Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No matter which way you cut it, abortion rights are about to take a hit in the US.
Most academics and legal scholars agree that the very MINIMUM the Court will do is bring the term of availability of abortion services from 21 down to 15 weeks similar to the current Mississippi proposal.
Even the conservative members of the court however would be very hard pressed to overturn Rode V Wade altogether if for no other reason than it would be seen as a political act which the Supreme Court should not be engaging in. What they will probably do is not "technically" overturn R v W but simply uphold it but give the individual states the ability to set parameters on it EXCEPT for cases where the mother's health being in danger and probably for rape and incest too.
"Technically" the Court will have upheld R v W to avoid any accusations of politics. The law still stands but states could put restrictions soo harsh that abortion in the US is still legal but in many states will be basically unattainable. It's kind of like ages ago before mass media when newspapers were the only source of news and there was Freedom of the Press. A state couldn't suppress that right but if they decided to ban the sale or production of newsprint in their respective states, it works out to be the same thing.
The petition filed in 2020 was focused on viability, that changed in the briefs filed this summer to overturning RvW claiming all viability options were unconstitutional. Along the way they changed to "Roe was egregiously wrong".
To be fair, Mississippi passed this law in 2018, before Kavanaugh or Barrett were appointed to the Court. The 5th Circuit upheld the district court's injunction against the law in late 2019 and an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court in June of 2020 (Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court in July of 2020). The timeline doesn't seem so out of whack and intended to maximize the benefit of the new Court makeup. These laws and appeals were going to be filed regardless (and states like Mississippi have continued to test the limits of Casey over the years).
Kavanagh was nominated in 2018 which put would put the court at 5-4, that is all they needed. Justice Kennedy was previously a swing vote now they had a cemented majority. I agree these laws will be filed regardless as has been the case in Texas and Louisiana but most direct challenges to RvW don't make it this far, usually relative to undue burden.
Last edited by Goodnight; 12-02-2021 at 06:21 AM..
Yes, it is. The key to comprehending that is that fetal homicide laws set the legal precedent that an unborn child is a separate human life and not just considered a part of or an extension of the pregnant mother's body.
A person with ebola is a threat to others. A woman seeking an abortion is not.
She is a threat to the unborn child's separate human life, the legal precedent of which has been established by fetal homicide laws, even in blue states.
As others have explained, if someone else were to kill the baby, that person would rightfully be charged with murder.
When a woman has an abortion, it is a soul that is extinguished, a life that never gets lived. Make no mistake that it is a person—those body parts are salvaged and are valuable.
Look at it this way: the reason women want abortions is because that “thing” growing inside them is a person. It’s not a kitten or a robot or a doll. It is a human being, and they don’t want it.
Distilled to its basic components, it's easy to understand. Both abortion and fetal homicide have the exact same outcome: the death of what has been legally established as a separate human life.
FYI. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg used the equal protection clause in support of abortion.
How is it "equal" to allow some but not others to kill what has been legally established as a separate human life, without due process? Though I admire her lifetime of work on behalf of girls/women, RBG was wrong in that respect, and many other things. Half (or slightly more) of the killed unborn children are females, after all. Food for thought...
She is a threat to the unborn child's separate human life, the legal precedent of which has been established by fetal homicide laws, even in blue states.
Why do you care more about an unborn than the life of a fellow woman ?
Not to mention all those women who have a baby just so they can go on welfare.
No one has a baby to go on welfare. That's a non-truth propagated by people who hate the poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
