If the decision is June, people would know before the midterms anyway. If it is a politically calculated leak from a political hack far right justice, it actually makes more sense to leak it earlier and farther away from the midterms to give the issue more time to settle. Or it could be Roberts or a liberal dissenter trying to sway a vote. Or it could just be any female staffer who is genuinely pissed off reading this opinion regardless of who they are working for. Basically, any of these are possible as the source.
This actually always baffles me. How do you reconcile that all life is sacred, but that a sacred life created through rape can be excluded from protection granted by the government outlawing abortion?
If the question is when a human life form becomes sentient, then there’s room for abortion. Regardless, this question is irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned.
Indeed, the fetus won’t have protections if we define the fetus as non-living, but that is obviously a big “if” here. Like you, and the legal system as a whole, my nature is to try solve these dilemmas with consistently applied logic. However, I think that preference may betray us here as we must start our arguments from outside the bounds of logic - ie we can’t define life starting from first principles. And I’m not defending Alito’s opinion so much as suggesting that, even with you, me, the constitution, the Supreme Court, and Aristotle, we aren’t going to find a universally satisfying solution to this problem. That is what I find attractive about the Libertarian stance I quoted above. It doesn’t try to solve it and instead leaves the issue it up to citizens to consider for themselves.
I had drafted some stuff and accidentally deleted it. I will try to restate some of it. As a threshold matter, governments don't have rights under classic political science theory, they have prerogatives. That's usually the stuff of federalism, but it's ever a matter of what rights belong to the government but what rights the government is obliged to recognize on behalf of individuals, as given to them under the natural law by the Creator so the issue is what unenumerated rights that are not specifically set forth in the text of the Constitution should be recognized. Alito says it can only be those that have been previously recognized in some arena, which kind of defeats the point. It's a bit of sophistry intended to conceal the fact that he's essentially ending the concept of unenumerated rights notwithstanding the explicit text of the Ninth Amendment. Mind you, the Ninth Amendment has always been a bit limited and practical application because it was considered too vague to be reasonably workable. But his standard is even more restrictive than the previously recognized constitutional text for selectively incorporating the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states to the 14th Amendment "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty". He basically eviscerates any standard of unenumerated rights being recognized. This doesn't really make sense. In fact, the Ninth Amendment is evidence that "textualists" and "originalists" don't really make sense with their hermeneutic the text of the Constitution invites application of subsequent standards such as the Eighth Amendment's invocation of "cruel and unusual", which obviously suggests contemporary standards even though Scalia tried to illogically argue otherwise. So does the indication of the common law and the constitutional text. The English common law, as opposed to the French civil law tradition, explicitly contemplates interstitial lawmaking by the judiciary in recognition of evolving standards and understandings. And the specific statement in Article III that US Courts have equity jurisdiction does the same thing. This is all stuff that thousands of words could be written on. But the Ninth Amendment doesn't mean simply that government does not retain those rights. Rights that are appropriate for recognition by government under the natural law tradition come from nature and it is merely the government's obligation to recognize them and enforce them. But it makes no sense to say that there cannot be a fairly robust regimen of individual rights that have not yet been enumerated in the Constitutional text that should be recognized by the Court. His opinion in this regard is nonsense. I could say a lot more, and someone reading this in bad faith to pick apart parts of my language as incomplete. But hopefully that will cover a bit. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Babies in the last trimester can respond to external stimuli like music, etc. My daughter would sing to my pregnant belly then the day my son was born he was crying, she sang to him and he turned his head in her direction & stopped he was 4 hours old. But there are multiple arguments about that too which is why I compromise at viability.
Just further, and sticking to the legal analysis as opposed to the moral analysis, we don't recognize a duty to rescue under US law. You are not legally obligated and cannot be liable civilly or criminally for failure to stop and render aid to someone on the roadside, to be the proverbial Good Samaritan, even if it can be proven that you had no good reason not to stop, and that your failure to do so cause that individual's avoidable death. In this case, we are basically saying that there is a legal obligation to sacrifice for the life of another in a way that we don't recognize in other parts of the law. Regardless of where anyone believes that calculus should come out, we should recognize that this is an exception in that regard.
I was thinking the same thing. I would not be surprised if someone with very left-leaning allegiances leaked this. Something like this could turn some close midterm votes, though to what extend there are close contests out there I have no idea.
If Roe v Wade is overturned and democratic states continue to provide abortions to women, as they should, it will be another test of the Levitt-Donohue theory on abortion access and crime. If consistent, there will be a rise in crime rates in states that prevent women from having an abortion in approximately 20 years from now. Antiabortion activists, so passionate about life, paradoxically have few plans and little sympathy to help women who do not have the resources to raise children, or to support an unwanted child.
The identity of the leaker has been solved. Note , this is a bit) GUEST COLUMN: Whoopsie! Didn't Mean to Hit "Send" On That Draft Roe Opinion
Personally I haven't seen anyone go that far. On the other hand I like my idea let the females hash it out. Let them decide about the issue of abortion on demand and whatever constraints they want to put on it. If you could write a law concerning abortion what would it be? Where do you draw the line. I;d be interested to hear the argument from the female perspective both for and against. I'm sure you would get some reactions from males on the site that might have some influence on your thoughts. Such as male wants abortion female does not what rights / responsibilities does the father have if any? Keep in mind in my scenario the only point of view that matters is the point of view from consensus of females only.
There are a million theories on the leak. One is that someone from the GOP side wanted to lock in 5 of their justices on the side of approval.
Abortion legal through 20-22 weeks. As for the father's rights if they're not married then his rights (just like with child support) start when the baby is born. A woman isn't an incubator. Married gets trickier obviously but frankly same. Women have a right to control what happens to their bodies. Being forced to just breed against their will is wrong. Same if he wants an abortion. He can't force her to undergo a medical procedure without her consent.
Extremist justices. Who has been compiling the list to judicial appointments and what is their agenda? When I was young and naïve I thought judges were the best of the best. And then reality and politics smacked me in the face Oh well back to pregaming for cinco de Mayo
Btw folks handing out pamphlets giving women their "options" -- one of them basically says ectopic pregnancies aren't a reason for abortion, they can be reimplanted, you'll only lose a lot of blood if you rupture so no big deal because they can just give you blood. Huh??? That's their advice? That something that can kill women isn't really that bad? Back to this case I'm leaning towards the female staffer angle, or a leak to gage reaction before going through with it.
