibility. Lots of Rep voters are big gov't, big social safety- net supporters who oppose abortion. Some are likely to go back to Dems IF there are Dems who can be against abortion/ support adoption and mother care rather than abortion.
See "Feminists for Life" and their programs for supporting pregnant college students.
Lots of the fight over gay marriage was as a proxy over abortion, and especially against the Court deciding on new law, against the DOMA voting democratically elected representatives. There remains opposition to gay adoption, but most gays prefer child-less promiscuity over adoption, so it's not really so much of a problem in practice.
The abortion killing of millions of US unborn babies, every year, remains and will always remain as long as there are believers who believe that human life begins at conception - like every biology book says.
I like Justice Thomas's question.” Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother? “ Think about it. Do actions have consequences or not?
To be honest, I am annoyed.
The Mississippi solicitor general made an OK anti-abortion argument.
But (1) he should have been a she, and (2) she should have made a pro-life argument.
There is a difference.
What Conrad said.
"But I hope it stands. Abortion was fairly common up to Roe but always dicey with little recourse for a botched job or death of the mother. But it was everywhere. Everyone knew that one doctor in town."
LOL. IN 1972, Abortion was legal in 30 states, including Calf and NY. How many women were killed in "botched abortions" in 1972? Two? Probably more women die from "botched plastic surgery" than from "Botched abortions".
Just more fake hysteria over Roe being overturned.
Conrad makes good points. The Left claims that overruling Roe/Casey would mean that the SCOTUS is "political." But their own refusal to neutrally apply the supposed Constitutional principle that the human body is a "realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" (is there any doubt that the Democratic appointees to the SCOTUS would uphold vaccine mandates?) shows that the Roe/Casey doctrine is an ad hoc politically driven decision, not citable outside the sphere of early 70s feminist politics.
Like Dred Scot, it represents a naked political power play using the Constitution to prevent democratic branches from evolving in a direction adverse to Democrat interests. (Blacks or unborn infants are persons? Can't have that!)
Howard: "So it's true... Amy Barrett isn't very bright and is simply a political hack."
The projection by Howard now approaches infinite mass.
I listened to the arguments as well. I don't like to differ with a former con law professor, but I think it is almost certain that the Mississippi law will be upheld. From the questions it appeared that all six of the conservative justices believe "viability" is an arbitrary line not grounded in the Constitution. The viability line will be rejected, likely 6-3. Will the Court then overrule Casey and Roe? I think that is a tougher call. I think once the viability line is gone, the undue burden test becomes almost impossible to enforce and the Court should overrule the prior precedent. But it would not surprise me if the Court found a way to get rid of the viability line without overruling (all) of Casey and Roe.
When Sotomayer compared babies growing in the womb to dead people, it started to make more sense to me why the pro-abortion zealots are on video laughing about the baby body parts they gather up for fun and profit.
"So it's true... Amy Barrett isn't very bright and is simply a political hack."
So it's true... Howard isn't very bright and is simply a political hack.
See how that works Howard? Ad hominem attacks are not an argument. Neither your attack nor mine actually presented something other people could examine or challenge. In both cases it was just literary masturbation.
tim in vermont: "What will the Democrats do if the SCOTUS doesn't overturn Roe v Wade? With this majority? What will they scare their voters with to get them to ignore their own best interest now?"
Well, given recent history, the democraticals and their "LLR" NeverTrump amigos could simply accuse the Supreme Court majority of being in the employ of Putin and then impeach those justices.
I'll bet Howard and gadfly already have postings along those lines ready to go.
Certainly the FBI would be on board with a ploy like that.
Is that a real number- 25% of American women? How was that number arrived at? Where did she get that? That's a lot of abortions.
My wife had one as a result of a miscarriage. I suspect a lot of women had on that basis.
I still think about The New York Times essay written in 2004 by a woman who discovered she was carrying triplets. She decided to kill two of them. I wondered then if she was going to tell her son that he had two brothers he'll never see because she didn't want to be one of those women buying Pampers. (paraphrase)
Once again this year, more Black babies will be aborted in New York City than Black babies will be born alive.
tim maguire said...
The Chief Justice may have been wrong in Obergefell--because people have had the opportunity to see that, far from causing the end of civilization as we know it, gay marriage had no effect on most people lives.
Oh, I totally disagree. It's had a huge chilling effect on freedom of speech. You could ask a few former bakery operators about it. Try saying it's against God's will and the Bible at you next mandatory EO training and see what happens.
And you, a retiree, writing on law! What day even is it?
Thanks, Ann. You do us a service in your retirement by following these.
Mark: "To be honest, I am annoyed.
The Mississippi solicitor general made an OK anti-abortion argument.
But (1) he should have been a she, and (2) she should have made a pro-life argument."
How dare you assume the MS AG's gender!
Harrumph!
miscarriage
That would be Her Choice, not her Choice, right?
They denied liberty when they stood for slavery, deny equity when they stand for diversity [dogma], deny equality when they stand for political congruence ("="), deny life when they stand for reproductive rites, and deny science, women and men's dignity and agency, and reduce human life to a negotiable asset, when they subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion.
Lib-Con (Rep?) PJ media has good 10 points on this:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2021/12/01/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-todays-oral-arguments-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-n1538007
Lots and lots of people are tired of the national abortion forever war. But I don't think Roe will be overturned, yet, tho it would be better if it did.
Today, it seems unbelievable to many that so many good people in history, including US "Founding Fathers", had slaves.
In the future, it might seem unbelievable to most people that you and I, today, live among people who think killing an innocent human fetus, for the convenience of the mother, is "moral".
The Right to Life vs. the fun of promiscuous sex and the avoidance of unwanted pregnancy. Of course, with our primitive technology, babies need at least 21 weeks or so to survive outside of the womb, but that tech is improving. Sonograms showing the fetal baby, with sound amplifying the heartbeat, are already reducing the number of abortions.
Our culture needs to change so that those who support killing instead of adoption are shamed. Shaming works.
Ann, I really like your blog. But you should be ashamed to support abortion instead of adoption.
Thanks for hosting!
"But I hope it stands. Abortion was fairly common up to Roe but always dicey with little recourse for a botched job or death of the mother. But it was everywhere. Everyone knew that one doctor in town."
Murder, too, when they could get away with it (in darkness). What's the point of this apology? Keep women appointed, available, and taxable? Dreams of feminists and masculinists alike.
The viability construct is an excuse to deny women's bodily autonomy in the second and third trimesters, right?
There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, self-defense through reconciliation, and still six weeks to hold a reproductive rite a.k.a. planned parent/hood (i.e. wicked solution). The tell-tale hearts beat sooner and ever louder. #HateLovesAbortion
I just would enjoy the watching liberals suffer and scream about the situation.
Principles before retributive change and empathetic distress.
She said 'oral.'
Heh, heh heh...
Bill Peschel, I think of that article as well. Worse than the nightmare of buying all those Pampers to that evil woman were the Costco jars of mayonnaise.
I believe Whoopie Goldberg has stated she has had 15 abortions. If 50% of the women who abort have had a previous abortion and there are more who are like Whoopie, the number is likely to be under 10%.
Ann is just not good analytically on abortion. She supports it, but does not even try to come up with a constitutional argument. It seems to paralyze her critical thinking. Very odd. Hard to see 5 votes for stare decisis listening to that argument.
As to Roberts, I don't think he has the determinative vote here, but he will want to control the writing of the opinion. So, I think he reluctantly joins the five conservatives for a 6 to 3 reversal of Roe and Casey. BTW, clearly the correct result.
Well of course Drago projection is at the speed of light so therefore if so facto infinite Mass.
Bring it, Steven. Like your January 6th obesity Trumper antivaxer army of the Potomac. Just be careful about posting your selfies on Twitter and videos on Instagram.
The conservatives should have called abortions "putin-ortions" and every Tom, Dick and Howard would be screaming to have them stopped...voice actuated dunces that they are.
My guess, which I could have made before oral arguments, is that Robert’s will vote with the majority, in order to keep Thomas from writing the opinion. What probably scares him about a Thomas majority opinion is his tendency to write with a broad brush. So, my bet is a narrow decision, written by Robert’s, upholding the state law AND Roe v Wade. Then as someone pointed out, a bunch of cross concurrences and dissents jumping all over the place. Roe just needs a little push.
“I believe Whoopie Goldberg has stated she has had 15 abortions. If 50% of the women who abort have had a previous abortion and there are more who are like Whoopie, the number is likely to be under 10%.”
That’s the racial angle that abortion varies greatly by race, with Blacks doing it far more than other ethnic groups. Many Hispanics are good Catholics, and take their church teachings seriously. A young marriage, for many, is much preferable to being known to have had an abortion. This option is often not available to Blacks, where the guys are often proud of fathering a bunch of kids with different baby momas.
The projection by Howard now approaches infinite mass.
I really do not understand why anyone takes Howard's comments seriously. He is simply doing his job as a lefty troll. There is very little, if any, thought involved.
Obergefell
Do these names come from central casting???
“I suppose that could be consistent with Ann's prediction that stare decisis will prevail, since the law could be upheld without actually overruling Roe.“
If planned parenthood was smart they would promote repeal of the court’s Roe law knowing that most states would pass something like today’s rule. I think modifying but not overturning Roe would be the best outcome, setting a 15 week limit in the context of the old Roe would be a win for all and balance the political impact. Let the irrationality of the Roe opinion stand as a monument to the court.
Viewed historically, Roe was decided at the peak of Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll. Let's screw all the time with as many people as we can. Abortion was an enabler of that "right", spurred on in large measure by the clunky condoms of the time. Fast forward to today. The next generation has seen the collateral damage from licentious behavior and is rejecting it. The amount of sex has declined and more young people are pro-life than ever before. Just look at videos of the largest march in DC each year, the Right to Life March, and you can see how young people dominate the crowd. Young people want a morally sound society. So, a dubious legal decision made when the Supremes thought the entire country wanted unlimited sex and abortions is seen in a new light in a new era.
The only moral position is to protect the life of our most defenseless humans - those in the uterus as we all once were. However, society is somewhat split on abortion early in pregnancy, so wisdom for society (but morally bankrupt) is to permit a limited window for abortion. I predict the Supremes will avoid overturning Roe by mandating a new test for anti-abortion laws that greatly increases the bias toward life and reduces the weight on the so-called obstacles to abortion. After all, since Roe we have a massive industry in "family planning". We can expect them to make pregnancy tests available for free (these did not exist when Roe was decided). So, with only a little behavioral change, pregnant mothers will have more than enough time to terminate a pregnancy within 15 weeks. But the Supremes should not name an arbitrary (stupid for lawyers try) date. The test of a new law should rest on rational scientific standards on babies feeling pain etc. Science has enlightened us about when that begins and could find new information at any time.
Ann: Your views are a legacy of someone your age and mine. The world has moved on. We no longer smoke cigarettes and no longer use abortion as birth control. Abortions should be safe, available and RARE. So many loving families would welcome unwanted babies. If you can't do the time (carry a baby to full term), don't do the unprotected sex. We need massive public education programs to change behavior. Sex, drugs and rock n' roll was a temporary thing. It's time to get back to a moral position on abortion.
FWIW Justice Sotomayor is wrong about the mental development of a fetus. That, or my son was amazingly advanced in the womb, because at eleven weeks he was interested in what was happening in the sonogram, moving his hands about to feel the probe and trace its motion on his mother’s skin. He was not a vegetable.
In any case, the question then was whether to take something out of the political arena. The question now is whether to throw something back in after it's been out for 50 years!
You are entirely wrong about that. Abortion has dominated the political arena for the last 50 years, because of Roe and Casey.
Every single Presidential election, every single Senate election, there is abortion, always at least as a subtext.
BTW, you should get down on your knees and pray that abortion does not ever exit the political arena. IIRC, the first shooting of abortion doctors started after several Republican appointed "Justices" who promised to honor the Constitution, instead kept Roe going with Casey.
If the 6 supposedly honest "Justices" refuse to honor the US Constitution, and strike down the Missippi law, you should expect to see a lot more shootings.
Because when you lock people out of the political arena, what you get is what you deserve: violence
"Howard said...
Well of course Drago projection is at the speed of light so therefore if so facto infinite Mass."
Really Howard, stop it or you'll go blind.
"Once again this year, more Black babies will be aborted in New York City than Black babies will be born alive."
Eventually medical science will discover the "gay gene" and women will start aborting their future homo children en masse. Like the way Down syndrome is "cured". At that point some of the lefties are going to want restrictions on a women's right to choose.
Black women can have a lifetime of free abortions as far as I'm concerned.
A bunch of these comments as well as Ann's original post imply or say outright that it's inconsistent to be for the right to abortion and also for vaccine mandates. I am for both of these things and describe why below.
First though -- could commenters who have called out this apparent hypocrisy explain why it isn't hypocritical to be against the vaccine mandate (as many of you are) and also against the right to abortion?
As for my reasons:
I do not believe that life begins at conception. It seems clearly to be a religiously based proposition. Recently it's been cast as "science" because there is no sharp state change but rather a continuous development from fertilized egg to baby, even if the two are completely different in my opinion. See eg Ross Douthat in the Times pretending that life beginning at conception has been proven by science because there's no quickening, which is applying philosophy to scientific observation. I'm not saying you must agree with me by the way, or that there can be no legitimate other position, so no need to tell me why I'm wrong -- I've heard it all before many times.
As such, I believe that a women's decisions as to her health, needs, wants and bodily integrity are the only consideration early in the pregnancy. Determining when that balance shifts is very tricky -- though I don't think the balance ever shifts when the health or life of the woman are at risk, nor do I think any woman should be forced to carry a baby conceived via violence against her to term. Meanwhile pregnancy generates very quantifiable increases in risk to women's health and life, so there is clear damage that comes from banning abortion.
To this point I think viability has been a useful cutoff in weighing the balance for definitional reasons, but if we're ensuring universal access to abortion at earlier stages of pregnancy then I think it's reasonable and a real compromise to reassess the cutoff. However I also have zero trust that anyone in the pro life movement is interested in compromise or anything short of rendering abortion fully illegal, and all efforts by this movement have been to systematically deny women access to abortion despite it's legality, so it is impossible and hopelessly naive to try in good faith to seek a compromise.
How is this different from a vaccine mandate? Well, there are no downside risks to the vaccines (please don't say VAERS, it just exposes your ignorance), so no similar interest like a baby or fetus or zygote to weigh. Opposing the mandate is just an abstract appeal to liberty -- I don't see any actual damage done. There is however massive benefit to people, both the vaccinated person and more importantly for this argument the actual real life living people around that person. There is also massive benefit to our society, economy and livelihoods. So honestly I don't see any relation at all between the two.
However, you do, so I'd appreciate it if you answer my (serious) question. Thanks!
Ann is just not good analytically on abortion. She supports it, but does not even try to come up with a constitutional argument
To be fair, it's hard to come up with something that doesn't exist.
Is there a reason court packing has not been mentioned? Even if Roe stands, but the MS law is upheld there will be hell to pay from the far left.
So,assuming a 6-3 decision, means you need at least four reliably left justices added.
Leora said...
I believe Whoopie Goldberg has stated she has had 15 abortions. If 50% of the women who abort have had a previous abortion and there are more who are like Whoopie, the number is likely to be under 10%.
Anybody who uses abortion as birth control like this SHOULD be sterilized. Then they wouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant and 15 babies would be SAVED. What a ghoul. I hope they haunt her every night for the rest of her life. Hey...if they can force us to put a poison into our body that we don't want.....they can force you to be sterilized if you are killing babies like a mass murderer. Fair is fair!!
Gospace said...Oh, I totally disagree. It's had a huge chilling effect on freedom of speech. You could ask a few former bakery operators about it. Try saying it's against God's will and the Bible at you next mandatory EO training and see what happens.
You’re confusing issues. “Bake that cake” is not about gay marriage.
Tommyesque is correct about the statistics. Women who have one abortion almost always have more than one. So many fewer percentages of women have walked through clinic doors.
I remember when Guttenmacher told us to lie about this. Lie. Just lie. Also to lie that taking the pill prevents a fertilized embryo from entering the womb and implanting before chemically induced miscarriage - definitionally, according to their own definitions, a pregnancy termination. Planned Parenthood and Guttenmacher lied to hundred of millions of women. Without knowing it, hundreds of millions of women committed the sin of aborting a baby, or fifty, or 100. They should be sued out of existence for these systematic lies about their political and products.
So if we are going to have this discussion, let’s start with the truth, not more inconvenient lies.
Now to Daniel 12: your understanding of quickening is false, as most civilized nations in Europe understood long ago. They usually restrict abortion to the first trimester. Why don’t we do so? Don’t whine about lack of access. You know nothing about access. It’s a political tactic, exploited by Planned Parenthood lawyers who make a lot of cash off this and mock the religious faith of their opposition while demanding absolute fealty to their religious faiths or lack of them. Your philosophical meandering adds nothing to an honest conversation. Get it? Honest. Which start with people like you not thinking you can speak for movements, faiths, and people you disagree with. It’s a complicated landscape on the pro-life side. But the pro-abortion side is clearly lying about these two very important facts.
Elena Kagan is a smart person: she was Bill Clinton’s personal White House attorney and did many things to degrade his victims and women in general within the criminal code in collusion with Eric Holder. The two of them cavalierly destroyed equality before the law.
Sotomayor is an affirmative action hire. Take a look at her vitae. She’s way above her pay grade. All that finger waggling and bluster is the typical effort of people who know they don’t belong in the room.
"Young people want a morally sound society."
These wouldn't be the ones borrowing money for college and expecting that someone else will repay the loans, would they?
Asking for a friend...
Justice Roberts is in a 6-3 or 5-4 majority to uphold the 15 week ban, assigns the opinion of the Court to himself
That seems likely. It is also likely that less than a majority will join his opinion. He can TRY to "assign" the Court's opinion to himself, but if he doesn't get four others to sign on, then his opinion is NOT the opinion of the Court. Rather, ACB will write an opinion, and her opinion will get the votes of the other four.
Barrett's opinion overruling Roe will be the majority opinion of the Court.
To this point I think viability has been a useful cutoff in weighing the balance for definitional reasons, but if we're ensuring universal access to abortion at earlier stages of pregnancy then I think it's reasonable and a real compromise to reassess the cutoff. However I also have zero trust that anyone in the pro life movement is interested in compromise or anything short of rendering abortion fully illegal, and all efforts by this movement have been to systematically deny women access to abortion despite it's legality, so it is impossible and hopelessly naive to try in good faith to seek a compromise.
It destroys your argument when you revert to bad faith mind reading.
And the fact that you do not see the parallel between the government forcing one medical procedure and banning another is indicative of a bad faith mindset in general.
You cannot deal with arguments of your political opponents so you make up your own.
Old hat.
About "quickening" -- the notion of quickening is merely the detection of movement of the child in the womb, e.g. the baby kicking. It was an indication at common law not that the child was alive, but that the child was STILL alive, that is, that the child had not already died naturally before the abortion was undertaken. That is consistent with any homicide prosecution, where it must be proved that the victim was alive at the time of the lethal act.
About this curious belief that life does not begin at conception -- please explain ANY instances where there has been a spontaneous animation of matter in the past 10-20 million years. Or are you playing definition games at what "life" means?
A living sperm cell joins with a living ova to produce a new entity that is not static, like a rock, but is itself living and growing and developing, with ongoing biochemical processes and taking in of nutrients and formation of more and more new cells. At no point does this entity just magically spring into life from inanimate matter -- he or she is already alive. And he or she is already a he or she.
Now, one may say that such nascent human life is nothing more than untermenschen, subhuman, that not all human life is equal. And people have said such things in the past. But that does not make what is undeniably alive -- and has been recognized as alive from the very beginning, i.e. conception, for THOUSANDS OF YEARS of human history -- as something that is not living.
Daniel12
I have not said which way I go on the comparison, but I have already asked for both sides to explain what appears to be two positions that conform to the these two ideas:
1. My body, my choice, that is the individuals absolute right to determine what goes on with their body
2. My right to privacy, specifically my health care privacy.
If you want me to note a problem with the vaccine, it is that it does not confer immunity to the disease as robust as actually having the disease, nor does it stop the transmission of the virus to and from vaccinated to unvaccinated. That is the real problem. It is like taking a partial course of antibiotics--the virus is not destroyed in the vaccinated person's system and is able to mutate. The vaccine's are not potent enough to stop vaccine resistance resistance and mutations in the virus.
What are up to now? We skipped the Xi variant for some reason.
In any case, those are niggling details about whether the virus is affective or not.
Is it my body, my choice and my right to privacy over what I do with my own body or is it not.
Everyone wants to take whichever side is politically similar to their buddies.
I think C02 causes global cooling. How many people do you think agree with me? Conservatives say: CLIMATE CHANGE BALONEY, Liberals scream: SCIENCE.
In a way, a big difference in the two sides is about trust in government. A great compromise would be to actually have good, efficient working government.
It's like liberals think conservatives want bridges to collapse, and conservatives think liberals put everyone in concentration camps.
The sociopaths are running things. It was inevitable. Achilles linked to a video discussing the virus mandate as a tool to divide society. That's a good first step to understand how our enemies are buying our politicians to destroy the west.
Big picture.
Having a D and C after a miscarriage is not the same as an abortion. The baby has already died.
"Well, there are no downside risks to the vaccines..."
Assuming for the moment this is so and all the reports of such are not true, there are no downside risks... yet. These injections (that have resulted in the definition of "vaccine" being changed so that they may be one) are new. The companies producing them have been granted immunity from liability for anything that might go wrong with them. One wonders- if there is no downside risk, why might they need immunity? And what about negative long-term effects? There is no way anyone can dismiss that possibility.
FWIW, when I typed "covid vaccine" into google, the first two alternative searches provided were:
covid vaccine liability shield laws
covid vaccine side effects
tim maguire said...
Gospace said...Oh, I totally disagree. It's had a huge chilling effect on freedom of speech. You could ask a few former bakery operators about it. Try saying it's against God's will and the Bible at you next mandatory EO training and see what happens.
You’re confusing issues. “Bake that cake” is not about gay marriage.
They're all intertwined, one with the other. "Bake that cake" is specifically about gay marriage. There are many delis in NYC where I knw not to order a meat and cheese sandwich- they would refuse to make it. No different than asking for a cake with specific decorations- none at all whatsoever. Not one has ever been sued for refusing to add cheese.
tim maguire said...
You’re confusing issues. “Bake that cake” is not about gay marriage.
Then what IS it about?
Daniel12 said...
I do not believe that life begins at conception. It seems clearly to be a religiously based proposition.
Bzzt. Thank you for playing, but you've already failed.
Two haploid gametes join, and create a diploid human organism that then proceeds to grow.
On a truly scientific level, that being is alive, and human.
What you are arguing is that the living human being does not yet have the moral worth and value of a "real" human, as you define them.
Which means you've completely left the world of science.
In short: it's a religious based proposition to claim that human life does not begin at conception.
Determining when that balance shifts is very tricky -- though I don't think the balance ever shifts when the health or life of the woman are at risk,
Then you're either a liar or an ignoramus.
"Health" of the mother has been defined by the courts to include "mental health". So a "health exception" is the same thing as saying you can have no limits on abortion,ever.
How is this different from a vaccine mandate? Well, there are no downside risks to the vaccines
Ignoramus, moron, or liar?
Any time you get something injected in your body there's a downside risk. To claim that there is none is to establish that you do not argue in good fatih, nothing more
Post a Comment