Thanks for your thoughts. Dobbs was the first SCOTUS decision that i actually read in total rather than rely on what others say. On balance I disagree with you. Leaving it up to the states is a form of choice, but at the state level, but not at the personal level. For someone who thinks that abortion is murder, that won't do. It also won…
Thanks for your thoughts. Dobbs was the first SCOTUS decision that i actually read in total rather than rely on what others say. On balance I disagree with you. Leaving it up to the states is a form of choice, but at the state level, but not at the personal level. For someone who thinks that abortion is murder, that won't do. It also won't do for someone who thinks that abortion is a fundamental right. I agree with you that precedent can't always carry the day, otherwise we would be stuck with Plessy vs. Ferguson. However, Plessy was overturned because views on race changed over time. However, nothing has changed since Roe in 1973. In my view, the fact that the abortion issue is as contentious as ever is reason NOT to overrule Roe. Today's court has no more information than the 1973 court or the 1994 (?) Casey decision. To me Roe was imperfect, but probably the best one can do for such a difficult issue.
A lot has changed since 1973. Abortion rates have declined, women have the morning after pill, lots of contraceptives, over the counter kits that predict ovulation, and the ability to confirm pregnancy before a period has been missed. Then there are the many advances in ultrasound/testing to track the development of the fetus and tests that have shown the fetus feels pain. Women have more information and options than they did in 1973. BUT…..
Would Dobbs have happened if the idea to push abortion to its furthest limits didn’t happen first? Do those who want abortion to be an option, even as the mother is being rolled into labor and delivery, ever think they can find a middle ground with those who think abortion should never happen, ever? Maybe those two groups shouldn’t be part of the conversation since there is no compromise for either, ever. The only place for peace on this issue and many others is in the middle. Abortion with limits.
Meanwhile, threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices, demonstrating at the private homes of our elected officials, stirring up passions by telling Americans that contraceptive rights and same sex marriage are next is equivalent to provoking insurrection.
Hi BCR, I acknowledge the changes you describe, but it has not changed the overall debate and does not really inform on the Court's decision. The technological advances strengthen Robert's stated views that viability is a moving target, and so one can use that information to decide whether a 15 week cut off is appropriate. But it does not provide information to overturn Roe. I also agree that threatening the justices is unconscionable. But as far as worrying about contraception and same sex marriage, Thomas was quite specific in his concurrence that those issues should be revisited based on the Dobbs decision. The concern did not come from nowhere.
Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.
Roe was sloppily written, leaving the door open for this current debacle. It was the late term, anytime, last minute, partial birth, “make the baby comfortable” mess that got us here. Personally, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to vote on the issue and now I will, so will everyone else. My state will vote to have abortions whenever, however and wherever, and I will have to live with that because I’m not moving.
That said, I too wasn’t happy with how far Thomas went in his opinion, suggesting contraception and same sex marriage also be revisited, particularly since the parties involved all have voices, and because it muddied the water. Now everyone is setting their hair on fire and both parties are using it to demonize the other. However, one could argue Thomas is saying voters should have had the opportunity to have a say. (We all voted on legalIzing marijuana. Can’t we handle the big stuff?) All of these controversial issues usually progress towards sensible ends.
Why not let the Constitution work the way it’s supposed to. Issues not specifically spelled out in the document are voted on by the states. Had our elected leaders and media responsibly reported on why we are here and how we move forward in a civilized way, we’d all be better off. Everyone needs to try harder to find common ground and lump some of the things they don’t like.
I think the issue from the side of those who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc, makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Their side won decisively when the supreme court “legislated from the bench”. The other side similarly lost decisively. Therefore, even though one might agree that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the past, by making things “right” again, if that person is in the former category they have to deal with the rollback of what was thought to be a definitive win. Conversely, for the latter category it’s a universal win, both in terms of their opinion on those rights and the integrity of our institutions. It’s never easy to stand up for the integrity of institutions if the result of that is losing a “right” that you support. Therefore I think it’s very important for those who are for abortion and these other issues, but admit Roe was wrongly decided, to be given all the respect for standing by their principles even when it doesn’t benefit their “side”.
Thanks for your thoughts. Dobbs was the first SCOTUS decision that i actually read in total rather than rely on what others say. On balance I disagree with you. Leaving it up to the states is a form of choice, but at the state level, but not at the personal level. For someone who thinks that abortion is murder, that won't do. It also won't do for someone who thinks that abortion is a fundamental right. I agree with you that precedent can't always carry the day, otherwise we would be stuck with Plessy vs. Ferguson. However, Plessy was overturned because views on race changed over time. However, nothing has changed since Roe in 1973. In my view, the fact that the abortion issue is as contentious as ever is reason NOT to overrule Roe. Today's court has no more information than the 1973 court or the 1994 (?) Casey decision. To me Roe was imperfect, but probably the best one can do for such a difficult issue.
A lot has changed since 1973. Abortion rates have declined, women have the morning after pill, lots of contraceptives, over the counter kits that predict ovulation, and the ability to confirm pregnancy before a period has been missed. Then there are the many advances in ultrasound/testing to track the development of the fetus and tests that have shown the fetus feels pain. Women have more information and options than they did in 1973. BUT…..
Would Dobbs have happened if the idea to push abortion to its furthest limits didn’t happen first? Do those who want abortion to be an option, even as the mother is being rolled into labor and delivery, ever think they can find a middle ground with those who think abortion should never happen, ever? Maybe those two groups shouldn’t be part of the conversation since there is no compromise for either, ever. The only place for peace on this issue and many others is in the middle. Abortion with limits.
Meanwhile, threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices, demonstrating at the private homes of our elected officials, stirring up passions by telling Americans that contraceptive rights and same sex marriage are next is equivalent to provoking insurrection.
Hi BCR, I acknowledge the changes you describe, but it has not changed the overall debate and does not really inform on the Court's decision. The technological advances strengthen Robert's stated views that viability is a moving target, and so one can use that information to decide whether a 15 week cut off is appropriate. But it does not provide information to overturn Roe. I also agree that threatening the justices is unconscionable. But as far as worrying about contraception and same sex marriage, Thomas was quite specific in his concurrence that those issues should be revisited based on the Dobbs decision. The concern did not come from nowhere.
Hi Mark, I agree the changes don’t help inform the Court’s decision, however they do change the debate. More importantly, the changes offer help to those who are making the decision to have an abortion or not, and help those not wanting to find themselves in the position of having to make that decision. Yes, viability is a moving target.
Roe was sloppily written, leaving the door open for this current debacle. It was the late term, anytime, last minute, partial birth, “make the baby comfortable” mess that got us here. Personally, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to vote on the issue and now I will, so will everyone else. My state will vote to have abortions whenever, however and wherever, and I will have to live with that because I’m not moving.
That said, I too wasn’t happy with how far Thomas went in his opinion, suggesting contraception and same sex marriage also be revisited, particularly since the parties involved all have voices, and because it muddied the water. Now everyone is setting their hair on fire and both parties are using it to demonize the other. However, one could argue Thomas is saying voters should have had the opportunity to have a say. (We all voted on legalIzing marijuana. Can’t we handle the big stuff?) All of these controversial issues usually progress towards sensible ends.
Why not let the Constitution work the way it’s supposed to. Issues not specifically spelled out in the document are voted on by the states. Had our elected leaders and media responsibly reported on why we are here and how we move forward in a civilized way, we’d all be better off. Everyone needs to try harder to find common ground and lump some of the things they don’t like.
I think the issue from the side of those who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc, makes perfect sense from a practical standpoint. Their side won decisively when the supreme court “legislated from the bench”. The other side similarly lost decisively. Therefore, even though one might agree that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the past, by making things “right” again, if that person is in the former category they have to deal with the rollback of what was thought to be a definitive win. Conversely, for the latter category it’s a universal win, both in terms of their opinion on those rights and the integrity of our institutions. It’s never easy to stand up for the integrity of institutions if the result of that is losing a “right” that you support. Therefore I think it’s very important for those who are for abortion and these other issues, but admit Roe was wrongly decided, to be given all the respect for standing by their principles even when it doesn’t benefit their “side”.