Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

Okay, so if we argue that this decision is correct, that women cease to have control of their own bodies due to its connection to another life, is there a logical reason that somebody shouldn't be forced into an organ transplant to save another life if it is unlikely to cost them their lives?

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445975-what-do-you-mean-theres-no-right-to-privacy-in-america/

Scalia passed away, so his opinion is no longer entirely applicable here, but many come from the same school of Constitutional interpretation.

"Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”"

 

Correct, but the implication for all of them except Alito was that they were respectful of precedent. Although Alito was also respectful of precedent there was also a clear indication in his confirmation hearing implicit in his response that he could be amenable to overturning Roe. Alito in his own words:

Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It's a fundamental part of our legal system, and it's the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents, and it's important for a variety
of reasons. It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It's important because it protects reliance interest, and it's important because it reflect the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions. It's not an inexorable command but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents,​

​

- CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

Why can't it be both? This is a far from "simple," issue, despite your attempt to render it a one-dimensional one, that "basically everyone," agrees on.

 

However the right to privacy does exist for all sorts of things. The right to privacy between a lawyer and client, a priest and confessor, a porn website and a viewer, dark money and the NRA. Why not between a woman and her doctor?

 

No, the issue is simple.

People just don’t like the sacrifice they have to make going one way or the other. But even middle schoolers have a pretty decent idea of the stakes in the abortion debate.

 

There’s a difference between “Constitutional Rights” and professional rules, regulations, standards; regulations imposed by Congress and state legislatures; and contractual obligations.

If you want to make the policy case for abortion, that is completely fine, this is America after all, but that has almost nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It’s just an issue that should be reserved for the legislature.

 

Both sides invoke a parade of horribles re: potential consequences and extrapolations of a given court ruling and/or reasoning for that ruling. Yes, sometimes those arguments can reach absurd levels - like arguing that a constitutional right to same sex marriage would require government to also recognize people marrying their pets. Personally, I think there is near zero chance that Loving (interracial marriage protections) is reversed. On the other hand, the constitutional right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell) was a 5-4 decision, and that was with RBG on the Court. I don't have any reason to believe that case is safe.

 

In most states you can drink alcohol even if you cant sell or make it.

Parents can give underage kids alcohol. Spouses can give 20 year old wife alcohol, religious practices etc.

It's illegal to sell my kid beer in all states but in many states a kid can sip a beer under certain circumstances.

My point is we already have laws that do not punish the receiver, but the giver has a professional consequence if the provide the service.

 

That's what I don't understand, though. Why are you sympathetic enough to her plight to support her option to kill an unborn child? The fetus did no wrong. I honestly don't understand this distinction or allowance if you believe in your heart and soul that it's a legitimate, innocent human life within her.

 

Many don't like the opinion, which as of yet is neither final nor controlling, but there are plenty of folks who have a sincerely held belief that abortion results in the intentional death of an unborn child. Doesn't make those people tyrants or misogynists or any other broad brush that many here are painting with. They see a conflict between a mother's right to control her body and a child's right to live and come down on the side of the child's right to live. It is no more unreasonable, given that context, than saying people may have the right to own property and build on it as they please, but they don't have the right to build their own nuclear waste processing plant in the middle of a residential area. When rights conflict, we historically have come down in favor of the right to human life being at the top of the hierarchy over other matters.

When life begins, when the soul inhabits the body, isn't a question that science has an answer for, but it is a question that cuts deep to the core of our humanity. If you are of the sincerely held belief that life begins significantly prior to viability outside the womb, then abortion seems no more reasonable than allowing a parent who no longer wants their child after birth to commit infanticide. If you fall on the other side of that spectrum, abortion is a perfectly reasonable thing. We can agree to disagree and still have a respectful dialog on the subject and seek to better understand each other.

All that said, Roe may have 50 years of momentum on its side, but that doesn't mean the underlying legal opinion wasn't spurious. Even staunch Roe supporter Ginsberg saw problems with it. The ruling also doesn't mean that abortion is illegal, just that the federal government is agnostic on it until such time as congress passes a law and/or the constitution is amended. Let's see what the states actually do. Frankly there are a ton of issues I wish the federal government would stay the heck out of. For a country that preaches diversity we sure to want to demand a 1 size fits all approach driven at the federal level on many, many things.

 

For those wondering of a breakdown

 

I recall in another thread one of the conservative posters to this board made the statement "if you cannot afford to care for a child do not have one" (not sure if it's an exact quote but it's close enough". A number of other conservatives expressed agreement with the statement. The irony is that if Roe v. Wade is actually overturned it's low income women for whom a child or more often an additional child would be a financial burden that would be forced to give birth. Middle and upper income women would still have the option of traveling from a state in which abortions are effectively outlawed to a state in which abortion is still legal. In other words it's women cannot afford to have children who would be having them.

 

I used the probability rate of contraception to point out how frequently mature married adults that practiced “safe sex” risk having it fail. Trying to point out that they did make a choice, but their contraception option can fail them. Instead of you clarifying or defending your earlier statement that they made a “choice” to have sex and they must accept the consequences; you elect to dive into pointing our that percentages aren’t accured. I have some more example from you doing the same thing to me and other posters when it comes to this issue.

I get why you wanted to focus on percentages over your earlier statement.

How can someone defend this statement when they know contraception options aren’t perfect.

 

I actually feel the opposite, because the thinking is inconsistent. In what other circumstance would you support allowing someone to harm or end an innocent child's life for the actions of their parent? For those that believe in "life at conception," that's effectively what they're apparently okay with for rape victims, and it blows my mind.

It seems completely inconsistent or dissonant from the foundation of their beliefs around the topic of abortion.

 

1-4 women have an abortion by age 45.

Do the math, and revisit whether adoption is an easy solution to this.

 

If Congressional Democrats attempt to codify Roe/Casey and fail, that will almost certainly be part of any ultimate Opinion chipping away at or reversing those cases entirely. "This is such a divisive issue that Congress couldn't get anything passed." That doesn't mean the leak came from the pro-life side, of course, but I think this is a pretty likely scenario. Do the pro choice proponents even have the votes? Even if they could get 50, I guess they'd have to end the legislative filibuster? Frankly, I'm not as familiar with some of the procedural issues as I should be.

 

And I dont understand pro choice people claiming to be anti abortion.

There are nuances.

This isn't about the "soul" to me. Under most Christian teachings that unborn sould would be with God at the termination of physical life

This is about the sanctity of life. Physical life. Human life.

But few things take such disregard for human sanctity than rape and I can acknowledge both in my overall position.