There are so many reasons why this is wrong.

Under the Constitution, the tenth amendment clearly reserves powers not expressly enumerated for the federal government, to the people and states, and the only exception to that is powers expressly denied by the Constitution to the states, which defining human life as beginning before birth is not one of them.

Moreover, defining human life as starting at a heartbeat or before birth can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatism denial notwithstanding.

>>You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the opinion was based on works of a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist.

This is just ad hominem / character assassination, and not relevant to this point.

>>When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts.

And you're arguing for fixing said courts through illegal acts. Like I said:

If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.

>>And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.

Of course there is a way to fix the courts: legislation can dictate the jurisdiction of courts, and legislatures can appoint new justices to the court, and the legislature is democratically elected.

Of course the latter takes time, as Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, but that is the Constitutional process, and that can also be changed if a supermajority vote for a Constitutional amendment.

Your expressions of hatred and disgust toward those who through the Constitutionally legitimate process, became Supreme Court justices, is not a moral argument. It's just a manifestation of the moral superiority complex exhibited by those on the political left who support this subversion of the law.

Actually no. I think there are unenumerated rights: marriage, procreation, inheritance, paternal and maternal rights, and countless others.

Abortion is not one of them unless you are also arguing against the paternal interest of the Father and the life interest of fetus (mind I’m not going to say that begins at birth, I actually don’t have a strong position on that specific question at this time). That’s what makes it no longer simply a matter of privacy, or bodily autonomy or whatever substantive due process claim you could make; another human being is implicated.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pass any legislation at all legalizing abortion to a point, but we have to make a political determination where that point is, and that will vary State to State, and it has to be legislation, not the Courts. That said I’ll give you this, if the courts want to step in at some point and protect the right to abortion in the cases of ectopic pregnancies, I’m all for it. I just hope they never have to.

Speaking as an outsider on American politics, it seems to me that it won't be figured out democratically. If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal.

What will actually happen is that the decision will be referred to states, where government is elected on small turnouts, in gerrymandered divisions, heavily influenced by untrue TV propaganda funded by billionaires, and in many cases elected based on supposed economic reasons, not any moral ones.

The effective result is that vulnerable young women will be forced to carry unwanted babies to term at the cost of great suffering to themselves and the resultant children.

> with all political sides to blame.

I can only see one side to blame here.

This is false, Roe doesn't have “no basis in the Constitutional text”. It is true that the derivation of the understanding of rights articulated in Roe from the text is indirect, but that does not make it absent; it is a judicial understanding built on prior judicial understandings each of which directly or via even more intermediary judicial understandings derive from the text.

> What’s the source of the court’s authority in that context?

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority”

This is exactly how rights work, how they're debated and how the supreme court rules. Like the constitution says you have freedom of speech, but you don't have an absolute right to freedom of speech. You cannot go on someone else's property and start yelling because they have the right to kick you off, violating your right to freedom of speech.

What you're trying to do is frame it in a way that makes sense to yourself, which is great, but is not how things are decided by the judiciary. Which is my entire point: It doesn't matter if you explicitly say bodily autonomy is sacred in a constitutional amendment because ultimately the supreme court is whom interprets that. The only way you could in theory do something like this would be to have an amendment that outright says abortion is legal, but that wouldn't pass for obvious reasons.

You really need to go and try to debate more pro-life individuals because these are all things I've encountered while debating them. The idea that this line of thinking is 'too much' when that's literally what's happening in places like my current state of Texas means you really need to experience what's actually going on.

So what should we do in your opinion? Are the unborn entitled to protection by our laws or not?

>Roe was a compromise, an imperfect law for a complicated matter

Roe wasn't a law, it was a legal precedent dehumanizing a class of people for another class's benefit. Now we do have actual laws that are made by legislatures across the country to try to do justice to a complicated subject as you admit it is.

>So you are ok with a state outlawing abortion with no exceptions

Of course not, this is the opposite of what I said.

>Do you believe Griswold vs Connecticut should be overturned as well?

There is a class of 'living constitution' decisions made by the supreme court during this era that are contrary to rule of law and make the supreme court into some sort of super-legislature. I think people should have access to contraceptives, I'm not sure it's guaranteed by the constitution though. Not all contraceptives are abortificients, even those should be accessible for the reasons I gave above, health concerns primarily.

>How can the universe and anything it which was created by god act contrary to his will?

Yeah, it's crazy! Christians think we have real agency even given the sovereignty of God. It borders on paradoxical. God surely knows the path we will go down and judged it necessary for some reason. Apparently He preferred beings capable of deciding to follow Him of their own free will rather than automatons.

>If I design a program I do not blame the program for bugs, that's stupid, it is my failing.

What's more impressive though? Designing a program that can choose between multiple options and determine its fate or designing a program completely constrained to make the choices I orchestrate? And yet, we would be comfortable saying a programmer would be totally justified if they shut down or even deleted a program erring as you've described!

Which means that New York, California, Massachusetts will retain abortion access. And Texas, Indiana, will remove abortion access.

This sounds like States rights is actually working.

But the media is distorting the overturning of Roe vs Wade with the sensational claim that “Abortion is banned in the US”.

No, it’s not banned. This just means Texas and New York have differing policies with regards to abortion access. Yes, 46 million women living in conservative states will lose access to abortion, but not all of those women are liberal quite frankly. Moreover, those states are exactly that: conservative. And the Conservative Majority of that state isn’t required to accommodate the views of the Liberal minority of that state.

Just like the Liberal Majority of California isn’t required to accommodate their Conservative Minorities.

That’s the nature of how US Democratic institutions were built.

Sounds fair to me and the Supreme Court made the correct decision by returning that authority back to the states.

It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point:

Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job.

This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.

no in fact we did not deal with this, nor was that the decision.

First and foremost Roe did not grant abortion rights, it granted privacy rights in a weird hamfisted way that only applied to abortion... It was a terrible precinct that even many left legal scholars (include Ruth Bader Ginsburg) rejected.

The reversal of Roe also did not remove any abortion or any other rights from anyone, it returned the issue to the proper place, State governments. Of which the vast majority had/have a more expansive view of abortion that the limits under Roe.

Thirdly the left had 30+ years to take the issue out of the hands of the hamfisted Roe by passing an actual law to address it, but chose not do because the democratic party wanted that boogeyman for elections (and still does) so they did not want to resolve the conflict at all, they want the issue not the resolution. They wrongly believed the court "would never" reverse itself... they screwed around, and found out.

The level if wrong information out there around the subject of Roe is crazy to me.

>>There are now laws in place that directly contribute to making women's healthcare more dangerous because of the perception of it being "sinful" to receive otherwise

100% wrong... You are clearly indoctrinated into a political ideology completely removed from reality

>>Everyone is.

I despise political parties. All of them. Political parties are for rich men north of Richmond, who all just wanna have total control of what you think, and what you do...

Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, you name the party and I reject it.

"political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington.

tldr; Something created by court opinion can be ended by court opinion

Abortion was guaranteed by a decision of the Supreme Court, which was based on the majority of the court's opinion of what the Constitution says. As the makeup of the court changes, it's opinion of what the Constitution says changes. Without a Federal law or even more powerfuly, an amendment to the Constitution, abortion is left to the states and subject to 50 different constitutions, courts and legislatures. That there has not been law or amendment says that there is not a strong enough majority or super majority of Americans that want that right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy.

Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. But that’s not what this draft looks like.

You may believe abortion is murder but that’s a completely arbitrary and, more importantly, a religious doctrine. As an aside, even that view is a modern reinterpretation that has its roots in segregation. In the early 1970s, Baptists said the Bible was silent on the issue.

Your religion is your business. I draw the line at you imposing it on others.

One person having a right to do something is not forcing it on anyone else.

> place the power back in the hands of the people.

A majority of "the people" do not agree with this decision. In fact, they were appointed by someone who did not have majority support, by a party that represents a minority of the actual population.

> The problem was activist judges making the Roe decision in the first place.

You just got a handful of judges making decisions based on their regligious beliefs. Please explain to me how you see that as different than an original decision?

I am willing to empathize with the denial of service but thats it.

Congress was the more appropriate federal authority to be a legislature, and failed to do so. In the absence of a federal law passed by Congress, state ones are the only ones that matter.

The topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all.

I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient.

I am the same way on this regarding all topics. On this specific topic, in the past I had tried to point out how odd Roe v Wade was with the court acting as a superlegislature but I quickly learned this was not a conversation people were willing to have as they couldnt separate the “camps” from the case(s) so I stopped bringing it up. I’m glad that this case forces the conversation.

You’ve got it backwards. States have a general “police power” and have the right to pass laws to regulate the public health unless it infringes on a federal constitutional right. In 50 years there has never been a “great legal argument” where the right to have medical providers perform abortion appears in the Constitution. You’re welcome to look in there yourself and report back.

No.

Humans (and that includes women) have agency. That includes bodily autonomy and any "law" that restricts that is unethical, misogynistic and flat wrong.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. As far as anyone else is concerned it's none of your concern.

Following the Constitution as written instead of legislating from the bench is batshit insane?

Federal protection of abortion rights should come from Congress, not an overreaching activist Judiciary. Also, if you’re in California nothing has changed about access to abortion and nothing will change for the foreseeable future.

Except now with these rulings those laws will absolutely be challenged. Do you truly believe they'll be upheld by such a partisan court, with multiple judges picked for the explicit purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade?

I mean you've got Montana trying to pass a law prosecuting people for getting abortions in another state. You can't expect people who are dogmatic about abortion to accept compromises in any way, shape, or form. Clearly that's the case given half a century later they are fighting as hard as ever and are about to secure their first major victory.

You’re inferring that the court made it’s decision on a religious reason, and you’re entitled to your inference.

So here’s my inference, as an atheist conservative. No the Supreme Court did not overturn the case for religious reasons. They overturned it exactly for the reasons they stated:

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives”

I'm as against this court as the next guy, but don't constitutional rights need to be, you know, in the constitution?