I missed that part of the constitution
-
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider gutting the constitutional right to abortion, agreeing Monday to hear Mississippi’s bid to ban the procedure in almost all cases after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The move suggests the court’s strengthened conservative wing may be ready to roll back the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide. The clash, which the court will hear in the nine-month term that starts in October, will be its first abortion case since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed. The decision to take the case required the votes of four justices.
Mississippi’s appeal seeks to let states outlaw abortion even before a fetus becomes viable, or capable of living outside the womb. That would eviscerate the core holding of the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, which said states can’t impose significant restrictions before viability. The court in Casey didn’t pinpoint when viability occurs but suggested it was around 23 or 24 weeks at the time of the ruling.
In its appeal, Mississippi argued that viability is “not an appropriate standard for assessing the constitutionality of a law regulating abortion.” The state says its ban was designed to protect maternal health as well as the life of the fetus.
“America cannot be a humane, civilized society if its courts preclude lawmakers from imposing reasonable limits on the taking of innocent life,” Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argued.
Abortion opponents are seeking to take advantage of a court reshaped by three Donald Trump appointees. The last two of those, Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, replaced justices who backed the core abortion right. Kavanaugh replaced the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy while Barrett succeeded Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died less than two months before last November’s election.
One can say the right to privacy extends to abortion; isn't that what Roe decided?
But, the last time I looked at the constitution, the word "abortion" was not in the text.
-
@george-k said in I missed that part of the constitution:
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider gutting the constitutional right to abortion
That would eviscerate the core holding of the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling
Gutting! Eviscerate!!
I wonder what that journalist's personal opinions about abortion are?
-
I agree. I find Mississippi’s law to be quite reasonable, and it clearly has exceptions.
Safe, legal and rare.
It would seem to me that the ability of the fetus to feel pain would be a better line than viability. Fifteen weeks seems well before that line.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart.
-
-
-
@lufins-dad said in I missed that part of the constitution:
Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart.
Don't get me wrong - I am not what you would call pro-choice. I simply recognize the reality of what we face here. Anything that goes to lessen the suffering is a good step and a compromise worth making. You're not going to get rid of abortion until you change people's hearts and jamming prohibition down their throats is not going to do that.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@horace said in I missed that part of the constitution:
@copper said in I missed that part of the constitution:
But what about rape?
In my opinion, rape is wrong, full stop.
I know a lot of conservatives who feel that way.
-
@mik said in I missed that part of the constitution:
@lufins-dad said in I missed that part of the constitution:
Rare is where the problem comes in. If it is a simple medical procedure, just a removal of a clump of cells, then why should it be rare? We don’t talk about making mole removal safe, legal, and rare. I have never heard a politician make an argument about liposuction being made safe, legal, and rare. We publicly promote birth control, (despite there being many health risks posed by the pill) with no qualms, but yet many pro choice individuals find it necessary to assign a public responsibility to make abortion “rare”. That clearly points to moral and ethical considerations. And if there are ethical and moral considerations and consequences over a clump of cells, then the pro choice argument falls apart.
Don't get me wrong - I am not what you would call pro-choice. I simply recognize the reality of what we face here. Anything that goes to lessen the suffering is a good step and a compromise worth making. You're not going to get rid of abortion until you change people's hearts and jamming prohibition down their throats is not going to do that.
I get that, and that wasn’t meant towards you, more the other side. The Safe, Legal, and Rare comment has been a part of the Democrat playbook for decades and there is a fundamental flaw in that discussion.
