Without Promising Alternatives to the 'Viability' Rule, the Supreme Court Seems Inclined to Ditch Its Abortion Precedents

The justices may find it difficult to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban without overturning Roe v. Wade.


The U.S. Supreme Court today considered whether to uphold Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, which would require overturning or revising longstanding precedents saying the Constitution does not allow states to prohibit abortion prior to "viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. At least five justices seemed inclined to uphold Mississippi's law, and possibly to go further by ruling that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion after all.

Before today's oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we knew that six of the current justices either definitely or probably took a dim view of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that said women have a right to abortion under the 14th Amendment, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe's "central holding" that "viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions." That did not necessarily mean all of those justices were prepared to renounce both rulings, since the conviction that a case was wrongly decided is just one of several factors the Court is supposed to consider in deciding whether to overturn a precedent. Only one justice, Clarence Thomas, had publicly said the Court should overturn Roe, a view he first made clear by joining the dissent in Casey.

The oral arguments focused largely on whether the Court could replace the widely criticized viability rule with a different dividing line that would be principled and practical. But only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to be seriously entertaining that possibility.

While Mississippi is urging the Court to overturn Roe and Casey, Roberts said, "what we have before us…is a 15-week standard." If the issue is that "women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy," he said, "that supposes that there is a point at which they've had the…opportunity to [choose], and why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line?…Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?"

Jackson Women's Health Organization, the abortion clinic challenging Mississippi's law, itself cast doubt on the workability of alternatives to the viability rule. "There are no half-measures here," its Supreme Court brief says. "Each of the State's purported alternatives would upend the balance struck in Casey and ultimately extinguish 'the woman's liberty to determine whether to carry her pregnancy to full term.'…Upholding the Ban under either 'alternative' rationale the State offers would lead to the same thing: attempts by half the states in the Nation to forbid abortion entirely, and a judiciary left without tools to manage the resulting litigation."

Justice Samuel Alito, who agrees with Thomas that "the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion" and made his disdain for the "arbitrary" viability rule clear, zeroed in on that passage from the clinic's brief while questioning Julie Rikelman, litigation director at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Your brief [says] the only real options we have are to reaffirm Roe and Casey as they stand or to overrule them in their entirety," he noted. "You say that 'there are no half-measures here.'"

If the Court repudiates the viability rule, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, "do you see any other intelligible principle that the Court could choose?" Her answer suggested that she does not. "I don't think there's any line that could be more principled than viability," she said. "I think the factors the Court would have to think about are what is most consistent with precedent, what would be clear and workable, and what would preserve the essential components of the liberty interest. Viability checks all of those boxes, and has the advantage as well [of] being a rule of law for 50 years."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh recited a list of precedents the Court has overturned, suggesting that the passage of time should not protect decisions that a majority of justices now view as "egregiously wrong," which is how Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart described Roe and Casey. "If you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this Court's history, there's a string of them where the cases overruled precedent," Kavanaugh noted. He also repeatedly suggested that decisions about abortion regulation should be left to the states.

Mississippi's position, Kavanaugh said, is that the Court "should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life," because "they say the Constitution doesn't give us the authority" to decide such issues. Kavanaugh seemed to agree. "Why should this court be the arbiter?" he asked. "There'll be different answers in Mississippi and New York, different answers in Alabama than California, because there are two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who said stare decisis "is obviously the core of this case," repeatedly asked about "safe haven" laws that shield women from liability when they leave a baby at a hospital or fire station. Mississippi argues that the proliferation of those laws represents a new circumstance that supports overturning Roe and Casey.

Barrett also asked Stewart whether ruling in Mississippi's favor would jeopardize other precedents mentioned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor involving contraception, sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Those rulings, Stewart assured Barrett, established "clear rules that have engendered strong reliance interests and that have not produced negative consequences or all the many other negative stare decisis considerations we pointed out."

These comments and questions do not bode well for anyone who hoped that the Court would retain the essence of its abortion precedents even if it let Mississippi's law stand. Given the unsatisfying justification for the viability rule and the lack of promising alternatives, a majority of the justices may well conclude that "half-measures" won't suffice.

NEXT: Pandemic Restrictions May Harm Infants' Cognitive Development, New Study Finds

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. So overturn Roe V. Wade. It was a bad legal decision in the first place.

    1. And an incredibly deadly one.

      1. Fine. Take the fetus out at 6 weeks and see if it lives.

        1. Ah, that makes it okay to kill them then. And don't talk to me about the sanctity of a woman's bodily autonomy, Mr. Forced Vaccine Mandate.

          1. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management is convened!

            And it is a joint meeting, with Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics.

            Carry on, clingers . . . and try not to whine so much when your betters enlarge the Supreme Court and send the bigoted, backward, authoritarian conservative justices to where they belong, which is writing seething, bitter, inconsequential dissents.

            1. Ugh. How many times must I explain this to you?

              "Ladyparts" as a synonym for "uterus" is transphobic language because transmen and nonbinary people can have them too.

              You wouldn't tell actor Elliott Page he has "ladyparts" would you? Of course not. He and his body are 100% manly man.


              "Carry on, clingers . . . and try not to whine so much when your betters enlarge the Supreme Court"

              Got an updated timeframe for that prediction, Art? Because you once said I wouldn't mind seeing Judge Barrett confirmed, if only because I believe it would precipitate the installation of four new, better justices during the first half of 2021. Which obviously didn't happen. 🙁

              1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 800$+ daily… You can earn from16000$-32000$ a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity

                This Website OPEN HERE…….>>> WorkJoin1

                1. My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighberor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information..

                  Visit this website...... Visit Here

              2. I am content to let time sift this. That is the luxury of being on the right side of history and the winning side of the American culture war.

                Whether enlargement of the Supreme Court occurs this year, next year, or a few years from now is not important. That the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to shape our national progress --against the efforts and wishes of conservatives, stomping stale, ugly, superstitious, bigoted right-wing preferences into irrelevance -- is the important point, don't you think?

                1. See my post below about how I own you, bitch.

                2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.JUt Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

                  For more info here...........Earn-Opportunities

            2. Have you given up on your mouth fetish because I called you out on it?

              Before, you used to want to be jamming these things down our pretty little throats. But you gave it up because I made you realize how creepy and pedo it makes you look lmao.

              Good to know I have power over you, bitch.

              1. This is so juvenile.

                So you're only here to "score points" and "pwn the libs" then?

                1. Weird how you dont call out the assholes on your side like Kirkland or sqrsly.

              2. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month VXa Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time. Every person easily do this job by

                just visit.............BizProfit

            3. LOL well said. If I were the lawyer when the "Justices" that clearly plan on doing there own thing reason precedent etc be damned asked those inane questions, I would always bring it back to "well if your question was a valid probing of the issue, it would mean your protection from accountability by police who commit all kinds of crimes on duty and have "qualified immunity" would have been overturned in the numerous cases you have been given the opportunity to do so. Clearly you have zero interest in a consistent application of reasoning, you are preparing an ad hoc mishmash of "reasons" that you have rejected in dozens of other cases that you had an emotional determination of the outcome you wanted. These are not legal giants. They are small minded assholes whose goal is to enshrine their prejudices and police state preferences into law.

        2. Spend some extratime and chat for free with hot sexy ladies from EU only on sex in dresden

    2. Even RBG acknowledged it was full of crap.

      But it was ok to be full of crap because it's what they wanted.

      1. A consistent top 3 political and fund-raising issue?

      2. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.AXv Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

        For more info here.........VISIT HERE

    3. And they should not wait until the end of the term. I don't want to wait until July of next year to start not having abortions.

      The decision should be released on Christmas, so that 12/25/2021 will forever be known as 'The New Christmas Morning in America', and churchgoers can celebrate at the Christmas morning church service.

    4. You are such a libertarian, and thank you! Until now, being a male I figured I really didn't have a dog in the abortion fight. The point you just made shows that there's some legalistic principles that will spill over into non-female citizens. Terminating a pregnancy needs to be between the woman, her doctor, and whatever God she chooses to believe in. I think government has no business up inside a woman's uterus. If my understanding of Christian Scriptures is correct, people should judge not and leave the judging up to their God, and that is scriptural. If abortion in their view terminates a life well then that little innocent soul is off to heaven, praise God!! They got off easy not having to suffer in this world. But I really don't expect Christians to practice in alignment with their scriptures.

      1. Agnostic here. I don't give a fuck who you worship. You should not be able to sacrifice your child for harvest.

        This is what abortion is, a literal child sacrifice, so that you and your wife, girlfriend, or the girl you knocked up at the club don't have to take responsibility for your own actions.

        There is not libertarian about punishing the innocent and making them bear the cost of your bad decisions. The child is innocent. You are not. You had a choice and you decided to not use cheap and widely available birth control.

        Also, what kind of monster would kill their own kid for their own convenience? Most parents would die for their children.

        1. Fine- if the fetus can survive at 6 weeks drop it off at the fire station. There you go.

          1. Why do you like killing children so much? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

            Even if you support the choice, killing a child is never cause to celebrate. Sick fucks.

        2. Most parents would die for their children.

          And yet most parents will not die for their unborn babies. Weird.

          1. my mom almost did. she lost one who was more premature than me before she had me

          2. And virtually no anti-abortionists will do anything more than bitch about it. That's how we know they are not sincere when they call abortion "murdering babies". If they really believed that children were being murdered at their local women's clinic, then mobs of them would immediately storm the places to put a stop to it. Once in great while one of them will plant a bomb or take a shot at a doctor, but it's very rare. Clearly, they DO know the difference between a fetus and a baby, despite their silly equation of the two.

      2. They don't judge the baby, they try to protect it.

        They judge the mother because she is willing to sacrifice anothers life for her own sins. Because scripture also says its bad to have children out of wedlock or to get pregnant before marriage.

        And I'm pro choice. But you don't need to be a genius to understand their point. You just need to not be a retarded lefty like yourself.

        1. Blessed sanity.

          Given as how the vast overwhelming majority of abortions are for convenience, I cannot approve, but it should remain a viable medical procedure, with consultation prior, for that small percentage pregnant by violence or incest.

          1. The left has gone from pro-choice "safe, legal, rare" to flagrant pro-abortion.

            Posting celebration videos online of positive pregnancy tests and bragging about heading to the clinic. Im no preacher, but this level of moral decay has consequences on society. The pendulum has swung too far. Its time for a reckoning for them.

            1. ^The Puritans chain-letter.
              Still misses the point of pulling out the Gov-Guns on others.

      3. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life for reasons other than self defense. I think that we all agree on that. Conservatives (and many libertarians) believe that abortion is murder.

        If, as you contend, abortion should be between a woman, her doctor, and her god, how can you see that as any different in the view of those who disagree with you, than saying that murder should be between a person and their god?

        If, as many believe, abortion is murder, then your view is impossible for those who oppose abortion to accept.

        1. "many believe, abortion is murder"

          But it's clear that they don't really believe it. They couldn't stand by and let babies be murdered if they really believed it. They virtually never take direct action to stop it.

        2. "how can you see that as any different in the view of those who disagree with you, than saying that murder should be between a person and their god?"

          #1) I murdered that dog that was crushed by that truck then....
          #2) Ironically that mostly-dead dog wasn't stuffed up MY womb.

  2. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).

    Roe V Wade decision. Just going to leave that little tidbit here.

    Remember those citations. It means that the government CAN force you to have a vaccine, and it CAN force a women into sterilization or even an abortion-- or conversely forbid her from having an abortion-- if there's a compelling state interest.

    1. It means that the government CAN force you to have a vaccine, and it CAN force a women into sterilization

      Do we get to discuss mandatory chemical castration laws in several states or does the 14A say that forced sterilization is only a women's issue?

      1. Does it have to be chemical? Mechanical is more reliable.

    2. Problem SPOT -- "The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past."

      As it is with many bad court rulings.

  3. That would be a miscarriage of justice.

    1. A pregnant pause ensued ....

    2. It should be strangled in the crib.

      AKA late term abortion.

      1. If that was really the Pro-Life argument it would be about surviving fetal ejections not FORCED reproduction.

    3. Throwing the baby out in the back waters.

      1. Throw it in the front waters. In the backwaters Rev Kirkland will find it and wanna play with its perty mouth.

    4. hopes are high Roe receives a dilation and curettage.

      1. The judges are expected to wade into the Roe issue for the final time.

    5. the precedents should be killed via vacuum aspiration.

  4. I don't believe that abortion is a libertarian issue. I don't have a strong opinion on this subject.

    That being said, Roe v. Wade is clearly problematic from a legal standpoint and therefore it should be overturned. However, that would only empower the dems, in fact it would possibly give them a chance to recuperate their popularity.

    1. it certainly would. They LOVE when they can bring out the abortion debate. It energizes their base way more than anti-abortion energizes right leaning independents and economic conservatives.

      1. you'd think that, until you show video of pro-baby murderers during these protests.

        There's a huge difference between safe / legal / rare, and literally 'shout your abortion'.

        Abortion isn't a good fucking thing no matter how you spin it, especially when the vast number are for the convenience of the mother or father. At least pretend like you feel a little bad about it, not acting like it's an affirmative good

        1. It's not the best at conjuring warm and fuzzy feelings.

        2. Maybe because these "pro-life" people give a shit all the way until the baby comes into the world. Then they're full sail into saying "fuck you" to both the mom and the kid.

          Pro-life my ass. No such thing.

          1. That's such a tired and dumb argument. As if you've never actually talked to a pro-life person in your life.

            "Wait I can't kill my kid? Well YOU arn't going to pay for THEIR COLLEGE so there!"

          2. Because the only option is state funded cradle to grave welfare, right?

            You know there are legions of charitable organizations dedicated to child welfare, right? Or millions of people who would dearly love to adopt that little clump of cells and take care of it for the rest of its life.

            1. Part of the problem here is the rhetoric of the pro-life side. They express great concern for the wellbeing of the unborn child. And I am willing to admit that for quite a lot of them, that concern is sincere. But the moment that child is born, especially if that child is born into a poor family receiving government assistance, suddenly, that child turns into a "welfare leech" and is the object of scorn, not compassion. There is a great deal of moral judgment coming from the pro-life side and that is off-putting to a lot of people.

              1. I know it is a concept you're unfamiliar with but this is called taking responsibility for your actions. At least try not taking your talking points from Vox, ENB does that enough.

              2. "man, people really judge me for knocking up a woman I met at the club, not using birth control, and then pressuring her to abort the baby"

              3. Lying Jeffy misusing quotation marks again. Unless he’s got a cite of someone from the pro life movement calling someone a welfare leach.

              4. Lmao Jeff the non partisan chimes in just to give us a partisan take that refers to nothing in the post he replied to.

                Have you figured out we all know you're a fitty cent retard yet, Jeff?

              5. More of an issue with a specific wing of the right: the economic right.

                If you bother to look around, I think you'll find most of the pro-life energy comes from the religious right, and we tend to have actual charities aimed at helping impoverished parents. Eg, my local Catholic Church is constantly requesting and accepting donations of diapers, formula, clothes etc to give away to such people. And no judgement is given for accepting it.

              6. Jeff. You are unbelievably full of shit. The pro life crowd donates and adopts at higher rates than any other class. Unlike your fat welfare dependent ass who requires government to donate for him.

        3. At least pretend like you feel a little bad about it, not acting like it's an affirmative good

          Guess who's not shouting out their feelings about it in the streets.

          1. Or taking abortion pills in front of the Supreme Court.

          2. Momma Kass?

        4. Calling an unwanted pregnancy an "inconvenience" is outrageously dismissive of the rights and needs of the pregnant woman.

    2. Abortion has been a great divide and conquer wedge issue tool for nearly five decades for the Republicans. The dog chasing the car is going to finally get its mouth on the car's bumper and it's gonna go for a ride. It will be fun to watch.

      1. tax4 in 1860:

        Slavery has been a great divide and conquer wedge issue tool for nearly five years for the Republicans. The dog chasing the car is going to finally get its mouth on the car's bumper and it's gonna go for a ride. It will be fun to watch.

        1. He's not completely wrong. Striking down Roe is not much of a victory for us. It's a sort of Missouri Compromise. It's going to temporarily delay the fight, and set the stage for escalation to a total-conquest situation, where the federal government will inevitably be used to force all states to accept or deny abortion unilaterally. The "let the states decide" motto is not going to work long-term.

      2. You misspelled Democrats.

    3. The whole line of constitutional precedent that started with the birth control decision and proceeded thru abortion is hilarious, and shows appellate jurisprudence is basically a lot of busy work designed to create precedents splitting hairs between the things you (the powers that be, the popular will, your friends at cocktail parties) want to come out this way and those you want to come out that, which then makes for more busy work for judges down the road when the powers that be want things to come out differently. What the judges wrote to try to make it that birth control would be constitutionally protected while things very much like it wouldn't be, was to invent "privacy" based on the idea that without sex we wouldn't have come into being, therefore the constitutions wouldn't've come into being, so sex is fundamental and must be protected by the constitution in terms of allowing people to choose to reproduce, which means allowing them to choose to not reproduce as well. And then later they said that applied to homosexual activity as well because it too tends to take place in private and looks like what you'd do to reproduce.

    4. However, that would only empower the dems, in fact it would possibly give them a chance to recuperate their popularity.

      ^ The fastest and most certain way for the Republicans to light all the political capital the Dems have handed them in the last ten months on fire will be to spend it overturning Roe v. Wade.

      1. What does it matter?
        Serious question.
        The left has ALL institutional power, and the right has little to no legitimate representation at the highest levels of elected office.
        What the fuck is the peaceful way out here?

        1. Open wider, clingers!

          -- signed, your betters


            I thought you were over it, but clearly you're a sick fuck and the point of a fetish is it's addictive to you. I bet you wear women's stockings on your head too.

        2. What the fuck is the peaceful way out here?

          Mail-in voting in a fortified election.

      2. Agreed.

        The major issue here is that this is a court proceeding, which isn’t a wholly political endeavor.

        Whether a court decision should kill political momentum is dubious, but inevitable at this juncture. But the possibility shouldn’t preclude the court making the right choice.

    5. However, that would only empower the dems, in fact it would possibly give them a chance to recuperate their popularity.

      Until three failed abortions set another dumpster on fire and an armed 17-yr.-old medic finishes the job.

    6. Abortion is a liberty issue. It should be protected by the constitution (although the reasoning in Roe is first grade BS, and the wrong way to reach that decision). Libertarians should desire the restoration of Lochner, and the laissez-faire liberty jurisprudence it represented. The outcome of Roe is easily within the ambit of that jurisprudence.

      (Libertarians should also desire the general principle 'i can do what i want to my body' to apply to everything, not just abortion, but it certainly applies to abortion. We should demand the courts strike down drug laws and other nonsense as interfering with our liberty right to bodily autonomy).

      1. other nonsense...interfering with our liberty right to bodily autonomy

        Including coerced vaccination, discrimination against the unvaccinated, mandated masking, etc.

        1. When it is the government doing those things? Yes.

          Private individuals and the corporations they own have their own liberty interests, and should be allowed to demand vaccination, discriminate against the unvaccinated, mandate masking, etc... (at their own discretion, without government pressure to do so).

          1. So, if your boss tells you, "have sex with me or you're fired", that's OK? What about a "whites only" sign on the door? Or telling employees they're not allowed to vote? Are there any rights we maintain when we enter private property?

  5. "...[T]he Constitution does not protect a right to abortion after all ..."

    Never has.

    1. You need a pair of those special spectacles they hand out to Scotus judges.


  6. The copium is particularly hard today.

    I don't know how you couldn't arrive at the conclusion that anyone other than Roberts would try to split the baby, but, then again, Reason doesn't actually pay it's writers to think.

  7. Roe vs Wade collapses when the baby is recognized as a person.

    Which is exactly what DNA Fingerprinting science proved in 1989. A human individual.

    The legal system only applies the meaning of words to achieve justice. They have no business defining words.

    The baby is a person deserving the inalienable right to life.

    1. Roe v Wade was destined to collapse the moment it was written, because it is not based in anything other than 'because we want this'. It is a monstrously bad ruling.

      1. Yet it was unanimous. So they must've really, really wanted this.

        1. It wasn't unanimous. It was 7-2.

    2. No way can I consider a zygote having equal legal standings as an adult woman.

      1. and that's a lie you tell yourself so you don't feel as bad for supporting murder. You know it's a person.

        Go google a image of a 6 month old unborn baby, and tell me it's okay to kill it for your convenience

        1. Ok esteve, you go adopt all these kids. Are you also for a stronger social safety net so these kids don't live in poverty?

          Yeah, I highly fucking doubt it. Just like 90+% of the "pro-life" crowd, you give a shit until it knocks at your door and inconveniences you in the least.

          1. You're not helping your position.

            1. He's inadvertently making the case for Buck V Bell, forced sterilization. I'm not inclined to dismiss raspberrydinners out of hand.

          2. There's a waiting list of couples wanting to adopt children, 36 to 1.

            1. Ah, so you only want to force women to carry their rape babies to term and give birth to them.

              There's so much freedom I can barely choke on it.

              1. You had to bring the Cuomo brothers into this didn't you.

              2. We don't execute the rapist, but we do execute their unborn child?

          3. again proving my point that the baby murdering side has never actually talked to a pro-life person in their life

          4. "It's ok to murder what inconveniences me"

            Gonna be a bitch when that comes back at you.

        2. Go google a image of a 6 month old unborn baby, and tell me it's okay to kill it for your convenience

          Essentially no one gets abortions at 6 months, and literally no one does for 'convenience.' Google an image of a two-week old fetus and tell me it's a "baby." Take it out and cuddle it, even.

          1. Uh, dude. Nearly all abortions are for convenience. They arn't for health, or rape, or incest, or anything like that. They are elective. They are for convenience.

            1. Who gets an abortion AT SIX MONTHS out of convenience?

              1. I would guess someone who would find a toddler to be a bigger inconvenience? Even IF someone did it at six months (I'm not saying anyone does, but hey, it's the internet and someone will undoubtedly find and example-- like a vaccinated person dying of covid) they wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't some advantage to the person doing it-- even if we'd all agree that advantage was legitimate.

                1. Of COURSE there would be an advantage. That doesn't mean it is commonplace. There aren't mass numbers of women signing up for abortions at 6 months pregnancy because "they don't feel like it". That is just a trope.

                  1. then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to ban it then, right?

                    if it never happens, then what's the problem?

                    1. "then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to ban it then, right?"

                      You'd think so, but severe resistance to banning things that totes aren't happening is not limited to later term abortions.
                      See: teaching critical race theory in public grade schools...

                    2. Late term abortion is already illegal.

              2. If you weren't an incel you would know which genetic tests happen late in pregnancy.

                1. Bingo.

                  You can’t even test for those things until at least 5 months.

          2. People get abortions for convenience all the time.

            1. Drive thru covid testing and abortions.

      2. Well if you consider IQ.
        , you have a lower standing than many others, some would say so low that you don’t deserve the right to life.

        But, fortunately for you, the framers of the constitution knew better.

      3. Fine by me.
        I certainly don't consider tzx4 or rasberrydinners as having any legal, or moral, standing.

      4. Yea the zygote is innocent still. Most adult women in need of abortions wouldn't need an abortion without making many stupid decisions along the way.

        Also. When are we going to talk about the correlation of poor educations and high abortion rates in our Democrat run inner city and black communities?

        And how many other problems are a result of Democrat run cities failing to educate their cities youth?

      5. Read some History and primer on logic and critical thinking, why don't you? '.... No way can I consider a Jew or black man or Slave or woman...having equal legal standing as this kind of adult....

    3. What if the baby is Jewish?

      1. They're not human.

    4. Roe vs Wade collapses when the baby is recognized as a person.

      Hmm. I wonder if that's why the debate revolves around the definition of 'personhood.'

    5. A baby is a person, but babies have the distinction of having been born. You can't abort a baby.

      A fetus is not a baby. Your verbal gymnastics are unconvincing. When fetuses become persons is a hard question, but the viability line is probably the best heuristic we can create which is reasonably enforceable.

      1. You don’t have to lament your difficulty defining personhood. It’s already been done.

        Persons are defined as a human individuals.

        That is what the unborn are.

    6. Roe vs Wade collapses when the baby is recognized as a person.

      If the fetus is recognized as a person, then abortion of an unwanted pregnancy becomes an act of self-defense, and the privacy protection of Roe is unnecessary.

  8. Two libertarian arguments against banning abortion:

    1. If abortion was treated like murder in a legal sense, then it would represent a vast increase in the police state, and a vast reduction in our privacy rights, if every miscarriage was investigated as if it were a possible intentional homicide.

    2. If abortion represents a conflict between the rights of the mother vs. the rights of then unborn child, then by banning abortion, the state would be prioritizing the rights of an individual whose moral state is uncertain, over the rights of an individual whose moral state is definite and known. The mother is definitely alive and has the full panoply of rights; the unborn child, however, has a more ambiguous moral state, and it is not certain whether that individual possesses the full panoply of rights that a born child would have.

    1. Your arguments are terrible as usual.

      Humanity isn't judged based on their morality. Do wr go around blindly killing the infirm and mentally handicapped. And if morality is your concern why are you against the death penalty.

      We get it. Youre a dem. You rationalize to protect their platform. Don't think your arguments are anything past sophistry.

      1. And you're nothing but a fascist with weak willed arguments.

        Again, go fuck yourself dumbass.

        1. You got nothing? Yep, par for course.

        2. Lol. Terrible .50er.

        3. Live and let live.
          Kill or be killed.

          You, the left as a whole, have clearly rejected the former thus chosen the latter.

    2. The mother has a right not to get pregnant with cheap and widely available birth control. The father has a right not to get a woman pregnant with cheap and widely available birth control.

      They've already had their choice and want to kill their kid to bail themselves out of their bad decision. Punishing the innocent is not a libertarian position

      1. Accidents happen.

        1. The child is innocent

          1. It's a clump of cells, not a kid. Pull it out at six weeks and see if it lives.

            1. Fuck you, not calling it a baby doesn't make it any less murder and doesn't change that more than 90% of these murders are done for convenience.

              If the mother is at risk or if the child is a product of rape or incest we can talk. But fuck right the hell off on "her body" bullshit and let's talk about their choice to bone without protection or a plan.
              Being horny is not an excuse for murdering babies.

            2. throw a 1 year old in a dumpster and see how long it lives

              you arn't making the point you think you are making

            3. I think you could stand to offer a little more deference to the moral claims of the unborn child. It has substantially more moral worth than "a clump of cells".

              1. Do you even know what the word moral means?

            4. Rasberrydinners is a clump of cells, not a person.

              1. Evil clump.

            5. Unfortunately that's not the standard - at least not in the 21st Century. Life is simply the absence of death. That clump of cells qualifies as life and the right to live until death occurs.

        2. Can you cite me one... just one... case of a man slipped on a banana peel, went head over heels, and landed with his equipment accidentally lodged in an unsuspecting woman who then got pregnant?

          That would be an accident.

          Doing something I know has a potential outcome and doing that thing purposefully does not make that known yet undesirable outcome an accident. If I bet it all on black at Vegas it isn't an accident when the ball lands on red.

        3. Since when is spending $10 on blunts instead of Jimmy hats accidental?

          If you're gonna lay some pipe, skip the blunts or cigs and buy a pack of rubbers. Or do like most sane, sexually active, single* males and keep a box of rubbers hidden in your car.

          1. In before Jeff claims I'm racist for showing my white privilege by assuming all men own cars

        4. At 98%(monthly birth control) and 95%(condoms) and 80%/90%(morning after pill depending on brand for if condom breaks) and the base likelihood of becoming pregnant being around what, 30% even if in an ovulation state the probability of an accident happening is pretty damn low. The reason there are so many abortions is because people are fucking lazy and know they can just off the baby later with no consequence.

      2. They've already had their choice and want to kill their kid to bail themselves out of their bad decision.

        If you could knock it off with the moral judgment part, it would help your cause. Seriously.

        If you want to ban abortion because you believe that the unborn child has an inalienable right to life, then fine. It doesn't matter, then, whether the parents made a "bad decision" or not.

        But if you want to ban abortion in order to "teach those irresponsible kids a lesson about not having irresponsible sex", then the whole rights talk is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

        1. I am making both. Legally, you cannot kill an innocent human being.

          Morally, you are a disgusting fucking person when you choose to have unprotected sex, knock someone up, and have her kill the baby for your convenience.

          Think Toobin knocking up a coworker in an affair and pressuring her to abort it. Same with that one republican congressman.

          End an innocent life because you cannot own the responsibility of your own actions.

          1. Then you are giving the impression that you are offering a motte-and-bailey argument. That all of the rights talk is just the motte to conceal the real bailey argument, which is that you want forced pregnancy as a weapon to "teach those kids a lesson".

            If you really think those kids are irresponsible wretches, why would you want them trying to raise kids?

            Moreover, why do you think the state ought to be the moral teacher for all of these supposed wayward youths?

            1. This is collectivistjeff, as usual, lying to himself. He is projecting what he himself is guilty of onto others.
              Collectivistjeff is totalitarian scum, and a wonderful candidate for abortion.

            2. Jeff saw others calling out his motte abd bailey bullshit and now projects it onto others.

            3. you can make 2 arguments at the same time.

              also we do have laws about child abuse, child endangerment, etc.

              Saying "well this shitty person will be a shitty parent so might as well kill it before it's born" isn't exactly an argument. It's projecting "maybe my life would have been better if I wasn't born" onto the unborn.

              1. No, my point is that if you want to give a moral lesson to wayward youths on personal responsibility, the way to do it is not with abortion laws.

                You are basically justifying things like the drug war, and vaccine mandates, in the name of personal responsibility. That it is the state's proper role to use coercion on people to act according to what it thinks is "responsible ". That is a dangerous position.

                1. My lord are you obtuse.

                  We advocate for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY with... *drumroll* ...MORE GOVERNMENT!
                  Yes, completely makes sense, you rancid slab of ass-butter.

                2. '... and if you don't' want to give a moral lesson to wayward youths on personal responsibility, but e.g. do want to give a lesson on every one whose functioning DNA has not been consumed by death, a right to life , the way to do it is with laws, including anti 'abortion' laws....' passed under the 10th Amendment that once gave States the right to deny women basic rights and allowed Jefferson to buy and sell blacks. Those are 'dangerous' positions too, but so what? Get over yourself. State Vaccine mandate laws were considered and upheld over 100 years ago provided they could prove using science that it's 'responsible' or 'reasonable' vs. arbitrary and capricious; and one Court went further and upheld mandatory sterilizations. The only dangerous position is the lefts position (and absurd logic) when it comes to the rights of the unborn.

        2. Jeff in first post: prioritizing the rights of an individual whose moral state is uncertain, over the rights of an individual whose moral state is definite and known

          Jeff in second post: If you could knock it off with the moral judgment part,

        3. "If you could knock it off with the moral judgment part, it would help your cause. Seriously"

          Go fuck yourself, totalitarian collectivist.

          I don't want abortion made illegal, but I'm man enough to admit the truth of what it is. And that truth is wrong according to common morality.
          You cannot inherently value all human life and be pro abortion. You're just lying to yourself and everyone else if you claim to.

          1. I had a roommate who was 100% pro-abortion, who thought no restrictions up to point of birth.

            Yet he would take spiders and release then outside.

            Literally valued those clump of cells more than a human's

          2. I don't want abortion made illegal, but I'm man enough to admit the truth of what it is.

            Which proves your insincerity.

    3. 1. isn't a libertarian argument it's an anarchist argument. It's like saying we need to abolish real property rights and get rid of the evil, governmental county recorder's office. An increase in government specifically to protect individual rights is libertarian.

      2. Is just recapitulating the it's-not-a-person argument with extra word salad, which isn't libertarian.

      1. exactly. the entire purpose of government is to protect your rights.

        So yes, the state should protect babies from being murdered. Just like it protects babies and children now from abuse and harm.

        If there's any role of government at all, it's to protect innocents from being murdered.

        1. So yes, the state should protect babies from being murdered. Just like it protects babies and children now from abuse and harm.

          Okay, then. Suppose a pregnant mom smokes and drinks. Should this behavior be regarded as child abuse?

          1. are you saying it shouldn't?

            What if she just smokes in her house a week after she gives birth and the baby gets to breathe that in.

            Why is that different? In both cases an innocent party is being harmed

            1. So, from a practical point of view, how would a law regarding child abuse against an unborn child be enforced, from your point of view?

              1. Jeff. You posited the question. Is child abuse illegal or not? Your theory of autonomy means a parent could starve a child since they can't be forced to provide them food or shelter. Dumbass.

          2. From the guy demanding everyone wear a mask so his fat ass gets doesn't get sick (terrible assertion by him btw)

          3. Yes you dumb mother fucker. And hospitals literally test for things like this in newborns. The child can be removed from the mothers custody if it's got drugs in its system or visible defects from substance abuse.

            Theres literally a disease called "fetal alcohol syndrome", which you probably have, and it causes similar physical features in the face to downs syndrome. Very similar to Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot actually, who clearly had a drunk mother. Large forehead, small distance between lips and nose, huge distance between her eyes. It's one of the most common forms of fetal abuse.

            Then there's also the ever increasing (over 30% in urban Cleveland and Pittsburgh) births of babies that immediately go into withdrawal, which can be fatal in infants, because the mother was addicted to opiods. This is probably the second largest form of fetal abuse, and again like fetal alcohol syndrome, is quite obvious right at birth.

            1. Yes yes I know about these things. So then all of these should be regarded, legally and morally, as if the mother was beating her child? Should the mother of a child born with fetal alcohol syndrome not only lose custody of her child, but be charged with child abuse?

              1. Jeff youre the one claiming the woman has no responsibility for child in or out of womb you sophist shit. It is your views that are inconsistent. Like most liberals.

          4. Justice Thomas raised that point during arguments, and referred to a SC case talking about that = Mom who takes illegal drugs and gets busted at birth

      2. 1. isn't a libertarian argument it's an anarchist argument.

        It is an argument expressing skepticism of the wisdom of expanding the power of the state to investigate potential crimes that, by the logic of the anti-abortionists, the state would be compelled to investigate. The state would have to investigate every miscarriage for a potential crime, just like now, the state investigates every dead body for a potential crime. We should be very very very skeptical that the state will use this power wisely.

        2. Is just recapitulating the it's-not-a-person argument with extra word salad, which isn't libertarian.

        Not exactly. It is a different argument. The point is, the moral state of the unborn child is more uncertain and more ambiguous than that of any born person, and certainly more so than the moral state of the woman herself. I think we should be careful about deprioritizing the rights of those whom we *know* ought to have their rights protected.

        1. The state would have to investigate every miscarriage for a potential crime

          No, they would do what they do now, prioritize crimes they believe are worth investigating. There isn't a parallel earth out there where that becomes the top priority.

          1. No, they would do what they do now, prioritize crimes they believe are worth investigating.

            Isn't a potential murder a crime worth investigating?

            You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand claim that a born and unborn child have the same moral standing, and then on the other hand claim that a dead unborn child is "not as big of a deal" compared to a dead born child.

            1. Less than half of murders go to trial you ignorant fuck. Detectives have limited resources.

              1. Wow, you don't care if half of child murders go unsolved?

                1. Jeff brought up the resource question Tony. Why are you so stupid? If murder wasn't illegal would we have more or less of it despite resources?

                  1. Wow, so you want to lock up 800,000 women per year for first-degree child murder?

                    1. Worship. Youre too dumb to actually engage in arguments made.

                    2. Woosh. Not worship.

      3. Jeff thinks government has a right to tax and spend to help the homeless if people don't voluntarily donate to homeless causes.... yet thinks we shouldn't protect the life of a young child. He is a disgusting piece of leftist shit.

    4. What if at the same time we downgraded murder to a noncriminal violation, like a $50 fine? Most people still wouldn't murder. And more lives wouldn't be ruined by being jailed over it.

      1. Oh, we do have different expectations on that one.

      2. You're right in principle. Laws against murder have virtually no effect on the murder rate. They just allow us to restrain people who do murder in the interest of public safety.

    5. The "more ambiguous moral state" argument regarding personhood and humanity has justified many an atrocity. If you dehumanize something, it's much easier to kill without those nasty conscience problems.

      1. You have a point. But it is also the case that using the state to try to enforce "correct" or "responsible" behavior can also be fraught with peril, as we see with these government mask mandates and vaccine mandates.

        My point is this. Suppose you have a born child and an unborn child, and some tragedy occurs and you are only able to save one of the two. Which one would you choose? I would argue that for most people, they would regrettably choose to save the born child over the unborn child. And this happens all the time, with wanted pregnancies that wind up endangering the health of the mother, in the vast majority of circumstances, individuals will choose to save the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child. And I think this general trend represents that we collectively don't regard an unborn person to be on the same moral plane as a born person. A born person is tangible, we can see that person as a separate unique individual. An unborn person is also tangible, but in a more indirect way. We can't see that person as a separate unique individual (yet). So we need to be careful when it comes to whose rights we choose to prioritize.

        1. Triage?

          Your arguments are stretched so far you look even more like an idiot than usual.

          Babies. Are. People.

          And you want to murder them for convenience. For a social life and drinksies. This is why socialists and lefty shits are responsible for so many genocides.

          1. ug, i'm not going to defend other people's terrible arguments, but *fetuses aren't babies*. And every idiot knows this.

            When a married woman gets pregnant (and intends to keep it), she doesn't tell her friends 'we had a baby', she says 'we're going to have a baby'. The baby is in the future. Even 5 year-olds grasp this difference.

            Please feel free to make arguments for the personhood of a fetus at whatever age range you think appropriate, but confusing fetuses with babies is just you being confused.

      2. And FORCED reproduction isn't a "dehumanize something"....

        I find it humorous how easily the Pro-Life side dismissed an actual Female being there at the scene.

    6. But abortion in its current state under Roe V Wade isn't unlimited. What are the penalties for having a late term abortion?

      1. Well, based on the federal statute, the punishment for the doctor for performing a late-term abortion is 2 years in prison.


        Which is notably less than the punishment for first-degree murder in most all circumstances.

        Which just goes to show that even for the authors of the late-term abortion law (not exactly pro-choicers), they did not view the unborn child to be on the same moral plane as a born child, else, why wouldn't the punishment for a late-term abortion be the same as the punishment for first-degree murder of a born child?

          1. So there is not popular support for the idea that killing an unborn child is as bad as killing a born child, even among Republicans?

            1. Majority of Americans support more abortion restrictions, yes.

  9. "Eric Rudolph declared Monday that abortion must be fought with "deadly force" as a judge sentenced him to life in prison for setting off a remote-controlled bomb ..."

    Old boy might finally get his wish.

    1. A rare anti-abortionist who actually believes his talk.

  10. So what Sullum is saying is "go long coathangers".

  11. Wah Wah Wah. If you want to murder your own child for your convenience, you'll have to move to a blue state to do it.

    Or you could grow up and be a responsible adult.

    Nah you definitely belong in a blue state

    1. Adopt all these kids fucko. Go for it. Or advocate for a lot stronger social programs like universal healthcare.

      But I bet you won't you two faced fuck.

      1. You missed the responsible adult bit. Both in the comment and life.

      2. "hey I noticed you're beating your wife and starving your children"


        Take responsibility for your own fucking actions. Being a grown fucking adult. This isn't hard

      3. It was already pointed out earlier that the waiting list for babies to be adopted is pretty fucking big.

        1. So why are there so many kids stuck in foster care?

      4. always amazing those are always the ONLY choices that spring to mind for these folks... never enters the realm of possibilities that people CAN live with the consequences of their choices without involving everyone else.

  12. Arbitrary age-based ruling doesn't seem... uh... non-viable. We have numerous laws that are age based. Going against such considerations could lead towards lowering the voting age toward birth or increasing the drinking age towards death.

    1. The drinking age should be 18. The ability to be on mommy and daddy's insurance should stop when you graduate high school to account for those that turn 18 in their senior year.

      Now as for not being murdered, that should apply at any age

      1. From a scientific standpoint you can make the argument that full adulthood should be 24, especially for contracts longer than 2 years.

      2. Fuck off, slaver. There should no "drinking age" and terms of your insurance should be entirely between you and your insurance company.

  13. Why can't the judges say, "One side wants it this way, the other side wants it that way, so we'll split the difference so each side gets about half. That means we're doing our job right."? They should do that about everything else, too, it seems the fairest way to decide anything.

    1. Your wisdom is Solomonic.

      1. Moronic is more like it.

    2. That's pretty much the way most civil suits are decided. "Take your half of the baby and get out of my courtroom."

  14. "Set aside for a moment all the questions about personhood and the fact that many religious traditions do not recognize personhood at conception. (The arrogance associated with the view that “everyone” agrees when life begins is indicative of a movement that insists that our laws follow one particular religious tradition.)

    Instead, focus on the contention from antiabortion activists that a woman’s right to bodily integrity must be sacrificed for the sake of another. This is a rule that is applicable in no other situation.

    In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

    The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

    Moreover, these same voices roundly reject the obligation of self-sacrifice for others’ health when the inconvenience is far more trivial than the emotional, physical and financial burden of a nine-month pregnancy. The “my body, my choice” slogan from anti-mask and anti-vaccine advocates is the most stunning example of their refusal to compel even minor inconveniences to save innocent life. They refuse to apply that same demand for bodily autonomy in the abortion context.

    Likewise, the same right-wing advocates for criminalizing abortion reject any slight inconvenience for gun buyers, such as background checks, even if it might save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Their Second Amendment rights trump everyone else’s safety. The only ones denied the right of self-determination are pregnant women.

    Indeed, in no other context does “innocent life” eviscerate all other liberties and interests. They demand we keep stores open to sustain the economy, even if doing so imperils others. They blithely vote to chop Medicaid funding in the name of fiscal sobriety (even though they are happy to support tax cuts for the wealthy), making lifesaving addiction treatment more difficult to access. And they routinely oppose environmental regulations — economic freedom! — to restrict pollutants that threaten the health and lives of others.

    A free society must allow a realm of personal freedom and a sphere of personal autonomy. We recognize the unacceptable price of overriding that zone of personal integrity in certain intimate matters. We dare not give government the right to override bodily integrity even for very good reasons.

    The Supreme Court may well uproot decades of precedent on abortion rights. State legislatures may follow with abortion bans. But let us not pretend this is about the noble principle of “saving innocent life.” This is about denying women in particular the power to decide whether to undergo a substantial physical, hormonal, emotional and financial obligation for nine months. Until we are ready to demand commensurate obligations for all Americans in a host of other contexts and severely limit their personal autonomy (at great personal inconvenience and cost), we should be honest enough to recognize this is about controlling women, not about innocent life."


    1. Stopped when I realized it was Washington Post. Keep that leftist trash out of here.

      People really, *really* want to be able to murder their children.

    2. Thank you! Excellent. Now allow me to sarcastically imitate a common level of intellect found on this website . . . .

      You are a commie feminist democrat, you need to rot in hell. MAGA!!

    3. My owning a gun does not entail a necessity that I kill someone to do it. My going to a store does not require me to knowingly act in a way that will certainly kill someone. None of the things mentioned are analogous to abortion where the claim of bodily autonomy is specifically for the overt act of killing a person.

      My bodily autonomy does not grant me license to bury am axe in someone's head. It doesn't allow me to manipulate my body around another's property and take it for myself justly. Bodily autonomy means I can not be compelled to do something for others. But it does not mean no one can stop me when I attempt to harm others. Stopping an abortion is no different than stopping a murder on the street of an innocent.

      The only way it isn't is if the unborn is not a person. But all scientific knowledge points to a clear answer that yes, it is a person at the exact stage of development they are to be at at that time in their life.

      1. Personhood isn't a biological characteristic. It's a legal and moral one. Scientific knowledge may resolve some underlying questions, but it cannot determine when Personhood starts.

        Your first error, is confusing 'person' with 'Homo sapiens'. To acknowledge someone as a person is not to acknowledge their biological species. Should we encounter other intelligent life in the galaxy, we would grant members of their species personhood as well. Some people argue that at least some animals (esp. other primates and dolphins) should be treated as persons.

        Reasonable people can disagree on when personhood starts. And quite frankly, while a blastocyst may be comprised of human cells, it is not even a 'human' yet. What makes the death of a mostly undifferentiated agglomeration of cells 'murder'?

        1. Except that it is human. It contains 100% of everything it is supposed to at that time of development. I am human... nearly 40. Yesterday I was human. 30 years ago I was human. I was human the moment I was fully outside the womb. I was in no realistic way except in geo-temporal terms different that moment that the seconds before when I was in the womb. One minute earlier than that... still a human. A day before that? Human. I am the same cells, DNA, etc. Just as I do not gain my personhood from growing facial hair in puberty, I do not gain personhood from any other stage of development. My humanity is intrinsic in my being. My being is and was and always will be until death or before conception, human. There was never a chance that I was to develop into something else. There was no need to wait and see if I turned out human. Human rights are yours by virtue of being human. A zygote, a fetus, an unborn baby, a toddler... all human just on different points along human development. There isn't a difference developmentally in my developing organs versus developing more hair, more muscles, or even my early onset gray hair. Humanity is not defendant on age.

          1. Well that's a blatant lie.


          Until recently the federal government has categorized and labeled members of homo sapiens from outside the perimeter as "aliens". So much for other intelligent life on the same galactic object.

          Also note that the oral argument session didn't even address the issue of Fourteenth Amendment personhood of domestic fetuses.
          The closets they came was with Justice Alito saying this:

          JUSTICE ALITO: General, are there --
          are there secular philosophers and bioethicists
          who take the position that the rights of
          personhood begin at conception or at some point
          other than viability?

          What is the philosophical
          argument, the secular philosophical argument for
          saying this is the appropriate line?
          There are those who say that the
          rights of personhood should be considered to
          have taken hold at a point when the fetus
          acquires certain independent characteristics.
          But viability is dependent on medical technology
          and medical practice. It has changed. It may
          continue to change.

    4. Legs open? 9/10 said yes.

      That was a choice they made. And unlike the Clintons, we can't just casually kill people to make our lives easier.

    5. "In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

      Is this satire? It has to be satire. No one could write this in 2021 and be serious.

      1. Then answer the question.

    6. Instead, focus on the contention from antiabortion activists that a woman’s right to bodily integrity must be sacrificed for the sake of another. This is a rule that is applicable in no other situation.

      You're kidding, right?

      1. Legit Whataboutism

        What about the bodily integrity of American males sent to Vietnam without their consent and where blown up there, or lost limbs, and whatnot?

    7. And when considering that abortion rates have dropped did they normalize for dropping fertility rates? No? Then the WaPo can go fuck itself.


        One of the amicus briefs has stats of both kinds. See


    8. When you begin with “disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed inalienable right to life of a group of persons” what kind of people do you expect to keep listening to you?

  15. The viability rule has not prevented Virginia or New York from legalizing abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. Dumping Roe will not change that fact.

    1. But you know... the pendulum is only supposed to go one way for those people. You can always push the envelope on the abortion issue that way... just never in a 'more cautious' direction

  16. I put spot remover on my dog and he disappeared.

    1. What's his name? Spike?

  17. The best point I heard was from Kavenaugh. He stated the case very simply: let the people decide this question, and keep the federal government scrupulously neutral on the question. The people can figure this out.

    1. The Constitution is scrupulously neutral on whether procreation is or is not a fundamental right. Does that mean that states are authorized to compel vasectomies and/or tubal ligations?

      1. See Buck v Bell

  18. I see two big problems with over-turning Roe v Wade. First, what do we do about the thousands of 5-year olds impregnated by being raped by their fathers? And secondly, how else are we supposed to legally kill all them goddamn jigaboo babies?

    1. Well, with toddlers getting sex changes and learning about appropriate sodomy angles in Elementary, I'm pretty sure we can get the age of consent down to NAMBLA standards if the Dems manage to fortify midterms.
      And with Brandon's totally not racist ban on fresh brown people, I think we have some wiggle room to set up the Covid gulags for processing.

  19. See Citizen Ruth. It's a very funny movie literally about the abortion controversy, but more broadly it's about how, as Robert Anton Wilson wrote, "Convictions make convicts."

    1. ^ Great movie.

  20. SCOTUS will ultimately split the baby, pun intended ( adding to the pun, Roberts is a pussy, anyway, so there’s that to the mix.)

    During arguments, it sounded like the liberty right via the 14A grounds the privacy/abortion right from Griswold-Roe-Casey. I think that’s what I heard.

    Well, if that’s the force behind penumbras and emanations, what’s it matter if 24 weeks is replaced by 15 weeks? Thus, Mississippi law upheld, Roe ditto. Win-win.

  21. If I get the logic right, if I do something (by choice) that I know could lead to 9 months of encumbrance, and it does, I can declare such an encumbrance "unfair", and walk away.

    1. my favorite is when pro-abortion folks go "Well what if we may the MEN pay for that, HMMMMM????? They are responsible too, HMMMMM!!!!!"

      As if they've never talked to one pro-life person in their entire life

    2. Men & Woman Fertility Control. Only the latter

      Grand omission: Fetus father liable for 18 years of child support, after court-ordered genetic testing if he doesn't confess paternity or is not already on the hook automatically per legal presumption. No my-body no-force-parenthood defense there.

      But the Oral Arguments utterly eschew the obvious; that a man had a role in each instance of pregnancy and consequences. Search for "man" through the transcript. No hit. Search for father. Ditto.

      Only mention is by the Chief, using plural ("women and men"), and he got it half wrong in that procreational control via abortion only works for men if they don't want to be parents and if the man's will is aligned with the woman's will to abort. If the procreational intentions don't align with the mother, however, he has no say under the current legal regime. So we don't have an equivalent alleged reliance interest for half of the fecund population.

      The fetus father is liable solely based on having contributed the sperm/DNA and cannot unilaterally disclaim legal parenthood if he doesn't want the responsibilities of a parent. On the other hand, he has no recognized rights if the fetus mother wants to get rig of "it" even if he were willing (or even eager) to raise the child as a single parent for 18 years without any further support from the mother beyond the 9 months of gestation culminating in birth.

      How can it be said that the fetus father has no stake in the progression of the pregnancy and it's a woman-only affair? Especially when the man is willing and able to assume the burdens and joys of parenthood even if the pregnacy was not planned?

      following up on that, would that argument be
      true in terms of viability as well? In other
      words, what -- your discussion of the reliance
      interests and the ability of women and men to
      control their lives in reliance on the right to
      -- to an abortion, the argument would not be as
      strong, I think you'll have to concede, given
      what we're talking about, which is not a
      prohibition; it's a 15-week line.

  22. Forced birthers like to mention that 60 million abortions have been performed since Roe.

    They failed to save 60 million baby lives. What a fucking horrendous job they did.

    What a total failure.

    1. I'd hate to see Tony's commentary after discovering the emptied out slave plantations, or the gulags, or concentration camps, or...

      maybe I should pro-speak this to you:

      Abortion is bad because it is racist! There is a disparate impact as a disproportionate amount of POCs get abortions. This is clearly structural racism and white supremacy.

      (I mean the founder of PP literally wanted black folk to have less black babies.....)

      1. Why don't you get smashed drunk and try again.

        1. Black people are some 15ish percent of the population and in many cities account for 40% of the abortions.

          Dont know how the CRT smooth brainers arent absolutely tearing down the walls of every abobo clinic in town. There is not a single thing (esp not a white cop) more dangerous, statistically, to a "black body" than an abortion clinic. (well I guess maybe another black person with a gun)

          You would think they would have an interest in stopping this. The population would probably be about 25-30% black today if it werent for abortion. Black genocide happening in real time. Disproportionate effect on POCs. Dont you people care about that?

    2. This is the Tony I respect. Not the one who pretends he has a chip on his shoulder about billionaires (while obediently voting for the objectively more billionaire-friendly party). I respect the Tony who admits he's a typical white Democrat who really only cares about genitalia-related issues — anal intercourse, abortion, ladydick in the women's locker room. (And women's sports, and prisons...)


      1. Don't get me wrong, I'm way more wealth-friendly than most progressives. I want to be rich and to dominate my peers. Life is short. I also think that there should be a robust social safety net, because that's what civilized societies do. And I'd feel bad being very wealthy in a society that lets people starve for the crime of working three shitty jobs.

        Pretty much a libertarian when it comes to genitals, though. Again, life is short, and anyone who thinks there is a correct way for people to live doesn't appreciate just how vast and uncaring the cosmos is.

        1. Good. That's what I like to hear.

          I don't think you're necessarily the same person, but you remind me quite a bit of American Socia1ist. You both regurgitate standard Democratic "every billionaire is a policy failure" messaging. But it's so obvious your heart's not really in it.

          When pressed, you admit you vote how Jeff Bezos' newspaper tells you to. You don't even attempt to dispute how efficiently the Biden economy is concentrating wealth at the very top. And you demand an American immigration policy more in line with what Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch has been promoting for decades.


          1. No, I want open borders and free and easy citizenship. I'm pretty sure the Koch plan is the importation of cheap labor with no rights.

            As for voting, there's only two choices in most elections, so it's an incredibly boring subject, to be honest.

    3. Now do contracts, and any other ethic related to personal responsibility.

  23. If a woman takes an abortificant right after conception that kills the zygote cell before it has divided, is she guilty of murder and should she be executed?

    1. I meant abortifacient.

      1. And should everyone involved in the manufacture and distribution of the pills be prosecuted as accessories?

  24. As a libertarian my wife and I have different opinions on abortion. I look at it from a constitutional rule of law pov. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or a right specified in the Bill of Rights. Sans a Constitutional Amendment, it goes to the States. Not that hard.

    My wife looks at it from "it's my body and you can't tell me what to do". She will admit it isn't about rape or a fetus with life-long physical issues but for most women a "get out of jail free card" due to a bad decision or forgetting the pill or just allowing hormones to take over. Her point is the man can make "bad decisions" as well but doesn't have to carry the kid for 9 months and then support it for 20 years or more. I explain that is all good but constitutionally Roe v Wade is a bad decision and it should be determined by the States per the 10th amendment. She will just look at me blank and say "it isn't fair."

    And that is why most women support abortion even if they never have one.

    1. Roe may or may not be bad constitutional law (there's an argument to be made that 50 years of precedent is by definition good law). What it indisputably is, however, is excellent libertarian constitutional law.

      It says that the state has to meet a fairly strong burden before interfering in the bodies and choices of free adults. If you don't think the constitution implies that, then surely you think it should.

      1. (there's an argument to be made that 50 years of precedent is by definition good law).

        Good point, we're about 40 years in with Qualified Immunity.

        1. Just saying, you could use its 50 years of relatively orderly success as evidence that the law was good. Massively popular. It would be undeniably a radical action to overturn it for yet more constitutional jiggery pokery nobody sane has asked for.

          Nevertheless, I clearly explained with it's a libertarianism-endorsed ruling because, even if it does tweak around in the constitution a bit, it leaves you with strong prohibitions on government with respect to your most private body functions.

          Remember that argument from yesterday?

      2. (there's an argument to be made that 50 years of precedent is by definition good law)

        How long did slavery last again?

    2. How does she feel about mandatory child support?
      After all, if the man has no say in whether the child he produces is born or aborted, it really isn't fair to force him to pay for anything.

      1. How about state decreed paternity fraud for that matter.

      2. I agree. The man should have no say in whether the pregnancy continues to term, and he should have no responsibility for supporting the child if he isn't married to the mother.

        1. Proposition: Woman's right to abortion cuts nexus of intercourse and birth/unwanted parenthood for the sperm provider. It is her choice to give birth, not his.

          That argument is very logical from the equality-under-the-law standpoint and also a sure loser in court. Indeed, anti-child defendants who offer it in a paternity action risk being sanctioned for frivolous legal argument.

          Men are routinely court-ordered to provide specimen of body (it used to be blood, necessitating medical procedure) on pain of contempt and they may come up as a non-match. Under the current legal regime, the fact of biological paternity (established via DNA nonexclusion) is dispositive, not the man's desire or not to become a parent.


          So, by the logic of the pro-abortion crowd, involuntary state-imposed parenthood is already rampant for the male of the species. How does that not raise Equal Protection concerns? How can it be ignored altogether? Even Justice Barnett couldn't bring herself to acknowledge that there is but-for-the-male causation in every instance of pregnancy, and that the interests of those human actors in the causal chain (partners in conception) cannot just be ignored. Rather than discarding an unwanted infant at a fire station, perhaps the biological father might be available, but he may not even have known of the pregnancy.

          See, on one aspect of the sex-equality dimenson of abortion,
          Erika Hiester, Child Support Statutes and the Father's Right Not to Procreate, 2 Ave Maria L. Rev. 213 (2004)

    3. I'm sure Mrs. PUllo is a lovely person, but she's wrong. Men are equally legally liable for the same bad decision, and can be compelled to pay for that bad decision for at least 18 years, whether he wants it or not. A woman has the ability to terminate a pregnancy or not terminate a pregnancy, while the man has no say in that decision. He can't make her get an abortion, and he can't prevent her from getting one either. He's entirely hostage to her decision on the matter.

      And it's not "unfair." There are different risk factors for men and women when it comes to sexual behavior, and for women, one of those is getting pregnant, because women get pregnant and men don't. If you choose to have sex anyway, even with prudent risk mitigation measures, then you accept the risk of getting pregnant. It's not unfair to expect a woman to accept her portion of the consequences.

      1. And it's not "unfair."

        It is unfair if the law specifically dictates (or doesn't but gets reinterpreted as such) that men and women (and men who identify as women, women who identify as men, men who identify as women who don't have sex with women...) are to be treated equally in any matter public or private.

        Also, it's unfair if, in the larger context, women disproportionately file false rape allegations successfully, get custody disproportionately, get a lesser punishment for the same crime disproportionately, get preferential incentives to be CEOs or board members...

        That's not to say that it should be fair, but that the spirit, if not letter, of both the 1A and the 14A should make such discussions of fairness well within bounds if not the goal.

    4. Tell her about a third choice called "Evictionism" championed by the libertarian Walter Block.

      Briefly, he argues that conflicts surrounding abortion usually are due to the two conflicting rights involved: the right of the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body, and the right of the fetus to live.

      His solution is to separate the two rights. The woman can "evict" the fetus at any time; however, she does not have the right to kill the fetus. So, (1) if the fetus is viable and (2) if the delivery does not materially endanger the life of the woman and (3) a third party is willing to take over all responsibility for the born child, then the State can force the woman to evict the fetus rather than abort it.

      1. I could get behind this, so long as the state (or the other party) willingly accepts whatever additional costs are involved, too.

        1. All present and future costs related to the child would be the responsibility of the third party. If no one is willing to incur such costs, then the fetus can be aborted.

    5. Safe Haven laws address the "then support it for 20 years or more" part. So the burden on parenthood is relieved. That was the point Justice Barrett made.

      Now the question is: At what point can a woman be compelled to carry the baby to term, and what are the principles that support that.

    6. Titus did you then tell her to write her state legislator? Perfect argument to be made to him/her. Not one of 9 god-kings.

    7. Do you discount the 9th amendment as being meaningless?

      How does the 14th amendment's protection of the liberties and privileges against the states factor into your analysis?

      1. 14A opens with "All persons born..." Today's national socialists might have written "All spermatozoa wriggling..." or perhaps "All ova fertilized..." But as of now we may begin to select LP delegates to restore the main 1972 segment: "We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days." Then, in the fresh ERA campaign, without much meddling from harridans with green teeth, we should again attract women voters away from AOC and Omar.

    8. My tenured UTexas ethics professor wrote "Moral Rights and Political Freedom," and "Viable Values." Either book offers the definition of a right. That definition is consistent with every female exercising control over her own reproduction. To my knowledge no mystical girl bullier has ever read, much less understood, either book. Certainly none venture to challenge its reasoning. Yet I expect they'll line up to throw both into a fire, and will look as good as any other national socialist stretching a rope for pointing guns at individuals.

  25. I've never understood conservatives' obsession with abortion. Yeah, I know, the bible, baby jesus, and all that. But don't they know that unwanted fetuses vote Democrat?

    1. But adopted babies vote Republican, so...

      1. Unwanted babies don't get adopted Diane, they are usually born to poor women who can't afford them but keep them and they eventually go to jail. You can always make sure that felons that have served their sentences can't vote because they have to pay all their court costs with their 0$ income:

    2. I've always understood leftist's obsession with abortion, infanticide, slavery, and eugenics. That movement has been a brutal, evil, bloody one for the last 100+ years.

      1. And I have grown to understand that a foundation of progressive thinking is the negation of personal responsibility.

        1. Say what you mean! You have to punish those sluts for having sex!

          1. How cruel and manipulative of you to point that out!

        2. Yeah; YOU decided to drive!!! Don't come banging on the medical clinics door when you get in an accident... Take personal responsibility for your choices!!! /s

          That argument is just stupid and manipulative.

    3. Maybe segregated elections? Observe that since mystics infiltrated the LP after 1976, most women left to join the Dems. Three out of four Libertarians AREN'T women, and women are the only ones with standing to comment on a law that specifically coerces them into choosing between coathangers and indentured servitude, both alternatives involving pointed guns.

    4. Search "Republicans Banned ALL Birth Control"
      That blog is the only place you can find the text (not just image) of the Comstock Law of 1873. Women and unreconstructed Dems could not vote against it. Therefore if Republican censors discover Mom's letter to Daughter explaining the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy, that's 10 years on a chain gang and a fine in gold now worth $295,000. That law that kept and IUD, Diaphragm or The Pill from stopping a wiggling tail was perfectly OK with Republicans.

  26. Thread:



    Declassified CIA Files Say Staffers Committed Sex Crimes Involving Children.

    They Weren’t Prosecuted.

  27. Well well well... SCOTUS brings the hammer down. Have to wait to see if Roe is gone entirely, but it looks like it's gonna go.

    1. I don't think that SCoTUS will decide Dobbs in a way the Reason commentariat thinks.

    2. Personally, I don't expect them to do it. The Republican leadership doesn't want it gone as it has been such a useful tool for campaigning and fundraising since Roe. They will likely allow the Mississippi law to stand, and change nothing else.

      As much as I'm 100% pro-life, a part of me kind of hopes they strike down Mississippi's law, as it might just finally get the message across to the right that winning elections and appointing "ourguys" doesn't really change anything.

      1. Did you listen to Amy's questions about how the women could just adopt out all their black, brown disabled unwanted babies that result? Nope, it's going down. The dogs have caught the car.

  28. "[U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar] answer suggested that she does not. "I don't think there's any line that could be more principled than viability," she said. "I think the factors the Court would have to think about are what is most consistent with precedent, what would be clear and workable, and what would preserve the essential components of the liberty interest. Viability checks all of those boxes, and has the advantage as well [of] being a rule of law for 50 years."

    The assumption being that SCOTUS has to define a line. They do not. One of the issues that makes Roe a bad decision was the Court arrogating to itself the ability to make legislative decisions.

  29. 'Viability' is a term just as absurd as 'Actual Malice' (and often times, that other canard, 'Balanced') neither of which appear in the Constitution, no matter how you interpret it. Both terms were pulled out of their asses. Abortion needs to go back to the States where it belongs; and libel law needs to be returned to pre 1950's status where is functioned quite well for Centuries.
    PS '....Viability (or how about 'Separate But Equal' or no rights for women while you at it) checks all of those boxes, and has the advantage as well [of] being a rule of law for 50 years....'

    1. Remember when slavery belonged in the States? Quadroon balls, forcing women into involuntary labor of reproduction was just fine in a lot of states. But... did it last? State Militias in the US would have been convenient to the Reich enslavement of Jews. Each Circuit Court could have decided if conscription was slavery or not, and there would be no 14A to conflict. Oh... but what's to prevent State Libertarian parties from resurrecting the 1972-76 plank?

  30. The Trump so-cons all lied during their confirmation hearing. They have no respect for precedent at all. They are moving us towards a Catholic religious theocracy. Everybody commenting here kept saying that Roe was safe. The non-theocrats knew it wasn't safe in the hands of these zealots. More arrests of women for miscarriages, deaths due to illegal abortions (so what the sluts deserve it, right?) and babies born without brains and dying within minutes in pain will result. Who cares? The whole idea was to punish the sluts anyway.

    Next move: Making hormonal and IUD contraception illegal because it "prevents zygotes from implanting". Gotta save those zygotes.

    1. Right... There is no boundaries of satisfaction for a Power-Mad Mob.
      Roe v Wade was written by a conservative court.
      It's ruling was already VERY Pro-Life.

      But Power-Mad isn't about acceptance of reasonable justice; It's about seeing how FAR Power-Mad can go.......

  31. The LP, Buffalo Party and Human Rights party all wrote 1970s planks to protect pregnant women from being forced into involuntary labor of reproduction. This resolved the conflict stare decisis made when Justices ruled conscription of males was not slavery. Saving the banks that loaned money to European belligerents pitted 14A against 13A. The LP cut the Gordian knot with the Roe compromise what partially salvaged individual rights for women. Now 19A means mystics must choose between freedom and The Kleptocracy, between individual rights and replacement by voters.

  32. Vatican City, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Nicaragua all force women to reproduce at gunpoint. Justice Coney could go live there and help coerce and threaten doctors. Saudi Arabia is compromised, but within religious conservative specifications. Politicians there act on faith. Americans, eventually, act on democracy. https://tinyurl.com/yykyx5al

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.