The Dobbs Decision

[dneal]

Chuck's abortion thread is (rightly) focused on the ethics of the recent SCOTUS decision, but for those interested in the decision itself, the link to it on the SCOTUS site is HERE. The syllabus is 7 1/2 pages, and not a difficult read.

I got around to reading the other concurring opinions. Thomas is mainly arguing against substantive due process, how it differs from due process and was an invention of the court. Ok...

Kavanaugh writes largely a reiteration of the problems with the Roe decision and about stare decisis - but adds a paragraph on how he sees no legal problem with people traveling to another state for an abortion (i.e.: the state of residence can't pass a law to forbid it due to the interstate commerce clause) - I assume to temper some of the backlash of the decision.

Roberts seems to mumble about judicial restraint, and how the court could have left the abortion "right" of Roe in effect, but ruled Mississippi's 15 week law was not contradictory with Roe. Basically continuing the same problem Roe (and Casey) created - a set of goal posts whose position is not only ambiguous, but easily moved if a new ambiguous location needs determined.

Most disappointing though was the dissent from Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. After a brief history of Roe and how it was rightly decided, and how "...the Court struck a balance, as it often does when values and goals compete."

It continues with:

"It held that the State could prohibit abortions after fetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions to safeguard a woman’s life or health. It held that even before viability, the State could regulate the abortion procedure in multiple and meaningful ways. But until the viability line was crossed, the Court held, a State could not impose a “substantial obstacle” on a woman’s “right to elect the procedure” as she (not the gov- ernment) thought proper, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life. Ibid.
Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of."

That lack of precision of language and/or hyperbole seems inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. The dissent seems more like an argument a lawyer would present to a judge, and not something delivered by one. Can women no longer own property? Vote? The use of that language is lazy at best, and irresponsible at worst.

In related news, Thomas seems to be a big target over all this and the "N" word is being used liberally. I have no idea what that's all about. Celebrities and other "checkmark" people are excoriating him. Samuel Jackson, for example (comparatively mildly) says "How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!" (Loving v Virginia legalizes interracial marriage). Calls for assassinations are reportedly spreading.

[Lloyd]

Is there anything now restricting a state from taking away all intentional terminations of pregnancy? Can a state define viable as at conception? At coitus?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Bit of a long read, if you include the opinions, and as I am not versed in law to any extent parts of it were a bit convoluted.

My opinion is that women should be allowed the right to choose abortion prior to the point of viability. However, in many ways this could be mitigated by a woman taking the morning after pill if she and her partner had unprotected sex without the intention of having children. A process which cannot be viewed any more as an abortion than what mostly happens naturally to many fertilised ova (up to 50% of the time apparently).

And of course for medical necessity.

The issue though has ramifications for women's rights beyond abortion. Like the right to choose not to have children, and therefore the right to choose not to have unprotected sex, even in marriage.

Further, I think it was Carlin (I know, I know) who had noted that conservatives are all over the rights of the unborn but once a baby is born they want nothing more to do with them. Whether that's true or not I don't know. Perhaps all the unwanted or forced upon pregnancies should, on birth, be put up for adoption or swaddled and left at the door of a conservative?

For women in the lowest socioeconomic deciles the presence of an additional mouth to feed creates additional burdens, pushes them further into poverty, means a child will likely be raised in less than ideal environment, promotes intergenerational poverty, and more than likely leads to increases in crime at a not so future date.

So, for me the question is not just about the right to abortion, it's also about what else is being done to address the problems of removing that right.

[dneal]

7 pages of a syllabus (summary) with margins that large is a long read? You don’t have to be versed in law. It’s not written in legalese. At most, you need a basic understanding of U.S. civics.

Get informed.

-edit-

While your at it (or not), read the first sentence of the OP.

[Lloyd]

Who's paying for poor women to go to a different state for an abortion?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Disney, and Dick’s Sporting Goods, apparently.

[Lloyd]

Disney, and Dick’s Sporting Goods, apparently.

If these women work at these places only.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

You can read 7½ page syllabus in a minute or two? 😳 Can you please give an answer to my question as it would take me far longer?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Empty_of_Clouds]

7 pages of a syllabus (summary) with margins that large is a long read? You don’t have to be versed in law. It’s not written in legalese. At most, you need a basic understanding of U.S. civics.

Get informed.

-edit-

While your at it (or not), read the first sentence of the OP.

EDIT TO ADD. I said

Bit of a long read, if you include the opinions,

I read the whole thing - it is 213 pages long.

BTW, I don't have a basic understanding of US civics. Kind of compounds my comprehension issues with the document.

Reading does not equate with getting informed. It never has.

[dneal]

I guess they’ll have to, if they want them to pay for their abortion travel.

I don’t think any of that was in the decision though.

[dneal]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

You can read 7½ page syllabus in a minute or two? 😳 Can you please give an answer to my question as it would take me far longer?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes, I can. I do read fast, but I’m certainly not a speed reader.

Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

[dneal]

Reading does not equate with getting informed. It never has

You’re moving from absurd to ridiculous. What is in a textbook, dictionary, or encyclopedia? Information.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Not at all. I've read many things and remained uninformed. Usually this is a reflection of how engaged I am with the material. It's neither absurd nor ridiculous - both of which are unnecessary judgments here.

[TSherbs]

I've read the syllabus. I am not particularly impressed with the reasoning. It smacks of the writing of a person who had already made up his mind before the case was presented and was just waiting for the opportunity to write the majority "opinion." Three judicial appointments in four years gets him that opportunity, and Dobbs is the case. Voila. Mission accomplished.

[dneal]

What do you see as the critical flaw in the reasoning? I thought you would like that the decision advocates for democracy, rather than old white men (well, one black and one female too) deciding things for women.

-edit-

Thank you for taking the time to read it first.

[Lloyd]

Did you read the syllabus? The answer is in there. It only takes a minute or two.

Get informed.

You can read 7½ page syllabus in a minute or two? 😳 Can you please give an answer to my question as it would take me far longer?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Yes, I can. I do read fast, but I’m certainly not a speed reader.

Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

I still don't see what's prohibiting a state from banning abortion after conception.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Because nothing is doing that. It’s up to the people of each state, through their elected representatives.

[Lloyd]

Because nothing is doing that. It’s up to the people of each state, through their elected representatives.

This explains to me the opposing justices' statements.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Because nothing is doing that. It’s up to the people of each state, through their elected representatives.

This explains to me the opposing justices' statements.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Maybe, but that’s not the role of the judiciary. To strike a balance, using their words. The role of the judiciary is to apply the law. The role of the legislature is to strike a balance, through debate and persuasion of the people. That’s how permissive abortion laws were enacted everywhere but here.