 |
| Will Roe V Wade Fade ?, or will survive in some form in some blue states? |
The "end" of Roe V Wade is coming ! Am not kidding you .SO AM GOING to Tell you why Abortion is going to hit the Dust . (1)>>I am against Abortion , only if the Mother's life is in danger , for the most part since Abortion was legal , it was never about a woman's right , it was more about a man controlling a woman to have abortion so the man could skip fatherhood . (1.2)>>Is it based on the 14 Amendment ? So what is UP with ABORTION ? After nearly two hours of arguments, all six conservative justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, indicated they would uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. At the very least, such a decision would undermine Roe and Casey (two key abortion cases), which allow states to regulate but not ban abortion up until the point of fetal viability, at roughly 24 weeks. (2)>>Some wanted to get rid of Roe and Casey altogether.Roe v Wade ("Roe") is a seminal court case near 50 years ago that started defining abortion rights in the United States. The decision held that women have a constitutional right to decide to have an abortion before viability, usually around 24 weeks. The last time the court was asked to overrule Roe, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey ("Casey"), it reaffirmed women’s right to decide when and whether they have children. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the first frontal, explicit challenge to Roe in almost 30 years. From the line of questioning in oral arguments this week, the 6-3 conservative court indicated, but did not decide, they might roll back some of Roe's protections. This is what many conservatives have hoped for and was the result of a key victory for former President Donald Trump in appointing 3 conservative Supreme Court Justices and drastically shifting the court. Most likely this would look like letting the states regulate abortions themselves far earlier like the "heartbeat" bills which is de facto ban on abortions. (as many women won't even know they are pregnant before the option of an abortion expires).
END of ROE V WADE ?
The supreme court has just concluded oral arguments in a case which could see roe v wade overturned. 12 states have what are called trigger laws that the moment roe v wade is overturned they will ban abortion there are many speculating that as soon as it happens. Many other states will also ban abortion and there will be a hard divide between red states and blue states as to whether or not they will allow abortion.Now, following the oral arguments, the consensus seems to be roe v wade will be will be overturned. The decision may come in spring but many personalities on the left are saying that's it it's over we've lost. One guy from Slate, a reporter, actually tweeted out roe v wade will be overturned in June of 2022.Based on the arguments this is the case, in fact NC news reported as well, based on the arguments from the conservative justices they seem to be leaning towards overturning roe v wade. (6)>>Abortion was completely legal in US till mid 20th century. It was also never discouraged by the church. Only when doctors started replacing herbalists and midwives governments started to regulate the industry. The Victorian morality did the rest.
NOTES AND COMMENTS :
(1)>>I am against Abortion , only if the Mother's life is in danger .As we see it, this is one of those rare, agonizing situations in which there are no simple or easy answers. What should a pregnant woman do if her physician advises her that carrying her baby to term will place her own life at serious risk (as is the case in many instances of ectopic pregnancy)? Our initial reaction would be to tell this mom to seek a second opinion about her condition from a different doctor, preferably one with strong pro-life convictions. If the diagnosis remains unchanged, then we would have to concede – though sadly and reluctantly – that this may be a case in which it would be morally acceptable for the mother to opt for treatment that may end the life of her preborn child.We would add a crucial distinction here between therapeutic treatment and abortion: While a preborn baby may not survive treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, the intent and goal is to save the mom’s life, not to end the life of the child. Such therapeutic action is never done simply to take the preborn child’s life – the same cannot be said for an elective abortion. Indeed, the often-used term “therapeutic abortion” is a misnomer since ending the life of a child is not a therapeutic act and is never, in itself, necessary and sufficient to save the mother’s life.(1.2)>>Is it based on the 14 Amendment ? The 14th Amendment was specifically adopted to outlaw slavery and fight blue laws. They were obviously not condoned by the authors of the amendment. However, laws regulating abortion were on the books at the time, and the 14th Amendment did not affect them whatsoever, so it is difficult to argue that the 14th Amendment has much to say on the matter.The 14th amendment is often sighted as well as the first (protection of private thoughts. Also roe v. Wade was not out of the blue the right to privacy had been established a few times before with Griswold v. Connecticut and Stanley v. Georgia. Where in the constitution is the power to regulate medical procedures enumerated? The constitution grants powers to the government and the Bill of Rights basically emphasizes the protection of some rights such as free speech and freedom of the press. The 9th amendment says that it is impossible to list all god-given rights or natural rights and that just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it can't be infringed upon. Privacy in medical decisions, in fact, can be inferred.(2)>>Some wanted to get rid of Roe and Casey . The most convincing version of this argument came from Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who predicted that the court, like it did in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v Casey, might weaken the abortion right without abandoning it entirely. In Casey, the supreme court lessened the standard of scrutiny applied to state abortion restrictions – from a robust “strict scrutiny” standard to a more malleable “undue burden” standard – and affirmed that states could ban abortions outright after fetal viability, the point of gestation at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, usually at about 24 weeks.(3)>>Heck, the Bible even goes into abortions . Isn't there an implication that the fetus is equivalent in value to the life of the man that causes the injury though? If killing the developing child begets "life for life"? The ambiguity here for me is that it mentions premature birth, which makes me think this applies to later term pregnancy only. Actually, it depends on the bible. I used to collect and compare different versions when I was religious. There is a surprising amount of wiggle room with how much god values things.Turns out, a lot of it has to do with the agenda of who is commissioning the new draft, whether that was last year or 1500 years ago. Anglican bibles are pretty vague on divorce language because the first to commission one, Henry VIII, wanted to divorce his wife. What a coincidence.I fold a corner of a Bible page to point at Ezekiel 23:20, just so it's easier for the faithful to stumble across.(4)>>I don't think women were voluntary going to Planned Parenthood on their own. Most abortion by "proxy" are forced abortions by men who don't want the responsibility of fatherhood. Legally, a woman's reproductive decisions are hers alone. But outside the courtroom, men — boyfriends and husbands — hold a lot of influence over those decisions. And that influence often manifests itself violently. Beyond these recent cases, there is evidence that many men resort to intimidation and violence to coerce women they've impregnated into aborting. So WAS this every a "woman's choice over her body ?"Political conservatives are routinely accused of waging a "war on women." But to find the real war on women, many women need look no further than their own bedrooms. [ see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/magazine/can-i-keep-a-baby-my-boyfriend-doesnt-want.html ] (5)>>As ALWAYS its LATE LATE TERM ABORTION . Don't understand with the introduction of the "pill" perfectly legal way to stop a pregnancy before it starts to develop into a fetus . Women are pushed into late term abortions ? It's always past the first trimester , which by then a baby is killed . Many of you may not have heard about Kermit Gosnell. He's a former physician who ran an abortion clinic. He was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. His victims? Aborted babies that were born alive and possibly viable.As for extremely late-term abortions and babies that were born alive, I think that should be illegal. Remember, this is my OPINION. (6)>>Abortion was completely legal in US till mid 20th century. Until the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business—including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press—was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."The case was about abortion, but the ruling was that physicians had a right to privacy in the way they handled their business which included counseling women to get abortions. They then made a bunch of overly specific conclusions about abortion and neglected to spread the "right to physician privacy" to other areas. If that seems bizarre and inconsistent, the reality is that roe v Wade was a terrible legal decision, and the justices were going for a specific outcome and just making up stuff to fit that outcome. Prior to roe v wade, the common law precedent (for hundreds of years) was that the state had a strong interest in preventing abortions after about 15 weeks (ie, it was universally a crime), and states could choose to make earlier restrictions.
