• My bet: The SCOTUS will strike down Mississippi ban on abortion

    From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 2 11:53:22 2021
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 3 08:38:21 2021
    On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

    "In Roe, the core factual question was whether a fetus is a person – a human who holds rights and hence cannot be killed lawfully by another person.

    The court, ruling in 1973, recognized the problem: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is
    not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

    But the justices were nonetheless compelled to do so. The court ruled that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Therefore, “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the
    unborn.”

    However, the court saw the personhood of a fetus as developing during the course of a pregnancy. Therefore, “it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of
    potential human life, becomes significantly involved.”

    The court concluded that “with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.”

    This means that in the early stages of pregnancy, abortion cannot be outlawed, but “if the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to
    preserve the life or health of the mother.”

    Why viability?

    There is a long-standing myth that the author of Roe – Justice Harry Blackmun, who had served for many years as chief counsel for the Mayo Clinic – had done copious medical research and come to the conclusion of viability as the emergence of
    personhood.

    Linda Greenhouse, a longtime Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, wrote the definitive biography of Blackmun, which clearly demonstrates that this was not the case. Blackmun preferred the point of quickening – when the fetus first begins to
    move, at around the end of the first trimester – as the emergence of personhood.

    In a memo to the justices in November 1972, he wrote that the end of the first trimester “is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.”"

    https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/will-the-supreme-court-strike-down-roe-or-let-states-to-decide-when-personhood-occurs-opinion/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From boro@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 4 01:17:30 2021
    On 3/12/2021 3:53 am, ltlee1 wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.





    The fetus is in the body of the woman, and hence the body belongs to the
    woman, too.

    Therefore, a woman has the right to decide if she wants to abort her
    baby or not.

    As the body belongs to her, even to sex or not demanded by her partner
    is solely decided by her sole decision, too.

    As the body belongs to the woman, the woman has the right to choose her decision of it.

    Hence, the Mississippi ban on abortion will be thrown out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to boro on Sat Dec 4 07:53:52 2021
    On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:17:29 PM UTC, boro wrote:
    On 3/12/2021 3:53 am, ltlee1 wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

    The fetus is in the body of the woman, and hence the body belongs to the woman, too.

    Therefore, a woman has the right to decide if she wants to abort her
    baby or not.

    As the body belongs to her, even to sex or not demanded by her partner
    is solely decided by her sole decision, too.

    As the body belongs to the woman, the woman has the right to choose her decision of it.

    Hence, the Mississippi ban on abortion will be thrown out.

    Not unreasonable. Yet I am not sure that is on the mind of the Supreme Court Justices.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 13 11:21:48 2021
    On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

    The first consideration:
    "What the Supreme Court Would Gain If It Reverses Roe v. Wade" https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/supreme-court-would-gain-legitimacy-in-reversing-roe-v-wade

    "The high court’s legitimacy is also a main subject of debate in the highest-profile case before it this term: the case about Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court based much of its
    argument for reaffirming Roe v. Wade on the theory that reversing itself “under fire” would compromise the public’s perception of its legitimacy and there.
    ...
    The new Supreme Court declared itself “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”
    ...
    Overruling Roe would be a blow to this grand version of the court’s identity. It would strip away the pretension to political and moral leadership that it has built up over the years. It would amount to an admission that its attempt to impose its will
    on the public had failed."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 22 05:36:05 2021
    On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

    Legally speaking, the case is about State right, Undue burden before "viable", and
    Stare Decisis. Politically speaking, the case is whether the Surpreme court Justice
    would allow abortion continue as a polarizing issue.

    Another consideration, the Court did not take up the Texas ban which restricts abortion after 9 weeks. Mississippi had similar 9 week ban which was overturned by the Appellate court. Hence it reverts to the 16 week ban passed two years ago.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 1 12:31:08 2022
    On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 7:21:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

    Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.
    The first consideration:
    "What the Supreme Court Would Gain If It Reverses Roe v. Wade" https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/supreme-court-would-gain-legitimacy-in-reversing-roe-v-wade

    "The high court’s legitimacy is also a main subject of debate in the highest-profile case before it this term: the case about Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court based much of its
    argument for reaffirming Roe v. Wade on the theory that reversing itself “under fire” would compromise the public’s perception of its legitimacy and there.
    ...
    The new Supreme Court declared itself “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”
    ...
    Overruling Roe would be a blow to this grand version of the court’s identity. It would strip away the pretension to political and moral leadership that it has built up over the years. It would amount to an admission that its attempt to impose its
    will on the public had failed."

    Most commentators said the court signaled its willingness to overturn Roe V Wade
    following the direction American bipartisan politics. I have more faith on the Justices
    as a whole. I think their major concern is not on the right side of partisan politics but
    on the right side of history. And in this sense, the Judiciary could be a unifying force.

    To be on the right side of history, the court will have to strike down the Mississipi ban.
    Basically, the issue is really not about legalization of abortion. But how a government
    can legally restrict women's right in get rid of unwelcome entities. Women had tried and
    would continue to get out unwanted pregnancy. It would be difficult for any court to
    pursuit such cases.


    Since the Mississipi Appellate Court had overturned the 9 week ban, the SCOTUS had
    little no reason to touch a similar Texas case. The Mississipi case presented a perfect
    entree point. It could strike down the 16 weeks ban and at the same time signal its
    decision is limited. Well some state are likely to try 20 weeks or 21 weeks as the cut off
    point. And the court would then affirm such ban.

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