U.S. Supreme Court Set To Hear Mississippi Abortion Case

[Franklin Pierce]

‘Pray Together for Life’ in Mississippi as Supreme Court Set to Hear Major Abortion Case

Pro-life leaders from across the nation will join Sunday evening in Jackson, Mississippi, to “Pray Together for Life” as the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled Wednesday to hear opening arguments in the state’s pro-life law at the focus of the case.

The Associated Press described the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a “showdown,” an “all-or-nothing abortion fight.”

The case involves a challenge to Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, a measure that would limit abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and poses the most significant challenge in decades to the right to abortion created by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

‘Pray Together for Life’ in Mississippi as Supreme Court Set to Hear Major Abortion Case

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in case that could overturn landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Six conservative justices lean TOWARDS Upholding 15-Week Abortion Ban: SCOTUS could upend Roe v. Wade after liberals criticized political and religious motivations to overturn and compared unborn babies to brain dead people

The six conservative Supreme Court justices on Wednesday seemed poised to uphold Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks in a decision that could overhaul Roe v. Wade after the most significant debate on a woman's right to choose in 30 years.

The three liberal justices claimed that overturning the landmark 1974 ruling was driven by political and religious motivations, suggested sticking with precedent and compared the physical reactions of unborn babies to brain-dead people.

But Chief Justice Roberts questioned why 15 weeks is 'not enough time' for a woman to choose, Brett Kavanaugh hinted that abortion rights should be left up to the states and Amy Coney Barrett brought up alternatives to termination including adoption.

Conservative SCOTUS justices lean toward overhauling abortion, liberals slam 'political' motivations | Daily Mail Online


Roe v. Wade In Serious Peril After Dramatic Supreme Court Arguments

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that threatens to overturn the constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion across the country. The immediate and overall consensus after the arguments came to a close in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Roe v Wade is in serious danger.

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court appeared largely supportive of a 2018 Mississippi law that seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law directly contradicts Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protects a person’s right to abortion. The decision made it a constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion until a fetus’s viability, which is around 24 weeks. Mississippi’s 15-week restriction is attempting to cut that almost in half.


Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch openly suggested that the current viability line under Roe is arbitrary and can be moved, which would effectively overturn the high court precedent. Chief Justice John Roberts along with the two newest members of the court, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, were less vocal. All three, however, seemed to be open to tinkering with the gestational limits on abortion, which would also effectively overturn Roe as it stands now.

Roe v. Wade In Serious Peril After Dramatic Supreme Court Arguments

 

[Gandalf]

At its core, it seems rather simple.

If a "fetus" is merely tissue from the mother (and thus an extension of her own body), then she has the right to do what she wishes with her own body.
If a "fetus" is a living being (AKA a "baby"), its right to live is greater than the mother's rights to comfort. If it threatens the mother's life, then medicine can determine who is more viable.

Can anyone say when a fetus becomes a baby? Its not about some theoretical time when its "viable" its when its wanted.

Wanted = Baby. Killing it would be murder.
Unwanted = Fetus. Killing it is the right of the mother.

People know this but no one wants to say it.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

‘What Specifically Is The Right Here?’: Justice Thomas Questions Where In The Constitution Abortion Is Protected

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Wednesday where in the Constitution abortion is protected as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a Mississippi abortion law case that challenges Roe V. Wade.

“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is, is it specifically abortion? Is it a liberty? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” Thomas asked.

“The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas. But I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term,” one of the lawyers challenging the Mississippi law said.

“I understand we’re talking about abortion here,” Thomas said. “But what is confusing is that we, if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment I know what we’re talking about because it’s written there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

‘What Specifically Is The Right Here?’: Justice Thomas Questions Where In The Constitution Abortion Is Protected

 

[hog88]

My fear is that if SCOTUS rules in favor of MS the Dems will go all in on packing the court before next years midterms.

 

[VolStrom]

My fear is that if SCOTUS rules in favor of MS the Dems will go all in on packing the court before next years midterms.

Yeah, and then the GOP will unpack it a few months later. I'm sick of the democrats and their my way or the highway routine.

 

[hog88]

Yeah, and then the GOP will unpack it a few months later. I'm sick of the democrats and their my way or the highway routine.

I wouldn't bet on it. 10 years from now we'll have 50 judges on the court.

 

[VolStrom]

I wouldn't bet on it. 10 years from now we'll have 50 judges on the court.

Probably neither of us will be alive in 50 years, but I would guess we still have 9 justices or we have 0 because the Chinese have taken us over.

 

[Vol423]

The three liberal justices claimed that overturning the landmark 1974 ruling was driven by political and religious motivations, suggested sticking with precedent and compared the physical reactions of unborn babies to brain-dead people.

That is offensive.

 

[Vol423]

Can anyone say when a fetus becomes a baby? Its not about some theoretical time when its "viable" its when its wanted.

Wanted = Baby. Killing it would be murder.
Unwanted = Fetus. Killing it is the right of the mother.

People know this but no one wants to say it.

I usually agree with a lot of what you post, but that is nuts.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

She's one sick b....

 

[Orangeburst]

She's one sick b....

That is my line in the sand..pain..

 

[Orangeburst]

I looked at some polls published by the AP yesterday and did not post.
Overwhelming majority of the public apparently agree that other than extenuating circumstances, the first trimester should be the limit. Hey you want democracy, here it is,

 

[85SugarVol]

Yeah, and then the GOP will unpack it a few months later. I'm sick of the democrats and their my way or the highway routine.

How would the GOP “un-pack” it?

 

[VolStrom]

How would the GOP “un-pack” it?

I assume if a political party can add to the court it can also take away. If you know otherwise feel free to elaborate.

 

[85SugarVol]

I assume if a political party can add to the court it can also take away. If you know otherwise feel free to elaborate.

Well yes, I believe the next party could certainly change the statute.

But how do you reduce the number of actual Justices back down to the new number?

 

[Vol423]

How would the GOP “un-pack” it?

They can't since it's a lifetime appointment. What they could do is add enough conservatives to the Supreme Court that the % of conservatives to liberals is the same as it stands right now. We'll eventually end up with a Supreme Court that needs a courtroom the size of Neyland Stadium to hold all the justices if the liberals abandon historical norms to pack the court.

 

[Vol423]

I assume if a political party can add to the court it can also take away. If you know otherwise feel free to elaborate.

They can't. A Supreme Court justice serves a lifetime appointment. That is ridiculous, but that is the case.

 

[Vol423]

Well yes, I believe the next party could certainly change the statute.

But how do you reduce the number of actual Justices back down to the new number?

Wrong. It's not a statute. It's the Constitution. They would have to change the Constitution, and that isn't happening.

 

[85SugarVol]

Wrong. It's not a statute. It's the Constitution. They would have to change the Constitution, and that isn't happening.

Oh. My.

 

[Gandalf]

I usually agree with a lot of what you post, but that is nuts.

If a fetus is just a mother's body, she has a right to do what she wants with it, if its a baby then how is killing it in the womb different than killing it once it is born? I genuinely do not understand how there is any argument with that statement?

The debate seems to be over when is a fetus a baby but I submit that for a mother who actually wants it, that fetus is a baby from the moment she feels it inside her.

Wrong. It's not a statute. It's the Constitution. They would have to change the Constitution, and that isn't happening.

Are you sure? I didn't think the constitution specified the required number of judges on the supreme court. Pretty sure that number is set by Congress but its been the same for 150 years or so.

 

[Vol8188]

I posted this in another abortion thread but it’s worth adding here. Imagine being so dumb that you want to leave because you’re given autonomy over your own laws

 

[Vol423]

If a fetus is just a mother's body, she has a right to do what she wants with it, if its a baby then how is killing it in the womb different than killing it once it is born? I genuinely do not understand how there is any argument with that statement?

The debate seems to be over when is a fetus a baby but I submit that for a mother who actually wants it, that fetus is a baby from the moment she feels it inside her.

Your definition basically contains no restriction on abortion whatsoever. Combining this post from you with your previous post in this thread on this subject matter, you would allow a woman to get an abortion all the way up until the minute of childbirth simply by claiming that she doesn't want it. Therefore, it is a fetus, and it is her right to kill it. These were your words:

Can anyone say when a fetus becomes a baby? Its not about some theoretical time when its "viable" its when its wanted.

Wanted = Baby. Killing it would be murder.
Unwanted = Fetus. Killing it is the right of the mother.

People know this but no one wants to say it.

I also strongly disagree with your conclusion that "a fetus is just a woman's body." That is a ludicrous assertion.

Are you sure? I didn't think the constitution specified the required number of judges on the supreme court. Pretty sure that number is set by Congress but its been the same for 150 years or so.

I'm assuming that you're just not following this particular line of the argument closely. The scenario laid out by other posters assumed that the Democrats pack the Supreme Court with more liberal judges. This discussion wasn't about the "required number of judges on the Supreme Court." As you correctly stated, that number isn't stated in the Constitution. There has been a historical norm that has been upheld for well over a century, but technically the Democrats could ignore historical norms and pack the court. Someone in the thread responded that the Republicans would simply remove the excess liberal judges when they take back over the Executive and Legislative Branches. The problem is that once a judge is seated on the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't simply remove him/her. By intentionally setting no term limit for members of the Supreme Court, the Constitution made appointments to the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment. Once admitted as a judge on the Supreme Court, you can't remove a Supreme Court Justice until they resign voluntarily. The Constitution actually stipulates a requirement for "good behavior" while a member of the Supreme Court, which theoretically means that they could be impeached by Congress. However, that has never once been invoked in the entire history of the nation. It was attempted once in 1805 (to impeach Samuel Chase). It was rejected by Congress as a political move.

Therefore, since impeachment of a sitting judge on the U.S. Supreme Court is off the table as an option, the only way to counter the Democrats packing the court with liberal judges would be to retaliate by re-packing it with conservative judges (to re-establish the conservative/liberal judge ratio that currently exists in the current Supreme Court). Were this political football continue to be passed back and forth for the foreseeable future (of packing the Court), you would eventually need a courtroom the size of Neyland Stadium to seat the number of Supreme Court justices.

 

[Gandalf]

Your definition basically contains no restriction on abortion whatsoever. Combining this post from you with your previous post in this thread on this subject matter, you would allow a woman to get an abortion all the way up until the minute of childbirth simply by claiming that she doesn't want it. Therefore, it is a fetus, and it is her right to kill it. These were your words:

Can anyone say when a fetus becomes a baby? Its not about some theoretical time when its "viable" its when its wanted.

Wanted = Baby. Killing it would be murder.
Unwanted = Fetus. Killing it is the right of the mother.

People know this but no one wants to say it.

I also strongly disagree with your conclusion that "a fetus is just a woman's body." That is a ludicrous assertion.



I'm assuming that you're just not following this particular line of the argument closely. The scenario laid out by other posters assumed that the Democrats pack the Supreme Court with more liberal judges. This discussion wasn't about the "required number of judges on the Supreme Court." As you correctly stated, that number isn't stated in the Constitution. There has been a historical norm that has been upheld for well over a century, but technically the Democrats could ignore historical norms and pack the court. Someone in the thread responded that the Republicans would simply remove the excess liberal judges when they take back over the Executive and Legislative Branches. The problem is that once a judge is seated on the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't simply remove him/her. By intentionally setting no term limit for members of the Supreme Court, the Constitution made appointments to the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment. Once admitted as a judge on the Supreme Court, you can't remove a Supreme Court Justice until they resign voluntarily. The Constitution actually stipulates a requirement for "good behavior" while a member of the Supreme Court, which theoretically means that they could be impeached by Congress. However, that has never once been invoked in the entire history of the nation. It was attempted once in 1805 (to impeach Samuel Chase). It was rejected by Congress as a political move.

Therefore, since impeachment of a sitting judge on the U.S. Supreme Court is off the table as an option, the only way to counter the Democrats packing the court with liberal judges would be to retaliate by re-packing it with conservative judges (to re-establish the conservative/liberal judge ratio that currently exists in the current Supreme Court). Were this political football continue to be passed back and forth for the foreseeable future (of packing the Court), you would eventually need a courtroom the size of Neyland Stadium to seat the number of Supreme Court justices.

I think you misunderstand. I am not advocating the position of a fetus being "mere tissue". I am simply stating the position that pro-abortionists must logically take. Either it is mere tissue or its a baby. At what point does mere tissue become a baby? How many people decide that seems mostly to do with whether the pregnancy is wanted or not rather than any supposed "viability". As someone who tends to believe a soul is created sui generis at conception, I find that sad.

On court packing - It is a concern that leftist go that route and yes, the only way to respond is with more and greater court packing. I think for that reason it is unlikely to happen because dems know they are about to lose the congress and a future Trump like President would not hesitate to expand the SC to "huge" numbers once the current precedent has been broken.