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.
-
@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
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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…
-
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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Countering the "Not in the Constitution" argument.
James Madison, one of the principal architects of the new Constitution, closely followed this debate. On June 8, 1789, he gave a speech to Congress proposing the group of amendments that would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. While doing so, he directly addressed the Anti-Federalist/Federalist debate. "It has been observed also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration," he said, "and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." Madison acknowledged that "this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; But, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it."
Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.
Today, most legal conservatives purport to be constitutional originalists. What that means for the legal debate over abortion is that any purported originalist must face the question of whether abortion rights may be considered to be among the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" that Madison's Ninth Amendment was specifically written and ratified to protect. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization entirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
McCarthy: Roe was never law.
It could never be justified on its own terms as linear, logical, legitimately rooted law.
I think that was understood by just about all, even here at tncr.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Countering the "Not in the Constitution" argument.
What that means for the legal debate over abortion is that any purported originalist must face the question of whether abortion rights may be considered to be among the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" that Madison's Ninth Amendment was specifically written and ratified to protect.
Simple. It was enumerated, as murder. That is the starting point.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly True, but he was known to apply it rather selectively.
