LIVE STREAM OF ABORTION CASE that Could OVERRULE ROE

Yes. It's when the mom feels independent movement by her baby, or about 15 weeks or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

Some babies as early as 21 weeks have survived, those these are few, I understood it to be 22-24 weeks.

15/40= 38% of the pregnancy
22/40 = 55% of the pregnancy. He might be reluctant to have unelected judges turnover legislation passed by representative lawmakers over a difference of 17%, but, who knows what these guys are thinking? Further, one's thoughts during oral discussion can change a great deal once you put pen to paper and the justices start circulating drafts and see what the other justices thoughts are.

I do know that our viability standard of 22-24 weeks is way outside international norms. Only 6 other countries, of the nearly 200 nations that exist today, will allow a woman to abort just abort a baby that far along in development without some other compelling reason. Most of the Western world is 13 weeks or so. 15 weeks is bit beyond that, but, is within the middle trimester where Roe did not forbid regulation. If I recall correctly Roe held that completely unrestricted abortion was only guaranteed in the first trimester.

Both Gorsuch and Roberts asked the pro-choice side for some middle ground choices and the advocates came up with nothing, seeming to view this as all or nothing. That may not have been helpful for them if they want to save Casey and Roe. It might be smarter to see what kind of a compromise could be fashioned that would allow Gorsuch and Roberts to join the 3 leftwing justices forming a compromise that saves both the MS Law and Roe and Casey.

 

^^^ This is pretty much the reality of it all. The polar swings of Americans on Roe v. Wade also tells us all it's bad law. The SCOTUS got political with ROE and that is not supposed to happen, now they do it all the time. We are supposed to be able to choose what state we live in and what we support, not to have an Authoritarian Centralized Government dictating to all the states how they will live their lives.

 

But what YOU are doing, is
certainly NOT still going, right?

Which one of us, has complained, loudly, that they do not want replies from the other? Wasn't that you?

So, then which one if our replies, is a sign of either sheer stupidity, or total disingenuousness? I'll give you a hint: it would be coming from the same person who, supposedly, didn't want to get a reply from the other one.

Here's another tip, since you clearly need the help: if you want me to stop replying to you, maybe you stop replying to MY posts, merely to note my audacity, to reply to a post by you, addressed to me.

 

These times, certainly, are a'changing.

Since, at this point, we can only watch, & speculate, what action by the SCOTUS would you think would cause enough Republicans to support even Collins' plan? Your article doesn't offer much hope of that.

<SNIP>
But Collins opposes the House-passed Women's Health Protection Act, which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has promised will get a vote in the Senate.

She favors a more limited version.

"Unfortunately, the House Democrats’ bill goes far beyond codifying Roe and Casey. For example, their legislation would severely weaken protections afforded to health care providers who refuse to perform abortions on religious or moral grounds," Clark said.

Even if the Senate finds a majority of votes to codify abortion rights, such a bill would be subject to the 60-vote rule. There currently aren't 50 Senate votes to weaken the filibuster, nor are there 60 votes to enshrine abortion protections into law

 

Justice Kavanaugh Just Boiled the Abortion Debate Down:

We didn't have ultrasound technology when Roe was decided, and that's allowed us to see the developing baby in real time. And that knowledge has had a building powerful effect on the American People.

All nine justices have a great deal to think about.

 

I fail to see how your advocating for conservative Justices to restrict or even remove federal protections which you, supposedly, favor staying in place, will somehow strike a blow against LIBERAL JUDGES, destroying our country. Could you "show your work," as it were, to make that connecting line, clearer?

Thanks.

 

@Andrew Jackson
@HurricaneDitka

Correction. In my reply to you both, post #56, on page 3

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ld-overrule-roe.594744/page-3#post-1073104067

I mistakenly wrote "pro-life," when I meant, "pro-choice." I know, a pretty big error. I was talking about the way that Justice Kavanaugh clearly wanted this case to go, for the Court to be neutral, claim that's the way it was, at our country's founding, and just leave it to each state to decide, independent of the others. I had wanted to say that the pro-choice lawyer, was shooting a lot of holes into Kavanaugh's hoped for journey, at least for this trip to be smooth sailing.

 

the left cries, the supreme court should not over rule court present in over turning former court rulings. or it will distroy the court. (really?) didn't that happen in roe vs wade when abortion was made legal. that over turned very long present rulings. the s.c. has many times since it was created by the constitution, over turned other, courts & it's own rulings on cases. this is a silly argument imv. what do you think?

 

I agree with your opinion, and wouldn’t call you extreme on this topic.

It makes no sense. Many on here thing I’m a loony lefty, but my opinion on this makes me extreme right?

I don’t know a single person who approves of third trimester abortion, unless mom’s life is at risk. I find it abhorrent. It’s a tiny fraction of abortions,

 

Our liberal position, don't ask me why, surprised me, so thanks for putting the issue into a relative context. But I do see an inconsistency in your logic. On the one hand, you make it out as very significant that we give up to another four weeks for abortions, beyond many other first world nations. But then you try to make it seem that reducing the amount of opportunity by five weeks MORE, beneath the 20 week threshold, is no big deal. I would have no objection, to the cut-off point being pulled back to 20 weeks (provided I believed that it would stay there, and not just be the first of many attempted incremental steps lower; that many on the pro-life side will not be satisfied with anything less than near, or even complete, abolition of abortion, renderers impossible the finding of a resolving compromise, for this issue).

But going all the way down to 15 weeks, seems too drastic a reduction. As I pointed out, the 9 week difference represents 60% more than 15 weeks, or almost 40% less than 24 weeks. It is very believable that many women, particularly very young women, do not even realize that they are pregnant, prior to this "quickening," when the fetus begins to gently kick & move. So, if one really wanted women to take seriously, their decision to end a fetal life, it would follow that one would not force them into such a rushed decision, at that point.

 

I wondered the same and then decided it may be the argument they have adopted because they have nothing else. And being in that weak of a position it would seem to wiser on their part to work for compromise rather than their all or nothing approach that the advocates for striking down the law have adopted.

Roberts wonders: Is it a good thing that our abortion laws are closest to ... North Korea and China?

​

HH notes: "even if we don’t look to international law for precedents, we should be aware of which countries we keep company with."

"just seven countries out of 198 to allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But upon further digging, the data back up the claim. We should note that some of the seven countries allow abortions after 20 weeks, but ban it after 24 weeks."

Sotomayor unhelpfully "offered this argument that fetuses shouldn’t be given any more privilege than your everyday corpse:"

With the advent of ultrasound that's a tough view to sell.

The pro abort folks didn't even try to defend the constitutionality of Roe:

 

I will have to read your link. It strikes me as odd that Ginsburg would not see it as important that there be some degree of consistency, among the states of our nation, on this right.

That last part is not correct. What the pro-choice council was pointing out was that the court was not in the habit of going back over old decisions, with newly-altered courts, to see if they found any of them "wrongly decided," bad decisions. Rather, in nearly all the cases which the Justices brought up (Brown v. Board of Education, etc.) the seeing of the old law in a new light was precipitated by things like major shifts in our society, over time. But all those associated with this law, had made it clear that the motivating factor was a change in the Supreme Court's personnel. This is too superficial a reason on which to base an overturning of established precedent. If this is all it took to re-evaluate Supreme Court rulings, precedent would cease to carry any weight whatsoever.

Also, in the cases cited by the Justices, those precedents had been thrown out because of changing conditions, and so new reasons that needed to be considered, which had not previously existed. But the Mississippi law uses no new reasoning, in fact relies on the same rationale as had already been rejected by the Supreme Court, in the past. Again, this element of stare decisis gives consistency to U.S. law, which has value, in its own right, as giving its decided-upon precepts some credence. Consistency also promotes fairness, for all, under the law.

 

I suspect they will give some tiny little victory to the pro-life side that will be just enough to allow them to have something to celebrate over, even though it will not change the status quo much.

Some ruling creating the precedent that maybe Roe vs Wade wasn't entirely right, but they will stop short of any major overhaul.

 

I think those are all valid points, but I doubt that the unelected Court is going to change the language of a law properly passed and signed by elected representatives in our Constitutional Liberal Democracy. Kavanaugh, I think, has captured the question, and seems inclined for the Court to stay neutral if the legislation does not violate the Constitution. This is a Court that is very uneasy about unelected judges overruling elected representatives without a clear constitutional violation. I thought it was a quite a loud omission that there was no defense of Roe on constitutional grounds, and from there the argument slipped to stare decisis, which is important for predictability, but, I'm not sure there are five votes to overturn the product of an elected legislature, that does not on its face violate the constitution, on the grounds of a tradition that only dates to 1972, especially since the legislation is consistent with the pre-1972 tradition stretching all the way back to the colonial era.

I did see while researching "quickening" that first time mothers often don't detect it within 15 weeks, you make a good point on that. If this rule is upheld, some women in MS may have to go out of state to get an abortion if they wait too long. Sexually active women in that state may have to adopt a monthly pregnancy test, which isn't a bad idea even for women who want to keep their baby. Prenatal vitamins are very important, and these women probably shouldn't be drinking and using.

10 Things About Today’s Oral Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Precedent: "Breyer or Sotomayor made no argument that would not have been equally applicable in defending Plessy v. Ferguson,”

 

I stopped reading at your post. I agree with that.

Kavanagh is is legal traditionalist and is unlikely to upset precedent. He is not a pioneer. I don't see SCOTUS upsetting one of its own landmark decisions without some very novel argument which does not exist. This issue has been done to death a zillion times and there remains both sides of the debate as strong as they ever were, and, as Kavanagh said...'Why should SCOTUS be the arbiter?' That is the reality. Any one of those Justices could frame a decision legally to support either way, and truly therefore, it comes down to their own moral judgement, and that is NOT what SCOTUS is there to do.

Roe v Wade is the Law, and I have no idea how it can be legally faulted.

There ya go....my two cents worth from Down Here.

 

Like it or not people can respond to you whether you want them to or not. If you don't want to see them then use the ignore function of the forum. Seeing posts like these that you are making just reminds me of when my kids were 3 and arguing with each other.

 

Perfect. I’ll start with you.

 

Good.

 

There is no actual law since the federal allowance of abortions was never made by Congress but by SCOTUS. The court could do anything including reversing its earlier decision and handing it to Congress to actually make a law.

I have no clue what the court will do but I bet on nothing as dramatic of overturning Roe but who knows.

 

Before you lecture anyone about "the way a debate forum works", you may want to ruminate on that subject yourself.

In your Post #65, you announced that I was "completely divorced from reality, albeit due to what is clearly your intentional use of hyperbole" -- merely because I had voiced my opinion that that the Supreme Court will not make abortion illegal, but rather, modify some aspects of its practice and application....

You may not have agreed with what I offered in my reply, but to dismissively tell me that I'm "divorced from reality" was preemptory, overbearing, pompous, and, rather shallow.

Back on topic -- next June or early July, the ruling will come down from SCOTUS establishing a 'time-limit' for an abortion to occur (under most circumstances)... probably 4 - 6 months. But, abortion, per se, in its ubiquitous application throughout the United States will not be restricted on the basis of the preferences of voters in each individual state. BTW, another prediction: Roberts will vote with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer on this... as we saw ten years ago with his execrable support of Obamacare, Roberts is no "Conservative"!

Afterthought: Any pro-life advocate who seeks to use the 10th-Amendment to the Constitution as his weapon to make abortion a "states' rights" issue will fail dismally. Abraham Lincoln essentially destroyed the 10th-Amendment, and it will never be restored again....

 

Based on the questions John Roberts was asking yesterday, there is one area where Roe could be faulted and that's where the court draws the line at fetal viability:

And I guess Mississippi is drawing the line at 15 weeks.

Despite the usual hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding Roe getting "overturned", probably the most that will happen is that it gets modified. I'm not completely aware of all the details in the MS law, but it appears that it wouldn't affect first trimester abortions, which means abortions will remain legal during that period, i.e., Roe won't be getting what most Americans consider "overturned". It may affect second and third trimester abortions, but there are already restrictions on those.

One thing that's pretty certain is if the court redraws the viability line, both sides will be unhappy with the ruling.

 

If they do over turn Roe vs Wade, it will be unpopular.
https://news.yahoo.com/poll-as-supr...ans-want-roe-v-wade-overturned-193250390.html

I have no idea which way the SC is going to choose.

 

Excellent question.

To my knowledge Gorsuch has little to nothing on the record, which makes him somewhat of the wild card here. He does have some libertarian tendencies but they could take him in any direction - towards individual rights, towards state autonomy, towards kicking the can, who knows?

 

It will 100% change the trajectory of midterms. Honestly from a political standpoint overturning Roe will be a Democrat party win!

 

It will have an impact on the midterms if the ruling is against Roe vs Wade. At only 24% wanting it overturned, and with the percentage of voting with women, it most likely will be a factor.