Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

 

I was saying if Thomas's opinion is really that several rulings shoud be reexamined based on this reasoning he should divorce his wife.

 

Given that nearly 90% of Atheists believe abortion should be legal in all/most cases, religion is clearly the driving force behind the issue: https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...eligious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

 

maybe because Loving was decided primarily on Equal Protection Clause grounds, not primarily on substantive due process grounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Supreme_Court_decision

 

This is a highly flawed argument. By the same logic, I can prove a zygote is not alive. We measure whether someone is alive by whether or not they have a pulse and brain activity. Given a zygote has neither, it is not alive. In reality, in terms of when life begins, there is no scientific standard, it's purely based on one's belief system.

And it also isn't clear whether alive is the standard. Each cell in your body is alive. It carries our biological processes, cell division. There is no hard requirement that an organism progresses to an adult stage or reproduces to be considered alive.

Additionally, our rights are ascribed to human beings. What constitutes a human being? If you tell me that you think one cell is a human being, the same as a person with two legs, a brain, two arms, and a heart - I'm going to think you're not being very honest.

A zygote doesn't have a name, a social security number, a heart beat, brain activity, nor the ability to experience any kind of human emotion or feeling. To me its nonsense to call a zygote a person and therefore it can not be a victim.

 

Sounds good, but I'll probably need you to translate if it's not an easy read.

 

What to expect in the post-Roe world

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3536904-what-to-expect-in-the-post-roe-world/

excerpt:

Putting aside the legal changes, there are major technological changes since 1973 that will impact the post-Roe world. Roughly 60 percent of abortions today are carried out at home, not in clinics, using pills with mifepristone and misoprostol to abort a pregnancy — the so-called “morning-after” option typically used in the first ten weeks of a pregnancy. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration permanently removed the in-person requirement for these prescriptions and allowed women to access the drugs via telehealth appointments and online pharmacies. It will be difficult for states to interfere with such prescriptions, particularly if the federal government protects such access.

How we have changed

The greatest change may be us. As this issue returns to the states for citizens to decide, we are a different country than we were in 1973. Great strides have been made in the advancement of women and a wider acceptance of people making decisions about their own lives and values. While we remain divided on abortion, the public seems far more moderate and unified than the leaders of either party.

While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision.

Indeed, there is a tendency toward Roe revisionism. Roe supporters ignore that Roe's constitutional rationale was always controversial, including among some liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism" and felt the decision went too far. The original Roe actually died years ago when it was gutted by Casey in 1992 in its logic and tests. It was later the subject of 5-4 decisions that created a confusing muddle of what constituted "undue burdens.”

Such revisionism is a natural part of grieving. In Shakespeare’s “Richard III,”the Queen Mother was asked how to deal with the hate of loss. She responds: “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were; And he that slew them fouler than he is.” The same is true of Roe revisionism. Roe is now presented as inviolate and beyond question in its constitutional footing, while the opinion that slew it is presented as threatening every right secured since 1973.
​

more at the link

 

almost definitionally atheism isn’t a religion. It isn’t any set of beliefs in any way. Most true atheists would be very clear about this … which, ultimately, is what wound define the word more than any judicial analysis of it. The group of people that are atheists would on the whole not only say it’s not a religion but much more likely a rejection of religion.

if/that judicially they want to call it a religion for legal purposes and associated protections/rights thereof that religions have … I’d personally say it speaks more to the need to think about laws/rights overall … by which I mean the idea of atheism as a religion and therefor giving it freedom of religion type rights… to me, you should have the right to believe / not believe what you want and have no special or unique freedoms or restrictions associated with that and something doesn’t need to be called a religion or not for that to matter…

more broadly… absolutely this ruling was politically and religiously motivated….

 

Who the **** are you that you think you can tell me to go somewhere or not reply to a post on a public forum?

Get over yourself.

 

The Decade From NFIB To Dobbs
A very unexpected path.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/25/the-decade-from-nfib-to-dobbs/

excerpt:

The conservative legal movement has achieved something that was once unthinkable. Now, there will be backlash. And disorder. And contention. I don't expect the near-future to be pleasant. People on the right have long-internalized the crushing blow of defeat from Casey. Now, people on the left will have to internalize the even-more-crushing blow of defeat from Dobbs. For now, the reaction will be raw, but in time, a new equilibrium will form. What that stasis is, no one knows. The courts will still be called upon to decide cases affecting abortion, but those decisions will turn on other, more established areas, far less contentious of law including federalism, separation of powers, and interstate comity--not whether the Due Process Clause protects a right to abortion.
​

more at the link

 

Why Other Fundamental Rights Are Safe (At Least for Now)
The conservative majority's commitments on contraception, sexual intimacy, and same-sex marriage

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/why-other-fundamental-rights-are-safe-at-least-for-now/

excerpt:

In reaction to today's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, overruling Roe v. Wade, advocacy groups are warning about the potential implications for other rights. Some analysts are pointing specifically to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion, which calls for a reexamination of substantive due process precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Certainly the three-Justice joint dissent is sounding the alarm.

Has the mask finally dropped, revealing the true intentions of the majority to wipe the slate clean of unenumerated fundamental rights that social and religious conservatives don't like?

To begin an answer to that question, I count no fewer than four places in the Dobbsopinion that disavow any implications for other rights. I refer to these as the reassurance passages. Two of them were already in the leaked draft opinion. Two more have been added because they are responses to the dissent (which would not have been available when Justice Alito circulated his first draft in February).

***
The number and clarity of these passages are extraordinary. To these one could add the separate concurrence of Justice Kavanaugh, who addresses concerns that were raised in the briefs:

(As an aside, I don't count Justice Thomas's view as portending much. It's notable that he wrote only for himself. His views about substantive due process are longstanding, well-known, and idiosyncratic. No other sitting justice has ever expressed an interest in completely abandoning substantive due process and all of the precedents it has generated.)
​

more at the link

 

So how do you feel about Thomas wanting to make it illegal at the Federal level and then going after birth control?

 

Do you understand that people don't trust judges that already lied about how they wouldn't overturn Roe, how it was precedent, that they wouldn't mess with it...and then they went and did that?

 

Again you think this was all trumps plan. Lol. This was Mitch mission from day one. He blocked and stalled judges during Obama’s years and I am not just talking about Garland. But continue to worship Trump.

 

Think again. This was turtleman’s plan all along. Man some people

 

At least they are not bombing clinics and killing drs and health providers of the abortion clinics like some of the extremists throughout the last 50 years. Where was your outrage then? You are so intellectually dishonest it is pathetic really

 

Florida synagogue challenges new state abortion limits with religious freedom lawsuit - Jewish Telegraphic Agency (jta.org)

The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in Leon County Circuit Court, claims that the act “prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and this violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.”

The lawsuit also argues that religious minorities in Florida will be harmed and that the law will threaten Jews “by imposing the laws of other religions upon Jews.”

 

related