Supreme Court

Precedent Matters at the Supreme Court—Until It Doesn't

A new abortion case raises an old question.

|

In May 2019, Justice Stephen Breyer chastised his five Republican-appointed colleagues for overruling one of the Supreme Court's own precedents. "I understand that judges, including Justices of this Court, may decide cases wrongly," Breyer wrote. "And I understand that, because opportunities to correct old errors are rare, judges may be tempted to seize every opportunity to overrule cases they believe to have been wrongly decided. But," Breyer insisted, "the law can retain the necessary stability only if this Court resists that temptation, overruling prior precedent only when the circumstances demand it."

It was an impassioned defense of the legal principle known as stare decisis, which is a Latin phrase meaning, "to stand by things decided." Alas, Breyer's own record somewhat undermined his lofty words. Breyer, after all, certainly knew a thing or two about overruling precedent, having voted to do that very thing himself in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the landmark gay rights decision that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had upheld the power of state governments to prohibit "homosexual conduct." Bowers "was not correct when it was decided," the Court ruled in Lawrence, "and it is not correct today."

Precedent matters at the Supreme Court—until it doesn't.

Which brings us to abortion. Earlier this month, 207 members of Congress—39 senators and 168 representatives—filed a friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to take a second look at one of the most famous precedents in American law, the abortion rights-affirming decision Roe v. Wade (1973). "Stare decisis is not an 'inexorable command,' much less a constitutional principle," the congressional brief argues. "The Court has exercised [its] judgement to overrule precedent in over 230 cases throughout its history…. It is time for the Court to take [the abortion issue] up again."

The brief was filed as part of a case known as June Medical Services v. Gee, which the Court will hear later this term. At issue is a Louisiana law which requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstadt (2016), the Court struck down a nearly identical regulation from Texas on the grounds that it placed an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion.

But that was then. The Court's membership has changed in the intervening years and there is now perhaps a new appetite on the bench to rule in support of such abortion restrictions.

The 207 members of Congress are hoping for more than that. They hope that the Court will not only distinguish June Medical from Whole Woman's Health, but that the Court will take the present opportunity to revisit and overrule Roe itself.

That probably won't happen. As I've previously argued, "even those conservative justices who might want to see [Roe and related rulings] overturned might still prefer to see the precedents gradually weakened and narrowed over time, via a series of cases, rather than simply obliterated in one fell swoop."

At least for now, the Court's abortion rights precedents are likely to remain on the books.

NEXT: The FBI Wants To Treat Carter Page Warrant Mistakes Like Training Problems. A Court Adviser Says That’s Not Enough.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Roe isn’t wrong so much as the interpretation of Roe has been overly broad.

    1. The interpretation of Roe is that we have rights that extend past what are enumerated. That we have, by default, all of the rights, and government must present a compelling case for restricting rights.

      If you’re talking about where the line should be drawn for outlawing abortion – conception, first trimester, post-birth – that isn’t part of Roe. Roe doesn’t say anything about where the line should be drawn.

      1. That IS part of Roe. The whole trimester scheme was the Roe court’s invention.

        1. That is one of the reasons that even some supporters of abortion rights find that Roe is a bad decision. That the intricate trimester scheme was Blackmun legislating policy, not performing a judicial function.

          1. You two have made fools of yourselves, yet again.
            Trimesters were replaced with fetal viability in US v Casey (1992), nearly 3 decades ago But the extreme right has always been brainwashed on this issue. Libertarians understand that the fetal child’s Right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s Right to Liberty. Learn what “unalienable rights” means. Incorporated into the Constitution with the 9th Amendment.

            1. That has absolutely nothing to do with Roe being a judicial overreach. In fact, it confirms it

              1. Only to an imbecile!

                What you’ve SAID is that it’s judicial overreach BECAUSE the rights to Life and Liberty ARE identical.

                You have publicly confessed your fascism, by bellowing that SCOTUS is NOT empowered to EQUALLY defend ALL fundamental rights. On what basis? (lol)

                1. You’ve actually said something that is at least somewhat correct. Fetuses have rights too. One of them is the right to stay alive.

                  1. HOW DARE YOU …. again deny that pregnant women … like all humans … have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to liberty?

                    THE TWO RIGHTS — LIFE AND LIBERTY — ARE BOTH ABSOLUTE, PER THE DEFINITION OF UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Who are YOU to disagree?

                    Will you also babble … again … that humans possess full rights at conception? But RUN AND HIDE when I ask HOW a woman loses her GOD-GIVEN rights?… And what other God-Given Rights may be suspended, for how long … and on what fucking authority?

                    You SHIT on the fundamental moral principle of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given Rights. Again… WHY?
                    Because Authoritarian.

                    1. FFS you’re a raving idiot. Bipolar nutcase.

                    2. Called it! (smirk)

                      Will you also babble … again … that humans possess full rights at conception? But RUN AND HIDE when I ask HOW a woman loses her GOD-GIVEN rights?

                      YESS!

                      … And what other God-Given Rights may be suspended, for how long … and on what fucking authority?

                      Call out a psycho, and he … WHINES

                      You SHIT on the fundamental moral principle of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given Rights. Again… WHY?
                      Because Authoritarian.

                      And he just proved it!!!

            2. Wrong like usual.

              “But the court didn’t necessarily rule that a woman’s right to abort her child was absolute, meaning at any time during the pregnancy. The court opted instead for a trimester model (dividing a 9-month pregnancy into three relatively distinct periods). ”

              Casey touched on a viability standard.
              https://professorbuzzkill.com/roe-v-wade/

              1. Wrong like usual.

                (smirk)

                “But the court didn’t necessarily rule that a woman’s right to abort her child was absolute, meaning at any time during the pregnancy. The court opted instead for a trimester model (dividing a 9-month pregnancy into three relatively distinct periods). ”

                Has NO RELEVANCE to what I said — that Brett and Mickey made fools of themselves.
                Now you!

                Casey touched on a viability standard.

                NO, IT REPLACED TRIMESTERS, EXACTLY AS A STATED. YOUR WACKO SOURCE NEVER MENTIONS THE VIABILITY PORTION …. OR ANYTHING … ABOUT CASEY, except this blatant bullshit

                Add to that the fact that at least one of the rulings, 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a “plurality decision” rather than a “majority decision,” adds a whole new layer of complexity that means state legislatures can pick away at various abortion provisions, in an effort, perhaps, to wait until the philosophical/political composition of the Supreme Court changes as justices retire and are replaced by new justices.

                The plurality claim is a lie. A plurality wanted Roe struck down entirely. Two wanted to only change the standard. So only the standard was changed (to viability, and the legal burden)

                One more time

                Trimesters were replaced with fetal viability in US v Casey (1992), nearly 3 decades ago But the extreme right has always been brainwashed on this issue. Libertarians understand that the fetal child’s Right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s Right to Liberty. Learn what “unalienable rights” means. Incorporated into the Constitution with the 9th Amendment.

      2. I just have a hard time believing that when we assume non-enumerated rights for the mother (ability to abort and decide what happens about a child she is carrying) and not for the child (ability to not be killed).

        The more people try to inject principles into Roe, the dumber the discussion becomes. There’s no moral principle that lets you escape with your hands clean. You either tell a woman she’s going to have to carry that child or you tell that child they’re not going to live.

        1. So, if the woman is 90% going to die, is abortion okay to save her life, which is the life we have in hand already?
          What about 50%?
          5%?
          When does the fetus’s “right to live” trump the mother’s?
          Which government agency should we have make the judgment call? Can we guarantee they do so in the matter of days, hours, seconds that the mother’s life may depend on? What if some anti-choice, pro-fetus bureaucrat decides to risk the mother’s life? What appeal does she have?
          And how is any of it “libertarian”?

          1. Why do you focus on the 0.01% of abortion cases?

            1. That’s what they do. Fixated on some kind of extreme outlier scenario that we have t base policy upon. Just like how we have to complete change the entire order of civilization for trannys. Who comprise…… a tenth of one percent? Less? Of our population.

              1. And that’s because they don’t want the majority of cases handled as the vast majority of the country wants (no abortion), but instead they want all cases handled the way the majority wants edge cases treated.

                Go ask every non-crazy leftist liberal and they tend to agree that purely elective abortion is horrible, but are afraid that any more restrictive regime would mean no abortion to save the life of the mother in a certain death case. It’s a fallacy of the excluded middle though – sure there are people who say no terminating pregnancies ever (as covered by Monty Pythons, “Every Sperm is Sacred), but even with anti-abortionists in general the vast majority don’t see pregnancy termination for the intended purpose to save the life of the mother as an abortion – it’s a life saving medical intervention that has the unfortunate side effect of terminating the child.

                To many of them (and after having kids my wife and I became firmly in this camp, though we were pro-abortion before – under a no compulsory slavery theory) it’s like a choice of who to save first from a sinking car in freezing water – a young mother, or her young baby? The mother is more likely to survive, so you try to save her first, because if you go the other way you’re probably condemning them both (though funnily enough both my wife and I insist that each of us be the last to be saved).

                So the actual liberals (as opposed to leftists as Ben Shapiro describes them) favor abortion restrictions of some sort, and many favor prohibition after viable extraction (right now about 20 weeks, but that will decrease over time as we’ll eventually be able to extract and save the child at any gestational age ultimately rendering abortion purely evil rather than a necessary evil), while leftists want abortion for everyone (except men) all the time.

                The real giveaway to my mind is the exclusion of men: a woman can choose to abort, or choose to give birth and leave her child for adoption, but a man can never make that choice – he’s always on the hook financially. That’s a pretty clear separate but not equal treatment under the law.

                1. Behold the bat-shit crazy Christofascist PSYCHO!

                  And that’s because they don’t want the majority of cases handled as the vast majority of the country wants (no abortion),

                  Pathetic

                  Gallup Poll, Chump

                  Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances?

                  Legal under any = 25%
                  Legal only under certain = 53%
                  Illegal in all = 21%
                  No opinion = 2%

                  Where’s YOUR source? (lol)

                  And what kind of FASCIST denies that ALL unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE … thus all CO-EQUAL … which includes … DUH … Life (the fetal child), Liberty (the pregnant woman) … and dozens of other rights … ALL ABSOLUTE

                  How do YOU propose to resolve a conflict between two rights … BOTH absolute???

                  Is he also a liar on the First Amendment???

                2. but that will decrease over time as we’ll eventually be able to extract and save the child at any gestational age

                  hahaha
                  You’ve just described the CURRENT law of the land!!
                  So stop yer whining.

          2. Oh, and you may not have noticed but all but one of the discussed regulations had health of mother exceptions. Likewise liberal judges have struck down legislation that was implemented to make abortion actually safer and ban cases like Gosnell. Abortion centers are the only medical centers given 24 hours prior to an inspection and they still fail basic cleanliness standards all the time.

            So fuck off with your cries about safety and health.

            1. Likewise liberal judges have struck down legislation that was implemented to make abortion actually safer and ban cases like Gosnell.

              That’s FOUR examples of right-wing brainwashing.

              NONE are as crazy as your BIZARRE claim that the Constitution DOES NOT ENUMERATE ANY RIGHTS!

              https://reason.com/2020/01/16/precedent-matters-at-the-supreme-court-until-it-doesnt/#comment-8090127

              1. Hihn, we’re going to put you in a sanitarium. Not a good one either. Omstead you get the crooked one from ‘60 Minutes’.

                1. HEY PSYCHO … THE CONSTITUTION DOES ENUMERATE RIGHTS!!!!

                  Ninth Amendment
                  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                  From the link you TRIED to lie about, chump.

          3. Thanks for proving my point about how stupid this discussion becomes the moment you try to inject principles. You’re taking a statistical anomaly and trying to remain internally consistent on an issue that you know has a messy answer.

            Part of the reason people abort in the first place is because a lose-lose situation where you’re faced with the prospect of child-rearing is easier to run away from than to face directly. I’m not going stop criticizing women who voluntarily become pregnant and then want to quit the moment it becomes life threatening or inconvenient. If you don’t want that, don’t become pregnant. Everything in life has risk. People who abort for convenience are degenerates, plain and simple. We should penalize them for their savagery the same way we do for murderers, not because abortion is analogous to murder, but because both crimes are difficult to enforce and pissing people off through enforcement is not a reason to permit savage behaviors.

            Stop trying to weasel your way to a nice answer where you can say “I respect life, but.” The moment you put any qualifiers on it, you do not respect life. You respect your own comfortable life and don’t want to rock the boat. You don’t want to see us throwing pregnant women in jail. You don’t want to think of your mother, aunt, sister, daughter or friends as degenerates for making a morally heinous choice. You’re afraid of the repercussions for calling a spade a spade. That’s when you know the moral fiber of society is at its weakest; when the righteous are so comfortable that they choose not to stand up for what they believe in.

          4. Typical confusion

            When does the fetus’s “right to live” trump the mother’s?Never. Nor does the mother’s ever trump the fetal child’s … by the definition of unalienable.

            Which government agency should we have make the judgment call?

            The equal rights, mother and fetus, are guaranteed by the Constitution. By what right do you challenge our Constitution,

            Can we guarantee they do so in the matter of days, hours, seconds that the mother’s life may depend on? What if some anti-choice, pro-fetus bureaucrat decides to risk the mother’s life? What appeal does she have?

            When has a bureaucrat EVER been so involved.

            And how is any of it “libertarian”?

            It’s mostly a string of strawman fallacies,

            What’s libertarian is —
            1) BOTH parties have EQUAL RIGHTS …
            2) Includes ALL unalienable rights, even those yet to be identified.

            a

        2. I just have a hard time believing that when we assume non-enumerated rights for the mother (ability to abort and decide what happens about a child she is carrying) and not for the child (ability to not be killed).

          It’s quite simple. The right to Life is precisely equal to the right to Liberty. Both rights are absolute, per the definition of unalienable. This creates what’s called “conflicting rights” in situations where BOTH rights cannot be defended absolutely.

          There’s a lot of bullshit denials, that no rights can be in conflict with other rights. Some brains EXPLODE at the notion of resolving conflicts between two rights, both absolute.

          Somewhat obviously, the fetal child’s right to Life CANNOT be absolute … compared with the woman’s equally absolute right to Liberty.

          When such conflicts arise — like “no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater” … only SCOTUS may resolve that conflict, and they MUST arrive at a solution that BEST defends BOTH rights EQUALLY … because both rights ARE equal!

          SCOTUS, because check and balance on the other two branches, the only branches which can CREATE such conflicts,

        3. non-enumerated rights for the mother (ability to abort and decide what happens about a child she is carrying) and not for the child (ability to not be killed).

          This isn’t about saving a fetus, it is about who pays for the procedure.

          You only have the rights you can exercise. Because the actions necessary to absolutely protect a fetus that has no ability to “not be killed” are unthinkable (I have thought about it – monthly proof of non-pregnancy by all child-bearing age females. Incarceration and 24 hour monitoring of health habits of all pregnant females. Restricted diets. Forced exercise. Intrusive monitoring of the raising of the child until it is capable of “not being killed” – puberty? ). You can’t protect the fetus by making abortion illegal. The poor will still have their less-than-safe mid-wives, defrocked (?) doctors, and bruhas. The rich will still go to Canada, Cuba, or Europe. Either way fetus’ will slip through the cracks (so to speak).

          The least authoritarian solution is to decide that a person can contract with any other person (I fell like I need a citation for where this might be spelled out) for whatever medical solutions they desire.

          If a woman who wants to can afford to hire a doctor who will fulfill her medical request then it is no-one else’s business. You can’t (feasibly) protect a right to exist for someone whose very existence can be concealed for months.

          If it’s illegal it is dangerous for both and will be as successful as the drug war has been. If you force the person to carry it through, have we not also assumed full responsibility from that point on in the young person’s life and well-being using too-intrusive government (it follows that all women and children would become invasively monitored. A man will be found to garnish pay from. The king brothers will rule his roost (no smoking, no drinking, no standing, no fucking, no drugging, no, no, no…).

          If it is legal some practitioners will be coerced by law (existing anti-freedom of association laws) into providing services they would prefer not to. But there will always be practitioners willing to provide the same varying levels of affordability and satisfaction as we get from the medical community already. This leaves it on the mother to find someone who is willing to do it at her cost (public funding would violate a whole lotta people’s rights) and then it is between them and their gods.

          The priority should be on those people we can protect while legislating that no public funds can support (that money is fungible makes the legislation difficult) the effort to terminate a pregnancy (a known fetus with rights).

      3. “we have rights that extend past what are enumerated” .

        You yanks are so cute, pretending the 9th and 10th Amendments exist.

        1. The craziest ones say ONLY the 10th exists. See Ron Paul.
          But … if there is no Ninth, how did we get to Ten?

      4. The interpretation of Roe is that we have rights that extend past what are enumerated.

        As guaranteed by the 9th Amendment – the Amendment lied about by the wacky right (and Ron Paul), that places strict limits on the 10th,

        If you’re talking about where the line should be drawn for outlawing abortion – conception, first trimester, post-birth – that isn’t part of Roe. Roe doesn’t say anything about where the line should be drawn.

        Roe established that abortions could not be banned in the first two trimesters, but could regulate abortion in the second trimester, to insure the safety of the mother, States COULD ban abortions in the third trimester, but were not required to.,

        That was all replaced, way back in 1992 (US v Casey) to fetal viability, which tends to occur earlier.

        1. And viability has been shunned in interpretation by democrat appointed judges, dismissing even the 20 week standard which is the earliest viability doctors have succeeded in.

          1. BULLSHIT. Even crazier brainwashing than your original DOUBLE blunder.

          2. Also, be screeching about “the earliest” you DENY the entire concept of INDIVIDUAL rights.

          3. What’s especially gross after 20 weeks (with some variability based on comorbidities) is that the risk to the mothers health in either early induced delivery and abortion is the same – delivering a baby with a chance to live is no more risky to the mother than aborting.

            So even there the life of the mother exception doesn’t render abortion necessary (a tiny handful of exceptions apply, like undiscovered ectopic pregnancies, but these are really rare at that stage). So after about this point the only argument for abortion over delivery is in favor of killing the baby – you can no longer claim that you’re saving the mother, since the abortion procedure essentially entails a forced delivery or Caesarian anyway.

            1. What the FUCK does that have to do with
              1) Individual liberty
              2) And unalienable rights
              … in your fascist gulag?

              So after about this point the only argument for abortion over delivery is in favor of killing the baby

              THE WOMAN’S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIBERTY

              – you can no longer claim that you’re saving the mother,

              THE WOMAN’S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIBERTY.

              READ THE NINTH AMENDMENT.

      5. The constitution doesnt enumerate rights, it defines powers.

        1. That’s even wackier!

          Ninth Amendment
          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          All too typical of the alt-right.

        2. The constitution actually does enumerate rights for the people, like the right to assistance of counsel and right to nonexcessive bail. It also enumerates powers and protects rights.

          Most importantly, the US constitution limits government to only constitutionally enumerated powers and specifically states that all other powers and rights are reserved for states and the People.

          Abortion can be a right just as privacy can be a right. Fetuses can have rights.

          Until Lefties admit that the Peoples right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed by any gun control laws, then we are talking apples and oranges.

          1. Most importantly, the US constitution limits government to only constitutionally enumerated powers and specifically states that all other powers and rights are reserved for states and the People.

            WRONG and BULLSHIT. Ninth Amendment.

            ONLY the 10th reserves ONLY powers (NOT RIGHTS) to states.
            ONLY the 9th deals with rights .,.. and FORBIDS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT to deny or disparage fundamental rights … including any and all rights not YET acknowledged

            Unless you swallow Ron Pau’s bullshit, the ONLY powers left to the states are things like traffic laws, drivers licenses and the like. STATES CANNOT HAVE POWERS NEVER DELEGATED. Full stop. US History 101.

            Now you go off the rails totally!
            .

            Until Lefties admit that the Peoples right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed by any gun control laws, then we are talking apples and oranges.

            Antonin Scalia was a …. LEFTY???? (lol)

            You cannot love the Constitution … by defiling it. Over and over. The Authoritarian Right is just as evil as the Authoritarian Left.
            NEITHER right NOR left are defined by their authoritarian extremes.
            But authoritarians must be authoritarian … thus, the shameless bigotry and hatred now destroying America. From both left and right authoritarians.

            THIS is individual liberty.
            “There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There’s just you and me, and we just disagree.

            FUCK your mind control …. AND Bernie’s AND Elizabeth’s.

            1. THIS word is the bullshit, setting up the later con job.

              and specifically states that all other powers and rights are reserved for states and the People.

              He “loves” the Constitution .,.. despite his ignorance if what it says! Common among the alt-right, including Paulistas

              Tenth
              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
              NO “rights”

              Ninth
              The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              THAT is where the powers are “prohibited to the states,” as stated in the 10th — which is WHY the 9th comes first.;
              ONLY the KKK and Jim Crow EVER claimed that states could violate fundamental rights. Today, SHAME on Ron Paul and the alt-right for lying about that limit on state powers — which the states ACCEPTED by ratifying the Constitution … a government of DELEGATED powers (also see the Declaration)

    2. I just want my right to privacy to extend beyond my uterus.

      1. Are you bitching, incomprehensively, that it does not???
        Are you saying there was no recognized right to privacy until Roe v Wade … despite the Fourth Amendment?

    3. It’s both.

      Roes was wrong, in the sense that it overturned the laws of most states on an utterly irrelevant and pretextual basis.

      It was also “wrong” in the sense that the Roe court never meant for it to be narrowly interpreted. The very same day as Roe was issued, they did Doe v Bolton, which utterly eviscerated Roe’s claim to be letting the states regulate abortion on the basis of medical necessity, by establishing that a doctor’s declaration of medical necessity was to be categorically unchallengeable. Which has led to a regime where a woman wanting an elective abortion later in her pregnancy just needs an abortionist to claim that giving live birth would be mentally damaging to her.

      So the Roe court never meant what they’d said about state regulation being permissible, they undercut that within hours.

      1. Fun fact: No one gets an “elective” abortion late in pregnancy.
        Oh, they might “elect” to have the procedure, much the way you might “elect” to have cancer surgery.
        But once into the 3rd trimester, a normal pregnancy is far, far safer than an abortion. Women “elect” to have abortions in that case because the doctor has warned they are going to die if they don’t, and they only MIGHT die if they do.
        The myth of women who decide 5 days before delivery to kill a baby and avoid the whole deal is a fabrication of people who masturbate to a misinterpretation of the Bible.
        But I’m sure the same government that denies pain pills to terminal cancer patients will always make the right decision for the mother’s health, in a libertarian fashion, right?

        1. Roes was wrong, in the sense that it overturned the laws of most states on an utterly irrelevant and pretextual basis.

          Typical right-wing bullshit.
          And no longer relevant, since Casey (1992)/

        2. Not so fun fact: Most late term abortions are “elective” As discussed by GovernorDr Blackface on his radio interview. The loss of a relationship, job, or other factors are certainly medically “elective” criteria

          1. HUH?

            1. Learn to keep up. He’s referencing qualifying conditions based in the language of the VA legalized infanticide law.

              Or better yet, take your goddamn meds and quit threadshitting.

        3. Well that’s a fucking lie. Health of child is more common than health of mother in 3rd trimester cases.

          1. Source?

        4. The myth of women who decide 5 days before delivery to kill a baby and avoid the whole deal is a fabrication of people who masturbate to a misinterpretation of the Bible.

          See how many have proven you correct!

          Actually, abortion was common in Biblical times, and for all of human history. Using herbs, It was never illegal, in the US, until it became a medical procedure, and ONLY the medical procedure.

          1. ‘Actually, abortion was common in Biblical times’

            I would ask for a citation, but I’ll accept that from you as you were likely present and an eyewitness.

            1. We learned about abortifacients in high school Biology.

              1. They were herbal, back then. I didn’t have to be there then, merely educated today.

      2. Brett repeats typical right-wing bullshit — as always — here on Doe v Bolton. Sad.

        The same 7-2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade, invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected “right to privacy,” which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained “the sensitive and emotional nature” of the issue and “the deep and seemingly absolute convictions” on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

        Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability (then assumed to be third trimester).

        TRUTH: Doe added the Georgia restrictions to the Texas restrictions, as being unconstitutional. “Remaining restrictions” means those which were in Georgia, but not Texas.

        Abortion being perhapos the very worset assa

        1. Abortion being perhaps the very worst assault on individual liberty, and the Constitution, by the extreme right..

        2. Abortion may be the worst assault on individual liberty, and the Constitution, by the extreme right..

  2. Over ruling Roe v Wade is much more than just reversing precedent because the case is not a simple 5-4 decision. It is a well written 7-2 decision. Justice Blackmun had a history working with medical cases and took a good deal of time to examine the history of abortion laws. It will take a strong case to reverse and a 5-4 reversal will look bad. John Roberts will not want that stain on his record.

    It is also worth noting the consequences of a reversal. Women in this country have had a right to safe abortions for over 45 years. The fact is that many people take that for granted and assume that the abortion option will be there if needed. I think there could be a large upheaval when people find out it is not available. Justice Roberts is also smart enough to think about this.

    1. Moderation, using your well-written and 7-2 vote criteria, how would you overrule Dred Scott? It was also well-written, and a 7-2 vote.

      Roe was wrongly decided. In fact, it should never have been taken up by SCOTUS. The proper thing to do is let the states and their legislatures address this political/social/moral question. They are elected to do that, and are accountable to us.

      1. Abortion prior to the quickening was legal and accepted in this country until the 1820s, when fear of Catholic immigrants and their higher birth rate prompted Protestant clergy to campaign against abortion.

        1. And then we understood biology better. However, the abortion rights side would howl if abortion was restricted to “quickening”. The current rulings are far more permissive than that.

          1. What if the anti-abortion crowd just left abortion alone until the quickening. If women had easy access to birth control and nonsurgical abortion there would be far fewer cases later in pregnancy. And what about the later term cases? Can we agree that if its choice between the woman or the woman and the fetus we will allow later term abortions? What about a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb can we end those pregnancies early? Because I think if we could do these things we would pretty much end the controversy.

            1. Oh, wow, I never knew birth control was so restricted. I only see it in every pharmacy, convenience store, county health department, free clinic, and school guidance office. If we could get it up to 20-25 outlets per square mile or city block, maybe this canard can be put to rest

              1. (lol) Convenience stores don’t fill prescriptions.

                If we could get it up to 20-25 outlets per square mile or city block, maybe this canard can be put to rest

                Umm, he said WOMEN. I’ll be charitable and assume you were babbling about condoms, which are male.

                Even what some call a “female condom” (diaphragm) requires a prescription.

            2. “ If women had easy access to birth control and nonsurgical abortion there would be far fewer cases later in pregnancy”

              Bullshit. There is already easy access. And the day after pill. Yet still shitloads of abortions. Largely because democrats have worked for decades to destroy any moral values in society and devalue the lives of babies.

              Sick sad sociopathic progressives.

              1. Bullshit. There is already easy access. And the day after pill. Yet still shitloads of abortions.

                MUCH FEWER. You are again so totally ignorant of the facts … or dishonest.

                Plus, if you CLAIM conservatards don’t want to BAN “non-surgical abortion” — which was common even in Old Testament days, your again ignorant ,,, or dishonest,

                Largely because democrats have worked for decades to destroy any moral values in society and devalue the lives of babies.

                Right-wing fascist SHITS ON MORAL VALUES, while claiming to defend them. (yawn)

                You need to learn what “unalienable rights” means. It means absolute. ALL OF THEM. That means they’re all precisely co-equal. So, how would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights, BOTH absolute? How many times can you FAIL this challenge?

                Since you always screech, in ignorance, that rights can NEVER be in conflict … lemme ‘splain it for you, Lucy.

                Two absolute rights are in conflict … in ANY situation where BOTH cannot be ABSOLUTELY defended. Why is that so difficult for you people. YOU say, “Fundamental rights are absolute, except when I choose to ignore that fact.” HUH?

                In abortion, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for BOTH the fetal child’s Life and the pregnant female’s Liberty to be absolutely defended. DUH.

                So … authoritarians, both left and right, want to DICTATE their preferred right as superior (NOT EQUAL), by force of law. The authoritarian left shits on the fetal child’s right to Life (if abortion until birth). Your authoritarian right t shits on the woman’s right to Liberty (banning abortion at conception).

                So,,, stop yer damn screeching and tell us how to defend BOTH rights EQUALLY … or explain why Jefferson, the Founders and the Constitution are bat-shit crazy (in your mind)

                Sick sad sociopathic progressives.

                Sick sad sociopathic conservatards.
                Libertarians have been calling out the moral hypocrisy of BOTH ,.. for over 50 years. And most Americans now agree!
                Your time has expired. (yawn)

                Sick sad sociopathic progressives.

                1. Do you have a point, or are you just raving and threadshitting again?

                  1. Sorry of I was unclear … you are FULL OF SHIT that there was no sharp decline in the number of abortions. With your BAT-SHIT CRAZY STUPIDITY

                    Bullshit. There is already easy access. And the day after pill. Yet still shitloads of abortions.

                    YOU DENY THAT CONTRACEPION REDUCED THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY!
                    THAT’S WHAT THE PILL DOES, GOOBER … SHITLOADS FEWER PREGNANCIES TO ABORT ….. (sneer)

                    ANOTHER LARGE DROP IN ABORTIONS FOLLOWED PASSAGE OF TITLE X FAMILY PLANNING, UNDER NIXON, WHICH MADE CONTRACEPTION AVAILABLE TO INNER-CITY POOR.

                    YOU HAVE BEEN CHICKEN-SHIT RUNNING FROM THIS SIMPLE QUESTION FOR OVER A YEAR:
                    “So,,, stop yer damn screeching and tell us how to defend BOTH rights EQUALLY … or explain why Jefferson, the Founders and the Constitution are bat-shit crazy (in your mind)

                    PUT UP OR SHUT UP, PUNK.

              2. “There is already easy access.”

                You are wrong. Most states limit abortions to centers and many states have attempted to limit access to or close these centers. By easy access I mean the following:
                1. Non-surgical medical abortions should only require a doctors prescription. Include telemedical visits for the prescriptions. Women can administer the medication at their home.
                2. Treat abortion like other medical procedures. No waiting periods, no unnecessary ultrasounds, and no lectures written by state legislatures.
                3. Treat abortion centers like other medical offices, no special rules.

                1. Non-troll, really don’t know the answer:

                  Are there any jurisdictions that restrict pharmacological abortifacients to an inpatient setting? I’m in AZ and various morning-after type drugs are readily available, including by telemedicine. AZ is more libertarian than conservative, so that may just be it, but are there places you can’t get at least a few options to use at home?

                  FYI: I’m in the health analytics field, so I tend to know a lot of this stuff (more than almost any physicians in some areas, less than a medical student in others), but I at least can think of why monitoring might be mandatory, just like it is when starting strong anti-coagulant therapy (ex: heparin, warfarin, etc) – the risk of sudden uncontrollable bleeding is relatively high. I’m just not familiar with any such laws on the books anywhere (in the US at least, they’re common all over Europe and Asia).

                  2) I understand why you’re saying this, and I used to agree, but there have been enough cases of women not giving informed consent to an abortion – largely because they weren’t informed – that I understand these laws. They’re much like the black box warnings on a lot of really effective pharmaceuticals – these drugs can save your life, but they can also end it. It’s the same reason SSRIs and SNRIs are often started as inpatient or closely monitored outpatient for under 25 year olds – drastically increased suicide risk in that age group, even though for most people they’ll help prevent suicide (and all of them have black box warnings a pharmacist will make sure you understand before filling them the first time).

                  3) totally agree, the problem is that in many states they’re treated not like the ambulatory surgical centers they (often, not all) but like physicians offices. Full service abortion facilities are closer to trauma centers than they are to ambulatory surgical centers, so if anything that’s the appropriate standard (note: not all abortion centers do surgical abortions, if they just perform chemical abortions they’re closer to an ASC and should have to have a blood supply on hand, but not a trauma or obstetrics surgeon to stabilize patients for transfer to a full service hospital).

                  1. I understand why you’re saying this, and I used to agree, but there have been enough cases of women not giving informed consent to an abortion – largely because they weren’t informed – that I understand these laws

                    She didn’t know she was getting an abortion? I understand the unconstitutional basis for such laws … almost as wacky as conversion therapy. Neither achieves a damn thing, except to proclaim a “victory” for fundraising and power-lust. The same manipulation used by leaderships on the left … and for most of human history, by all such power seekers.

        2. I knew the Irish were to blame…

      2. You need to brush up on your law. You are right Dred Scott was a 7-2 decision but it was never overturn it was superseded by an amendment. Also Dred Scott is considered one of Taney’s worse decisions.

        1. I asked, only to expose the fallacy of your reasoning, which was atrocious.

          Now please, tell me why state legislatures are not the right venue to decide political/social/moral questions. I maintain that abortion is a question that must be decided by the people, and their electedrepresentatives. Why shouldn’t this be the case?

          1. Because abortion is not really a political, social, or moral issue. It is about the right to exercise control over ones own body. It is about the ability to make private medical decisions with your doctor. A fundamental element of libertarian thinking is that the individual is in the best person to make decisions that affect them. So a woman facing a pregnancy should have the right to decide to continue that pregnancy or if she feel there are social, economic, or health reasons to end the pregnancy.

          2. I asked, only to expose the fallacy of your reasoning, which was atrocious.

            Bullshitters ALWAYS start with trashmouth.

            Now please, tell me why state legislatures are not the right venue to decide political/social/moral questions.

            NINTH AMENDMENT.
            STATES HAVE NO POWER TO DENY OR DISPRAGE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

            I maintain that abortion is a question that must be decided by the people, and their electedrepresentatives. Why shouldn’t this be the case?

            THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.

      3. and are accountable to us

        adorable

        1. I admire your sarcasm, toward such an ignorant comment.

          1. Oh they’re accountable to us. The problem is that collectively we don’t care.

            It’s the same problem with the Congress and the President – they don’t care enough and would rather give the Executive all of their power so they don’t get the blame when things don’t work out well.

            1. Has nothing to do with the context.

              Commenter_XY is FULL OF SHIT that state legislatures can overrule the Constitution — a common delusion of the wacky right tracing to Jim Crow, the KKK and southern racists … and Ron Paul, today.

              Really, now. Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land … has specific processes to amend it .,.. and was ratified by the states! States may rescind their ratification, only if they secede — as the original fascists did (slave-owners).

      4. Ninth Amendment overrrules conservative bullshit.

        And the fetal child’s Right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s Right to Liberty ,.. on the simple meaning of “unalienable.” Just that simple.

      5. The proper thing to do is let the states and their legislatures address this political/social/moral question. They are elected to do that, and are accountable to us.

        Sorry, Proggie, but this is NOT a Democracy.

        The Constitution EXPLICITLY denies ALL levels of government ANY power to “deny or disparage” ALL fundamental rights, even those which have yet to be acknowldged.

        Abortion is a conflct between TWO fundamental rights — Life and Liberty.

        And it’s NOT true the VOTERS can amend or repeal our Constitution.

  3. The arguments for abortion are almost entirely utiltarian, including appeals to state decisis. It almost always about reaching the desired conclusion, not a reasoned path the lead to the conclusion.

    1. My argument against anti-abortion laws is the same as all contraband laws: it can’t be enforced. There are too many things which mimic abortion to easily decide what happened. The comparison to murder is not apt, unless caught in the act or by confession, because most murdered bodies look murdered.

      1. ” The comparison to murder is not apt, unless caught in the act or by confession, because most murdered bodies look murdered.”

        That is the most absurd and insane argument I’ve heard in a long while. I assure you that if your skull was crushed and your brains sucked out, and then your body dismembered, you’d look murdered.

        1. Your argument is just as absurd. There are abortions which happen early enough to look like miscarriage.

          Remember all the people who went to jail for child abuse because some damned fool thought the symptoms looked like a shaken child? Probably not. Look it up.

        2. Fun fact: IF a late term abortion is necessary, and a woman “Elects” to have one rather than die, crushing the skull is the most humane method possible of terminating the fetus. It is also the fastest, and improves the survival of the mother. Who is a life. Which should matter to people who claim to be “pro life.” Unless they mean “pro childbirth.”

          Without that method, the alternative is chemicals to create a stillborn and hacking it to pieces with shears.

          But hey, at least its brains weren’t sucked out.

          1. So you’d be actively in favor of a law prohibiting dismemberment prior to termination, right?

            Graphic Warning: Because many late term abortions involve cutting the baby into pieces prior to crushing the skull all while still inside the uterus. That ones definitely out, right?

            You’re simply wrong on speed though, an emergency Caesarian is fastest, though depending on comorbidities may not be the safest (but often is). But you are right that slice and dice is a relatively safe procedure for the mother if it’s performed competently (here’s where medical malpractice caps become idiotic) AND she’s unable to be dilated. If she can be dilated then vaginal delivery is almost always safer (without crushing or cutting) as it reduces the chance of uterine tearing and the need for a catastrophic episiotomy (though increases the chance of a minor episiotomy).

            1. Why do you keep ignoring individual rights? The unalienable ones.

              Because many late term abortions involve cutting the baby into pieces prior to crushing the skull all while still inside the uterus.

              You need a source for that.
              Apparently, the medical expertise you claim is unaware that the fetal head is the lowest part, the first part delivered, and would have to get around that to slice the fetus into pieces. And how much empty space is in the woman’s uterus, to get around the head with pruning shears?

        3. Literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard on here. OBL can’t begin to think things this dumb to parody

        4. Literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard on here.

          1. Not as fucking stupid as your repeated DISGUST with our founding principle of Equal, Unalienable and/.or God-Given Rights.

            The fetal child’s right to Life is ABSOLUTE ,… but so is the woman’s right to Liberty. It’s NOT true, as goobers say, that the Founders were too stupid to know the meaning of “unalienable rights.”

            Oh, it is the Will of Almighty God, that ONLY humans derive pleasure form sex, even when procreation is impossible. Human females do not have to be in heat! Seriously.

    2. Mickey the “arguments for abortion” all reduce to one thing. The basic rationale is equality, i.e. that women should be able to engage in the same activity as men (sexual relations) with the same consequences (no child attached to his/her body). It’s yet another plank in the platform that wants society to treat men and women the same (although they are naturally different).

      1. Except that if the woman decides to have the baby against the wishes of the father, the father is SOL and on the hook for at least 18 years.

        1. What’s that thing they tell women? Oh, right–actions have consequences, and maybe he should have kept his legs together.

          1. That kind of ends the “Equality” argument, does it not?

            1. Only to an brainwashed goober, who “thinks” sex is a sin.
              Or only for procreation — which DEFIES the Will of Almighty God.

          2. Right, but that means it needs to be the same answer both ways, right?

            Men are told to keep their legs together now.
            Women are told they can spread them and change their mind later.

            In the past that was largely reversed, but if the standard is equality then men must have an equal choice in aborting their parental responsibilities (such as by severing all legal obligations and claims) the same way a woman can by adopting out her child.

            1. Women are told they can spread them and change their mind later.

              A common lie among Christofascists, tracing to the lie that the sole purpose for sex is procreation … which BLATANTLY defies the Word of Almighty God.

              Sex is for procreation, ONLY among lower animals. Human females need not be in heat, seriously. ONLY humans are created to experience joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible. All of this by the Will of Almighty God.

              And if rights are also God-given, why do you repeatedly deny and/or ignore the entire moral concept of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given Rights? Or are you an atheist or agnostic?

      2. The brainwashing of these people is … astounding.

        Mickey the “arguments for abortion” all reduce to one thing. The basic rationale is equality, i.e. that women should be able to engage in the same activity as men (sexual relations)

        Bullshit. It’s an issue of the very core of individual liberty — all unalienable rights being absolute — including (gasp) Life and Liberty!

    3. Mickey Rat, typical alt-right authoritarian, REJECTS the fundamental rights of Life and Liberty ,… or has been totally brainwashed by Christofascists, in severe violation of the First Amendment (about which they are also hopelessly brainwashed)

  4. I’d much rather they overturned Slaughterhouse.

    1. It is an outrage that the Slaugherhouse cases are still good law. But Roe has probably cost more lives.

      1. Nonsense.

      2. Hard to tell, Slaughterhouse has had a lot longer to percolate, and applies to far more people, even though it’s effect is more subtle on each.

        Roe is only just barely starting into the third generation of its geometric growth though, so it hasn’t had much time to compound.

        1. How would it compound? What does that mean here?
          Or do you mean the facts that a majority of American want abortion legal, at various level, and less than a fourth of us would ban it entirely?

  5. 207 members of Congress—39 senators and 168 representatives—filed a friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to take a second look at one of the most famous precedents in American law, the abortion rights-affirming decision Roe v. Wade (1973). “Stare decisis is not an ‘inexorable command,’ much less a constitutional principle,” the congressional brief argues. “The Court has exercised [its] judgement to overrule precedent in over 230 cases throughout its history…. It is time for the Court to take [the abortion issue] up again.”

    Brave words. Brave and noble.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. Article III, Section 2

    Hey, lookee there! The Constitution provides for Congress to create exceptions to the Supreme Court’s ability to adjudicate certain issues. I wonder why these brave and noble Congresscritters don’t just pass a law regarding abortion and then declare the law to be beyond the Court’s jurisdiction? If I were more cynical I might guess they know they don’t have the majority support for it and want the Court to take the heat for doing what they themselves cannot or will not.

    1. Testing that will break the idea that Congress can limit court jurisdiction or break Marbury v Madison and I don’t anyone really wants that fight or wants the uncertainty of what that would entail.

      It is the US version of the British monarch vetoing an act of parliament. Nobody wants that bombshell to go off.

    2. That would be grounds to abort the non-aggression principle and start nailing Christofascists to crosses and tossing leftists out of helicopters.

      Because literally every law will be exempted from judicial review. If you don’t see that as an instant brutal police state, you’re an idiot.

      1. The best example is Ron Paul’s totally shameful sponsoring of a law that would have banned SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA … which would have made gays the first group FORBIDDEN to defend their constitutional rights since slavery. Then, he claimed “rogue judges” has overturned DOMA, by LYING about the Constitution. (The Ninth Amendment forbids any level of government to deny or disparage ANY fundamental rights, explicitly such rights which are NOT enumerated in the Constitution.

        If you don’t see that as an instant brutal police state, you’re an idiot.

        Many of them see Ron Paul as a champion if liberty … when he defends the “states rights” of the KKK and southern racists. Ron is the intellectual founder of the alt-right.

  6. Stare decisis is not part of the Constitution. It is not something the Court is required to follow. It is followed as a general rule if there are not very specific and important reasons not to. It is a guideline not a rule.

    1. MOST important of all … the fetal child’s right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s right to Liberty … by the simple definition of unalienable.

      Several goobers here seem to “think” that Roe’s trimesters are still the law of the land. That was replaced by US v Casey (1992), that abortion cannot be banned until the fetus is VIABLE … capable of living outside the womb, even with mechanical means (incubators at the time, now a much wider variety of machines, as encouraged by Casey)

  7. Souter could have killed Roe.

    1. Instead he decided to kill the 5th amendment.

      1. (laughing hysterically at the goober)

  8. As shown by so many comments here, abortion is among the wackiest issues for the brainwashed Authoritarian Right (fascism) — which is SO easily proven.

    a) Unalienable rights are absolute, all of them.

    b) That includes Life, an unknown package called Liberty and an unknown package called Liberty ,… plus an unknown number of rights protected by the Ninth Amendment.

    c)The Founders, being well educated, KNEW that rights had always evolved, and always would evolve. NO right has ANY value unless and until it had been defended by others. This, too, is elementary — per the very meaning of “God-Given Rights.” If all rights are God-Given (innate), then we possessed all of today’s rights in the 11th century. What good did THAT do? DUH.

    Here, the fetal child’s Right To Life is precisely equal to the woman’s Right to Liberty ,.. period … no debate … unless one BELEEBS that Jefferson and the Founders were fucking stupid.

    Abortion was NEVER banned in the Bible, and quite common at the time — herbal. It was banned ONLY in the late 19th century, when it became a medical procedure. HUH?

    BUT … authoritarian thugs seek to deny the OBVIOUSY equal rights, and impose their preferred right by force of law. Left-wing fascists deny ANY rights to the fetal child, by allowing abortion until birth, Right-wing fascists claim that rights are completely defended from conception … BUT GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS ARE SUSPENDED FOR PREGNANT WOMEN! (Are any other God-Given Rights suspended? Which ones, for how long, and on what authority?)

    Oh yeah, because the sole purpose of sex is .. procreation … which DEFIES THE WILL OF ALMIGHTY GOD!! Umm, human females do not need to be in heat! (lol) Only lower animals. Humans can and do experience great joy from sex, even when procreation is impossible. Do the math. It is the will of ALMIGHTY GOD that humans have sex for joy alone. (Drives the Christofascists NSANE — that they’ve been so totally suckered, by preachers for the Anti-Christ, on so obvious an example of God’s Will)

    Let the Christofascist screeching begin … just note the CANNOT dispute a word of this ,.. only assault me for ,… defending the Will of Almighty God.
    Hence, their Christofascism confirmed.

  9. They are still reading from the corrupt script that preserved slavery for a century too long. No one had the stones to “rock the boat”.

    It makes perfect sense that any “doctor” dealing with the very intrusive (and thus bearing signficant risk, far more than normal childbirth does) proceedures involved with abortioni MUST have admitting priviledges at a nearby hospital. Things DO go “sideways” in abortions, and women often die from the situation that could the more fully and easily be handled in an hospital setting. Whatever happened to the meme of “keeping abortion safe (for the selfish mother, anyway) and legal (as legal as murder can get)”?
    If the same woman wanted to get an appendectomy done, should she be free to go to some strip mall clinic and have it done there? I’ts cheaper that way…. and should those doctors be free to set up shop in the spare exam room at their neighbourhood medical clinics? NO< of course not. HOW is it that when it comes to abortion all manner of slack is granted because its a "speshul" proceedure that cannot be inhibited by law. Untl a woman dies from the complications of her "proceedure' and cannot get to adequately equipped facilities with adequately trained personnel because the guy with the scalpel who started it all does not have permission to work at that hospital. This is penny wise and pound reallly stupid.

    1. It makes perfect sense that any “doctor” dealing with the very intrusive (and thus bearing signficant risk, far more than normal childbirth does) procedures involved with abortion MUST have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

      That level of extreme ignorance may be why men should have no say here.
      (Or why Christofascists were to be silenced by the First Amendment)

      1. What about pregnant men, you cisheteronormative clinger?

        1. Hmm, I’ve never seen satire from you. FUNNY!
          (I assume satire, because nobody is crazy enough to think men get pregnant, not even Christofascists!)

          1. “nobody is crazy enough to think men get pregnant”

            https://time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/

            1. YOU LOSE

              Evan, who was born female, had wanted to be a parent since he was very young, when he played with dolls just a bit longer than the other kids. … when he first came out to friends as transgender at 19, changing his name and beginning his long physical transformation, he didn’t stop adding to the list of baby names in the back of his journal: Kaya, Eleanor, Huxley.

              ….Evan, who stopped his hormone treatments before trying to get pregnant, chest-feeds his newborn son in their Massachusetts home

              According to your ilk, she IS female.

              He wanted to be a male, AND have children, which REQUIRES him to have been born female.

              Anything else?

    2. Why would admitting privileges be useful though?

      I’d think that were I to have a botched abortion I’d want a new surgeon taking a look, rather than the hack who already screwed me.

      Admitting privileges don’t mean your patients can get in, they just mean you can treat them inside the hospital, and I don’t see how that’s really useful for the patients of an incompetent abortionist to be forced into maintaining that relationship. If the patient still wants them they can always come along anyway, and even administer drugs – the hospital just wont help them in doing so.

      1. Why would admitting privileges be useful though?

        So, we can add admitting privileges to the list of topics you know nothing about!@!

        I’d think that were I to have a botched abortion I’d want a new surgeon taking a look, rather than the hack who already screwed me

        You can do that anyhow, Sport.
        Your claimed expertise in medical issues keeps getting more laughable.
        Christofascists are voiceless in public policy, on Christofascists matters, per the First Amendment

  10. Given abortion is not stated in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights..why is the Federal Govt even involved in this issue. Morality aside it is a States issue..now if you want to state abortion as a natural right…you can get an amendment passed. The SC should never even have taken Roe v Wade. They don’t have the power to decide on this. And sorry but Judicial Review by the SCOTUS is bs too…States are the final decider if a federal law is constitutional…

    1. Given abortion is not stated in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights.

      OMG … Both LIFE (the fetus) and LIBERTY (the woman) are in the Declaration.

      Your ignorance extends to the Constitution!

      Morality aside it is a States issue

      The Ninth Amendment forbids all levels of government to “deny or disparage” fundamental rights.

      .now if you want to state abortion as a natural right…you can get an amendment passed.

      NINTH AMENDMENT!

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      The rights are guaranteed, even those rights which have yet to be acknowledged … which is how Rights have worked for over 400 year now,

      States are the final decider if a federal law is constitutional…

      Why can you cite NOTHING to support such nonsense? If I’m not clear enough, the Ninth Amendment shows you have totally humiliated yourself.

      And How large is your Klavern?

  11. Government has zero authority to regulate what people ingest or do medically to themselves. Parents also have parental rights that are not listed in the US constitution but are clearly natural rights.

    The commerce clause covers interstate business not what people do intrastate.

    1. How is that relevant? The issue HERE involves fundamental rights. Life (the fetus) and Liberty ( a pregnant woman) … BOTH of which MUST be defended, EQUALLY, per the Constitution you love.

      A bogus problem exists, because authoritarians, both left and right, seek to use government power, to impose THEIR preferred right as superior to the other, under force of law … a SEVERE violation of Natural Law and the moral principles of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given rights.

      Since unalienable rights are absolute, by definition, they’re ALL precisely co-equal … which tends to explode the brains of authoritarians … both left and right. They CANNOT deal with resolving conflicts between two rights, when BOTH are absolute.

      Individual Liberty is NOT for the feeble minded!
      Which is why God invented libertarians!!!

    2. Government has zero authority to regulate what people ingest or do medically to themselves.

      So you agree government has no legitimate role in abortion, favoring either side. And you finally agree on somethingin the Libertarian Party Platform!

      Might that cause problems for you, among your Authoritarian Right?
      HANG IN!

  12. Hey Hihn, I just wanted to let you know that you’re a worthless subhuman piece of shit. Everyone in your life who has ever encountered you for even the briefest of moments hates your guts and will celebrate when you die from senile dementia like the worthless piece of welfare-leeching shit that you are in your Medicare-funded inpatient facility. If you had the slightest shred of self respect or dignity you would save yourself, your family and society the embarrassment and just kill yourself, but we all know that you haven’t got the integrity or balls to do the right thing.

    1. Behold the crazed psycho … spewing hatred like the subhuman slime that all thugs are.

      Hey Hihn, I just wanted to let you know that you’re a worthless subhuman piece of shit. Everyone in your life who has ever encountered you for even the briefest of moments hates your guts and will celebrate when you die from senile dementia like the worthless piece of welfare-leeching shit that you are in your Medicare-funded inpatient facility. If you had the slightest shred of self respect or dignity you would save yourself, your family and society the embarrassment and just kill yourself, but we all know that you haven’t got the integrity or balls to do the right thing.

      One … sick … fuck …
      Also full of shit.
      And INSANE,

      Here’s why losers are always foul-mouth thugs … SINCE ANCIENT GREECE!!

      When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
      -Socrates

      “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.”
      –Benjamin Franklin

      “Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something”
      Plato

      “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business
      -Eric Hoffer

      Keep screeching, Goober. Show us what you are … a chicken-shit, whiny pussy, who CANNOT deal with a single issue. A LOSER.

      NOW do you feel manly?

      -Just defending libertarian principles on a libertarian web site … principles which have ENRAGED the Authoritarian Right for a half century, just like their soulmates, the Authoritarian Left. Thugs,

  13. Are you urgently in need of a loan, Business Loan,
    Personal Loan, Investment Loan, Home Loan, Car Loan and
    much more. We offer small, medium and large loans, same
    day approval, with a short and long-term guarantee at a
    rate of 5% per annum. Interested persons should contact
    for further information and applications via WhatsApp:
    +27638779328 Email Us: Mikemorrisfinancegroup@gmail.com
    Best Regards Mrs.Lucy Caver

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.