Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Abortion Thread: New poll shows only 13% of Americans want Roe vs Wade overturned

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, djmich said:

I agree it is arbitrary.  Is the point at which cells have crossed the line to form "brain development" not arbitrary?  How "developed" does the brain need to be, who decides that arbitrary point.  My arbitrary is more arbitrary than yours, sure ok.

Regarding the brain dead person, if there is a reasonable chance (and for this purpose lets say reasonable = the likelihood that fertilized egg develops a functioning brain) their brain cells would become alive again then I would say taking him off life support would be murder.

And I thought a short while ago you said I wasnt a person life experience has taught you is worth discussing this with, why are you discussing it with me.

While the beginning and ending of personhood is arbitrary, personhood has both beginnings and an endings that we can observe, unlike human life, which as MT explained began well before we could observe its beginning, and will end our ability to observe it when it ends. Now again, what we interpret from our observations of personhood to define when it begins and ends is arbitrary, but there is at least no confusion with the personhood of an individual existing before and after the beginning and ending of their individual life, like there is with human life. So MT isn't suggesting he has the answer that outweighs all other interpretations of when personhood begins and ends. He's saying using personhood is a better way of discussing the issue than using "human life".  

As for not discussing with you... you seem open minded to the topic of when human life/personhood begins and ends. You however seem very closed minded to discussing the issue of most pro-lifers not support social services. So no, I have no desire to discuss that topic with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Isn't this an argument in favor of first-term abortion?

"It's OK to abort an laboratory embryo because it's not viable on its own, and we're preventing it from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow"

"It's OK to abort a first term fetus because it's not viable on its own, and we're preventing it from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow"

The bolded is exactly what birth control does. A zygote could form in a woman on the pill, but the pill prevents that zygote from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow.

Are women on the pill committing murder?

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

The bolded is exactly what birth control does. A zygote could form in a woman on the pill, but the pill prevents that zygote from experiencing an environment which would allow the cells to grow.

Are women on the pill committing murder?

It will be outlawed next if these men have their way. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

It will be outlawed next if these men have their way. 

If this is the way it’s going, I’m  declaring first dibs on Yvonne Strahovski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

As I’ve said, I’m less concerned with “human life” than I am with “a human” or “personhood.”  That is, a viable separate being.

Most arguments for or against abortion I’ve encountered that are actually based around when “life begins” tend to be disingenuous on one level or another. If “life begins” is shorthand for “personhood begins” I would say that a functioning cerebral cortex or actual viability would be when I would say that personhood starts to enter the picture.  

In one sense, it has to mean that in order to make sense.

In the context of the abortion debate, when people ask when life begins and I say billions of years ago, or when they ask when human life begins and I say a few hundred thousand years ago, I'm not really answering the question they think they're trying to ask.

What they're trying to ask is something more like, "I mean, when did my life begin, or when did your life begin -- at conception or what?"

In other words, they're not asking about when life in general began; they're asking about when the life of a particular person began. It should be self-evident, though, that the life of a particular person couldn't have begun until the personhood of that particular person had begun, because before that point, by definition, there was no person. There can't be a live person until there's a person. That's just basic set theory. ;)

So in the context of the abortion debate, when people ask about the beginning of life and they don't like the "billions of years ago" answer, they must really be asking about the beginning of personhood. The problem arises when, given an answer about personhood, they insist that, no, they really mean life. And then the conversation goes in circles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:
34 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Are women on the pill committing murder?

It will be outlawed next if these men have their way.

It's actually an interesting question -- would overturning Roe also mean overturning Griswold? If the substantive-due-process right-to-privacy framework is rejected wholesale, it would mean that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the thread but this is the part of the Republican party that makes me sick,

Republicans cry for personal freedoms like gun control and lower taxes but at the same time impose laws on women.

 

Incredibly inconsistent and frankly ridiculous.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TripItUp said:

Late to the thread but this is the part of the Republican party that makes me sick,

Republicans cry for personal freedoms like gun control and lower taxes but at the same time impose laws on women.

 

Incredibly inconsistent and frankly ridiculous.

Late here as well, but I totally agree.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TripItUp said:

Late to the thread but this is the part of the Republican party that makes me sick,

Republicans cry for personal freedoms like gun control and lower taxes but at the same time impose laws on women.

 

Incredibly inconsistent and frankly ridiculous.

This law was voted on by 25 republican men.  I think if men were the ones who got pregnant, this law would never even be created. I also think men would be getting abortions left and right if they were the ones who got pregnant.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, simey said:

This law was voted on by 25 republican men.  I think if men were the ones who got pregnant, this law would never even be created. I also think men would be getting abortions left and right if they were the ones who got pregnant.

I hear ya sister. Men are such selfish jerks that live to kill. Their bloodlust knows no bounds and their taste of flesh and gore shall never be satiated. Preach it.

Edited by Hugh Jass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

While the beginning and ending of personhood is arbitrary, personhood has both beginnings and an endings that we can observe, unlike human life, which as MT explained began well before we could observe its beginning, and will end our ability to observe it when it ends. Now again, what we interpret from our observations of personhood to define when it begins and ends is arbitrary, but there is at least no confusion with the personhood of an individual existing before and after the beginning and ending of their individual life, like there is with human life. So MT isn't suggesting he has the answer that outweighs all other interpretations of when personhood begins and ends. He's saying using personhood is a better way of discussing the issue than using "human life".  

As for not discussing with you... you seem open minded to the topic of when human life/personhood begins and ends. You however seem very closed minded to discussing the issue of most pro-lifers not support social services. So no, I have no desire to discuss that topic with you. 

Your statement was very generic, it’s hard to know who you mean by “pro-lifers” and what specific “social services”.  Particularly as it pertains to social services for the children of unwanted pregnancies.

it seemed like you were trying to make a broader point about social programs and people who are pro life...you had a bigger agenda.  Maybe I was wrong?

But in either case saying you were generalizing is hardly a reason to go all “I can’t discuss with you” and paint me as unreasonable 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may take the discussion to far off the tracks, but:

If a person is not a person until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, and it is agreed that its is entirely a woman’s right to choose if that collection of cells gets to graduate to become a person.  It seems to be completely unreasonable to force the guy, who wants nothing to do with the yet to be person, to be forced to support that person post birth.

Where is that flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

In one sense, it has to mean that in order to make sense.

In the context of the abortion debate, when people ask when life begins and I say billions of years ago, or when they ask when human life begins and I say a few hundred thousand years ago, I'm not really answering the question they think they're trying to ask.

What they're trying to ask is something more like, "I mean, when did my life begin, or when did your life begin -- at conception or what?"

In other words, they're not asking about when life in general began; they're asking about when the life of a particular person began. It should be self-evident, though, that the life of a particular person couldn't have begun until the personhood of that particular person had begun, because before that point, by definition, there was no person. There can't be a live person until there's a person. That's just basic set theory. ;)

So in the context of the abortion debate, when people ask about the beginning of life and they don't like the "billions of years ago" answer, they must really be asking about the beginning of personhood. The problem arises when, given an answer about personhood, they insist that, no, they really mean life. And then the conversation goes in circles.

Yeah, that’s kind of what I’m saying, too.  And Ivan was as well, I think. It’s not that abortion is a tough issue, it’s just tough to get people to speak about it honestly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

This may take the discussion to far off the tracks, but:

If a person is not a person until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, and it is agreed that its is entirely a woman’s right to choose if that collection of cells gets to graduate to become a person.  It seems to be completely unreasonable to force the guy, who wants nothing to do with the yet to be person, to be forced to support that person post birth.

Where is that flawed?

Don't let your little head do the thinking for your big head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

This may take the discussion to far off the tracks, but:

If a person is not a person until there is a functioning cerebral cortex, and it is agreed that its is entirely a woman’s right to choose if that collection of cells gets to graduate to become a person.  It seems to be completely unreasonable to force the guy, who wants nothing to do with the yet to be person, to be forced to support that person post birth.

Where is that flawed?

You’re comparing body autonomy with financial responsibility.  It’s just not comparable.

It’s “you don’t get to control your own body as a person” vs “hey, I shouldn’t have to pay for that!”

Also, the financial responsibility bit is after the child is born and has rights.

From a legal standpoint, the best interests of the child are paramount in those financial matters. 

“That’s not fair” isn’t really a reasonable comparison to “wait, you don’t get to hold me in bondage for nine months, change my entire body, and possibly kill me all against my will.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, simey said:

This law was voted on by 25 republican men.  I think if men were the ones who got pregnant, this law would never even be created. I also think men would be getting abortions left and right if they were the ones who got pregnant.

Without a doubt. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is a really great post. I dont know how somebody can read that and not have second thoughts about the alabama law even if they supported it. 

Nary a response from the other side, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

You’re comparing body autonomy with financial responsibility.  It’s just not comparable.

It’s “you don’t get to control your own body as a person” vs “hey, I shouldn’t have to pay for that!”

Also, the financial responsibility bit is after the child is born and has rights.

From a legal standpoint, the best interests of the child are paramount in those financial matters. 

“That’s not fair” isn’t really a reasonable comparison to “wait, you don’t get to hold me in bondage for nine months, change my entire body, and possibly kill me all against my will.”

I'm thinking through the logic of allowing a womans autonomy to reduce a mans autonomy, not trying to relate decisions around a womans uterus and dollars.

For the entirety of the mans life he will be impacted, to summarize that impact as ""hey i shoudnt have to pay for that" comically understates the impact a child has on a man.  Of course you are presuming that the impact is only financial, none of the emotional and life impact a child has on a man (wanted or not). 

To your point around the interest of the child being paramount, I agree completely.  But I am talking about before it is has achieved person-hood.  Early on when it is slightly different and has slightly more value than the cells that comprise my toe nail, as it seems there is general agreement approximates the value.  This thread isn't about children that have survived childbirth.

This is not a monumental decision, if the fetus at that point (say week 8) has next to no value.  The woman, at that point is making a decision, with no influence from the man.  A decision that she will allow the value-less fetus to develop into a child.  What good reason should the man be bound to it...other than "well someones gotta pay for it"?

Are all the "pro-choicers" going to chip in to raise the kid (seems like the comparable to spocks "pro-lifers" wont support social services).  We freely talk about the impact to society around unwanted children when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and a womans right to choose...what about those same impacts when it is unwanted by the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gianmarco said:

Right leaning state congresses seem to be worried of losing power and want to push stuff now while they can (and while the SC leans right).

Or it’s part of the deep deep state to push people away from the GOP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, djmich said:

I'm thinking through the logic of allowing a womans autonomy to reduce a mans autonomy, not trying to relate decisions around a womans uterus and dollars.

For the entirety of the mans life he will be impacted, to summarize that impact as ""hey i shoudnt have to pay for that" comically understates the impact a child has on a man.  Of course you are presuming that the impact is only financial, none of the emotional and life impact a child has on a man (wanted or not). 

To your point around the interest of the child being paramount, I agree completely.  But I am talking about before it is has achieved person-hood.  Early on when it is slightly different and has slightly more value than the cells that comprise my toe nail, as it seems there is general agreement approximates the value.  This thread isn't about children that have survived childbirth.

This is not a monumental decision, if the fetus at that point (say week 😎 has next to no value.  The woman, at that point is making a decision, with no influence from the man.  A decision that she will allow the value-less fetus to develop into a child.  What good reason should the man be bound to it...other than "well someones gotta pay for it"?

Are all the "pro-choicers" going to chip in to raise the kid (seems like the comparable to spocks "pro-lifers" wont support social services).  We freely talk about the impact to society around unwanted children when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and a womans right to choose...what about those same impacts when it is unwanted by the man.

Perhaps the man should have been more careful/responsible.  A man can't have an unwanted pregnancy without his input.

Unless he was forced against his will. Then, maybe you have a point. Oh, wait.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gianmarco said:

Perhaps the man should have been more careful/responsible.  A man can't have an unwanted pregnancy without his input.

Unless he was forced against his will. Then, maybe you have a point. Oh, wait.....

Perhaps the woman should have been responsible and we should force all women to carry their pregnancies to term...is that what you are arguing for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, djmich said:

Perhaps the woman should have been responsible and we should force all women to carry their pregnancies to term...is that what you are arguing for?

:whoosh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

Perhaps the man should have been more careful/responsible.  A man can't have an unwanted pregnancy without his input.

Unless he was forced against his will. Then, maybe you have a point. Oh, wait.....

Applies to the woman too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Applies to the woman too

Takes 2 to tango

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Takes 2 to tango

Not necessarily willingly.

If you're willing to let a woman "out" of an unwanted pregnancy, it seems you should let the man out too.  But if the man wants the baby, he still gets no say. 

I get the woman's perspective, but it seems men should get some say. But no, it's the woman's body. 

Except that it's also another life. 

The argument has been made that we give more rights to dead people, that we can't harvest their organs without their consent.  I'm kinda against that rule. Let doctors harvest viable organs needed to save lives. I get that there will be unforeseen consequences, but if life is sacred, over bodily autonomy, let's make that true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman's potential liability for having sex is a few hundred dollars; a man's is paying and paying for 18 years; and that's perfectly fair. The two weren't making the same gamble. When they had sex, she went into it knowing she was in a position to limit the possible damage by getting an abortion. He went into it knowing he was not in any position to limit the damage. She was relying on herself; he was relying on someone he couldn't be sure of. So he was doing something a lot more dangerous to society than she was. Of course he should have much greater personal liability.

The laws of physics do not make risking conception inside your own body and risking conception inside somebody else's body a symmetrical relation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure how you can call two tremendously different outcomes based on essentially the same action fair.  It might be the law and yes one needs to act in consideration of the law.  But that doesn’t mean it’s fair to the individual or best for society.

Row v Wade gets overturned, is it fair that the woman has to carry the pregnancy.  She knew the liability. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, djmich said:

I'm thinking through the logic of allowing a womans autonomy to reduce a mans autonomy, not trying to relate decisions around a womans uterus and dollars.

For the entirety of the mans life he will be impacted, to summarize that impact as ""hey i shoudnt have to pay for that" comically understates the impact a child has on a man.  Of course you are presuming that the impact is only financial, none of the emotional and life impact a child has on a man (wanted or not). 

To your point around the interest of the child being paramount, I agree completely.  But I am talking about before it is has achieved person-hood.  Early on when it is slightly different and has slightly more value than the cells that comprise my toe nail, as it seems there is general agreement approximates the value.  This thread isn't about children that have survived childbirth.

This is not a monumental decision, if the fetus at that point (say week 😎 has next to no value.  The woman, at that point is making a decision, with no influence from the man.  A decision that she will allow the value-less fetus to develop into a child.  What good reason should the man be bound to it...other than "well someones gotta pay for it"?

Are all the "pro-choicers" going to chip in to raise the kid (seems like the comparable to spocks "pro-lifers" wont support social services).  We freely talk about the impact to society around unwanted children when it comes to unwanted pregnancies and a womans right to choose...what about those same impacts when it is unwanted by the man.

The man doesn’t have a reduction of his autonomy except in the most academic and disingenuous of possible senses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, djmich said:

I’m not sure how you can call two tremendously different outcomes based on essentially the same action fair.  It might be the law and yes one needs to act in consideration of the law.  But that doesn’t mean it’s fair to the individual or best for society.

Row v Wade gets overturned, is it fair that the woman has to carry the pregnancy.  She knew the liability. 

 

We aren’t talking about fairness, as I’ve been trying to explain. We’re talking about basic dignity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The man doesn’t have a reduction of his autonomy except in the most academic and disingenuous of possible senses. 

Bearing the responsibility of caring for another life is a big limiter of personal autonomy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

We aren’t talking about fairness, as I’ve been trying to explain. We’re talking about basic dignity. 

I'm not sure which collective we you are speaking for but I was responding to Maurile's post above mine, he specifically used the word fair.

Edited by djmich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

I'm not sure which collective we you are speaking for but I was responding to Maurile's post above mine, he specifically used the word fair.

Yes. With the man’s burden in having to pay money. 

Not with the loss of bodily autonomy. Which is why they aren’t comparable.  Which is what I’ve been saying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, djmich said:

Bearing the responsibility of caring for another life is a big limiter of personal autonomy to me.

Then maybe you should think more about what autonomy means. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Unfortunate.

Nah, I definitely stand by what I said.  In a thread where everyone is parsing down to the week development level and zygote/embryo what-not, I'm encouraged that common ground someday can better be found by thoughtful individuals.

Mayor Pete being for literally zero restrictions is extreme and, unfortunately, ghoulish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Mayor Pete being for literally zero restrictions is extreme and, unfortunately, ghoulish.

Where are you getting this? They were talking about abortions being allowed when the life or the health of the mother is at risk. That’s a restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Where are you getting this? They were talking about abortions being allowed when the life or the health of the mother is at risk. That’s a restriction.

Chris Wallace asked if there is should be any limit, whether it be "6 weeks or 8 weeks or 24 weeks or whenever" to a women's right to have an abortion. There was a lead in before that about New York's latest expansive law dealing with health, but Wallace's question and certainly his answer seemed to be a very general "any limit".  IF his actual feeling on it is how I read it right now, that's extreme.  I have typically liked the guy (and again this pre really much specific policy proposals so stay tuned I guess), but if he means how I read it here then my opinion of him, at least, falls  precipitously. 

Now you may argue that he was solely talking about health of the mother, then ok, that seems rather unclear to me and I guess we'll see his actual policy when he puts it out.  And to be clear, I'd rather it to be your interpretation of it given the policy ramifications of his position in how I read it.

Edited by Hugh Jass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Chris Wallace asked if there is should be any limit, whether it be "6 weeks or 8 weeks or 24 weeks or whenever" to a women's right to have an abortion. There was a lead in before that about New York's latest expansive law dealing with health, but Wallace's question and certainly his answer seemed to be a very general "any limit".  IF his actual feeling on it is how I read it right now, that's extreme.  I have typically liked the guy (and again this pre really much specific policy proposals so stay tuned I guess), but if he means how I read it here then my opinion of him, at least, falls  precipitously. 

Now you may argue that he was solely talking about health of the mother, then ok, that seems rather unclear to me and I guess we'll see his actual policy when he puts it out.  And to be clear, I'd rather it to be your interpretation of it given the policy ramifications of his position in how I read it.

My take from his response was that there should be limits.... decided by those involved in the situation, instead of being imposed on them by those not involved at all. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Chris Wallace asked if there is should be any limit, whether it be "6 weeks or 8 weeks or 24 weeks or whenever" to a women's right to have an abortion. There was a lead in before that about New York's latest expansive law dealing with health, but Wallace's question and certainly his answer seemed to be a very general "any limit".  IF his actual feeling on it is how I read it right now, that's extreme.  I have typically liked the guy (and again this pre really much specific policy proposals so stay tuned I guess), but if he means how I read it here then my opinion of him, at least, falls  precipitously. 

Now you may argue that he was solely talking about health of the mother, then ok, that seems rather unclear to me and I guess we'll see his actual policy when he puts it out.  And to be clear, I'd rather it to be your interpretation of it given the policy ramifications of his position in how I read it.

I'd have to go back and watch it again, but my recollection is that it was prefaced by Chris Wallace saying that New York just changed its exception from "life of the mother" to "life or health of the mother," and Buttigieg was commenting on that -- and he specifically mentioned the life or health of the mother in his answer (about when people get devastating medical news after already having picked out a name).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 6:30 PM, matttyl said:

How about we go with every zygote inside of a live human host?

Seems convenient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know these laws have no chance. They will not make it through the lower courts and there is little reason for the SC to take them up. These are so extreme as to be a legal joke. 

What this does though is change the national conversation.  No one is talking about Virginia or New York now are they? No they are reacting in horror to what these guys did. The electorate doesn't want Roe overturned. And in these laws they see more problems than in those expanding rights. Thanks Alabama! There is reason to believe this is going to be an electoral disaster for the GOP. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this really is so so simple

if there is a pregnancy there is a living human unborn - it cannot be any other way. 

for exceptions of rape, incest and health of mother, allow the killing of those innocent unborn - which is like 2% of all

that would stop 98% of abortions - the ones everyone hates

for all others for convenience, ban them ... don't have sex if you don't want to end up pregnant - the man and the woman both share the same responsibility for that sex and anything that comes from it

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

You know these laws have no chance. They will not make it through the lower courts and there is little reason for the SC to take them up. These are so extreme as to be a legal joke. 

What this does though is change the national conversation.  No one is talking about Virginia or New York now are they? No they are reacting in horror to what these guys did. The electorate doesn't want Roe overturned. And in these laws they see more problems than in those expanding rights. Thanks Alabama! There is reason to believe this is going to be an electoral disaster for the GOP. 

Exactly. This is my read as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

You know these laws have no chance. They will not make it through the lower courts and there is little reason for the SC to take them up. These are so extreme as to be a legal joke.

The Alabama and Georgia laws will almost certainly be struck down by federal district and circuit courts.

But I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the Supreme Court might take them up in order to reconsider Roe and Casey. The Supreme Court last reaffirmed Casey in 2016 (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt), with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissenting. Since then, Gorsuch and Kavenaugh have been added to the court. It takes four votes to accept a case for review. By the time these cases make their way up the chain, 2016 will be distant enough that the Supremes may decide to weigh in again.

(I do agree on the electoral disaster part.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The Alabama and Georgia laws will almost certainly be struck down by federal district and circuit courts.

But I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the Supreme Court might take them up in order to reconsider Roe and Casey. The Supreme Court last reaffirmed Casey in 2016 (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt), with Thomas, Alito, and Roberts dissenting. Since then, Gorsuch and Kavenaugh have been added to the court. It takes four votes to accept a case for review. By the time these cases make their way up the chain, 2016 will be distant enough that the Supremes may decide to weigh in again.

(I do agree on the electoral disaster part.)

 

I think the reason these are getting passed now is because these legislatures think they have a good chance - with the changes to the Court - to get Roe/Casey overturned, as you wrote. And I agree that they may be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.