Roe & Casey overturned.
-
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 19:21 last edited by
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Shall issue vs. May issue.
Yep. 43 states are shall issue. Vermont is just a free for all.
6 states and DC are May issue.
-
@LuFins-Dad Honestly i don’t know.
Yesterdays ruling wasn’t all that broad. It basically extended Heller outside the home. Time place and manner restrictions on weapons are still allowed. You just can put a subjective test on the permitting process (e.g “show me why you need this”).
Only 6 states are effected in practice.
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 19:21 last edited by -
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 20:44 last edited by
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Moar insurrection?
Parkland survivor...
This makes me curious. What are the mortality rates from abortion? I mean per 1000?
-
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 20:47 last edited by
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
BTW, nothing about abortion has changed in New York.
Nothing has changed in any state. That’s where the ridiculousness of this comes through.
By the way, this is all in regard to a state law that restricts abortion at 15 weeks. France restricts abortion at 12 weeks…
-
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
BTW, nothing about abortion has changed in New York.
Nothing has changed in any state. That’s where the ridiculousness of this comes through.
By the way, this is all in regard to a state law that restricts abortion at 15 weeks. France restricts abortion at 12 weeks…
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 20:49 last edited by George K@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
a state law that restricts abortion at 15 weeks
Yeah, I commented on that back when the leak occurred.
Justin Castreaux tweeted about this today, while ignoring the fact that 4 provinces/territories prohibit abortion after 12 weeks.
However, overturning Roe opens the door for individual states to make laws that are far, far more restrictive.
I believe Missouri now has such a law.
-
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 20:53 last edited by
WI state law criminalizes doctors who perform abortions, making it a felony to destroy the life of an unborn child from the time of conception until its birth. It creates an exception for when two doctors agree that the mother’s life is in jeopardy but does not include carveouts for instances of rape or incest.
-
WI state law criminalizes doctors who perform abortions, making it a felony to destroy the life of an unborn child from the time of conception until its birth. It creates an exception for when two doctors agree that the mother’s life is in jeopardy but does not include carveouts for instances of rape or incest.
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 20:56 last edited by LuFins Dad@mark said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
WI state law criminalizes doctors who perform abortions, making it a felony to destroy the life of an unborn child from the time of conception until its birth. It creates an exception for when two doctors agree that the mother’s life is in jeopardy but does not include carveouts for instances of rape or incest.
Instances of Rape and Incest are a bit of a strawman as they represent under 1% of abortions.
Florida actually tracks … https://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/docs/TrimesterByReason_2018.pdf
-
@mark said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
WI state law criminalizes doctors who perform abortions, making it a felony to destroy the life of an unborn child from the time of conception until its birth. It creates an exception for when two doctors agree that the mother’s life is in jeopardy but does not include carveouts for instances of rape or incest.
Instances of Rape and Incest are a bit of a strawman as they represent under 1% of abortions.
Florida actually tracks … https://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/docs/TrimesterByReason_2018.pdf
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 21:02 last edited by jon-nyc@LuFins-Dad how does that make it a straw man? Everyone realizes they are small in number. Nobody thinks it’s a big loophole letting thousands of abortions in.
It’s just the thought of forcing some 13 year old to carry a rapists baby to term that most people find abhorrent.
If anything the rarity makes it that much less excusable to not have a carve out.
-
@mark said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
WI state law criminalizes doctors who perform abortions, making it a felony to destroy the life of an unborn child from the time of conception until its birth. It creates an exception for when two doctors agree that the mother’s life is in jeopardy but does not include carveouts for instances of rape or incest.
Instances of Rape and Incest are a bit of a strawman as they represent under 1% of abortions.
Florida actually tracks … https://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/docs/TrimesterByReason_2018.pdf
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 21:18 last edited by Copper@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Instances of Rape and Incest are a bit of a strawman as they represent under 1% of abortions.
If there was an exception for incest and rape, that would grow from 1% to 99% rapidly.
-
wrote on 24 Jun 2022, 21:44 last edited by
-
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 00:08 last edited by George K
-
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 00:19 last edited by
The Bee rules.
-
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 00:37 last edited by
Sign of the Times: For a split second, I thought that header was real.
That is a beautiful building though, isn't it?
-
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 09:00 last edited by
I wonder (and even predict) that at some point in the future (maybe 10, maybe 20, years,etc) there will be new Supreme Court judges. Another lawsuit will be brought and this will probably be reversed.
-
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
BTW, nothing about abortion has changed in New York.
Nothing has changed in any state. That’s where the ridiculousness of this comes through.
By the way, this is all in regard to a state law that restricts abortion at 15 weeks. France restricts abortion at 12 weeks…
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 10:54 last edited by jon-nyc@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
BTW, nothing about abortion has changed in New York.
Nothing has changed in any state. That’s where the ridiculousness of this comes through.
I think that’s not true - several states have trigger laws that were designed to change policy immediately upon a potential overturn of Roe.
-
I wonder (and even predict) that at some point in the future (maybe 10, maybe 20, years,etc) there will be new Supreme Court judges. Another lawsuit will be brought and this will probably be reversed.
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 11:09 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
I wonder (and even predict) that at some point in the future (maybe 10, maybe 20, years,etc) there will be new Supreme Court judges. Another lawsuit will be brought and this will probably be reversed.
FDR.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
BTW, nothing about abortion has changed in New York.
Nothing has changed in any state. That’s where the ridiculousness of this comes through.
I think that’s not true - several states have trigger laws that were designed to change policy immediately upon a potential overturn of Roe.
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 11:58 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@LuFins-Dad said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
BTW, nothing about abortion has changed in New York.
Nothing has changed in any state. That’s where the ridiculousness of this comes through.
I think that’s not true - several states have trigger laws that were designed to change policy immediately upon a potential overturn of Roe.
But generally those trigger laws are generally well supported in the states where they will take effect. The will of the people and all that…
-
wrote on 25 Jun 2022, 12:07 last edited by
McCarthy: Roe was never law.
It was never law at all. The very able lawyers who have defended Roe over the decades have eschewed arguments rooted in the Constitution. Roe has been defended as precedent: The decision commanded deference because it happened, not because it was compelling — or even coherent. It could never be justified on its own terms as linear, logical, legitimately rooted law.
Progressives have thus made a talisman of stare decisis, the doctrine of respect for precedent. They would have you believe, at least when it’s a precedent they like, that stare decisis is Latin for “don’t you dare touch this settled law.” Like the rest of the Roe bag of tricks, that’s laughable as a legal argument — we’ve all noticed that Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu, and other precedents in the Court’s lowlight reel were reversed by the Court. More to the point, though, stare decisis has never been a mandate to uphold precedent; it is a multipart test to assess which precedents should be retained.
It’s a test that Roe was particularly ill-suited to survive.
We haven’t been under Roe for, now, 30 years. The ruling was so unstable and indefensible that, in Casey (1992), a reluctant, razor-thin majority of the Court could save it only by gutting its rickety foundation while maintaining its bottom-line holding — again, in the manner of “because I say so” diktat, not legal reasoning.
And what did Casey replace Roe with? A newfangled “undue burden” test — essentially asking: Does a regulation so burden resort to the abortion “right” as to render it illusory? Notice, however, that it is the nature of such a test to invite regulation and therefore to invite constant streams of challenges.
If we could keep abortion out of it for a moment, then, and think of this as a straight, legal stare decisis question, you had a ruling that was so galactically wrong that it had to be completely overhauled in less than 20 years. A ruling that was so unstable that it was subject to constant regulatory and legal challenge, and thus could not reasonably be relied on. And that’s just the legal landscape, before you ever get to the court of public opinion — the cultural and political arena in which Roe/Casey was never broadly accepted and was always the target of passionate dissent by much of the country.
Roe was not law and could never be defended as such. It has thus been defended by extortion, by the mob. It still is: The Court’s opinion was not even published before the “Night of Rage” planning was under way. The Left tried to prevent the ruling from issuing by an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion, patently intended to intimidate the justices — just as the Left destroyed the judicial-confirmation process over abortion with the intent of intimidating justices. In the weeks since the leak, we have had illegal protests against which a leftist administration has refused to enforce the laws (Roe having corrupted the Justice Department the same way it corrupted the law), and finally the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh — an utterly predictable event incited (to borrow the Left’s promiscuous use of that word) by the likes of the Senate’s Democratic Party leader.
