SCOTUS Nominee

[pcaggie]

Look, if you are on the right, put your Pom pons down. It will not be overturned. And to those on the left, put your pitchforks down. It will not be overturned. Women will be able to make their choice. It would be political suicide for Trump, and the rest of the R’s to confirm someone to overturn this decision. They will crow about RvW, but it is here. And to the D’s, find something else. Please. It will never be overturned. But they will crow about RvW to fear monger. I think that we have someone who will actually interpret the law, not legislate the law, that was nominated tonight. My problem is, like many other almost 40-50ish people (although not until Thanksgiving) is, that I am ‘Stuck In The Middle With You’. Happy medium. Find it.

 

[DrunkenViking]

Look, if you are on the right, put your Pom pons down. It will not be overturned. And to those on the left, put your pitchforks down. It will not be overturned. Women will be able to make their choice. It would be political suicide for Trump, and the rest of the R’s to confirm someone to overturn this decision. They will crow about RvW, but it is here. And to the D’s, find something else. Please. It will never be overturned. But they will crow about RvW to fear monger. I think that we have someone who will actually interpret the law, not legislate the law, that was nominated tonight. My problem is, like many other almost 40-50ish people (although not until Thanksgiving) is, that I am ‘Stuck In The Middle With You’. Happy medium. Find it.

Even if it were overturned abortion wouldn’t “become illegal.”

It’s stupid hysteria

 

[CowboyJD]

Even if it were overturned abortion wouldn’t “become illegal.”

It’s stupid hysteria

It absolutely would become illegal in a considerable number of states, including Oklahoma.

A number of states still have laws on the books making it illegal which would then be enforceable the second RvW was overturned. Some have proactively passed laws making it illegal with effective date of the day RvW is overturned.

It would not become illegal nationwide, but there are states where it would.

 

[DrunkenViking]

It would not become illegal nationwide

This was my point and the left acts as if this would be the case

I don’t think it would be completely illegal in the majority of states

More restrictions in many? Yes

 

[imprimis]

Re: R v W. Ban partial birth abortions and I'll be happy.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I hope it is overturned.

At the same time, people who call themselves pro-life should be so on both sides of the womb.

Make sure those kids are cared for.

 

[PDT816]

I think there's a reasonable chance RvW is overturned. Science has come a long way in 50 years.

 

[CowboyJD]

This was my point and the left acts as if this would be the case

I don’t think it would be completely illegal in the majority of states

More restrictions in many? Yes

Thanks for clarifying then, because when you said “wouldn’t become illegal”...it kind of sounded like you meant anywhere.

The fact that it wouldn’t be illegal to get an abortion in California isn’t real helpful or relevant to someone in Brownsville, TX though. I think it is a relevant concern for the left and many of their supporters.

 

[my_2cents]

I think there's a reasonable chance RvW is overturned. Science has come a long way in 50 years.

How has science made the central holding in Roe v. Wade or the undue burden standard adopted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey worth overturning?

 

[CowboyJD]

How has science made the central holding in Roe v. Wade or the undue burden standard adopted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey worth overturning?

The set trimester system based upon assumed viability periods at the time can certainly be rationally questioned by advances in science pushing viability closer to conception.

 

[CowboyJD]

Also, I’m not a scientist or a health professional, but the whole reasoning behind the basically absolute right to an abortion in the first trimester was that an abortion was nearly alway safer to the mother than carrying the fetus to full term.

As pre-natal maternal care improves, I could see that whole rationale being effectively questioned.

 

[my_2cents]

The set trimester system based upon assumed viability periods at the time can certainly be rationally questioned by advances in science pushing viability closer to conception.

What do you mean by "closer to conception?" If you mean by a couple of weeks in comparison to the 24th and 28th week, then yes that is correct. I think the 23rd week is now accepted by many doctors, which isn't that much of a change. And last I read about this, the earliest known survival was at 21 weeks and 4 days.

Still, viability varies and the Court's reasoning that it is a case by case determination is still accurate. Also, a slight change in assumed viability doesn't really change the central holding in Roe or the rational for the undue burden standard for abortion restrictions.

 

[CowboyJD]

As for Casey...it was just a 5-4 decision and written by three justices that are no longer on the court.

With the change in the court and medical advances, I could see the fact question of what constitutes an undue burden shifting as well.

 

[CowboyJD]

What do you mean by "closer to conception?" If you mean by a couple of weeks in comparison to the 24th and 28th week, then yes that is correct. I think the 23rd week is now accepted by many doctors, which isn't that much of a change. And last I read about this, the earliest known survival was at 21 weeks and 4 days.

Still, viability varies and the Court's reasoning that it is a case by case determination is still accurate. Also, a slight change in assumed viability doesn't really change the central holding in Roe or the rational for the undue burden standard for abortion restrictions.

What word in “closer to conception” do you not understand? You’re seem to be assuming that because viability varies just a little bit (according to you) from the assumed standard in RvW right now...that continued advances in medicine won’t decrease time to viability further.

While RvW speaks to the period “subsequent to viability”, the application of that decision has been based upon the three trimester assumption. As that assumption is show to be less and less accurate, the larger application of RvW....and even the reasoning behind the same....is rationally subject to question by medical science.

Finally, you’ve changed from “worth overturning” in your first question to “doesn’t change the central holding”. Those aren’t the same thing. As medical advances increase the “potential life” standard that can Constitutionally be protected by the state, a rational and reasonable argument can be made that RvW is “worth overturning”.

 

[my_2cents]

Also, I’m not a scientist or a health professional, but the whole reasoning behind the basically absolute right to an abortion in the first trimester was that an abortion was nearly alway safer to the mother than carrying the fetus to full term.

Casey replaced the trimester framework with a viability framework. The central holding in Roe didn't change though. And Casey allows for regulations on abortion before viability.

As for Casey...it was just a 5-4 decision and written by three justices that are no longer on the court.

With the change in the court and medical advances, I could see the fact question of what constitutes an undue burden shifting as well.

But Casey is the law and precedent.

Sure, changes in the court makeup (which is not changes in science and a separate argument) could always cause a shift. However, I don't see any medical advances that have occurred in the past 50 years that warrant overruling the holding in Roe or Casey.

 

[my_2cents]

What word in “closer to conception” do you not understand?

The degree of the shift. Viability has not shifted to the 8th week. Or the 12th week. I was just asking for more precision in your broad statement.

that continued advances in medicine won’t decrease time to viability further.

Are we talking about advances in the past 50 years or are we now talking about future advances?

 

[CowboyJD]

Casey replaced the trimester framework with a viability framework. The central holding in Roe didn't change though. And Casey allows for regulations on abortion before viability.

I understand that. I thought we were discussing the “worth” of overturning those central holdings based upon advances in science.

But Casey is the law and precedent.

I understand that as well, but I also thought our discussion was about the “worth” in overturning those decisions based upon advances in medical science.

Sure, changes in the court makeup (which is not changes in science and a separate argument) could always cause a shift. However, I don't see any medical advances that have occurred in the past 50 years that warrant overruling the holding in Roe or Casey.

You keep going back and forth between whether or not medical advances change the central holding in RvW and whether or not medical changes make it “worth” overturning RvW. Those aren’t the same thing. One is a legal question. One is a values question.

You’re last sentence is your true value statement as to your view on the “worth” of overruling Roe or Casey. I’m merely pointing out that reasonable minds could disagree with your “worth” evaluation of overturning those decisions based upon scientific advances advancing the “potential” for life.

I’m not even trying to convince you that those people are right...just that there are rational and reasonable positions based upon advances in medical science...that are different than your evaluation.

 

[my_2cents]

I understand that. I thought we were discussing the “worth” of overturning those central holdings based upon advances in science.

The original post that I responded to mentioned the advances in the past 50 years, which is why I asked about those advances.

I understand that as well, but I also thought our discussion was about the “worth” in overturning those decisions based upon advances in medical science.

In the past fifty years, yes, that is the discussion.

And again, I don't see any medical advances in the past 50 years that warrant overruling the central holding of Roe or Casey at this time.

I’m merely pointing out that reasonable minds could disagree with your “worth” evaluation of overturning those decisions based upon scientific advances advancing the “potential” for life.

That is why I asked my original question in response to such a claim. I'd like to read the argument that those reasonable minds would make at this point.

 

[CowboyJD]

The original post that I responded to mentioned the advances in the past 50 years, which is why I asked about those advances.



In the past fifty years, yes, that is the discussion.

And again, I don't see any medical advances in the past 50 years that warrant overruling the central holding of Roe or Casey at this time.



And that is why I asked my original question in response to such a claim. I'd like to read the argument that those reasonable minds would make at this point.

Which you have, and have rejected.

Which is....completely fine.

 

[my_2cents]

Which you have, and have rejected.

Which is....completely fine.

And I think it is an argument that would be rejected by the Courts as well.

But as are all things on this board, that is just my opinion.

 

[CowboyJD]

And I think it is an argument that would be rejected by the Courts as well.

But as are all things on this board, that is just my opinion.

Supreme Court...in fact, all courts...often rejects reasonable, rationale arguments.

 

[my_2cents]

Supreme Court...in fact, all courts...often rejects reasonable, rationale arguments.

Yes, because as you know, reasonable and rational isn't the only criteria that needs to be met.

 

[DrunkenViking]

Thanks for clarifying then, because when you said “wouldn’t become illegal”...it kind of sounded like you meant anywhere.

The fact that it wouldn’t be illegal to get an abortion in California isn’t real helpful or relevant to someone in Brownsville, TX though. I think it is a relevant concern for the left and many of their supporters.

On the opposite side of the spectrum you could have even worse than partial birth legalized.

 

[CowboyJD]

On the opposite side of the spectrum you could have even worse than partial birth legalized.

On the opposite side of what spectrum?

You don’t have statutes making something worse than partial birth (abortions, I presume) already in place just waiting for RvW to be overturned anywhere.

Overturning RvW wouldn’t have any effect on the power of the state to make any type of abortion procedure out there legal. RvW already isn’t a restriction in any way on the state to make any type of abortion at any time legal. It’s a restriction on the power of the state to criminalize certain abortions at certain times during the pregnancy.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

Heh

 

[imprimis]

 

[imprimis]

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]