Shouldn't it be the opposite? If you can't say for certain that is not a person, killing it should not be an option.
Except there is another person involved here to. In the absence of clear evidence shouldn’t you defer to that which is most obvious, that the women exist and has a right to body autonomy. Or is your argument that that persons right to body autonomy is less important than a possible person?
If you're going to make an argument that life begins at conception then you might as well make the argument to ban all masturbation. Sperm is life and each one would result in a different person should it fertilize the egg.
I think people are downplaying how big of an issue it will be in elections. If the SCOTUS takes it away next year, it will have immediate impacts, not 5 years down the line, but women will feel it right away. People always say "It's the economy" and just default think people vote with their wallets..but they do not. The economy could be doing alright and public opinion of a president could be sinking below 50% because narratives is what drives the voting public. At least today. In fact, Democratic presidents run better economies on average since 1945...ten of the last 11 recessions were all under GOP presidents. Most people honestly have no idea how good or bad the economy is doing, they just vote on how they feel. This is how Trump's policies destroyed economies in rural america and yet they still support him. They don't care about that ****. They like how Trump feels. People buy into a story. If the SCOTUS takes it away my guess is women will feel less free...that's why most of the country wants Roe left alone, it is overwhelmingly popular with women and in general is split among conservatives. I swear, and this is nothing against the board is, btu everyone that says "It's not a big deal." are men. Hear it from women, this is terrifying for many of them, it certainly limits their sexual freedom and bodily autonomy (contraception is not 100% before some dummy comes in here and mentions it) and I don't think they will lose some suburban votes...but most of them. If people actually listen to women on this (as they should) this isn't some small thing, this affects their entire fate. This is something a small religious minority is forcing upon the country because they foolishly think it's going to convince people to come back to religion. It'll do the opposite. People do care about the economy, but no matter how hard the GOP fear mongers about it, it's not bad enough to where it's an actual story. Like Great Depression or Great Recession bad. I feel like what awins is the story behind the politician. For Biden it was a rejection of Trump, the most unpopular president in modern history. Biden was just a 'return to normal' and that's what people want. Now people are finding out "Oh yea, normal kind of suck. I still don't have affordable health care. My wages are still low..." For Trump it was exactly that. People wanting to overturn the applecart on the right while people on the left just didn't care. They didn't feel Clinton would change anything. For Obama it was the chance of this young guy, great speaker, bringing complete change to Washington. He was going to shake things up, etc etc. So I do think that Abortion rights being taken away can present a narrative for a liberal president to run on and midterm. One of fear, that the other party is no longer talking about taking rights away. They are doing it. It's one easier to sell to women at least. I'm not sure how large of an effect it will have but it will have some effect, it's a complete wildcard, and with how many elections have been close if I were a conservative I wouldn't be so sure of counting my chickens. SCOTUS taking this away would be a monumental thing. We can see how it worked out in other countries as an example, it didn't fare well for the party taking it away. On a separate note, I'm not sure what the GOP plans on accomplishing with this. It's not going to change any minds, you're not going to force people into becoming hardcore Christians through this, you're just going to piss people off and move them further away from religion...and the people you make happy will have voted for you anyways...so I feel like this has 0 benefits for the GOP moving forward. They are just openly going against the will of a pretty large majority. That's a big risk to take on a large issue like this. EDIT: One last thing, the polling on abortion and its priority to voters is tricky. Polls show that most americans, a super vast majority, don't think it'll ever be illegal, so of course it isn't a huge issue to them. It would be like polling people about child labor laws...not a big deal because no one thinks it's even up for debate seriously...but it was a big issue for those religious folk that want to force it on everyone else, and once/if its taken away, I imagine it's going to become much more of a priority. I guess we'll see. One thing people aren't considering is SCOTUS upholding the MS law and trying to codify a 15 week ban, which actually most of the country might agree on...and most abortions are in this time period too, maybe 17-18 weeks would be better but they aren't writing the law obviously...but it might sit a lot better with the suburban moderates as to not be much of an issue come election time.
@JayGoogle that was a great post. I feel exactly the way you do. Regarding the current case, I personally don't think the court will overturn Roe v Wade, but this version of MS law will likely stay in place based on the quotes I've read from the justices. Like you said, considering that the majority abortions happen before this, I don't think it's nearly as catastrophic as others think. I don't necessarily agree with it, but as we've said in the past, elections have consequences, and the Trump presidency allowed McConnell to establish the Republican legacy. I agree with @SamFisher and the BS of a non-elected court, but for now it's the BS we have to deal with unless it changes down the road. Justice Breyer really needs to GTOF to allow a younger liberal justice to be appointed. The last thing we need is for Democrats to lose the Senate majority and not be able to replace this fool if he dies on the court. Age limits should be set to public servants. I don't have anything against old people, but ****, step aside and let the younger generation come take over.
True that's not the particular argument being made in this case but was replying specifically to Andre's statement.
As I said in my earlier post a lot depends on what the ruling will be. I think it's highly doubtful that there will be a ruling that outlaws all abortion. As Kavanaugh noted even if Roe is overturned that will just mean that the states can decide whether to keep it or not. While overturning Roe will be a big rallying cry if abortion is still legal even in a limited form I'm not sure it will be as much of a swing issue as what people might think. Given the demographic breakdown it will likely turn out more votes in already blue districts while not having much effect in red districts. Given gerrymandering it might not be enough to swing the purple districts that are in play. Unfortunately economic issues tend to be a far better indicator of voting and I think where the economy stands will be a better indication of the fate of the Democrats in 2022 or 2024 than what happens from this case.
If they return it to state rights though nearly half of the country, right away, will have strict abortion laws ready to go, who knows how many other states will try to follow suit. I think it's being massively downplayed and I always felt like that whole 'Vote with their wallets' gets too much credence. If that were true, the GOP wouldn't have the power they do, Democrats just run better economies by and large and most people somehow think the GOP runs it better despite numbers, despite nearly all recessions being under Republicans...but Republicans have created a narrative that they are careful with the purse, that they don't like to spend (lol) while they make the Democrats look like your kid asking to buy a new toy every week. I feel it would be better to say that the narrative around economic issues have an impact, especially since the economy affects everyone differently. I mean, even if it's just going to strengthen blue areas, that still has a pretty strong effect on the election as it allows Democrats to play offense in elections they think they can win and less defense on areas that they might have thought were in trouble. I guess we'll see what they do, I think this becomes a large issue if overturned, the reason it doesn't feel like it now is because IIRC like only 10% of people ever thought it would happen. It's like I mentioned about child labor, that's not a big issue because people don't think we're ever going to have child labor again...but if tomorrow the SCOTUS made some ruling that returned child labor laws to the early 1900s, it would instantly become an issue. Most people don't think the SCOTUS will go through with it, even I think they won't. I think at worse they'll uphold the MS law weaken Roe to 15 weeks which isn't as terrible as it sounds as the vast majority of abortions happen in this time frame anyway.
Also yes...Breyer is why Democrats lose. Always playing short term politics, right now politics, instead of the long game. He should have retired ASAP and we should already have a new liberal judge on the court to at least prevent further damage but the naievete from democrats and never playing the longer term is destroying them. They don't realize the GOP isn't playing the same game, the GOP is playing for keeps. They'd have a complete SCOTUS right wing court if it were up to them with 0 moderates, they don't give a ****. While we still have democrats seeking 'bipartisanship' not realizing the GOP is done with that. I remember the thinking some had on the left that the GOP would at least replace RBG with a moderate...they found the most qualified right winger they could find and pushed her through the court, this after the Garland thing should have told democrats that they are not playing around and playing politics. They're playing for absolute power.
if Breyer doesn't retire after this term, chances of the GOP selecting his replacement go up significantly
Except Texas has a case coming up too right? It will seem odd for them to draw a line suddenly at 15 weeks when Texas is going to then ask for 6 or 7?
They don't need to draw a line. They just let the law stand, the state drew the line. Then they can look at the Texas law and decide that case. The Texas will have drawn the line, or the Supreme Court says that line is too restrictive and you know it is something more than 7 but 15 is okay. So a state tries 8 or 12 or 14, etc. They don't decide what the acceptable policy is, they decide that some implemented policy is acceptable or not.
They are going to look at it separately but it's really going to depend on how they rule on this case. If the Roberts court writes that 15 weeks is reasonable and that they didn't overturn Roe since women can still have abortions or whatever the language might be, the point will be that they kept Roe in tact but just weakened it a little and so that might mean they won't agree with the Texas case. I think they will overturn the Texas case because of how it was implemented and that it seems to be built to go around the court system. As Kav said, it means that democratic states could just implement gun laws in the same way, and it truly is a dangerous precedent to set that civilians can collect bounties on people...not sure why anyone actually supports that, and hear so much from the right about "1984" and these are literally 1984 laws that ask civilians to turn on each other to uphold some moral standard. So I think they can throw out the Texas law without even really ruling on if 6 weeks is too short. Also, Roberts really does care about the perception of the court, no matter how I feel about his politics, this is his legacy. The courts are going to take a huge perception hit if they overturn Roe or even just limit it to a 15 week ban, they are already taking a perception hit. I think after this MS case the Roberts court will try to throw a bone out there to try and appear that they are not political and are just 'calling balls and strikes' because for the first time in a long time the SCOTUS is losing popularity...and it is losing trust...overturning Roe just isn't popular, but ruling against the TX case could be that bone. It's just not popular to mess with rights given pretty much. It's why Democrats always lose on gun rights and why I think the GOP will regret messing with women's rights in future elections.
Anything beyond a federal law on abortion does not make sense. Example: In Texas or Mississippi all abortions would be considered murder while in Illinois abortion is codified legal. Do you arrest the doctor if they travel from Illinois to Texas? The patient? What if the Texan went to Illinois for the abortion?
Welcome to America! It's been weird like this since 1776. Also, not only am I seeing a potential Roe and Casey overturn (which surprised me because I thought Roberts had more sway, but this is clearly becoming the Barrett and Kavannaugh court), but I'm seeing potential fetal personhood 14th amendment argument making it's way up to SCOTUS w/in the next year. No abortions anywhere allowed in the U.S. is a real possibility.
I don't see a "no abortions anywhere" occurring in the US. They may allow the Mississippi case to stand and therefore changing the amount of weeks a woman can have an abortion but I still don't see them completely overturning Roe. They'll most likely allow states to do what they please though...
