I guess it wasn’t “settled law” after all

[johnmdesigner]

You forget that Mitch the Bitch will never allow a justice to be replaced by a Democratic president.

[fastupslowdown]

You forget that Mitch the Bitch will never allow a justice to be replaced by a Democratic president.

McConnell is a formidable force for sure. Too bad Schumer isn't at his level

[beeatnik]

Great point. I have two young daughters and live in a blue (for now state), and the number of places I’d be comfortable them going to college is about to shrink drastically. We have international options (UK and Ireland) that have been on the table, but the US as a semi functioning democracy is a big backstop of our retirement and college savings, so it’s not as simple as peacing out.

Why would this decision be an issue for your daughter in the short term? Do you believe Red States will limit the availability of contraception and Plan B (or they already in the process?) With all due respect, as a pro-choice Atheist, I would feel that I failed my 6-year-old daughter as a parent if she were ever in a position to seek an abortion. But, I may be a hypocrite as I personally know the two or three clinics in LA County are in oppressively blighted communities. But, who knows, it's possible girls from the Westside have access to Concierge Clinics.

[jimcav]

Relationships and contraception both fail, and like as not have little to do with parents.

Sometimes the awfulness of a person is hidden until well into a relationship, and there are undoubtedly women who might understandably not want to bring a child of such a relationship to term, the desire for a grandchild not withstanding.

I had the unwelcome task of developing a sexual assault program in one of my last active duty assignments, and serving as my command's rep on the sexual assault committee for a huge base where my navy unit happened to be located--horrible things happen to both men and women, and often through NO fault of theirs'--work or leisure just brought them into the proximity of awful people. The idea of any of those women having to endure that, and then suffer a 2nd assault on their autonomy and be forced to suspend everything to see if their rapist's seed yields a live birth is crazy to me, just bat-shit crazy, medieval misogyny.

[beeatnik]

Relationships and contraception both fail, and like as not have little to do with parents.

Sometimes the awfulness of a person is hidden until well into a relationship, and there are undoubtedly women who might understandably not want to bring a child of such a relationship to term, the desire for a grandchild not withstanding.

Of course, but that's relatively rare for the type of girl with the intellect and privilege to have multiple out of state (country) options for college. I mean anything is possible and I've known students in family housing at 20, but as with vaccinations, universities have the right level of, um, commitment when it comes to women's health (contraception). But, I think I'm just rephrasing the obvious. As in most things in the Global North, the least equipped are the most vulnerable. A license, transportation, English-literacy, all can be insurmountable obstacles.

[jimcav]

even if your final point may be obvious, it's still certainly worth repeating.
I'm decades out of college, but have worked with enough women who were open about their lives to have known college-educated women who decided to not carry to term a child with/by the wrong person, who then went on to have children. They chose what was right for them.

So my point was in response to your parental failure comment--I've learned of the above types of cases, and sadly saw dozens of cases where that (parental failure) had nothing to do with the circumstances that may have made too many women want/need an abortion (I say 'may' because I was only privy to the fact of sexual assaults occurring, not the private info such as medical complications (physical injury, mental health, STD, pregnancy).

[jclay]

Relationships and contraception both fail, and like as not have little to do with parents.

Sometimes the awfulness of a person is hidden until well into a relationship, and there are undoubtedly women who might understandably not want to bring a child of such a relationship to term, the desire for a grandchild not withstanding.

I had the unwelcome task of developing a sexual assault program in one of my last active duty assignments, and serving as my command's rep on the sexual assault committee for a huge base where my navy unit happened to be located--horrible things happen to both men and women, and often through NO fault of theirs'--work or leisure just brought them into the proximity of awful people. The idea of any of those women having to endure that, and then suffer a 2nd assault on their autonomy and be forced to suspend everything to see if their rapist's seed yields a live birth is crazy to me, just bat-shit crazy, medieval misogyny.

I hope you'll generate an op-ed piece for some major news outlets. Your experience and perspective might open and change some minds.

[suspectdevice]

Lenin is probably sitting up in heaven laughing about our Yankee Bread and Circus-
Bourgeois Democracy is a farce.

Did anyone else accompany a jeep full of queers in their early 20’s to a gun shop over the weekend?
I did.

Pride was a riot. Regaining bodily autonomy may end up being a war…

[Chik]

Could someone please provide a synopsis on why they figured that the previous interpretation of the 14th Amendment was wrong?

[ides1056]

I was watching 60 Minutes when Leslie Stahl asked Madeleine Albright about the Clinton administration's policy in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of half a million innocent noncombatants, elderly, children, and women. Ms Albright responded that it was "worth it."
She was recently eulogized at the National Cathedral.
The fact is that people in position of power in this country, so-called left and so-called right, do not care about the lives of others when it comes to making political calculations. Full stop.
We don't live in a moral universe.

[Tim Porter]

Could someone please provide a synopsis on why they figured that the previous interpretation of the 14th Amendment was wrong?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1392_6j37.pdf

Chik, the best way to do this is for you to check out the opinion, link attached. You'll have to do a little heavy lifting by at least reading the first few points in the Syllabus that starts the opinion. Basically, the opinion says that the 14th Amendment's concept of liberty does not include a right to abortion given the historical analysis done in detail in the body of the opinion. In fact, every state outlawed abortion prior to Roe--so one can't say it's part of the historical "ordered" liberty that the court would look for in order to include it.

[72gmc]

In fact, every state outlawed abortion prior to Roe--so one can't say it's part of the historical "ordered" liberty that the court would look for in order to include it.

Same time period when the Equal Rights Amendment was rising up, only to be eventually batted back down by conservatives, correct?

[fastupslowdown]

Read an article in Scientific American that got me even angrier about that. Guess one can blame my gender for not immediately picking up on this nuance but now that I've considered it I'm even angrier at the court. A woman or a couple can go into a pregnancy with the best of intentions but the pregnancy can for whatever reason develop into a high risk one. Suddenly the woman's life is now subordinate to the fetus and short of the mother going into sepsis the doctor risks state penalties or jail if he tries to do what's in the best interest of the mother. The Supreme Court and the State now make their needs paramount to the mother. This is absurd!

[sk_tle]

Conservatives aren't pro-life or against abortion. They merely want to delay it until the embryo goes to school, then they are happy to volunteer to get rid of it

[j44ke]

I've heard the argument that supports the related "rights" cases (Roe and the several others on contraception, marriage, etc) described as "penumbral". Which, as I understand it, means the rights to privacy and personal autonomy were derived from the negative shape created by the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments (including the 14th,) rather than derived from clearly stated doctrine.

The moon and sun are clearly visible as separate objects when you see them individually in the sky. However, during an eclipse, you intuit their simultaneous presence by the ring of fire (the penumbra) from the sun around the shadowy disk of the moon.

So conservatives argue that this intuitive or penumbral argument is against the rules of invention/interpretation by the Supreme Court. It crosses the line. The only way to build upon the original intent of the framers of the Constitution is through the legistlative branch by making laws at the state level or adding amendments to the Constitution at the federal level with the agreement of the required majority of the states.

Clever argument to use when it suits your agenda. One of the criticisms of Scalia was that most of his "structuralist" decisions were essentially interpretive dances on "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. One person's authentic reading is another person's self-affirming subjectivity.

Really this is entirely agenda driven. These academic arguments are merely a device in the service of actualizing this country as a land of absolutism and singularity or ambiguity and tolerance. We need the central role of the Supreme Court so we can have our Civil Wars on paper instead of in blood. The Supreme Court justices need only look outside at the crowds and 24/7 security to see how central their role is and how valuable the rights of privacy and personal autonomy are to many people, including themselves.

[Chik]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1392_6j37.pdf

Chik, the best way to do this is for you to check out the opinion, link attached. You'll have to do a little heavy lifting by at least reading the first few points in the Syllabus that starts the opinion. Basically, the opinion says that the 14th Amendment's concept of liberty does not include a right to abortion given the historical analysis done in detail in the body of the opinion. In fact, every state outlawed abortion prior to Roe--so one can't say it's part of the historical "ordered" liberty that the court would look for in order to include it.

Thanks. I just read the first 3 pages. Talk about circular arguments. Wow.

Do we know if the counsels for Jackson Women's Health Organization are any good? It seems apparent that the judges had the conclusion drawn and retrofitted a lame inference, but I can't help getting the impression that the counsels' arguments were a bit half-baked...

[ColonelJLloyd]

I think this should pretty much kill any impulse among Democrats to switch parties in Montana to protect Cheney’s seat in Congress.

As well as cease all the compliments paid to Pence for merely doing his fcking job on Jan. 6. Pence is now advocating a national law against abortion, if you had any doubts about the real agenda. States schmates.

Did you mean Wyoming or is there something I'm missing badly?

[j44ke]

Did you mean Wyoming or is there something I'm missing badly?

I have no idea why I typed Montana. Yes, Wyoming. Apologies.

[Tim Porter]

Thanks. I just read the first 3 pages. Talk about circular arguments. Wow.

Do we know if the counsels for Jackson Women's Health Organization are any good? It seems apparent that the judges had the conclusion drawn and retrofitted a lame inference, but I can't help getting the impression that the counsels' arguments were a bit half-baked...

Not sure what you mean by circular?

On your second point, I suspect their counsel was of the highest level.

https://emorywheel.com/co-lead-couns...ortion-access/

[Tim Porter]

... We need the central role of the Supreme Court so we can have our Civil Wars on paper instead of in blood. The Supreme Court justices need only look outside at the crowds and 24/7 security to see how central their role is and how valuable the rights of privacy and personal autonomy are to many people, including themselves.

Jorn, I'm not sure your point works in the context here: The court says pretty explicitly that they want to get out of that game and push it back onto the legislative function. There's a pretty good argument that the Court stepped in it when they decided Roe in the style that a legislature would, making up the trimester tests almost out of the blue.