1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • does the supreme court abortion pill ruling imply something about fetal

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 22 13:12:56 2023
    the pill can terminate fetuses up to a certain stage of gestation. that would be homicide if the fetus is a person.
    It looks like the Supreme court has denied fetal personhood by allowing the abortion pill to continue to be used.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to S K on Sat Apr 22 23:41:48 2023
    S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:

    the pill can terminate fetuses up to a certain stage of gestation.
    that would be homicide if the fetus is a person. It looks like
    the Supreme court has denied fetal personhood by allowing the
    abortion pill to continue to be used.

    This is a temporary decision that just retains the status quo until the
    case can be heard in its entirety.

    But in terms of personhood, Dobbs basically did away with that when the
    Court said that states could decide for themselves.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Stuart O. Bronstein on Sat Apr 22 23:50:15 2023
    On 4/22/2023 11:41 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:

    the pill can terminate fetuses up to a certain stage of gestation.
    that would be homicide if the fetus is a person. It looks like
    the Supreme court has denied fetal personhood by allowing the
    abortion pill to continue to be used.

    This is a temporary decision that just retains the status quo until the
    case can be heard in its entirety.

    But in terms of personhood, Dobbs basically did away with that when the
    Court said that states could decide for themselves.


    So if state Z says that a fetus is a person at ten weeks then later
    abortions would be murder unless ordered by a court for specific reasons.

    The statement might be a law or an amendment to that state's
    constitution. It would also probably be immune from being overridden by
    any federal action anything but an amendment to the US constitution.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to skpflex1@gmail.com on Sat Apr 22 23:39:35 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:12:56 -0700 (PDT), S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:

    the pill can terminate fetuses up to a certain stage of gestation. that would be homicide if the fetus is a person.
    It looks like the Supreme court has denied fetal personhood by allowing the abortion pill to continue to be used.

    Do you mean the stay? Stays mean next to nothing.

    Fetuses aren't persons within the meaning of the Constution or its
    amendements.

    That doesn't mean they are like skin-tags or cuticles. We have laws
    against the cruel killing of dogs, cats, cattle. That doesn't make them persons or people.


    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to Roy on Sun Apr 23 22:14:54 2023
    Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
    Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
    S K <skpflex1@gmail.com> wrote:

    the pill can terminate fetuses up to a certain stage of
    gestation.
    that would be homicide if the fetus is a person. It looks like
    the Supreme court has denied fetal personhood by allowing the
    abortion pill to continue to be used.

    This is a temporary decision that just retains the status quo
    until the case can be heard in its entirety.

    But in terms of personhood, Dobbs basically did away with that
    when the Court said that states could decide for themselves.


    So if state Z says that a fetus is a person at ten weeks then
    later abortions would be murder unless ordered by a court for
    specific reasons.

    The statement might be a law or an amendment to that state's
    constitution. It would also probably be immune from being
    overridden by any federal action anything but an amendment to the
    US constitution.

    The way Dobbs is written, that is not a certainty, but a strong
    possibility, yes.


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)