Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

You have no idea what you’re talking about, so leave the heavy lifting to people who actually know rather than what you hear on cable. Now run along.

 

I'm trying to follow all explanations of what the effect of the Draft will be, which is difficult. My question is since this isn't the final product, can or will the final opinion be changed so that Roe is neutered and all these other potential issues regarding 'rights' are avoided?

 

You thought a Priest having a duty to keep what you tell him private, and a lawyer having a duty to keep your information private comes from a Constitutional right to privacy.

 

I get your overall point, but I doubt that many people in the 1860's thought the 14th Amendment prohibited states from segregating schools by race, as that was allowed for nearly another century. We've also had case law develop over the years applying some sort of intermediate scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet, the plain text says nothing about discrimination on the basis of sex or how that should be evaluated.

 

I think you see yourself as more knowledgeable than you are, and try to present right wing arguments you heard or read somewhere as your own. At least I admit I’m not an expert on the constitution, but you come across as a Trump University grad that thinks they’re an expert.

 

Ditto for corporate personhood, but it only took a few decades to make that up in 1886

 

This is really just Alito shouting what we already know--the conservative block has certain cultural, social, and political preferences; they view those preferences as superior to any other preferences; and they are happy to use their position on the Court to enforce those preferences, regardless of any prior law on the subject.

But whether the final opinion ends up being, it doesn't really matter. It could use a Bush v. Gore style "this opinion has no precedential value outside of abortion" or overtly say "the floodgates are open, get ready," and it wouldn't change the reality of what they're doing. As folks have pointed out, they are more than happy to make highly misleading, but arguably true statements when it suits their purposes. Their opinions are no different.

The floodgates are open, whether they say so or not. They are coming for every right, policy, or program disliked by the right. That's what they're there for. That's their job. And they're good at their jobs.

 

So it would bother you if some states become more restrictive than Norway? It bothers me that, as of now, all states are closer to North Korea than the famously enlightened Scandinavians.

 

You are rather undermining your own arguments.

All people under U.S. rule of law have a right to counsel AND a right to not incriminate themselves. Both rights in the constitution. The courts look at challenges to the attorney client privilege and have to put two and two together with these other existing rights, and recognize that the right to attorney-client privilege must also exist for those other rights to exist, this is how legal precedent works to answer such questions. We don’t need “attorney-client privilege” specifically spelled out in the constitution because it is clearly necessary byproduct of these other rights.

This concept that we are only granted rights specifically enumerated in the constitution is, for lack of a better word, horseshit. But I suppose that disconnected legal logic is how we still had states with a slavery-based economy even under the pretense of a bill of rights, which obviously made no rational sense even under the “textualist” argument.

 

Some good info on the actual polling on Roe and abortion restrictions.
To say the majority of Americans support abortion on demand through late-term is not even close to accurate.

What Americans Really Think about Abortion | National Review

Excerpt...
The public lack of knowledge about Roe — and its conflict with actual public opinion on abortion — was captured well by a Fox News poll last September, which found that 65 percent of Americans said they oppose reversing Roe. But, absurdly, the same survey found that respondents were perfectly split on whether abortion should be legal, tied at 49 percent. A substantial number of Americans, in other words, both want abortion to be illegal and want to preserve jurisprudence making it essentially impossible to prohibit abortion. This outcome was possible only because a sizable percentage of the population doesn’t know that abortion can’t be regulated at all until Roe is gone

 

Yes it bothers me that the RUSSIAN women have more reproductive rights than some American women.

To me the line should be viability. So 20-21 weeks. Plenty of time for decisions, health issues, etc to come up. No I don't believe a woman needing an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy should be charged if she gets one. No I don't think rape victims should have to wait for convictions to qualify.

As for other countries. Bear in mind places in Scandinavia & other countries actually support mothers. Robust maternity leave, cheaper medical care, etc. Most jobs offer 6 weeks. Some paid. Child care is exorbitant here. So if prevention fails and she's single, for example, there's a very high chance she won't be able to afford to raise that baby.

Well there's welfare. You know, the kinds of programs most far right folks call handouts and try to cut.

 

The funny thing with this one, the article accuses the public of “not understanding”, which is definitely true as illustrated by that statistical disconnect. Yet after lamenting over the ignorance revealed in some of the public polling, they conclude with their own obvious falsehood that abortion can’t be regulated at all until Roe is gone. This is obviously not true as abortion is indeed regulated already.

 

I present originalist arguments from the Supreme Court, and I come across as a Trump University grad to you? Sounds like I can't win.

 

I just Googled "abortion Russia". The first line of Wikipedia reads.

"Abortion in Russia is legal as an elective procedure up to the 12th week of pregnancy, and in special circumstances at later stages."

No one in Russia is talking about abortion in the third trimester, Or, as Northam suggested when running for governor of Virginia, after birth abortion.

"The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

I almost never agree with Elizabeth Warren but she got this right.

"I Am Angry And Upset And Determined," Congress Can Make Roe v. Wade Law Of The Land

As it should be. Congress should pass a law. The blue states would have to compromise or lose all the purple state Democrats. The red states would have to compromise or they would lose all the purple state Republicans.
We would probably end up with something like Europe. We never had that fight. Congress do your damn jobs and quit expecting the Supremes to save you from making tough decisions.

 

No we wont, we will end up with even more insanely different abortion laws in the same country for people based purely on what imaginary lines they find themselves residing in. Not to mention Europe generally has guaranteed healthcare to provide access and not a heavily privatized American system where providers can be intimidated or regulated out of offering abortion services as they have for decades..

 

And I have never said full term abortions. Obviously in catastrophic medical cases it's needed. Hence why a good compromise is the 20 week mark/using viability as a guideline. 20 weeks = 5 months. Women can find out within days of getting pregnant/missing their periods. So 5 months - more than adequate time.

By the way that Russia law? Less strict than Texas and some other states here. A country jailing people for up to 15 years for saying anything against the war in Ukraine.

 

You're correct in that Courts generally protect attorney-client privilege as related to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the attorney-client privilege both predates the Constitution and applies beyond criminal cases. That's where this idea of a professional duty comes in.

Also, we are not only granted rights "specifically enumerated" in the Constitution. Many times the Constitution isn't clear, but you have to be anchored to the original intent of the Constitution in some manner, otherwise the Constitution just means whatever nine justices says it means (or want it to mean). We also have Congress and legislatures for a reason.

 

If they were serious about reducing abortions, they would be doing a lot more to support pregnant women and women with young children. They don't.