Supreme Court to Hear Major Abortion Case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear a case from Mississippi challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The case will give the court’s new 6-to-3 conservative majority its first opportunity to weigh in on state laws restricting abortion. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19- 1392, concerns a law enacted by the Republican-dominated Mississippi legislature that banned abortions if “the probable gestational age of the unborn human” was determined to be more than 15 weeks. The statute included narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or “a severe fetal abnormality.”
Lower courts said the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe, which forbids states from banning abortions before fetal viability — the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or around 23 or 24 weeks. Mississippi’s sole abortion clinic sued, saying the law ran afoul of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding. Judge Carlton W. Reeves of Federal District Court in Jackson, Miss., blocked the law in 2018, saying the legal issue was straightforward and questioning the state lawmakers’ motives.
“The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Judge Reeves wrote. “This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.”
“With the recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, it may be that the state believes divine providence covered the Capitol when it passed this legislation,” wrote Judge Reeves. “Time will tell. If overturning Roe is the state’s desired result, the state will have to seek that relief from a higher court. For now, the United States Supreme Court has spoken.”
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed Judge Reeves’s ruling. “In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and reaffirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability,” Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote for majority.
Judge James C. Ho, issued a reluctant concurring opinion expressing misgivings about the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence.
“Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution establishes a right to an abortion,” he wrote. “Rather, what distinguishes abortion from other matters of health care policy in America — and uniquely removes abortion policy from the democratic process established by our Founders — is Supreme Court precedent.”
Lynn Fitch, Mississippi’s attorney general, urged the justices to hear the state’s appeal in order to reconsider their abortion jurisprudence. “‘Viability’ is not an appropriate standard for assessing the constitutionality of a law regulating abortion,” she wrote.”
Lawyers for the clinic said the case was straightforward. The law, they wrote, “imposes, by definition, an undue burden.”
“It places a complete and insurmountable obstacle in the path of every person seeking a pre-viability abortion after 15 weeks who does not fall within its limited exceptions,” they wrote. “It is unconstitutional by any measure.”
Tags
Who is online
64 visitors
Another blatantly unconstitutional and draconian law passed by a similarly minded state legislature.
... and thumpers wonder why they experience mass extermination events about every 500 years.
I don't think they look that far ahead, much less care. There are real world examples of what happens when abortion rights are prohibited to the point of being practically, if not outright, banned. And it's not good.
Why do you think think this modest restriction is unconstitutional?
Most women should know by 15 weeks if they're pregnant, and plan their abortions accoringly.
Because it's unnecessary. The legally established precedent is viability. That alone makes it unconstitutional.
I doubt it's always as simple as that. Keep in mind that Mississippi only has 1 abortion clinic. So planning an appointment, travel time, expenditures, and other circumstances may require additional time.
Well - as one example - a woman won't get an amniocentesis until the 16th week, so if their is a fetal abnormality it won't be tested for until after the state's cutoff. It's then the state and not the parent who gets to decide whether they are "severe" enough to terminate the pregnancy. The parent is thus forced to declare to the state why they are terminating the pregnancy and ask for approval - despite a large part of Roe v. Wade being the parent's right to privacy in their internal medical decisions before viability.
Why the court is even hearing this case unless they plan to uproot fifty years of jurisprudence is a mystery. There is no new case law to be mined here.
That's a good point AndrewK. I hadn't really thought about it that way; I didn't need an amnio for either of my pregnancies, but I know women who did.
I read this this morning.
I knew that Barret was lying about wanting to change abortion law.
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I didn't see where Barret mentioned changing abortion law or not. Got a link by chance?
Not off hand. I thought I remembered her being questioned about it.
Possibly during her confirmation? I could be wrong, but I thought she said she would respect established precedent? Given her personal views, I guess we shall see.
That is what I thought she said too. That she would uphold established precedent.
Seems like she doesn't have the intention of doing that. I could be wrong but she voted to take the case.
I'll reserve judgement until she opines on the case. Given the facts of the matter and established legal precedent, the proper ruling would be to strike down the Mississippi law.
Can you tell I don't trust her? Haha
Why no, I haven't noticed
But then, I don't trust many people to contemplate and decide on issues rationally and logically. Many simply go by their emotions or beliefs, often allowing that to overrule rational thinking.
That is what the 3 lower courts all ruled.
And if the SCOTUS still has any integrity left, it will do the same.
On what basis?
On the basis of established and multiple reaffirmations of legal precedents, as mentioned in the article. On the basis that such prohibitions potentially puts an undue burden on the woman. On the basis that such restrictions forcibly remove a woman's established constitutional rights and can set a dangerous precedent of unjustified rights revocation by the government. On the basis that there is no rational (nor was there ever) justification presented to set such strict limitations on abortion. Shall I continue?
On the basis of what YOU and your Dr discuss/do are private.
The pro-birther's are the same group of people that constantly scream about how they want more personal freedoms, but not for women.
Amy Coney Barrett was slammed onto the SCOTUS to undercut women's reproductive rights.
Leave it to the GOP to march right into the late 1800's.
Indeed.
That may have been the intent behind her nomination and confirmation. But I'll wait and see where she goes with this.
1800's BC maybe. Some seem to prefer a Bronze Age mentality.
Bullshit
Republicans and conservatives will unleash hell on themselves if they decide to outlaw abortion because they can. A new civil rights movement , greatly increased "liberal" voting , and a loss of national power for the right. It might take some time, but that will be the ultimate effect.
Abortion has gone on for thousands of years and it cannot be prevented in a free society no matter who does or doesnt like it.
I doubt they're aware of that, much less care. I don't think they can see the potential ramifications of outlawing abortion. It's short sighted thinking.
Prohibiting abortion certainly makes for a less free society.
Putting some common sense restrictions on the process in no way amounts to prohibition.
Viability is "common sense" and an acceptable middle ground between the two extremes. There is no rational reason to prohibit abortions before then, much less at 15 weeks or sooner.
Viability is not the standard. The Court, has invented a so called Constiitional right to abortion up until the time of birth, so long as the mother thinks having a baby will effect her in some negative way, like causing stress.
We have abortion on demand in reality. A common sense middle ground would be a regimen that looks like most European countries. Germany, for instance, outlaws abortion after 12 weeks unless their is medical necessity.
Yes, it is! Elective abortions are allowed up to the point of viability. Afterwards, only for medical reasons.
Really? Where did they do that? Cite their precedent that states abortion is allowed up to birth! Viability was determined by medical science, not the court. The court simply allowed viability to be the cutoff point.
Pregnancy itself is stressful. But "negative ways" generally include medical issues like fetal deformity/demise or risk to the woman's life. Such situations also require medical evaluation and recommnedation.
Up to the point of viability. So what?
How is that common sense? We're not Europe.
Seems to be working pretty well for everyone.
That's false.
Where did they do that?
Roe, Doe, and the Casey case and it's progeny. this is basic stuff. Given your obsessive posting on abortion seeds, I'd assumed you had a basic familiarity with the topic. MY bad.
negative ways" generally include medical issues like fetal deformity/demise or risk to the woman's life
Why don't you look up the word generally, and then retract your post.
Up to the point of viability. So what
Because there is not a cutoff at viability,
We're not Europe.
How do you not understand that? I'm pointing out what an actual compromise looks like and used Germany's standards as an example. How did that confuse you? Sometimes I forget my audience. I'll try and keep it simpler..
Except for those being killed, sure.
Back up your assertion that it's false then!
Specify precisely where in rulings it says abortions are allowed up to birth! Or is snark and erroneous presumptions all you have?
Nope. My post stands. You offer nothing to warrant otherwise.
False! PP v. Casey (1992) established viability.
Again, how is that a compromise? Why should we follow Germany's example? For what reason?
Resorting to personal attacks only shows you have nothing rational to offer, much less a strong argument.
Who's being killed?
If you want to be like Germany when it comes to abortion mayb e we should adopt their health care system as well.
I did. Read the cases.
ly where in rulings it says abortions are allowed up to birth! Or is snark and erroneous presumptions all you have?
I have. [deleted]
So instead of explaining your position and claims, you resort to snark and personal attacks. Clearly you have nothing, least of all a rational argument.
Question for you, Sean.
Let's say a woman is 30 weeks along. She starts having medical issues like short of breath, heart palpitations, fatigue...all signs of heart failure. The pregnancy is causing more stress on her heart than if she weren't pregnant. If she continues with the pregnancy she will die. An amniocentesis also shows that the fetus is abnormal due to the mother's heart condition.
Do you think she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy?
you think she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy?
Yes. Those are life threatening complications.
I have to tell you I'm shocked at your answer, but it was the right one.
As a humanitarian, I'm against taking innocent life needlessly.
You can call yourself a humanitarian all you want, but that doesn't make it so. I have to say I haven't seen you advocate for many rights for women or minorities. Also, how humanitarian is it to force a woman to bring a child into this world when she has no means to take care of it? I don't think you're going to advocate for gov't assistance here, are you?
Thank-you, Charger.
I do feel that women should take every precaution against pregnancy if they don't want to become pregnant..and that's pretty simple to do. I never had a baby until I decided I wanted one. And that first one didn't come along until I was 31. So that was 13 years of being sexually active without getting pregnant. Now I know that was more information than anybody wanted, but there it is. It is possible to have sex without becoming pregnant
In the context of abortion, you are free to choose to not have one. You don't get to make that decision for anyone else.
My position is this, if the state wants to mandate that pregnancies end in birth, great, they get to pick up all the costs. From the initial hospital bill right up until the kid turns 18. If the state wants to make these babies be born then the state can take care of them.
I doubt that would happen. More likely that the same politicians who want to prohibit or ban abortions would also complain if women suddenly required additional state aid. They would probably complain about women turning the state into a "welfare state" or that women should not have children they cannot afford or care for, or something along those lines.
And that is why they can never have a coherent position on the issue.
If you don't want women who cannot care for or afford a child to not have them, THEN LEGALIZE ABORTION. If you are not going to legalize abortion then you better be prepared for the state to have to start picking up more and more of the cost. Pick one or the other because the alternative is basically India.
How about having all the abortions one can afford and choose to have, AND supporting the kids you CHOOSE to bring into this world as if they are YOUR responsibility and not the govt.'s?
Do a cost analyst of a one time abortion and cost of birth + continuing cost of raising a child + lost time costs and all other costs. including opportunity costs and cost of schools and government services the taxpayers pay for, see which one is lower
That would be great. Except some politicians are trying to take away that choice.
So if a woman cannot support a child and wants to have an abortion, but cannot because the government said no more abortions, then what?
They want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too.
I know it's cheaper to get an abortion. that isn't my point. I want any woman who wants an abortion to have access to getting one safely. I also don't want tax money going to pay for kids parents choose to bring into the world.
I don't feel it is the role of govt. to pay for you to have kids you can't afford and chose to have.
some politicians are trying. but I doubt SCOTUS will ever reverse Roe..
people who can't afford an abortion should get one at government. expense, but if they become pregnant again, then tie her tubes. no sense in providing abortion after abortion because someone is too fucking stupid to prevent pregnancy in today's world.
Indeed they are.
I doubt that too. And I certainly hope it never happens.
Or better yet, just keep abortion legal and safe to begin with. Problems solved.
no, it doesn't solve the problem of idiots who can't figure out how to prevent pregnancies and can't afford an abortion.
That highlights the necessity of comprehensive sex education and easy/free access to birth control. Of course, there are those opposed to that as well.
still doesn't address the problem of those who can't afford an abortion.
Sounds like a poverty issue.
probably why I said let the government pay for two
I don't like paying that bill either
that's why I said tie her tubes after 2 government paid abortions.
agreed
Women could always cross state lines in reality. That's how it was done in the early 70s... state didn't allow abortions? Go to a state that did.
Or... back-alley abortions, which potentially has many bad things associated with it [infection, death, kill any future possibilities for bearing children]. Or... women throwing themselves down the stairs... but again, that potentially has many bad things associated with it [severe injury, death, paralysis].
That is most likely what will happen if abortions are severely restricted or prohibited. But politicians either do not remember that time in history or do not care. As I said before, it's narrow minded thinking.
Absolutely agree.
And then you know what state governments like Arkansas and Mississippi will do? Draft laws that prohibit any woman from crossing state lines to obtain a legal abortion. That's how fucking heartless these states are
That, is something that would be blatantly unconstitutional. But I wouldn't put it past them to try something similar. And with this SCOTUS....
Unconstitutional? Of course. But I highly doubt any of my state assembly persons have bothered to look at the constitution.
I wouldn't be surprised if those states would actually try to do that. Those states would in effect become breeding pens, with women as little more than cattle.
Or try to charge those out of state doctors, with a crime, for something not illegal in the doctor's own state.
More likely they would criminalize in state abortion providers.
The government doesn't fund abortion so stop whining.
useless fucking thumpers are testing the fences of the constitution. time to electrify them.
I just saw this. It's a succinct primer on why Roe is bad law and would certainly help introduce some gain a basic understanding:
Throwing out Roe would not mean banning abortion. It would not even necessarily mean restricting abortion. Roe is a bad legal decision not because of any moral question related to abortion but because it is bad law. The Constitution does not say anything about abortion one way or the other, and it does not contain any provision that could reasonably be interpreted as mandating abortion rights or prohibiting abortion. The Constitution has no more to say about abortion than it does quantum physics. And the Founding Fathers knew where babies come from — if they had wanted to put something in the national charter relating to pregnancy, they could have done so.
A situation in which abortion is prohibited absolutely and everywhere in these United States would be entirely consistent with the Constitution. So would a situation in which there are no restrictions on abortion at all. This is a matter for legislators, not a matter for judges...
Because the Constitution is silent on abortion, a post- Roe order would be established legislatively. Put another way: Post- Roe , the law would be made by the lawmakers. That would probably mean that Oklahoma and Utah will end up with abortion laws that are very different from those of California and New Jersey. As a constitutional matter, that is appropriate — it is, in fact, how things are supposed to be: We have 50 different states for a reason.
B lack ceremonial robes notwithstanding, the Supreme Court is not supposed to function as an Iranian-style guardian council keeping the state and society within certain moral guardrails. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law — which is written down for a reason. We write the law down so that we don’t have to renegotiate the rules from scratch every time there is a disagreement and so that powerful people cannot simply dictate to the less powerful what is permitted and what is not. If the abortion-rights advocates want to have a constitutional right to abortion inserted into the Bill of Rights, we have a constitutional-amendment process for such purposes. Get to work.
Overturning Roe would not be a lasting victory for the pro-life or a lasting defeat for the pro-abortion side. It is entirely possible that Roe could be overturned and that in 20 years we have even more permissible abortion laws than we have today. I wouldn’t put it past us. No-fault divorce wasn’t forced on the American public by left-wing activists — it was enacted by popular demand to popular acclaim.
Most Americans support access to abortion early in pregnancy and support restrictions late in pregnancy. Democracy is an unpredictable thing, but it is likely that a democratic settlement on abortion — something that the United States has not had in five decades — would to some considerable extent reflect those preferences.
The case against Roe is not that abortion is a great evil. The case against Roe is that it is bad law. That is all the Supreme Court is bound to consider.
And that's enough about abortion for now
Roe is not a law. Roe is a ruling and established legal precedent. It struck down anti-abortion laws, which by default made abortion legal.
I don't know who thinks it would. It would simply allow states to make their own abortion laws. But this country has been down that road before. No reason go back. Especially since some states are draconian in their abortion laws.
Speaking of "basic understanding," that statement demonstrates a complete lack of it. The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution (as is their responsibility and authority) to deem abortion a woman's right under the 9th and 14th Amendments. One may disagree with their "interpretation" or ruling, but that is otherwise irrelevant.
Except for the issue of individual rights and autonomy.
A Strawman argument. There is no such restriction.
See first statement!
Which is exactly what it did!
No need. Anti-abortion laws were deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Therefore, abortion became legal. So there's no need to draft a law saying it's legal.
That's what is currently in place. So what's the problem?
Apparently not. Abortion and challenges to SCOTUS rulings have been brought before the court multiple times. Each time, Abortion and established precedents have been reaffirmed and expanded on. One would think that after all this time and challenges, someone could provide a valid argument as to why Roe is a bad decision. So far, that has not happened.
Gee Sean, there is a shit load of legislation that includes things that is 'not contained' in the Constitution. Does that make them ALL 'bad law'?
Some seem to think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be valid.
, there is a shit load of legislation that includes things that is 'not contained' in the Constitution
Why don't you look up the difference between a constitutional right and legislation?
This is about as basic and it gets. Reading this thread must be very painful for the people who taught progressives the basics of the Constitution in eighth grade. Not understanding the difference between legislation and a Constitutional right would have been grounds for failing eighth grade when I went to school.
The courts determine if a piece of legislation is constitutional or not. Abortion laws are a prime example. Yes, it is basic.
Some seem to not understand that the principle that the Constitution l and the laws that govern us mean what they say and say what they mean is a fundamental principle of a just society.
Some seem to not understand that the constitution is the basis and guide to our laws and it's the function of the courts to interpret the constitution in regards to the validity of laws passed. Laws deemed unconstitutional are struck down and voided by the courts, especially the SCOTUS. Civics 101.
First, Nice logical fallacy! congratulations on a completely disingenuous answer that misstates what Dulay wrote!
But that's not the end of your dishonest arguing. That the courts at the moment claim a constitutional right exists isn't, of course, up for debate. The actual issue, which you continue to ignore, is that there is no textual basis in the Constitution for the supposed right. That's indisputable, and all your circular logic won't change that.
e constitution is the basis and guide to our laws and it's the function of the courts to interpret the constitution in regards to the validity of laws passed. Laws deemed unconstitutional are struck down and voided by the courts, especially the SCOTUS. Civics 101.
Do you imagine that addresses what I wrote? If you want to have a discussion try to respond to what I wrote rather then mindlessly repeating irrelevant dicta. I'm trying to dumb this down as much as possible for you, but you seem stuck in a loop of generic talking points.
What's the fallacy? Do you think my statement is not factual?
Specify where I've been dishonest!
Demonstrably false! The courts have cited specific points within the Constitution to strike down certain abortion laws with respect to individual rights.
Do you even know what circular logic is? So far, your replies amount to little more than a "nuh-uh" and you've offered nothing to refute anything I said.
If you want to have a discussion, then I suggest you stop with the snark and personal attacks and actually offer something meaningful.
It's a strawman.
Specify where I've been dishonest!
You rely on logical fallacies rather than honest engagement.
e courts have cited specific points within the Constitution to strike down certain abortion laws with respect to individual rights.
Okay. Then point to the specific text that addresses the supposed right to an abortion. I can do it for gun ownership, or speech. So where's the right to an abortion? It's great you discovered it, since so many of the most learned progressives Supreme Court justices have claimed it's located in different places at different times. Does the right leap from amendment to amendment on a seasonal basis? Or has it's migrations come to an end and has it finally settled down?
far, your replies amount to little more than a "nuh-uh" and you've offered nothing to refute anything I said.
The irony......
cussion, then I suggest you stop with the snark and personal attacks and actually offer something meaningful.
I suggest you actually respond to what's written then simply parrot strawmen and other canned responses that rarely bear a logical relationship to the point being discussed. Then a discussion is possible.
So let's discuss this logically.
Should the Constitution and laws mean what they say? Or should they be arbitrary things, up to the whims of a judge?
No. it's not. My statement was fact!
And you rely on personal attacks than honest discourse.
9th & 14th Amendments.
So do you think you have the rights that are only explicitly stated in the Constitution?
I already said the 9th & 14th Amendments. And is was a conservative SCOTUS that initially interpreted it.
I have. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?
The Constitution is the basis and guideline of our laws. I already stated that. The courts interpret the Constitution to determine if a law is valid. That is a function of the courts. That is how the system is set up by the Constitution. A judge doesn't just deem a law valid or unconstitutional on a "whim." They must hear the arguments and evidence put forth by both sides of the issue. In the matter of abortion rights, the court deemed anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, thereby making abortion legal by default. They further stated that a woman had the right to an (now legal) abortion if she chose, based on the aforementioned Amendments. That precedent has only been reaffirmed in subsequent cases over the years.
Now, answer my question: do you think you have the rights that are only explicitly stated in the Constitution?
Do you know what a strawman is? Your response would seem to indicate you don't.
d you rely on personal attacks than honest discourse.
Nonsense. I'd prefer to have a discussion on the merits, but since you offer nothing but logical fallacies and unsupporerted conclusions, that's impossible.
I already said the 9th & 14th Amendments.
Really? Where? The word abortion isn't even mentioned in those amendments.
It's really makes my case for me that you claim it exists in the 9th Amendment and the Supreme Court says it doesn't.
Let's try again. Yes or no. Should the Constitution and laws mean what they say?
There is no textual basis in the constitution to ban WMD's or fully automatic weapons, some would argue that all of those would be "arms" protected by the 2nd amendment, yet the supreme court, even conservative justices, have agreed that such laws are valid and not unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.
In this case the supreme court has ruled that the constitutional right in the "Due Process Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides a fundamental "right to privacy" protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. That right to privacy means no one else has any rights to invade her body or the choices she makes for her body or what is inside that body. That right to privacy is also extended to cover our health care providers who are legally not allowed to divulge our personal and private health information without consent.
No one else even has a right to know a woman is pregnant if she chooses not to reveal that information. You may say "well I can see it with my own eye's" but that's just some unrelated parties conjecture, perhaps she's just put on a few pounds. What a woman discusses and decides with her doctor about her own body and healthcare is nobody's business but her own up until there is a viable fetus that can live outside the womb on its own which is usually between 22-24 weeks. After that point most States only allow terminations if the life of the mother is at risk and are a tiny fraction of the abortions that occur. 92% of all abortions in the US happen at or before 12 weeks.
So others need to get their noses out of other peoples business and bodies, it's not their right to force their beliefs as to when a fertilized egg or zygote or fetus should have rights of its own or becomes "a person". If it were up to some they'd ban masturbation claiming sperm are alive and one half of a human already and thus must be given human rights. Others think it should be at the moment of conception, others when there's a heartbeat and others when there is brain activity, but none of their personal opinions matter accept to themselves and the choices they make for their bodies. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, otherwise mind your own fucking business.
Considering you've already had statements deleted for CoC violations, it's hardly nonsense.
It doesn't need to be explicitly stated. Read the Court's ruling and how they're derived at it. Then you might see.
Considering the SCOTUS has used the 9th & 14th in deriving their ruling, t seems you have no case to offer.
I already answered and explained. Why don't you answer mine!
Well gee Sean, since your comment didn't mention a fucking thing about 'constitutional right', why should I?
Oh and BTFW, YOU are the one that mistakenly thinks that Roe is legislation rather than a SCOTUS ruling based on an individual's right to privacy.
When I went to school, ad hominem was discounted as juvenile mudslinging.
The word 'own' is not in the 2nd Amendment.
Bullshit.
Roe v Wade is actually about a woman's ability to choose a medical procedure for herself, privately between her and her doctor. It's about choice and privacy. Overturning Roe v Wade allows government to step in between a woman and her doctor and prohibit a legal, and available, medical procedure.
Imagine thinking that addresses what I wrote.
Then you need to reread it.
Why would you need a specific entry in the Constitution, when it is already covered by a general one?
Looks like the author of the piece you cited forgot about the other 17 Amendments to the Constitution, especially the 14th.
If I, as a male, have the right to cut my hair then a woman has the right to remove something that is a part of her and drawing nutrition from her blood
Indeed, like a parasite. No one is (nor should be) compelled or required to donate a part of themselves for the benefit of another. We don't force people to donate their organs against their will to save another's life. So a woman shouldn't be forced to endure a pregnancy against her will either. It's a matter of respecting personal autonomy and choice. Unfortunately, anti-choicers do not respect that.
The Court's acceptance of this case means that it may have the votes to reverse a lot of the provisions of Planned Parenthood vs Casey which once reframed & gave credibility to Roe. Last year the Court accepted a case involving Louisiana's limitations on abortion clinics. I wonder how many remember how Chief Justice Roberts stressed (in reference to Casey) that “no one asked the Court to reassess the Constitutional validity of the undue burden standard.”
Yes, progressives should be very, very afraid.
Afraid of what?
That's what I'm wondering. If the SCOTUS follows and respects precedent, then this case should not amount to much. The Mississippi law is blatantly unconstitutional.