The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[superozman]

57 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I just don't get it. How does a woman having an abortion affect your life at all? Let them do whatever they want.

 

Republicans care so much about unborn babies, but as soon as they come out the womb...death to their health insurance! Let them die by gunfire!

 

Simple.  Because I could have been sucked out by a Dr after being killed in the womb.  Instead, I was given a chance to live.  I was put up for adoption, adopted and am a contributing member of society today.

 

So for me, I'm "pro-life".

 

Now, does that mean I don't like "women's rights"?  Absolutely not.  I think many would agree, and many of the laws that i have read (particularly GA and OH), that the women's life and health is prioritized and people want it that way.  I understand some don't, and I think that is not a good stance to take if you don't elaborate. 

 

So if that is in the bill, one conflict sometimes that is not is rape.  I think killing a baby in the womb because of rape is a negative on a negative, however, I understand the health impacts of a woman and that could be a woman's decision, IMO.   

 

For me, what should never be, is the fact that if a woman with a man and they choose to have intercourse, the woman ends up being pregnant, there is no reason that baby's life should be terminated.  As adults there comes responsibility.  Now those 2 adults have a responsibility to raise that baby.  Even under tough circumstances they should step up to the plate for the decision they made.

 

This is my view.  I expect to get harassed, but I've seen so much by those screaming how awful these bills are when i think there is a middle, even though I know I would never budge on my last paragraph as people won't budge on their opposite views, I needed to let something out, and this was a good medium for a discussion.

[Springfield]

5 minutes ago, superozman said:

As adults there comes responsibility.  Now those 2 adults have a responsibility to raise that baby.  Even under tough circumstances they should step up to the plate for the decision they made.

 

So if these two “adults” are unable to unwilling to raise the child then the child should suffer because of it?  Or what if one is unwilling and then the other has to care for this child on its own?  Or what if they are 14 and have no way to get a job or support this child because they’re a child themselves?

 

Theres a lot that I can appreciate about your argument, but this I cannot.  The “ if they didn’t wanna have a baby then they shouldn’t have had sex” argument is simple and lacks nuance.

 

It sounds like you got the best possible scenario, which has built your life view and I can appreciate that.  But you should also realize that not everyone is as lucky as yourself.

[Larry]

30 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Yep, I’ve been saying that for years. If Republicans really wanted to significantly reduce abortions they could invest in helping women afford children, invest in education about and access to contraceptives. They don’t support any of that. 

 

The WaPo article that somebody else posted, about "late term abortions", at least claims that most such abortions happen in the 2nd trimester.  And the main cause for those abortions is poor mothers who wanted to abort in the 1st trimester, but their state put up so many barriers to them that they couldn't get over them till the 2nd trimester.  It at least claimed (although, note, this is one of the subjects where I try to be really skeptical about both side's claims.) that, if they wanted to cut down on 2nd trimester abortions, the best way to do it would be to stop throwing up blocks to 1st term abortions.  

 

[PF Chang]

1. Hard to draw conclusions from polling on this issue. Like with twa's heartbeat polling - do the people responding fully understand what that means, that it would effectively be a total abortion ban? If given the full context, it's unlikely that 55% of Democrats are supporting a heartbeat bill. 

 

It's like Medicare for All polling. Support goes down if the question is presented with the context that your taxes will go up. You'd think people would already realize that we aren't going to fund MFA just by raising taxes on Jeff Bezos, but there are big swings in support depending on how you frame the question. 

 

2.  This issue is not about how it personally affects you. My mom had me when she was a teenager so I had generally pro-life views when I was younger. Then I grew up a bit and realized that the world doesn't actually revolve around me. 

 

 

 

[superozman]

6 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

So if these two “adults” are unable to unwilling to raise the child then the child should suffer because of it?  Or what if one is unwilling and then the other has to care for this child on its own?  Or what if they are 14 and have no way to get a job or support this child because they’re a child themselves?

 

Theres a lot that I can appreciate about your argument, but this I cannot.  The “ if they didn’t wanna have a baby then they shouldn’t have had sex” argument is simple and lacks nuance.

 

It sounds like you got the best possible scenario, which has built your life view and I can appreciate that.  But you should also realize that not everyone is as lucky as yourself.

 

First - definitely thank you for a polite response.  I was nervous if I was going to get blasted for a second.  I'll respond to points, we will probably see where we fundamentally disagree, which could be interesting to take other's points.

 

Unable/unwilling/Child suffer.  -  This is where adoption comes into play.  I understand it is difficult to put up for adoption, I've read countless stories.  However, to me, how is one able to reconcile killing an unborn.  Unwilling parents, I have no sympathy.  I still fall back to you have an adult responsibility now that you created human life, due to taking part in sex.  There are many contraceptive ideas out there.  Go use one or multiple (Just not multiple condoms at once, ha!).  While you think that argument lacks nuance, I say the same for unwilling parents.  Child suffering - I would assume you mean in life because they have parents unwilling.  I would hope adults around that child step in, or the parents natural parenting skills come out.  Age, understand age, that's something i'm wavering on.  I think thats a separate convo and for here I can give you that argument.

 

I know, I for sure am super lucky.  In my adoption group of parents, there were 5 given in it.  4 had FAS, the other was me.  Its humbling sitting back and thinking on my life's path.  Which is why I hope that path for more kids.  But it first starts with the to be parents who might be unwilling or unable to say  "I am unwilling, I am unable.  There is a life inside one of us and that life has a right to be the best person they can be.  I will take care of them, and if I decide I cannot take the best care of them after birth, there are many parents looking for babies out there for this person to have a better life."

[bearrock]

43 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Um, that is not what Roe v Wade says.  

 

 

 

Again, you want to read Casey.

 

Quote

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

 

Roe used trimester approach which is no longer the framework after Casey.  Casey switched to pre-viability vs post-viability.  The portion you quoted from Roe is second trimester, which is akin to post-viability.  But as you can see from Casey, pre-viability abortion is recognized as a protected constitutional right.

[NoCalMike]

29 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

It's like Medicare for All polling. Support goes down if the question is presented with the context that your taxes will go up. You'd think people would already realize that we aren't going to fund MFA just by raising taxes on Jeff Bezos, but there are big swings in support depending on how you frame the question. 

 

Right. You can take a complex issue but ask a simple question a certain way in order to skew the responses.  The MFA example, majority want it, majority are weary of their taxes going up, however........majority would be good with the trade off of higher taxes in exchange for zero premiums because it is a net lower cost.

[Springfield]

56 minutes ago, superozman said:

 

First - definitely thank you for a polite response.  I was nervous if I was going to get blasted for a second.  I'll respond to points, we will probably see where we fundamentally disagree, which could be interesting to take other's points.

 

Unable/unwilling/Child suffer.  -  This is where adoption comes into play.  I understand it is difficult to put up for adoption, I've read countless stories.  However, to me, how is one able to reconcile killing an unborn.  Unwilling parents, I have no sympathy.  I still fall back to you have an adult responsibility now that you created human life, due to taking part in sex.  There are many contraceptive ideas out there.  Go use one or multiple (Just not multiple condoms at once, ha!).  While you think that argument lacks nuance, I say the same for unwilling parents.  Child suffering - I would assume you mean in life because they have parents unwilling.  I would hope adults around that child step in, or the parents natural parenting skills come out.  Age, understand age, that's something i'm wavering on.  I think thats a separate convo and for here I can give you that argument.

 

I know, I for sure am super lucky.  In my adoption group of parents, there were 5 given in it.  4 had FAS, the other was me.  Its humbling sitting back and thinking on my life's path.  Which is why I hope that path for more kids.  But it first starts with the to be parents who might be unwilling or unable to say  "I am unwilling, I am unable.  There is a life inside one of us and that life has a right to be the best person they can be.  I will take care of them, and if I decide I cannot take the best care of them after birth, there are many parents looking for babies out there for this person to have a better life."

 

All well with that and I respect your views on the matter.  Mine differ a bit.  I’ve engaged in too many arguments on this board over the years to really have the effort to argue much more about it.

 

Its not a subject that is top priority to me.  I would never vote/not vote for someone because of their views on abortion.

 

I think that we both ultimately want the same type of thing but don’t necessarily agree on every aspect.

[visionary]

By the way, I don't get why they included the up to 99 years in prison punishment, which seems likely to get it shot down or at the least told to come back with something else.  

 

But that said, is it possible/likely the bill is declared unconstitutional, but in the process the justices say that there is no right to an abortion or something like that?   I assume that's the overall attempt here.  Anyone have an idea what the argument would be (if they do overturn abortion precedent)?

Edited May 15, 2019 by visionary

[PeterMP]

28 minutes ago, visionary said:

By the way, I don't get why they included the up to 99 years in prison punishment, which seems likely to get it shot down or at the least told to come back with something else.  

 

But that said, is it possible/likely the bill is declared unconstitutional, but in the process the justices say that there is no right to an abortion or something like that?   I assume that's the overall attempt here.  Anyone have an idea what the argument would be (if they do overturn abortion precedent)?

 

I think for the Supreme Court, the simple explanation would be it isn't an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. (That's essentially Rehnquist and Scalia's argument in Casey.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#The_undue_burden_standard

 

The conclusion then is it is a state's rights issue.

 

They aren't asserting that the fetus has rights, but that the federal government doesn't have the power to restrict the states from passing anti-abortion laws.

 

(Though, as already pointed out this is going to be a case where the situation is going to escalate for the right.  If Roe v. Wade comes down, states will be able to restrict abortion, but the next case for the right will be to have federal restrictions against abortion and to see Constitutional rights granted to the fetus and move to make abortion illegal on the federal level.  This is a/the supreme moral issue for many on the right.  While legally, they may make academic arguments about the limits on federal power and state's rights, they don't actually care about state's rights (and will gladly oppose them on a whole host of other issues).

 

They aren't going to be happy just with abortions being illegal in AL or whatever other state.  They will want them to be illegal everywhere in the country, and the only way you get to that is if the fetus has legal protections under the Constitution.  They will go very quickly from arguing that since the Constitution doesn't mention abortion and fetus so that it should be a state's right to that the Constitutional protections should extend to a fetus.

 

Even in the recent past, the right has cried state's rights in courts, while trying to pass federal anti-late term abortion laws.)

Edited May 15, 2019 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

Again, you want to read Casey.

 

 

Roe used trimester approach which is no longer the framework after Casey.  Casey switched to pre-viability vs post-viability.  The portion you quoted from Roe is second trimester, which is akin to post-viability.  But as you can see from Casey, pre-viability abortion is recognized as a protected constitutional right.

 

Again, that is not what Roe says.  I get you can cite other cases that get us to where we are today.  But those are just that, other cases.  Roe does not say what people often claim it says.

[visionary]

 

[superozman]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

 

All well with that and I respect your views on the matter.  Mine differ a bit.  I’ve engaged in too many arguments on this board over the years to really have the effort to argue much more about it.

 

Its not a subject that is top priority to me.  I would never vote/not vote for someone because of their views on abortion.

 

I think that we both ultimately want the same type of thing but don’t necessarily agree on every aspect.

 

Amen! 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

By the way, I don't get why they included the up to 99 years in prison punishment, which seems likely to get it shot down or at the least told to come back with something else.  

 

I get the impression that a lot of legislation of this type is a case of "Pass the most extreme, whackjob piece of legislation that you can, and then ask the court to in effect write the most extreme legislation that the court will allow."  

 

[bearrock]

51 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Again, that is not what Roe says.  I get you can cite other cases that get us to where we are today.  But those are just that, other cases.  Roe does not say what people often claim it says.

 

Okay, if we are talking about what Roe v. Wade held as opposed to what the Supreme Court precedent is regarding abortion today, we can do that.

 

You said Roe v. Wade did not come close to ruling that abortion is a woman's right.  Roe v. Wade did rule that during the first trimester, it is absolutely a woman's right.  Roe ruled that during the second trimester, government can regulate to protect a woman's health, but still not ban it.  So, is the choice to have an abortion still a woman's decision in the second trimester?  Yes.  Government's authority to regulate it for the limited purpose of protecting a woman's health doesn't mean that the right is now extinguished.  Third trimester, now the government can ban, it's no longer a right. 

 

I suppose one would have to parse whether the three trimester approach laid out in Roe doesn't come close to saying that "abortion is a woman's right".  I suppose I would concede the statement is too simplistic.  It's a right during trimester one and two only.  But not even close to ruling that abortion is a woman's right?  I don't know how that statement is close to being accurate.  Most people's statements about constitutional rights are overly simplistic.  We have freedom of speech.  Well, yeah, with exceptions.  We have the right to bear arms.  Again with exceptions.  So on and so on.  But we still wouldn't say that the position that US Constitution recognizes freedom of speech isn't even close to being accurate.

 

Now, I pointed out that Casey (which is the relevant precedent with respect to abortion right as Casey overruled the specific mechanics of Roe) did specifically say that abortion is a right pre-viability.  You said that's not what Roe said.  I suppose you could have been pointing out that "hey, I wasn't talking about what abortion rights are in this country as of now.  I was talking about the holdings of Roe, in a purely academic, but no longer legally relevant, fashion."  In which case, let me amend by saying that Roe did hold specifically that abortion is a woman's right in the 1st trimester without qualification and still a woman's right in the 2nd trimester with very limited ability to regulate.  

 

So, in summary, if we are having an academic discussion on the holdings of Roe, yes it did hold that abortion is a woman's right in 2 out of the 3 trimesters.  If we are having a discussion on what the law is today as to abortion, abortion is a woman's right pre-viability.  The reason that lawyers talk about Casey is that while Roe is famous and often used as a shorthand for Supreme Court case law recognizing a woman's right to abortion, it is no longer the controlling precedent when it comes to the actual implementation of the balancing of interest involved in evaluating a woman's rights to abortion.  

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

You said Roe v. Wade did not come close to ruling that abortion is a woman's right.  Roe v. Wade did rule that during the first trimester, it is absolutely a woman's right.  Roe ruled that during the second trimester, government can regulate to protect a woman's health, but still not ban it.  So, is the choice to have an abortion still a woman's decision in the second trimester?  Yes.  Government's authority to regulate it for the limited purpose of protecting a woman's health doesn't mean that the right is now extinguished.  Third trimester, now the government can ban, it's no longer a right. 

I thought reading is fundamental but apparently not.  I never said Roe "didnt come close to ruling that an abortion is a women's right."  I said it did not say "abortion is a right and that's that."

 

And thanks for basically rewriting what I posted regarding what Roe says.  

 

My point was Roe doesn't say what people think it says.  I'm glad we agree on what it DID say.  Other cases have come along to "redefine" abortion rights, such as Casey.  

 

My point was that people want to talk about abortion law and what is or isn't legal yet don't know these major cases and what they said.

 

I'm sorry but if you want to assert a womens right to abortion and use Roe to make your point, it'd be good if you (the proverbial you) actually knew what it ****ing says.

 

It's like someone trying to get into a nuanced discussion on gun control but not have a clue what Heller is.

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think for the Supreme Court, the simple explanation would be it isn't an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. (That's essentially Rehnquist and Scalia's argument in Casey.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#The_undue_burden_standard

 

The conclusion then is it is a state's rights issue.

 

They aren't asserting that the fetus has rights, but that the federal government doesn't have the power to restrict the states from passing anti-abortion laws.

 

(Though, as already pointed out this is going to be a case where the situation is going to escalate for the right.  If Roe v. Wade comes down, states will be able to restrict abortion, but the next case for the right will be to have federal restrictions against abortion and to see Constitutional rights granted to the fetus and move to make abortion illegal on the federal level.  This is a/the supreme moral issue for many on the right.  While legally, they may make academic arguments about the limits on federal power and state's rights, they don't actually care about state's rights (and will gladly oppose them on a whole host of other issues).

 

They aren't going to be happy just with abortions being illegal in AL or whatever other state.  They will want them to be illegal everywhere in the country, and the only way you get to that is if the fetus has legal protections under the Constitution.  They will go very quickly from arguing that since the Constitution doesn't mention abortion and fetus so that it should be a state's right to that the Constitutional protections should extend to a fetus.

 

Even in the recent past, the right has cried state's rights in courts, while trying to pass federal anti-late term abortion laws.)

I think this is a good and accurate summation. I guess I fall into the category that at some point a fetus should gain constitutional protections (not at conception for me though), for me that would be when it becomes viable outside the womb. 21 weeks 5 days is the current record for a baby to survive outside the womb, I'd set the cutt-off at 20 weeks for Constitutional protections to kick in.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I think this is a good and accurate summation. I guess I fall into the category that at some point a fetus should gain constitutional protections (not at conception for me though), for me that would be when it becomes viable outside the womb. 21 weeks 5 days is the current record for a baby to survive outside the womb, I'd set the cutt-off at 20 weeks for Constitutional protections to kick in.

 

I'm kinda in the same place as you.  (I'd say that unlimited abortion up till birth is too extreme, but full granting of personhood at conception is too far the other way.)  

 

I'm not sure that I'd say "viability" is the point I'd pick, though.  

 

Among other things, I think I'd have a problem with a policy which can be described as "well, ma'am, if we were to spend $30M, right now, then there's a one change in 1,000 that your fetus would set a new record for most premature fetus to live to age 1.  But we're not going to spend that money, therefore you are legally required to donate your body to being it's life support, whether you consent or not."  

 

(Yes, I intentionally phrased that in the most negative way possible.  I'm not trying to say that's the only way it can be described.)  

 

My view is more along the lines that I think society will be best is every child is born to a couple who sat down and spent several days seriously thinking about the responsabilities of parenthood.  And made a conscious, informed, affirmative decision to assume that responsibility.  

 

I'd like it if that period of reflection occurred before they had sex.  But I'm aware that that's an unreasonable wish on my part.  

 

And I reflect that right now, we have rules, for example, stating at when any person purchases a product through the mail, the merchant is required to give him 30 days to change his mind.  It was passed in recognition that people who buy things which they can't see until after they purchase it, can decide that the reality doesn't match the expectation.  They're required to give the purchaser time to change his mind.  

 

I feel like, if we have to give people 30 days to change their mind after clicking "buy" on a tee shirt, then the decision to become a parent is a lot more major.  (And frankly, the vast majority of the people making this decision never even decided to get pregnant.  They decided to have sex, and decided some combination of (it won't happen/this kind of birth control is good enough/or whatever).  

 

So, I feel like we need to give people who've just discovered that they're pregnant some kind of window to back out.  With no other reason that "I've decided not to do that".  

 

I'm not sure that window needs to be longer than, say, 30 days.  I'm cool with a position of "well, we gave you time to think it over.  And you didn't pull the handle.  Now, you're committed.  That window doesn't last forever."  

[bearrock]

21 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I thought reading is fundamental but apparently not.  I never said Roe "didnt come close to ruling that an abortion is a women's right."  I said it did not say "abortion is a right and that's that."

 

And thanks for basically rewriting what I posted regarding what Roe says.  

 

My point was Roe doesn't say what people think it says.  I'm glad we agree on what it DID say.  Other cases have come along to "redefine" abortion rights, such as Casey.  

 

My point was that people want to talk about abortion law and what is or isn't legal yet don't know these major cases and what they said.

 

I'm sorry but if you want to assert a womens right to abortion and use Roe to make your point, it'd be good if you (the proverbial you) actually knew what it ****ing says.

 

It's like someone trying to get into a nuanced discussion on gun control but not have a clue what Heller is.

 

Most people talk about constitutional rights in broad stroke.  We have freedom xyz.  Those statements are almost never accurate because off the top of my head, I can't think of a single constitutional right that is absolute in every situation.  

 

Again, Roe did rule that "abortion is a woman's right and that is that" during the first trimester and mostly during the second trimester.  Is that not even close to "abortion is a woman's right and that is that"?  

 

And my original point and response was that Casey held that pre-viability, abortion is a woman's right.  You brought up Roe's second trimester and said that's not Roe said.  Well, if we are discussing what abortion precedents held and what people's notion (or mistaken notion) of abortion rights are, Roe is no longer even relevant to the discussion, so I'm not sure how bringing up Roe in attempted rebuttal to what Casey held makes any sense.  If you're engaging in some academic discussion of Roe, then yeah technically you can say "Roe held abortion is a woman's right and that is that" is inaccurate, but in the sense that almost all simplistic absolute statements about constitutional rights are inaccurate.  Almost no one outside of legal academic circles would have a full appreciation of what Supreme Court cases held and their effect.  But that doesn't mean that people don't understand the general significance of the cases (even if their statements would never hold up to exact parsing by a legal scholar).  How many con law cases do you think you can discuss with full accuracy and context?  Does that make you unqualified to discuss constitutional issues?

[StillUnknown]

3 hours ago, visionary said:

By the way, I don't get why they included the up to 99 years in prison punishment, which seems likely to get it shot down or at the least told to come back with something else.  

 

But that said, is it possible/likely the bill is declared unconstitutional, but in the process the justices say that there is no right to an abortion or something like that?   I assume that's the overall attempt here.  Anyone have an idea what the argument would be (if they do overturn abortion precedent)?

 

It would be fitting in how Murica is trending that a woman who was raped and had an abortion would receive more jail time than her rapist

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by visionary

[tshile]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

I think this is a good and accurate summation. I guess I fall into the category that at some point a fetus should gain constitutional protections (not at conception for me though), for me that would be when it becomes viable outside the womb. 21 weeks 5 days is the current record for a baby to survive outside the womb, I'd set the cutt-off at 20 weeks for Constitutional protections to kick in.

 

Not to comment on either side, but this just made me think... what if that creates a situation where people believe it is advantageous to try to “beat that record”?

 

(If your gut reaction to that is “come on that’s absurd” my rebuttal is: modern day American democracy

all social and moral norms appear debatable)

 

[Renegade7]

Maybe if these old ass dudes cared how painful labor is they wouldn't be forcing women to go through it.  They don't, its such an easy vote for them because it's not their problem.

[visionary]

Signed into law by a female governor.