Abortion Rights On the Chopping Block

Post Reply New Topic

Absolutely! And Weicker, Javits, Pataki…

One of the justices compared Roe to the case that established racial segregation when he was trying to make a point about how precedents can and have been overturned by the Supreme Court.

That, and also even women who do want to have a baby get abortions like in cases where the pregnancy becomes too dangerous, or something is severely wrong with the fetus. Basically, women have even had to abort when they planned on having a baby.

But would that apply nowadays? Are you saying different races are going to be treated differently under this new law?

I would hope not. I do have my concerns about the implications of overturning Roe, though.

So if the race segratation will not apply nowadays, then why was it brought before then, as if it's going to be a problem?

The justice was trying to make a point that the case that struck down racial segregation also struck down precedent. Roe is considered precedent.

But I don't understand how that is relevant today in terms of race segragation, if there is no segragation issue today.

In which case in makes sense to have an abortion.

So why wouldn't it make sense to get an abortion if you get an unwanted pregnancy?

Especially if you have health concerns that could affect pregnancy and also already know you can't afford the medical bills let alone taking care of a child? Me and my boyfriend already have firmly decided against having kids so if we realize we'd go the morning after pill route and abortion route beyond that. It is likely more the women who want to have children and something goes wrong that end up needing later abortions...so really it doesn't even punish the 'child-free' as severely as those who for medical reasons end up needing an abortion.

If a texas doctor is not allowed to perform an abortion after 6 weeks, it means they aren't allowed to save the mother if something goes wrong after that time period without facing potential legal consequences.

It’s not relevant to segregation. In the past, the SCOTUS upheld segregation with Plessy v. Ferguson with respect to SCOTUS precedent. Jim Crow laws followed, and due to precedent were allowed to stand…

…UNTIL Brown v. Board of Education. Precedent held that as long as blacks were given equal treatment under the law, segregation was constitutional. At this point SCOTUS found that separate meant blacks were inherently unequal, hence segregation was unconstitutional.

Fast forward to today. If Roe were to be overturned, it would undo decades of precedents, accomplishing the same for abortion as what Brown did for segregation. It is not unheard of for SCOTUS to reverse itself. It’s just that it’s rare for SCOTUS to do that. Extremely rare. The problem for anti-abortion lawyers is that the arguments presented in favor of killing abortion are entirely emotionally driven or they are religious arguments. Or if they happen to be “legal” arguments, they are very vague. Or if none of the above, they actually accept the premise of pro-abortion arguments. The Mississippi argument (I kid you not) is that women have access to services on such a high level and are doing so well as low-income, single mothers, that there is no need to have an abortion to do everything women ordinarily do. The theory is that women already have support systems within the community, therefore allowing abortion actually HARMS women and backpedals on everything that has been done to empower them. The argument requires accepting that all women are part of a special victim class who needs protection.

I agree that women do deserve protection. I just don’t agree that the need for protection requires murder. Murder is defined as unjustified killing. When a person’s life is in imminent danger from another person, it’s self defense. When a person’s existence is inconvenient, it’s murder—because, honestly, I can name a hundred or so people I’d rather not have existed. Them being a pain in the butt doesn’t give me the right to kill them.

Someone knows really little on motherhood.

Because not wanting someone is not an excuse to commit murder.


I think I heard something about that. In Mississippi, there would still be exceptions. I think the Texas law (assuming you are right) goes too far. But that’s not even what makes the Texas law interesting. What’s interesting about the Texas law is that it places the burden for ENFORCEMENT on individuals. I can’t imagine why anyone would do that…except maybe a couple is in the middle of a divorce, the father wants the child but she doesn’t. I could see it as protecting the rights of BOTH parents or sets of families involved. Otherwise, the Texas law is purely symbolic. Who would actually enforce it? The Texas law is just weird, and the courts are already confused about how to proceed with something like this. That’s the real problem. If a law mainly exists as a symbol, what is the interest in getting rid of it? And the answer is simply the fear that if you have ANY law restricting abortion, it opens a pathway towards further restrictions.

And that’s why it’s not possible to ban abortion completely. Doctors must always be free to use whatever emergency, life-saving procedure they must. In developing countries, there have been some techniques designed to deliver babies after placenta previa. They always result in the death of the baby and are barbaric, but always save the life of the mother. Well…better that than losing them BOTH, no matter how horrible and disgusting. At least here doctors are more than skilled enough to perform a C-section. My point being that with the array of medical procedures and treatments available, it is increasingly unnecessary that the baby has to die to save the mother. Until the day comes that no baby ever has to die, abortion has to stay on the table as an option.

Abortions done to save the mother’s life are still allowed.

I don't know the Texas context but in theory, they're allowed here.
In practice... https://polishnews.co.uk/death-of-a-30- ... s-with-it/
When docs feel threatned, they often choose not to act.

Taking the Morning-After Pill would render all these arguments a moot point.

Abortion is a hard business.

I have found, actually, that once one becomes a Supreme Court Justice for a while, that individual justices tend to veer more towards the center ideologically.

One of the most "liberal" Justices in the recent Supreme Court was a Nixon appointee. His name was John Paul Stevens.

And the Supreme Court, it should be remembered, struck down Trump severely when he was disputing the 2020 election results.

I don't feel Roe Versus Wade is necessarily threatened.