LIVE STREAM OF ABORTION CASE that Could OVERRULE ROE

It's an unborn child from the get go. The interest of that unborn life starts at conception. The claim is about the burden on the woman that remains after the arbitrary viability argument is asserted.

“If a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isn’t that right?”

 

No, you are misinterpreting the question, though I will give you that it was not stated as clearly as it could have been. Notice the sentence is about the wants of a WOMAN, "to be free of the burden of pregnancy." So both logically, and grammatically, that is what, "that interest," must refer to. How could it refer to the state's or government's interest, w/o even mentioning them? And what would have been the point, then, to have begun the sentence, focusing on the wants of the woman? That is the "interest," to which the Justice is referring. No two ways about it.

The Justice is asking, if abortion is part of a woman's right to liberty, why would that change, just because the child reaches viability. And, of course, that doesn't change, but it seems an overly obtuse question. As I had just replied to you, the change is in the increased interest of the state in the child's welfare, once it has reached the point at which it is not necessarily wholely dependent upon its mother, for survival.

 

I don't disagree that there is a large Conservative/Republican contingent in the states you listed, but if the SCOTUS were to flat-out BAN abortion-on-demand, it would galvanize the majority of American females like nothing else imaginable! It would be torches, pitchforks, and Armageddon to an extent never seen before in this country. (BTW, before anybody jumps down my throat, within the generalized rules of civilized behavior, from the very beginning, I've always been supporter of a woman's right to "choose"... so, in that sense, I don't 'have-a-dog-in-that-fight').

These "very rich Republicans" that you mention might come to regret it bitterly if they 'got what they wished for' and abortion were totally BANNED, because it wouldn't be long before the hue-and-cry would come out that we need a special, new TAX THE RICH measure to pay for all the extra handouts that the welfare system(s) would need in the aftermath of the abortion switcheroo.... "Abort 'em, or, support 'em"....

 

Yes if the woman is to be free of the burden and the reason to allow abortion how does that change after the vague assertion of viability? It's not about the state it is about the woman. And a born baby is dependent for survival.

“If a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isn’t that right?”

That's right isn't it? That interest is still there isn't it.

 

I think you're overestimating the salience of "abortion-on-demand" with many women in this country. Nearly half of women (43% earlier this year) consider themselves "pro-life":



Those that aren't were probably already going to vote against Republicans anyways. This issue may move the needle a bit, in terms of likelihood to vote for the various demographics, but it's unlikely to even approach "the biggest political bloodbath in American history". Frankly, even if SCOTUS throws out Roe v. Wade entirely, and kicks the whole issue to the states to decide, I'd be rather surprised if Democrats don't still go on to lose the House and Senate in 2022.

 

This is the THIRD, and final time I am going to give you this answer, which does directly respond to your question, so I think, afterward, some explanation from you as to why you needed to thrice repeat it, is in order.

YES, the WOMAN's interest, of course, does not change. That does not mean, though, that it was an insufficient interest to warrant it's protection, if that is the angle which you are trying to get at, with excruciating slowness. The reason that her interest becomes insufficient to continue to afford her this protection, is because the COUNTERVAILING interests, of the UNBORN FETUS, INCREASE, once it is theoretically able to sustain it's own life, as opposed to that function needing to be FULLY PROVIDED BY THE MOTHER.


I hope it got through to you, this time.

 

The whole thing is very odd. If you support abortion on demand up until 15 weeks you are "anti abortion"?

Only 6 other nations in the entire world allow abortion on demand until 22 weeks.

The great majority of the Free Nations limit abortion on demand to the first 13 weeks. 15 weeks is second trimester. I just don't think 7 weeks is enough for folks to light their hair on fire. Once again the Left is wholly absorbed with something other than the top interests of the voter, which isn't abortion, or pronouns, and isn't Jan 6 and isn't even COVID, it's schools and the economy.

Dems are showing no ability to read the room. Dems claimed their VA wipeout was because Republicans have 'tricked' voters into caring about Critical Race Theory, something they were adamant didn’t exist. But the problem wasn’t CRT, it was Democrats’ being beholden to teachers unions over the objections of parents:

Democrats think they are better than voters and they don't listen to voters because they have no respect for them.

But Dems want to talk about how evil Americans are, and Jan 6, and abortion, and Trump. They don't want to talk about the needs and concerns of parents and they don't want to discuss the economy.

We voters know what to do with candidates that don't listen to us... don't vote for them.

 

I remain in support of a woman's right to choose, and always have been.

That said, it would give me great joy to see all of this radical, 'woke' rabble thrown out of every position and post that any of them hold in any part of every level of the government in the next election. There, now that was a delicious mouthful!

 

LOL-- Textbook hypocrisy. The "Left is absorbed with...abortion?"

That is proof that REPUBLICANS have been absorbed with abortion (not to mention various "culture war," issues, like transgender sports participation and rest rooms).

If 7 weeks are nothing to light one's hair on fire over, why have Republicans gone so far to get this case to the Supreme Court, over just 7 to 9 weeks? Especially, as I think we have discussed, MS 15-week limit, is just about the point when the fetus begins to move, so when many women FIRST REALIZE that they are pregnant. So these weeks are very valuable for them to consider their options, which they don't have time to do, if their window to get an abortion is closing, that week. Again, in relative terms, 9 weeks is a very significant difference, between 15 weeks & 24 weeks.

Notice from the Newsweek SNIP, there are 11 states that have set the cutoff date for abortions at (or below) SIX WEEKS, or at the onset of fetal heartbeat (which is about that time), which is BEFORE MOST WOMEN EVEN KNOW THEY ARE PREGNANT. So how does it not deny a woman of her right to end her pregnancy, if that right runs out before she knows that she's pregnant?

Any alarm felt-- by women, Democrats, or anyone else-- is a well-warranted concern, in the midst of what is currently happening.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

Theoretically. If the just born baby is placed on a cart and left alone will it be able to sustain it's life? No of course it still has to be provided for else the baby will die. And again if the overriding reason for abortion is that a woman should not have to be burdened with childbirth or parenthood the point of this so-called viability is of no matter.

You are agreeing that the border on the woman does not change at this point of so-called viability?

Why does this so-called point of viability determine whether the mother can kill the baby? The baby is just as alive the moment before this point and the moment after that point.

 

Read the post that you quoted that line from. In it, is a SNIP, as well as my own summation, of the different actions of different states, in the last couple of years, making abortion a felony; lowering the cutoff point to just 8 weeks gestation; to 6 weeks gestation (6 states)-- which is BEFORE most women KNOW they're pregnant-- or to the onset of fetal heartbeat (which is also around 6 weeks), another 4 states, including Texas, which makes no exception for rape or incest; or even utterly banning abortion (though if the deadline is before you realize that you're pregnant, that's about the same thing), like Alabama, which also has made the criminal penalty for any doctor performing one, up to LIFE in prison. Then there is the regulatory assault on clinics that perform abortions, so that there are a half a dozen states that only have one clinic location remaining, for the entire state.

That is what has been happening. And, oh yeah, we got a pro-life, conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and served them up an abortion case. Coincidence?

 

MS believes they have every to right regulate 2nd Tri Abortions and Roe allows for that. An unelected Court struck down the legislation passed by the elected representative legislature on what the State believes to be erroneous grounds, so they appealed and SCOTUS agreed that they had a right to be heard. Nothing untoward has occurred. I do not think that 7 weeks is enough for an unelected Court to turn over a law properly drafted by a representative legislature, in the absences of a clear constitutional violation and the Chief Justice indicates he agrees. Since Roe is consistent with state regulation of 2nd Tri abortion, I don't think that it's beyond possibility that both the MS stature and Roe will survive this case, that likely will depend on the willingness of the three Consequentialists to negotiate a decision that accomplishes that in a manner that is agreeable to Roberts and a 5th Justice. Kagan kept fairly quiet and I couldn't help but wonder if she was keeping maximum flexibility for the deliberative negotiations. She seems to have a very good relationship with the chief justice.

15 weeks is nearly 4 months. The earlier an abortion is done, the less likely the woman is to be harmed in the process. A sexually active woman, who does not want to carry a baby to term should simply take a month pregnancy test. Nearly the entire Left just declared weekly COVID testing to not be an undue burden on employment. Given that it seems that all reasonable people could easily agree that a monthly pregnancy test is not an excessive burden for a sexually active woman who does not want children. And beyond that she still wouldn't be forced to go to term she simply would have to travel to a neighboring state.

The settlement of this case may settle those as well, let's wait for the decision.

 

Don't be stupid. Viability means that, with all the care that can possibly be given it (respirator, I.V. feeding, dialysis, etc.), in a neonatal Intensive Care Unit, it may survive.

 

I'm still unclear on how you can view 15 weeks for abortion on demand when most Liberal Democracies only allow 13 weeks as "anti-abortion" to me that speaks to the incredibly inflexible corner the more dogmatic wing of the pro-abortion folks have painted themselves into. It will be interesting to see what the justices hammer out.

I found this graphic interesting:

​

I read this as showing that while Sotomayor, Thomas and Alito do not negotiate, everyone else does. The three consequentialists vote together more than any other group by far: See https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...jority-is-just-beginning-to-flex-its-muscles/

Beyond that, other than Alito and Thomas, Kagan votes in agreement with the rest of the Court 70% or more of the time. Beyers votes Roberts and Kavanaugh nearly 3 out of 4 times.

Give these folks time to work, they might surprise you.

 

i found this on another site, just wondering what you think about it.

The bond between mother and child, never tell me that there is no God.


Kayla Street Saballa
October 22 ·
“When pregnant, the cells of the baby migrate into the mothers bloodstream and then circle back into the baby, it’s called “fetal-maternal microchimerism”.⁠
For 41 weeks, the cells circulate and merge backwards and forwards, and after the baby is born, many of these cells stay in the mother’s body, leaving a permanent imprint in the mothers tissues, bones, brain, and skin, and often stay there for decades. Every single child a mother has afterwards will leave a similar imprint on her body, too.
Even if a pregnancy doesn't go to full term or if you have an abortion, these cells still migrate into your bloodstream.
Research has shown that if a mother's heart is injured, fetal cells will rush to the site of the injury and change into different types of cells that specialize in mending the heart.
The baby helps repair the mother, while the mother builds the baby.
How cool is that?
This is often why certain illnesses vanish while pregnant.
It’s incredible how mothers bodies protect the baby at all costs, and the baby protects & rebuilds the mother back - so that the baby can develop safely and survive.
Think about crazy cravings for a moment. What was the mother deficient in that the baby made them crave?
Studies have also shown cells from a fetus in a mothers brain 18 years after she gave birth. How amazing is that?”
If you’re a mom you know how you can intuitively feel your child even when they are not there….Well, now there is scientific proof that moms carry them for years and years even after they have given birth to them.
I find this to be so very beautiful.
Post credit: Heart Strings

let me know what you think. thanks.

 

It's 15 weeks abortion. I still wanna know what the gd outrage is?

 

It’s not supposed to be about politics or getting your way. It’s supposed to be about precedent and common law.

 

I explained it a bit to you before, apparently to no avail. But I just saw this post of yours, right after covering the idea, in more depth, in a reply to someone else, so I'm adding you on. Pay attention.

Starting from the bottom, not everyone can afford to travel to another state. And, in our country, that should never be the standard, for such fundamentally basic health care-- would that be an acceptable suggestion, for anyone in a state, who broke or fractured any of their bones? Though I do not know the cost of pregnancy tests, I imagine there will be those for whom even this is a significant burden, and of course the Party that's fully behind this, will be just as fully against having this be something paid for by insurance. So I guess, in America, how much disposable income a woman has, will be the determining factor for many, whether or not they have access to safe, legal abortion services; or, I guess you could recast it as, your financial health will determine whether or not you are entitled to have sexual intercourse, with a medical safety net, in case of pregnancy.


That is some funny arguing that you use, for its irony. Citing the testing protocols that have been rolled out to deal with a PANDEMIC which, by its nature, should be of limited duration-- and yet have the Right, screaming it's head off about our being in an authoritarian state-- to suggest it should be perfectly acceptable for women to live the better part of their lives, with routine testing every month, without fail. If I were a woman, it would make me feel that I was living in a police state. Nevertheless, I might concede that was a tolerable-- if far from optimal-- situation, if not for a couple of things, one of which being the foresight to realize that this 15 week threshold is not the end goal for any Republican, but only the first-down marker. After a couple of years at 15 weeks, it will be shortened to 13 weeks; and then 10 weeks. And on, and on.

The second issue, which would be a deal-breaker-- even if I was foolish enough to believe that all the forces that lowered the threshold to 15 weeks, would be content with this-- is that of ACCESS to services which, due to unnecessary & onerous burdens that states are putting on abortion clinics, there are many states in which it is very difficult in which for one to operate; and in fact, there are six states that only have a single clinic left. So, off the bat, there are going to be real difficulties for some, even to get to the clinic. But then, when you factor in the increased traffic flow, caused by sharply narrowing the gap of time, over which the same population will want to be having the same number of abortions, there is clearly going to be a problem of insufficient capacity, and longer wait times. But, of course, many will not be able to wait, especially those who have just realized that they are pregnant, with the first movements of their fetus, at the 15 week mark.

So it comes down to the insincerity of the Republicans, behind these changes. If they would insure that there were sufficient clinic services, accessible in an affordable & timely manner, & that this would remain the status quo, from here on out, that would be one thing. But that is not at all their game plan. Are we to believe the same Party that was AGAINST birth control being a mandatory benefit, under Obamacare, is really interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies, and abortions? It's all a snow-job.


While my strongest objections have been to the most restrictive new laws, which your replies give short shrift, and my point about the 15 week limit has always been that it does not make sense-- if one wishes women in this position, to carefully consider options other than abortion-- to tell many who will just be realizing they are pregnant, at this 3-&-a-half month mark, that they are already in their last available week for abortion. Nevertheless, your replies continue to stress my failure to embrace this poorly-thought out (with regard to women's health) initiative, as a sign that I am completely inflexible & unreasonable. As the numerous other options I have brought up-- a smaller jump, back to 20 weeks; coordinating reductions in the abortive timeframe with increases in the accessibility of remedial clinic services, perhaps a low-income program to help cover the expense of testing supplies-- which are non-starters even with you, much less with Republican Mississippi legislators, shows, it is not I, or abortion-rights advocates in general, who are being unreasonable or unwilling to compromise.

 

15 weeks is nearly 4 months. A monthly preg test would ensure that she has has 3 full months to get an abortion should that be her choice. If somehow that fell through and a trip to another state was necessary, perhaps the guy she had sex with could be of assistance.

Insurance doesn't pay for them now. They are 34 cents a piece. Here is a link to 25 of them for $8.39 cents, enough for two years and you can use your FSA to pay for it with pre-tax money. If that's still a financial burden, maybe the guy she is sleeping with can come up with 34 cents a month to help her out with the cost.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/slredirect/picassoRedirect.html/ref=pa_sp_atf_aps_sr_pg1_1?ie=UTF8&adId=A09548361YUVXB20M1EX5&url=/ClinicalGuard%C2%AE-Pregnancy-Test-Strips-Individually-Sealed/dp/B007VT30C8/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?keywords=pregnancy+test&qid=1638593029&rdc=1&sr=8-2-spons&psc=1&smid=AK1J8RDSHDADH&qualifier=1638593029&id=6570972694893511&widgetName=sp_atf

Weekly COVID tests in order to remain employed are $9 per. If $40/month isn't an undue burden on employment, surely 34 cents a month is an undue burden for a sexually active woman and frankly I'd urge the woman to have her mate cover it. If that's too much of a burden, he might be the wrong choice to share intimacy with.

It's 34 cents and every month assures that she has 3 months to get an abortion. If she misses one, she save the 34 cents that month and still would have two months to secure an abortion.

Over 34 cents a month?

That sounds like uncertainty talking, let's wait for the decision, it may be that it addresses your concerns. That's much more likely if the 3 consequentialists join Roberts and another justice to produce a decision that upholds both the MS statute and Roe.

We'll see when the decision comes out.

 

Hey, sorry about my last reply. I jumped to conclusions about what point you were making, prematurely. Now that I've taken the time to read through all your post, a couple of times, I actually think I understand what you're saying: since a baby is essentially dependent on adults for its survival, anyway, what difference does it make that a fetus has reached the point of viability, right? As a side note, we really communicate our thoughts in very different ways. So, sorry, again about my mistake; I'll only say, in my defense, that your asking me the same question 3 times, and me giving you the answer that you were looking for, three times, had worn away my patience. So maybe we can just consider that a push.

Anyway, on to your question, though I suggest you should read the actual decision, to know how the Court arrived at its verdict. I think this one, that shifted to the viability standard, was the Casey decision.

Now, if a baby starves to death, the person held responsible, is the child's guardian. But a fetus, before it is physically viable, outside of its mother, the Court determined, in the context of our current scenario, has no legal guardian, because only people can have guardians, not prospective people, i.e., fetuses. Up until the point of viability, the woman's "responsibility," for the welfare of her fetus, is only a personal matter; that is, she is not legally responsible because, in the eyes of the law, based upon their research into legal tradition, the Justices found that the fetus is not the equivalent of a person, in the view of the law.

I think I understand your viewpoint: the fetus, you are assuming, WILL become a person, provided that its basic needs are met. But that is not the way the law weighs things out. Firstly, we should acknowledge that women do have miscarriages. There is another class of event, as well, that I think is called a spontaneous abortion. So the result of a human being, if likely, is not guaranteed. And, to use some of the creative reasoning, being thrown at me, by someone trying to sell the 15 week cutoff for abortions as beneficial to women, because it is physically easier on a woman to have an abortion earlier, rather than later, I will say that, as there is a chance that the fetus any woman aborts may have ended up as a miscarriage, anyway, it is better for the health of the woman, if it is aborted sooner, rather than waiting for this potential miscarriage to occur.
How do you like that specious, Republican-style rationalization?

But I can give you no answer that you will find satisfactory because, in your mind, as soon as the child is conceived, it is due all the rights of a fully formed human being, which it is not. Many do not feel that, and up until now, the law has not viewed, a woman, from the moment she is pregnant, as having all the responsibilities of a mother. This is not something decided by her decision to "give it up," to some hot guy; rather, it is a much more deliberative choice the woman makes, to take on the challenging role of being a mother (even if it is only up until the child's birth), by not aborting her fetus before it reaches the point of viability. If she allows it to maintain residence in her body for that long, she has made a common law agreement to let the tenant stay up until its birth. Before that point of viability though-- which I would be open to being adjusted down to say, the midpoint of gestation, 20 weeks-- the woman has the right to evict the temporary boarder for any cause at all; it has not yet established any rights of residency, in the home of its mother.

 

Please state how many mentally sound women go to a doctor at 8 1/2 months and demand an abortion.

 

And since NO ONE has a right to use another's body to sustain their life the woman has every right to give the ZEF the boot...

 

If that is the cost-- I'm sure it is higher in a pharmacy, where many are purchased, but leaving that aside for hypothetical purposes-- that expense would not be a problem (I had said that I did not know about this, but suggested that it was a possible issue). However, that was not the lynchpin, to turn around my overall view on the law. Your suggestion for the other, real, cost concern, is not nearly so comforting:

That does not address the reality of many people's situations. And not only are the travel expenses prohibitive, but you have not considered the ability to take off days from work, for a probably longer than 1-day ordeal. Nor do you even address the overarching fact, that you are suggesting that, for someone in America, it should be an acceptable recommendation, for anyone in numerous states, who have a basic healthcare need, that their solution should be to just travel to a different state. That would be an incredible commentary, on the pathetic state of women's healthcare, in all of those states.

Lastly, I know how long 15 weeks are, and that hardly matters, if a person doesn't realize they're pregnant.* Yes, if they commit to your suggested, monthly testing, which would seem practically mandatory, under the circumstances-- that was what I meant by my "police state," comment, which was in reference to the "authoritarian regime," hyperbole, we are continually hearing from the Right about pandemic measures which, unlike your suggested pregnancy protocols, are not going to be lifelong, and nor is the cost of a mask, on a different expense scale, yet these mandates also receive that charge, so there is a very clear analogy of hypocrisy here, whether or not you acknowledge it-- would give the woman time to consider options. But, that still leaves the accessibility of services. So, as I'd said, if Republicans in those states were taking that into consideration, it would change the complexion of their efforts. But, in fact, the telling truth of the matter is that, while trying to reduce the length of a woman's opportunity to avail herself of the abortion option, they are simultaneously employing measures to limit the availability of abortion services.



*Forgive this OCD-sounding nitpick, but 15 weeks is exactly 3 1/2 months, so there is no reason to keep calling it, "nearly four months." If we want to round up, we could also call it "the better part of 6 months." But it is nowhere near half a year; it is two weeks more than a quarter year. There are not 4 weeks in a month-- if you are making that common mistake-- for, if there were, 12 months would make 48 weeks in a year; but there are 4 more than that (52 weeks). So every quarter, contains one extra week, in addition to the approximation of 4 per month. Hence, 3 months is 13 weeks. Or we could just say that there are 4 & 1/3 weeks, in a month. Thanks for letting me say that.

 

It's surprising to see what some women think is 'perfectly OK'... nevertheless, I do support their right to make their own decisions about whatever is grown inside their own bodies.

And, if there are any consequences, physical, spiritual, or psychological, let those be entirely on these same women, too! Fair enough?