Leaked Abortion Opinion 'Is Authentic,' Confirms Supreme Court

But the leaked opinion is not “the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

Last night, Politico published a draft opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that, if officially released by the Court, would overturn both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the key precedents securing a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. In a statement issued today, the Supreme Court confirmed that the leaked draft "is authentic." But the Court also stated that the leaked draft "does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case."

Chief Justice John Roberts also issued this statement:

To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce—permanent employees and law clerks alike—intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.

We don't know who leaked the draft or why that person leaked it. Was it an outraged liberal clerk in an act of protest? Was it a furious conservative clerk who knows that the final draft will look very different from the first? All we know for sure right now is that all hell has broken loose at SCOTUS.

Comments

[R Mac]

Curious if anyone at Reason will take a position on the seriousness of the consequences to our Republic of this leak.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Hacked materials. Politico should have been blocked from twitter. And I'm serious about this.

[Rob Misek]

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can "breathe" amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

Week 15: The baby has an adult's taste buds.

Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.

Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.

Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger

Week 20: The earliest stage at which Partial birth abortions are performed. At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its' mothers voice.

Months 5 and 6: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

[Vernon Depner]

There's someone else involved.

[tzx4]

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
Day 1 Woman becomes government mandated incubator.

The GOP got "government off the backs of the people" as Reagan said, and now they are going to insert government into women's uteri.

GOP is against big governmebt until it isn't.

[chemjeff+]

they are going to insert government into women's uteri.

Those women already inserted a little someone into their "uteri" and they've got human rights too.

[Longtobefree]

But Twitter isn't. (wasn't)
This is absolute proof that suppressing the Hunter laptop story was not "following standards" but a direct and illegal act intended to affect the 2020 election.

[JesseAz]

I'm curious of any of them will discuss it logically from a legal or constitutional standpoint instead of just a political standpoint. Lots of concern trolling in the earlier thread.

[Stuck in California]

That's the curious thing about anything Abortion related.

This article is about the concept of leaking an early draft of something that is decidedly NOT an issued SCOTUS decision. That's a pretty serious thing, and the ramifications might be interesting or bad if the final decision is much different than the draft.

But half the thread is talking about abortion.

You can point something out to your cat, but the cat will stare at your finger, not where you're pointing.

[ElvisIsReal]

You can point something out to your cat, but the cat will stare at your finger, not where you're pointing.
-------
Cats do this far less often than dogs. Not sure why.

[Stuck in California]

My cat was dumb.

She made up for it by being mean, though.

[ElvisIsReal]

I just got a new little guy and he caught on quickly that when I'm pointing, it's because there's a flying bug he can go nab.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Actually, a cat will probably ignore you completely.

[Rockstevo]

I saw a show about dogs that pointed out dogs were able to understand you were pointing at something and put their attention on that, the only other animal that is consistently able to do this is humans. Not even Apes or Monkeys could figure this one out.

[Azathoth!!]

Apes and many monkeys use the exact same gesture. It originated among primates before there were humans.

Dogs are not smarter than monkeys.

[Snowdog1]

There is a whole group of dogs that does this, they are called pointers.

[Zeb]

That would be a more interesting discussion. I'm extremely bored with arguments about abortion itself.

[Moonrocks]

Too bad. Sex Abortion sells, so that's what you're getting.

[former libertarian]

Libertarian arguments about abortion are sort of moot from a practical point of view. That's because there is no libertarian argument that can be made against making oral abortion pills available without prescription.

[R Mac]

Why not just say “Fuck you Zeb, I’m talking about abortion anyway.”

[Overt]

You first. (Not being snarky, just asking your opinion)

Based on libertarian principles, do you think there is a specific position one should take here? Is there a libertarian case for the deference to institutions in general, or the Nazgul in particular? Libertarians generally favor whistleblower leaks like Snowden (among others). Is this different?

My own view is that there is nothing sacred about SCotUS, and in fact it is probably given too much mystical honor in american society- largely because of the liberal activism that it undertook in the 20th century. But that said, it is a place of work, and the employee who breached that trust should probably not work again in any similar capacity. I don't think that person was justified releasing that case, because it wasn't a whistle-blowing situation. Even if you believe restricting abortion to be a grievous breach of liberty, releasing the information didn't tell the country anything that it wouldn't know in a month or two. It wasn't like the snowden emails which told of secret abuses being performed daily en mass.

Overall, it was a breach of trust, and a person should lose their job for it. And also, it isn't a threat to the republic.

[R Mac]

It’s not about SCOTUS being better or more sacred, it’s about them being a different branch of government that’s supposed to function differently than the other two branches.

Congress is supposed to represent the people, and so legislation and the process it’s derived from should be out in the open and visible to the people, so that the people can determine if they are appropriately representing them when they come up for re-election. The only reason for leaks is if they are doing things in private that should be done in the open, so these leaks are appropriate. Politics is inherent in this branch.

The executive branch is supposed to execute laws as written by Congress. Since the laws should be out in the public, the execution should be out in the open as well. If the executive is doing things they don’t have the authority to do either from the Constitution or Congress, then whistleblowing is appropriate, with Snowden being the example. This is specifically for this authority, obviously the authority regarding war etc. is different (and there is some argument that some of the info Snowden leaked shouldn’t have been, but the primary info he leaked was appropriate). This aspect of the executive is also political, so people should see how things are working so they are appropriately informed for elections as well.

The Supreme Court, however, should not be politicized. They should be making their decisions solely on their understanding of the constitution and existing laws. A leak like this could change their decision making into a political one influenced by the people, or the other two branches of government.

Not sure this is a “libertarian” argument so much as a constitutional one but having the government function under it’s own rules is best for liberty. I also don’t think this one example by itself is necessarily a threat to the republic, but if this leaker isn’t brought to swift, serious, justice, future leaks could become increasingly threatening to it.

[Stuck in California]

I'll give an opinion.

This is not Snowdon. Snowdon was leaking the government doing something wrong, secretly.

In this case, it was an early deliberation produced in good faith as a draft. It's no different than when a group of any coworkers might sit in a room and brainstorm. You consider a bunch of things, but maybe you consider things then immediately reject them. Or they evolve a little, or a lot. Then you use those ideas to better inform the final, public decision.

The Supremes weren't doing anything they shouldn't, weren't hiding anything, and fully mean to issue a proper, public decision in accordance with law.

Leaking this is bad. It's a breach of trust that undermines the ability of the court to freely and openly consider things that may or may not end up pertinent. You won't throw out an unpopular or incorrect idea -- often very important to consider when formulating a well considered final position -- if it is going to be public. You can't get peer review or debate with your colleagues before writing your decision. Etc.

Whoever did this was a bad actor. I don't believe they released it because they were exposing something that shouldn't have been secret, they are not a whistleblower. I would guess they likely did it for partisan/ideological political ends, but that's only conjecture. Either way they should at least be fired.

[JesseAz]

Snowden himself did admit he never read most of what he released which did put American agents in trouble.

Part of what he released was good to release, but he also blindly released harmful material that put others at risk for no reason.

[Stuck in California]

I don't disagree.

I am not passing judgement. Just saying it's different.

[crtum]

Well said, individuals on the court or at any job for that matter, need space to think through an issue. All this leak seems to do is attempt to undermine the Court or perhaps affect November elections or both.

[JesseAz]

I believe conception creates a unique individual imparting rights upon the indivudal and breaks down to a balancing of said rights.

Just like I dont think a parent can't abandon a 4 year old in a forest because they got tired of hiking with it, a mother can't actively murder an indivudal based on convenience.

If there is going to be a legal discussion it should be done at the state level allowing individuals to move based on controversial beliefs in legal codes.

The only constitutional question is the right to travel. So a state can not ban an individual from traveling to a state or location that has decided the rights balance is in favor of the mother over the child.

[JesseAz]

Don't think a parent can*

[tzx4]

This comes back to the reality that in America money buys rights. Women with the means to travel don't have to worry about abortion prohibition, women who don't have money, well, sorry girl, you've lost all your reproductive rights, the government is taking control.

[JesseAz]

Youre free to start a charity for abortion tourism. Poor women still have the right to travel.

[JesseAz]

I mean to we have to buy them guns and provide them food as well? We call the latter welfare and the former doesn't happen for self defense.

[Cronut]

I think it's a threat to the republic. How big a threat remains to be seen.

It's definitely a breach of trust within the court, which can have significant impact on their ability to freely deliberate and discuss cases before them. Will Justices feel free to deliberate together if they now have to fear that what they say will be leaked? They need to be able to rely on some level of confidentiality in order to effectively do their jobs.

It's also another attempt to delegitimize the court, which the left has been doing for the past several years. Look at the amount of statements about the "illegitimate, stolen court," circulating right now. Since the looney left is now the controlling faction within the democrat party, and the looney left says the court is illegitimate and stolen, they don't need to abide by its rulings. An illegitimate court can be ignored. If the court is ignored, there's no final arbiter and the constitution is void. They can do whatever they want. Up till now, the legislative and executive branches have pretty much abided by SCOTUS rulings. They talk shit about them, but they pretty much toe the line on them. What happens when they don't?

Within 24 hours, there are already calls to nuke the fillibuster and pack the court. If the dems succeed in doing that, we're looking at one-party rule for the foreseeable future. BBB passes. Their election bill passes. The court is packed with friendly judges so there's no relief to be had.

I lean toward a leftist activist clerk leaking this. In order for the republic to function, people need to generally agree to play by the rules, and this leak is another indicator that the left is not going to play by the rules. They're going to burn it all down.

[tzx4]

I'd love to hear your commentary on Mitch McConnell's Merrick Garland versus Amy Barrett's circumstances for appointment to the court. Convince me that Mitch wasn't packing the court.

[R Mac]

All sorts of idiot fifty centers sent over for this story.

[Nardz]

Boehm, representing Reason's editorial opinion, wrote an article in favor of it.
Leftist totalitarianism uber alles

[R Mac]

Surprising no one.

[jimwpdx]

The leak is less important than the substance.
The idea that we are not in command of our own bodies is the disastrous result of no longer distinguishing between sin and crime. We have free will, and as long as the sin harms no one else, it is not a concern for law. Thus suicide, drug use (assuming no driving), and other forms of self-harm (cutting, head-banging...) are not subject to law enforcement. And yes, even women, those silly creatures, are in charge of their own bodies.
I am very disappointed in the justices who are considering making sin a crime, as do Muslims and Putin's Russians. The latter proving that you do not need God to have sin, *pace* Big Brother and race mongers.

[jimwpdx]

To anticipate the objection, the identification of a fetus as a person has traditionally (and medically) been no earlier than 20 weeks. Clearly arbitrary, agreed, defining the line between the zygote and the full term baby.

[R Mac]

Well you’re an idiot then. The objection is there’s 600 other places to makes this post here at Reason today, and you chose to respond to someplace that’s a thread about the importance of the leak in an attempt to derail this particular conversation, because that’s what you were paid to do. Now go fuck yourself.

[Illocust]

Laws on when you can and when you can't kill another human being have always been state level decisions. It makes no sense for it not to be the same in the case of killing someone under 9 months old.

[Vernon Depner]

Agreed. If a fetus is to be considered a person equal before the law to any other person, then abortion is clearly an act of self-defense on the part of the pregnant woman, and cannot be prohibited.

[soldiermedic76]

This is even dumber than the one you posted below.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, it's like saying if a woman brought her baby to burglarize my house, I'm equally justified to kill the woman and her baby even though the baby poses no threat and wasn't voluntarily stealing anything.

I don't think even die hard James Bond aficionados be offended at the confusing of self-defense with a license to kill in this manner.

[mad.casual]

I think... would be, not I don't think... be

[Vernon Depner]

If a woman broke into your house carrying a baby, and you killed the baby defending your home against her invasion, I would vote not guilty were I on your jury. She caused the death of the baby, not you.

[Moderation4ever]

Not as dumb as you might think. The reality is that a pregnancy is a significant burden on the woman's body. Today most abortions are safer than a full-term pregnancy. A woman can have significant long term health issues as the result of a pregnancy. Today mothers accept that risk because it is the price to have a child. If you don't want a child or don't want it at a particular time, then there is no reward for the risk.

There are very few instances where the government can force a person, man or woman, to take on similar risks. I can only think of the draft for military service being equivalent.

[Trapper]

Uh, how about an experimental vaccine?

[soldiermedic76]

Depends when you have the abortion. After the second trimester it's actually safer to deliver the child than have an abortion.

[Overt]

"Today most abortions are safer than a full-term pregnancy"

This is absolutely untrue. In the vast number of pregnancies both the child and mother are fine. In pretty much every single abortion, the child dies. That isn't safe at all.

"If you don't want a child or don't want it at a particular time, then there is no reward for the risk."

In which case the time to avoid that risk is prior to engaging in a behavior likely to put that child (and your body) at risk. No one is saying the decision to get pregnant is out of the mother's hands. They are saying that once she has created a child, she doesn't get to kill a baby for convenience.

[soldiermedic76]

Also, the risk is one you voluntarily took when you had consensual sex. In the rare case of rape, it may be different but actually most rape victims don't seek abortions. So, it's splitting hairs on that side.

[Vernon Depner]

Women should be required to report when they have sex so they can be monitored for the safety of any baby that might result.

[tzx4]

Yes!
A zygote must rule a worman's life!!!

[R Mac]

Said no one here. Now fuck off.

[JesseAz]

Alimony and child support are significant burdens on men.

[Agammamon]

Then don't engage in actions where a reasonable person would know there is a high likelihood of pregnancy occuring.

Then abortion debates are constrained to rape and the safety of the mother.

[Agammamon]

So, draft or mitary service - as such you then agree that there are situations where such a burden can be forced on someone and we're just arguing about where to draw the line.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

This a laughable, damnable idiotic lie.

D&E, or D&C requires dialation of the cervix. This is more risky for women with health problems than a Caesarian

[Illocust]

Self defense laws also vary by state, and never apply to unconscious people who are physically incapable of taking action against. If you find someone unconscious on your front stoop, it's not self defense to shoot them. Especially if the only reason they are in that position is because you decided to club some random stranger on the street and drag them onto your front porch.

[JesseAz]

This is why infants had to be masked, to stop them from killing everyone with Covid. Think about it.

[Illocust]

You can't see a difference between deliberately killing someone and taking an action that might increase the risk to another person's life? Because the law generally recognizes the difference between shooting someone in the face with the intention of killing them and firing a gun off into the air in celebration and having a bullet just happen to hit someone a mile away.

[JesseAz]

I agree with you.

Just mentioning the hypocrisy of masking rules the last 2 years.

[JesseAz]

And abortion is deliberately killing someone =)

[Zeb]

Silly and unnecessary. Does a person have an absolute right to control what goes on in their body, or can that right be superseded by the rights of another living in their body? That's the basic moral question.

[Social Justice is neither]

They did, right up until their actions created that new life and created the conflict of rights.

[JesseAz]

Do you have the right to shut down coal plants forcing you to breathe in pollution?

[jimwpdx]

You produce CO2 so obviously that's not pollution. Other materials can be scrubbed in the stack.

[Vernon Depner]

Does a person have an absolute right to control what goes on in their body

Yes.

[Agammamon]

One of the things going I to their body that they can control is a penis.

[Vernon Depner]

At what point after that does she lose control over her body?

[R Mac]

Yes, women have a right not to let men ejaculate into their vagina and fertilize their eggs.

[Zeb]

So you are saying "no" (I said "absolute" and you seem to be constraining the right I was talking about). Which is a reasonable answer. I disagree, but I think it comes down to an axiomatic assumption about the nature and hierarchy of rights, so I can't (and won't) just tell you you are wrong.
And that's as much arguing about abortion as I'm going to engage in.

[R Mac]

My mistake, I missed “absolute”. And I agree, the specific debate is getting tiresome. Which is why it’s better for the states than the feds.

[jimwpdx]

Would it be too outrageous to mention that the fetus satisfies the medical definition of a parasite? Well, yes it would. And horrifying.

[Dillinger]

>>We don't know who leaked the draft or why that person leaked it.

Roberts. Didn't like the memo outcome. Kicked it up the chain.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Now THAT is an interesting theory; meanwhile the online gossip has been abuzz about this guy:

https://showbizcorner.com/amit-jain-supreme-court-clerk-abortion-draft-who-is-he

Even if he is innocent, must be having one hell of a day. As on Benedict Arnold level.

[Dillinger]

lol what were his mpre scores?

[CindyF]

If it was Jain, he single-handily torched the Yale Judicial Clerkship program. No judge, left or right (with the exception of Sotomayor), wants to hire a clerk with so little integrity, and this would make it obvious that Yale does not have an Ethics program for their students. Nor do they drill into their students who are applying for clerkships the importance of keeping a judge's decision-making process confidential.

If it was Jain, his clerkship advisor should have realized his ideology trumped his Ethics and thus he was not a good candidate for such a position. However, his recommenders did not care and prepared glowing recommendation letters for such a student anyway.

[Moonrocks]

Yale

Wasn't that the school where law students were recently filmed screaming like toddlers in a temper tantrum?

[HorseConch]

Winner. Words are violence, and the wonderful Yale grads are defending against them.

[Illocust]

I doubt it will effect the program even if he was the one. Ideologues will believe that it will never happen to them.

[Macaulay McToken]

I doubt a conservative justice or clerk leaked it. There would be nothing to gain from doing so.

Regardless, abortion should be a state issue.

[Moonrocks]

There would be nothing to gain from doing so.

Isn't this decision supposed to be handed down in the Summer? If so, then it could be a strategic move to generate the outrage earlier in the election cycle to give it more time to cool off.

That said, a conservative clerk would have every reason to believe that he'd be punished to the fullest extent of the law and beyond. Not so for a leftist clerk.

[Macaulay McToken]

June, I believe.

My gut feeling is this was leaked by some staffer or clerk (I do not believe any justice would stoop so low as to purposely undermine the court) in hopes of creating political pressure on the court to keep RvW intact.

Will it work? I'm jaded, so I think there's a good chance it will.

[Archibald Baal]

This is my feeling (staffer/clerk) as well, though if it was a justice my guess is Kagan. Sotomayor is the more outspoken, but I think Kagan is the more political creature. Sotomayor will rant about it in dissent and in lectures, but Kagan is a beast of another color.

That said, I would love to see the staffer or clerk disbarred, not just fired, though I don't know if that's possible. This "how the sausage is made" crap is entertaining but really jeopardizes the inner workings of SCOTUS, and without disbarment firing them just means that dozens of proggie law firms and universities will be holding a bidding war over who can hire her or him fastest.

[Social Justice is neither]

If Roberts was in the majority I'd agree, but he's not. ACB or Kananaugh might be squishy and political enough to flip but I'm not seeing that from their questioning.

[some guy]

A state issue? Why stop there? Why not a local city/county issue?

[R Mac]

Because that’s not how our republic was created.

[Agammamon]

Now you're getting it.

[Vernon Depner]

Why stop there? Why not a personal issue?

[jimwpdx]

That's very defensible, and constitutional. Unless it's a matter of individual liberty.

[JesseAz]

key precedents securing a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

The draft memo makes it pretty clear it isnt a constitutional right, but a judicial creation of 73.

[HorseConch]

I have never understood a constitutional right to something that is in no way referenced in the constitution.

[I, Woodchipper]

the constitution spells out the powers granted to the federal government. Everything not mentioned in the constitution is a right that cannot be infringed by the federal government.

Unfortunately... progressives happened and all jurisprudence has become literally the opposite of what the Framers intended.

[mad.casual]

progressives happened and all jurisprudence has become literally the opposite of what the Framers intended.

Jurisprudence, Science, English, Biology/Gender/Sex Ed... this leaked opinion seems to make it clear at least somebody somewhere has sobered up.

[ElvisIsReal]

The constitution doesn't grant us rights, it puts restrictions on the government from violating those rights.

[HorseConch]

That part I understand, but killing an unborn child without restriction doesn't seem like it's in the same realm.

[Claptrap]

Abortion is clearly under the realm of the 9th/10th amendments; it's a matter whose proper regulation is with the people or the states through their consent. As Illocust says upthread:

"Laws on when you can and when you can't kill another human being have always been state level decisions. It makes no sense for it not to be the same in the case of killing someone [that has yet to be born]."

[Nardz]

Abortion is homicide, which is, so far as I know, NOT an inalienable right protected under the 9th and 10th amendment.

[ElvisIsReal]

If it's not mentioned specifically, it falls under the 10th Amendment:

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.
-----------------------
If you want to criminalize mothers who have an abortion, the state is the proper place to attempt to do that. (And if you succeed, be prepared to criminalize mothers who miscarry, because you never can tell if she did it on purpose!)

[Vernon Depner]

And of course, we will need Pregnancy Registration to keep track of the fate of all embryos. Maybe Menstrual Cycle Registration, too—can't let them sneak by with a morning after pill.

[Agammamon]

Why though? We didn't have that before RvW.

You sound like the Net Neutrality people - panicking about all the horrible things that will.come to pass if NN isn't passed while if ignoring the no NN is the status quo and those horrible things haven't happened.

[Vernon Depner]

On the spectrum?

[Nardz]

Why would you prosecute mothers?
Abortionists are the ones committing homicide.

[Vernon Depner]

So, hiring a hit man to kill someone should not be a crime?

[Agammamon]

When something becomes someone is a matter of debate.

That's the core conflict here. Some of you think it's killing a child and some think it's killing a clump of cells.

RvW sorta had a compromise position between the 'ban it' and 'kill 'em all - there is no god' camps.

[Vernon Depner]

And some of us believe the safety of an embryo or fetus does not override the bodily autonomy and right to self-defense of a pregnant woman.

[BladdyK]

The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution protects unenumerated rights. The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include the right to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.

[soldiermedic76]

But it's not just your body your making the decision for.

[Vernon Depner]

Yes, it is.

[Nardz]

Nope.

[I, Woodchipper]

no it hasn't. It's a shame but the court has not protected our rights to own our own bodies. not even close.

[Cronut]

Only for abortion. For everything else, your body belongs to the state and they just let you use it.

[Agammamon]

It's not a constitutional right and people who talk about it in such terms don't know what they're talking about.

Your rights are not limited or enumerated. There is a constitutional *obligation on the part of the government's to protect your rights.

Hence the federal blocking of straight abortion bans or 'excessive limitations' that amount to the same.

But states have always been able to set some limits to the availability of abortion. The argument has always been how much.

Let's not forget that if abortion is an issue the states have total power over, there's nothing limiting the states to have the same power over everything else you consider a right - like free association, religion, weapons, quartering soldiers, self incrimination, etc.

It comes down to the constitution only liming the federal.government.

[Moderation4ever]

Yet the 73 decision was 7 to 2 while this draft suggest no more than 5 in support. Five of the seven on the Roe decision were appointed by Republicans. One could argue that the draft is the judicial creation more than the original decision.

[Claptrap]

One would have to be stupid to argue that.

[R Mac]

M4E is plenty stupid. Or a great parody. Still not sure.

[soldiermedic76]

Doesn't matter. It's not a baseball score. And many legal experts believe that the 73 decision was wrongly decided.

[JesseAz]

Even liberal lawyers admit Roe was a shit decision.

[Jerryskids]

I think whoever leaked this has done a great service to the country. Until yesterday, we were hell-bent on starting a nuclear WWIII with Russia and now nobody gives a shit about Ukraine.

[Vernon Depner]

Nuke the fetuses.

[Ersatz]

when i was in university the saying was 'nuke the gay whales'

[Angry Porcupine]

It might be "your" body; but the one inside you belongs to someone else.

[Vernon Depner]

It might be "your" body; but the penis inside you belongs to someone else.
It might be "your" body; but the knife inside you belongs to someone else.
It might be "your" body; but the contaminated food inside you belongs to someone else.

[Mickey Rat]

It might be "your" body, but the decision on whether or not to get it vaccinated belongs to the State.

[tzx4]

And ultimately people who didn't want a vaccine didn't get one, so we must have some measure of freedom still.

[soldiermedic76]

What a stupid analogy.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Those are possibly the worst and dumbest analogies/rejoinders ever

[Steve-O]

I'm thinking the key difference here is that "you're" the person who put the fetus inside "your" body.

Anyway, all these analogies to pregnancy are not illustrative because there is nothing in the world remotely analogous to it.

[mad.casual]

Anyway, all these analogies to pregnancy are not illustrative because there is nothing in the world remotely analogous to it.

Even if there were, his argument is stupid. Imagine describing the movie The Fly as a crime documentary about a housefly killing a brilliant scientist.

[Nardz]

Be afraid.
Be very afraid.

[Vernon Depner]

there is nothing in the world remotely analogous to it.
DING DING DING! That is the correct answer. The relationship between a pregnant woman and a fetus is unique. That calls for a unique set of rules. Treating a fetus as just another person and judging abortion by the same standards as any other human interaction is absurd. The way forward is to recognize the utter specialness of that situation.

[Agammamon]

But you want to recognize the 'utter specialness' while denying that the mother's voluntary actions might impose a duty of care on her.

Or are you in the infanticide camp too? Sure, the baby's two months old but no one has an obligation to feed it.

[Vernon Depner]

When it's two months old that unique relationship no longer exists.

[Social Justice is neither]

No you sociopath. Women have intelligence and agency creating responsibility or they don't. You seem to fall firmly in the don't camp. There is nothing unique about a fetus that you cannot carry forward to about age 3, so would abandoning a 2 year old on the woods be fine since it's wholly dependent on you, or maybe you prefer the more active skull-bashing of infants.

[Vernon Depner]

There is nothing unique about a fetus that you cannot carry forward to about age 3

You're an idiot.

[Agammamon]

Yes.

You can't, for example, cut off the penis that's I side you if you invited it in.

[Vernon Depner]

You can rescind the invitation, after which the penis becomes an intruder against which you may defend yourself.

[Social Justice is neither]

Ah, so you also believe in retro active rape. So beta.

[Vernon Depner]

I believe in the right to end sexual activity at any point. No means no even after insertion.

[JesseAz]

Lol. I can't even with this...

Yamiche Alcindor
@Yamiche
I’m in Mississippi outside the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the abortion clinic at the center of the SCOTUS case. While conservatives are celebrating the possible end of Roe v. Wade, some women here tell me they feel “gutted,” “devastated,” and “like someone has died.”

The word choice.

[Moonrocks]

Subtle satire?

[Steve-O]

Complete absence of self-awareness.

[HorseConch]

That's the only kind of humor you get from the left. It's best that they don't know they're doing it, or they'll go back to not being funny.

[Nardz]

Freudian confession via projection

[I, Woodchipper]

so I guess it's just going to be abortion 24/7 for the next few weeks.... sigh

[JesseAz]

ENB has never felt so alive. Unlike the babies she wants killed.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I am uncomfortable telling a pregnant woman what is the best way for her to proceed with her pregnancy. Ultimately it is not me who has to live with the consequences of that decision, it is her and her partner. While I do agree that there ought to be some cutoff before birth of when the fetus achieves the moral status of a sentient human being and therefore becomes endowed with rights that deserve to be protected, I think reasonable people of good faith can disagree about when that cutoff is, and whatever cutoff is codified into law should be one that encompasses as much as possible the broadest public consensus on the matter.

Insisting that a fetus one moment after conception is morally equivalent to a sentient human being with all the rights pertaining thereto, is also problematic from a rights protection point of view. If it is the role of the state to protect our rights - which I believe it is - then under this scenario, every miscarriage must be investigated as a suspected homicide. I don't think that is a particularly wise use of state resources and potentially could be very intrusive.

[Nobartium]

If it is the role of the state to protect our rights - which I believe it is - then under this scenario, every miscarriage must be investigated as a suspected homicide.

This isn't the first time you've said this, and it's just as wrong even before the final decision on this case.

We don't treat all car accidents the same.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

We don't treat all car accidents the same.

No, we don't. But you had better believe that a car accident in which someone dies does receive scrutiny from the police - as it should, no?

[JesseAz]

No. Not in all cases.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Probably not 100.00%, no.

But I would wager that fatal car accidents do invite law enforcement scrutiny in the large majority of cases. Not necessarily to accuse anyone of murder, but at a minimum to try to assign blame and to see if any traffic laws were broken.

[chemjeff+]

"When under this scenario, every miscarriage must be investigated as a suspected homicide"

Here's where we pretend that miscarriages and abortion look exactly the same and that doctors somehow can't tell if abortifacients or tools have been used.

Great stuff. We're counting on you guys to be as dumb as we are.

[Agammamon]

Not really. If you run off the road at 2 am I to a tree the cops aren't treating that as a crime scene and trying to find out if someone cut your brakes.

Miscarriages happen. A lot. We know this. *Before* RvW cops weren't investigating every micarriage - why would they start now?

[tzx4]

Because right wing ideologue's have lost their minds and have gone off on a radical absolutist control freak binge ???? There are many of them out that that fit this description perfectly. They most certainly are not libertarian in the slightest.

[R Mac]

Just so you know, you’re not fooling anyone. I know you don’t care because because you’re getting your fifty sense regardless, but thought I’d tell you anyway.

[chemjeff+]

Exactly, we might be lying about the facts and making purely emotional arguments, but they're crazy for not believing us.

[Nobartium]

To go further (and on the opposite end of the age scale), we don't treat old people dying because they were found as suspected homicides either.

[Vernon Depner]

Yes, we do. If someone is found dead of causes that are not immediately apparent anywhere other than at home or in a hospital, it is standard procedure to treat the death as suspicious until proven otherwise. That was one of the alarming aspects of the death of Scalia—his death was signed off on as natural causes without any investigation, which was highly irregular.

[Michael Ejercito]

When in our history has every miscarriahe been treayed as a potential homicide?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Never, as far as I'm aware. And, pre-Roe, that is how some women knew how they could get away with getting an abortion even though it was illegal - by attempting to deliberately induce a miscarriage. Is this wrong?

[Agammamon]

So then why the concern about ramped up police involvement?

[chemjeff+]

And, pre-Jeff, that is how some serial killers knew how they could get away with strangling someone even though it was illegal - by attempting to deliberately induce a death. Is this wrong?

[Claptrap]

While I do agree that there ought to be some cutoff before birth of when the fetus achieves the moral status of a sentient human being and therefore becomes endowed with rights that deserve to be protected, I think reasonable people of good faith can disagree about when that cutoff is, and whatever cutoff is codified into law should be one that encompasses as much as possible the broadest public consensus on the matter.

Agreed. This is why Roe and others is such a travesty, and I say this as somebody who generally supports the regulatory structure it imposed. The broadest consensus is going to vary state-by-state and locality-by-locality, and so should get down to as near that level as feasible.

Its downfall is going to cause some medium-term chaos, but long-term it's necessary to be removed if we're ever going to turn this into an ordinary political issue instead of the all-consuming mind-suck it has turned into.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Just be warned, because you agreed with me, that makes you a left-wing radical.

[Claptrap]

Like all sane people, I live and die on the public esteem of fellow losers I hope to never meet.

[chemjeff+]

Because even though we fall lockstep behind the Democratic Party in absolutely every issue ever, without exception, we're somehow definitely not left-wing radicals.

[Overt]

"Insisting that a fetus one moment after conception is morally equivalent to a sentient human being with all the rights pertaining thereto, is also problematic from a rights protection point of view. If it is the role of the state to protect our rights - which I believe it is - then under this scenario, every miscarriage must be investigated as a suspected homicide"

This phrasing seems odd to me. It seems like you are saying that we should condition someone's rights on how easy/difficult it is to enforce those rights. You...aren't saying that...right?

I mean, many will say that we have a right to not be killed by Saudi Arabian terrorists. Do those rights disappear if we acknowledge that it's a bad idea for the US to invade the Saudi Arabia in search of perpetrators and their enablers? Of course not. The rights are what they are. What we do to enforce them is its own cost/benefit analysis.

The same can be true with abortions. One can agree that rights begin at conception (or birth or 3 years old) and still believe that certain interventions by the state are wrong. And that certainly can include trying to create a surveillance state, or invading canada in order to prevent abortions.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

This phrasing seems odd to me. It seems like you are saying that we should condition someone's rights on how easy/difficult it is to enforce those rights. You...aren't saying that...right?

Well, yes and no. If protection of a particular right would REQUIRE the state to, say, invade Canada, or for every citizen to undergo intrusive surveillance 24/7, then we really ought to have a long and serious talk about what precisely is the right we are trying to protect. The cure cannot be worse than the disease.

[Overt]

"If protection of a particular right would REQUIRE the state to, say, invade Canada, or for every citizen to undergo intrusive surveillance 24/7, then we really ought to have a long and serious talk about what precisely is the right we are trying to protect."

But it DOESN'T require anything. Recognizing a right doesn't obligate us to do everything under heaven and earth to prevent its violation.

No doubt we could do MUCH more to prevent murder in this country. That could include all sorts of things like locking up violent offenders for life, chipping away at defendant rights, and even introducing draconian surveillance down to cameras in homes. But we aren't willing to do that because doing so will create more harm than it will help.

Did I just deny that we all have a right to life, merely because I acknowledged that the State *must* not do some things that might prevent it? Of course not. Recognizing a right does not obligate us to pursue its protection into lunacy.

I am comfortable acknowledging that human rights begin at conception. I would council my children and anyone asking me for my opinion that it is morally wrong to intervene in order to take that baby's life- even in cases of rape. But I also recognize that a state cannot make us moral, and would not want to create a state that attempts to do so.

[Social Justice is neither]

Wait, so the cunt that demands intrusive experimental medical procedures on everyone forever thinks this is a bigger infringement of rights? It's like he's a Democrat demanding others be responsible for his actions from putting down the donuts to not fucking without protection.

[chemjeff+]

I love this! Here's where we imagine a right that isn't a right but an obligation subject to compulsion.

Sophistry is so much fun.

[Ersatz]

That's ironically because you're a pussy.

Take a stand - make a moral determination one way or another.
Be a man! [whatever that is now-a-days].

Advice is just that - advice. Noone has to take it - its just a way to show you care.

[JesseAz]

Thank you David hogg.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What are you babbling on about now?
Do you have anything substantive to add?
Or are you just going to snarl and bark and attack some more, like the junkyard dog that you are?

[chemjeff+]

You tell him!
A person known for attacking constitutional rights is irrelevant to any conversation on rights.

[AtTheMurph]

The Democrats "leaked" it.

They know they are going to get slaughtered in November and are trying to raise a wedge issue.

The decision will be given a nice name like "Don't Say Gay" or "Affordable Care Act". Maybe something like "Republicans Hate Women, Gays, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Trans, and all other made up Minorities Ruling". And every MSM outlet will parrot the same talking points for the next 6 months telling us how Republicans hate everyone.

And these rubes, infantile basement dwellers, Antifa and BLM Communists will eat it up.

[alconnolly]

Not sure what to think about the leaker. They could be doing a good thing for bad reasons or a for good reasons. I only know that it is a good thing to find out the supreme court has decided they have zero interest in anything that was once called the rule of law, and have become a pack of religious zealots intent on bringing the handmaids tale from fiction into fact. And to find this out before they present it as a fait acomplit.

[chemjeff+]

a pack of religious zealots intent on bringing the handmaids tale from fiction into fact.

Yeah, I believe everything I read at Salon and Jezebel too.

[Kidwell1]

So folks, Im turning to you to get me a source for who the 1 or 2 clerks are who most likely did this. What part of 4 or 8 chan or reddit do I have to go to where they would be named along with their romantic interest to a certain person at Politico? Just curious where this info would be spread or speculated on?