• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
And people accuse me of using emotionally loaded language.
Click to expand...
Letting you know that I would have a strong emotional reaction if I were denied a procedure that would save me a great deal of suffering because "Eh, you don't need it" is not "emotionally loaded language."

But if you want a response that does not acknowledge that human beings have emotions: you don't know what "medical necessity" means, either.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
BTW, 'abortion' or rather pregnancy termination in the third trimester is almost always because the mother gets into physical trouble like with a hypertensive crisis or failing heart or something like hemorrhaging in which case they always try to save the fetus/infant if they can, or, it's because the fetus is doomed or already dead.
Click to expand...

That brings up an odd dilemma, doesn't it? What constitutes a late term "abortion," anyway? One might suppose that accepted medical procedures and practices would prevail, but to assume so one might have to suppose that the persons fomenting these laws are not ignorant sanctimonious idiots, and that could be a fatal error.

Such issues should not even be a matter of concern or consideration, but those of us who, like MacDuff, were "ripp'd untimely" might have reason to question whether our, and our mothers', lives should be entrusted to politicians rather than doctors.
 
What would the Alito opinion mean in this scenario?

I have a scenario that I would like to know what people think would be the outcome if the Alito draft was adopted by a majority of SC judges.


By accident/violence/illness, a pregnant woman has become brain dead. She has a living will of not wanting to be kept alive as long as possible, and does not want to become an organ donor.
The pregnancy is past the arbitrary "heartbeat" line, but not anywhere where an early birth would be advisable and likely to result in a healthy child.

Does the Alito opinion mean that this woman's body has to be kept alive until the child can be extracted?
and if yes, who would have to pay for the hospital costs?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Does the Alito opinion mean that this woman's body has to be kept alive until the child can be extracted?
and if yes, who would have to pay for the hospital costs?
Click to expand...

In my uninformed opinion, probably yes and the woman's family would have to pay the medical costs. To fail to do so would leave the family open to charges of attempted murder.

Once the child is born however, the state has no interest in its welfare.
 
Meadmaker said:
I can't cite specific rulings, but I think that it's pretty clear. In every case I've ever heard of that was remotely similar, laws aren't applied retroactively. If it's legal at the time you did it, you can't be prosecuted. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, no one has to worry about being prosecuted for having or for assisting an abortion that occurred prior to Roe being overturned.

At least, so I'm told.
Click to expand...

(standard IANAL disclaimer)
Could someone argue that an overturned Roe v Wade doesn't change the law, but demonstrate that the blocked laws that are still on the books were constitutional all along, and go ahead and enforce past cases?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I have a scenario that I would like to know what people think would be the outcome if the Alito draft was adopted by a majority of SC judges.


By accident/violence/illness, a pregnant woman has become brain dead. She has a living will of not wanting to be kept alive as long as possible, and does not want to become an organ donor.
The pregnancy is past the arbitrary "heartbeat" line, but not anywhere where an early birth would be advisable and likely to result in a healthy child.

Does the Alito opinion mean that this woman's body has to be kept alive until the child can be extracted?
and if yes, who would have to pay for the hospital costs?
Click to expand...

No. The Alito opinion doesn't direct states to make any particular law. It seems clear in California that it would be acceptable to terminate the pregnancy
 
BobTheCoward said:
No. The Alito opinion doesn't direct states to make any particular law. It seems clear in California that it would be acceptable to terminate the pregnancy
Click to expand...

And anyone in Texas could then sue the family and hospital employees for committing abortion. A sensible legal system for a sensible nation.
 
This recent change in the courts reveals a nasty little fact about the Democrats, which is the history of their defense of these civil rights really isn't that good.

The party has been agnostic about the issue of Roe, allowing anti-abortion conservatives within their ranks. They considered it not a fight worth having because Roe made it a moot point.

The same could be said about gay rights. If Obergefell had not settled the issue, I very much doubt that gay marriage ever would have passed beyond the state level, because the Democrats at the national level weren't willing to support it.

With the courts pulling out the rug on these rights, are we supposed to pretend that Hillary didn't run with an anti-abortion VP, or that Obama famously was mealy mouthed about gay rights? These were not unique stances within the party which was happy to ride the fence and let the courts do all the heavy lifting.

The party is going to try to run on the idea that they are stalwart defenders of these lost rights, but the facts in evidence are quite lacking. The party, as it exists now, will certainly have to meaningfully and publicly reorganize on these issues if they want to have any credibility.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, a 50 year precedent, affirmed multiple times in related cases, seems to be solid enough that it doesn't need extra legislation, as the SC had determined that the Constitution was Law enough.

It's the failing of progressives to think that progress is always ratcheting up, and that certain advances can't be undone.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
To be fair, a 50 year precedent, affirmed multiple times in related cases, seems to be solid enough that it doesn't need extra legislation, as the SC had determined that the Constitution was Law enough.

It's the failing of progressives to think that progress is always ratcheting up, and that certain advances can't be undone.
Click to expand...

Changing circumstances demand changing stances.

The fact that leadership is still out stumping for an anti-choice candidate for the House of Representatives strikes me as hard to justify given these new circumstances. No SCOTUS is going to save the party from their own cowardice on these issues, this is no longer a pointless purity test.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
what about Mississippi, which is the law Alito is upholding?
Click to expand...

Technically, Alito's draft opinion does not uphold the Mississippi law. It overrules the Fifth Circuit's ruling against the law, and remands it back to the Fifth Circuit to be ruled on again consistent with this new decision. It is conceivable (though unlikely) that the Fifth might find some other reason besides Roe to overturn the law.
 
gnome said:
(standard IANAL disclaimer)
Could someone argue that an overturned Roe v Wade doesn't change the law, but demonstrate that the blocked laws that are still on the books were constitutional all along, and go ahead and enforce past cases?
Click to expand...

I could see someone trying.

It would be a good reason for more than just West Virginia adopting a desuetude doctrine as it would apply here imo.
 
gnome said:
(standard IANAL disclaimer)
Could someone argue that an overturned Roe v Wade doesn't change the law, but demonstrate that the blocked laws that are still on the books were constitutional all along, and go ahead and enforce past cases?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the term for it, but I think there's a legal principle along the lines of if some government body tells you something is permissible and you have good reason to believe them and you do it, and it turns out they were wrong, your justifiable reliance on their guidance relieves you of responsibility. The Supreme Court is certainly a proper authority figure to make such a declaration about legality, and if you rely on them, I believe that qualifies, even under the theory that the laws in question were constitutional all along.

IANAL either, but I can't realistically envision a scenario in which you can get in trouble for doing what the Supreme Court says you can do. I don't think anyone is interested in opening THAT can of worms.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The Alito decision does not direct Mississippi to do anything
Click to expand...

You are being inconsistent.
Mississippi is not asking the SC to do anything apart from letting its law going into effect.

And if it does (after a lower circuit round, which would go to Mississippi if the SC sides with Alito), the State would have to deal with scenarios as I described.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I have a scenario that I would like to know what people think would be the outcome if the Alito draft was adopted by a majority of SC judges.


By accident/violence/illness, a pregnant woman has become brain dead. She has a living will of not wanting to be kept alive as long as possible, and does not want to become an organ donor.
The pregnancy is past the arbitrary "heartbeat" line, but not anywhere where an early birth would be advisable and likely to result in a healthy child.

Does the Alito opinion mean that this woman's body has to be kept alive until the child can be extracted?
and if yes, who would have to pay for the hospital costs?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the Mississippi law requires that the mother be kept alive. From what I can tell of the Mississippi law, letting the woman die does not qualify as an abortion, even if the baby dies as a result. Here is how the law defines abortion:

(a) “Abortion” means the use or prescription of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable pregnancy for reasons other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the unborn human being, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn human being.​

So if you were to euthanize the woman with a drug, that might arguably qualify as an abortion, but just letting her die due to a lack of intervention would not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom