After Roe v. Wade, What Next? 

That is if hysterectomies aren't out the window too

No pls don’t fall for fake news. Conservatives support birth control, at least the majority. Justice Thomas was just saying that it’s not the supremes court job to decide on things like that. It’s us the voters that decide. The Supreme Court should just interpret the law not make it. This roe decision was basically them saying abortion is not a law they can enforce.

@@jmtz3149 mostly correct, but what this decision means is that the PROTECTION of abortion can not be legislated by the federal government. They could in fact ban abortion across the board at the federal level based on the idea of abortion being murder. Also yes, we conservatives would love it if people would start deciding not to have kids before they have kids. More use of protection, less frivolous sex, less inconvenient pregnancy. It's like magic!👍

Who the hell doesn't support birth control? Birth control is literally the biggest advancement in modern history and is an entirely bipartisan issue.

You say if but a hysterectomy is definitely already gone if birth control goes. Don't wait another day to make an appointment because laws like these won't be cleared up for decades again if ever in your lifetime.

So why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder after he murdered his pregnant wife? The second count was for his unborn child.

@@John-tr5hn California has a fetal homicide law that states any person who kills someone who is pregnant will be charged with homicide of that fetus. That's why. It has no legal bearing on anything unrelated to homicide cases.

Why would that be a problem... If they count newborns, count unborns too...

@@samuelthomas3029 because some women don't even know they're pregnant until 6 weeks in or even later, also what would the unborn fill on their census form on thing like date of birth, religion, ect?

Just think of the increased scrutiny of women who are of child-bearing age. Will these women be required to have routine ultrasounds or HCG blood tests in order to discover new unborn persons? And many medications are contraindicated for pregnancy. So will women of child-bearing age not be treated for these illnesses? IVF clinics, with many frozen "persons," will be regulated so much as to render them financially unsound. Divorce and other couple separations will have many more legal issues to settle. If fertilized eggs become persons, I have a feeling that we will be sorting out issues for decades. If pro-lifers want to open this can of worms, they will be sorry.

Ssssshhh, don’t apply logic to the Cult of Yeshua. They’ll burn you as a “””heathen””” for it.

But who cares about silly things like “logic”

A persons value is not defined by whether or not their brain is working.

@@investigatinglegends They're not people. If the brain is dead or completely unformed, there is no person to begin with. They are an inanimate object.

@Watchers Guild If a person is brain dead, they have no value because they are DEAD! A dead brain means no conscience. The former inhabitant of that body has already started to change state from kinetic energy to potential energy.

What do you propose?

@@baboon_92 Constitutional amendments guaranteeing bodily autonomy, which would include but not be limited to medical decisions like abortion and social ones like who you f*ck. It could even include recreational drug use. It wouldn't hurt to declare the unborn to be not people, but that probably won't fly.

Dred Scott was never overturned, so there's that. We can go right back to chattel Slavery if SCOTUS decides that forced labor is legitimate punishment for simple misdemeanors.

Are you suggesting that the Court should not be allowed to correct itself when it gets a case WRONG? Because that sounds far, far WORSE...

@@baboon_92 maybe having them enshrined in law.

That's how Texas be. One of the most dystopian States in the US

It’s the equivalent to prosecuting a get away driver in the even of a bank robbery, not that dystopian.

It's bad with context.

The worst part about the Texas law is they immunized it from Judicial Review.

@@Lebronwski You must not understand what the word “equivalent” means.

While I agree with you in general, slavery is under no circumstances the "most" deeply rooted aspect of American history.

@@NegatingSilence slavery has existed in some form for the entirety of America's existence. Its literally more American than the actual bill of rights (which was only adopted like 15 years after our independence).

@@NegatingSilence The South literally seceded from the nation over slaves and the only reason that the Constitution was agreed upon was it was favorable to white land owning males. WTF are you talking about that it's not deeply rooted? The country was mostly built on slavery!

@@Karak971 Yup. North American slavery predates the American Revolution.

@@NegatingSilence yes it is.

😂😂😂😂

Honestly it sounds like she was doing this to make a political statement. Personally I'd just let her drive in the carpool lane lmao.

legal foetal personhood is dangerous. If a foetus is a person, and their rights outweigh those of the mother (as in the case of anti-abortion laws), then women who are of childbearing age could be prohibited from drinking, smoking, driving (what if she got into an accident?), taking any medication that could potentially harm a pregnancy, or doing any activity (work?) that may put a foetus at risk. I get what she was doing. Power to her. But holy heck is this not something to encourage broadly :/ If the US is headed for an ultra conservative, women can only stay at home and breed system, they need foetal personhood.

Deal, if we ban abortion than pregnant women can drive in the carpool lane 👍👍

@@ninawernick6501 I've heard about alot of women's insurance refusing to cover their medications because they can harm a fetus already

OH yeah, this has opened a can of worms. For instance, the HOV argument (maybe that's why some places changed it to occupants ... I'm joking there)

Throws a wrench in a shit ton of immigration policy too. If an undocumented migrant gets pregnant here, would deporting her mean deportating a citizen? If someone in a detainment camp miscarries due to the awful conditions, aren't the authorities guilty of manslaughter at the very least?

yeah I'm not comfortable with imprisoning a mother, but if you don't, does that allow pregnant criminals to just carry on?

I understand the view here, but, seriously? The baby isn’t a prisoner in the womb. That’s their home, for a good nine months or so. You can’t evict the baby, so if mom has to live in jail, the baby’s address would be the same. The only difference is, at birth, because the baby is obviously innocent, they are possessed of a get out of jail immediately free card.

Firstly, law and human reasoning does not work just like one day's worth of programming classes. Pregnancy is a phenomenon more apparent to us than the thing known as jail. To reduce it down to "oh two humans in the same space, one is innocent, one is not, I can't jail them" is not how this has to work. Unless being strange to prove a point. That being said the baby deserves the absolute best conditions that mother can (legally) make for it so I for one would be fine with house arrest for pregnant women if they are in trouble until they give birth. Still horrible situation but that prevents a jail birth away from family or the father.

I'm so livid right now that I know I could never do what he does.

@@FourtyParsecs hey you, I want to speak to you. Not being aggressive, just open to anything. Discussion, argument, whatever. I'm split between having abortions being a federal issue vs. a states issue. Maybe I can have a discussion with someone that feels strongly about this and not have it become a street fighter match.

@@ccshredder9506 I think it boils down to living in a red state v blue state. For the most part at least. Blue stated won't change much. Red states will go hard to ban or strongly limit it. it does set a bad precedent I think.

@@ccshredder9506 I come out strong on women have equal rights as a man over their own bodily autonomy. Full stop.

@@ccshredder9506 the issue is a political one. "the rights of the states" is not one any person with the expectation of right wing commentators like to bring up. i think its a fundamental right. in the same way I judge Saudi Arabia for their antiquated laws i judge this act since it will strip people of their fundamental rights. same with slavery, i think its immoral thus it should be outlawed, i dont care about giving the power to states to enforce it, as long as they all inforce it

I'd think the congressional mistress clause would cause an automatic veto against any such law.

Yup, if life begins at conception then so should child support

Another thought would be if they were to grant personhood how coul they put a pregnant woman in prison ? I mean the fetus would then be innocent in prison

I thought that was already a law lul

The state would love this as they collect a fee as well for child support.

Are you sure? Couldn't you are that your own life is being threatened, theoretically calling out whoever it may be they would be committing murder in some sense? I am not a lawyer, but wondering (also you sure about that, if it's a miscarriage, I can't believe they can argue it a living being, which is the argument of pro-life, is it's "alive")

@@Ange1ofD4rkness Yeah, they don't care. Whenever abortion is banned, things get really thorny and complicated: there needs to be tons of exceptions spelled out, and even if they ARE, Doctors can be very hesitant to perform them anyway out of fear of going to jail.

Can I ask what procedure you're talking about?

First of all, I am sorry for your loss. There really is no greater. As to the rest, actually, it all depends on how abortion is defined in your state. Abortion used to be defined in 2 ways, at least among the medical community: Therapeutic, aka spontaneous, and elective. The procedure is basically the same for the removal of the “productions of conception” depending on the age of the pregnancy. Example, a d&c (dilation and curettage) is the procedure used for young pregnancies. The cervix is dilated with progressive sized rods and the. A Curette is used to scrape the pregnancy from the uterus-this is often followed by suctioning the contents of the uterus. Older pregnancies in which the above procedures are not possible are induced into labor as would be for normal birth. The real difference between the two is the status of the fetus BEFORE the procedure begins. In a spontaneous abortion, often called miscarriage, the fetus has passed away spontaneously without outside intentional “assistance”. I use the term assistance because there can be there can be outside causes of the fetal death that are not intentional, such as a car accident, etc. Often the fetus will also pass out of the uterus spontaneously. Sometimes it doesn’t and this is where the “therapeutic” part comes in and the d&c procedure or induction of labor is done in order to prevent harm or death to mother as retained pregnancies can cause deadly infection and hemorrhaging. In the other type, “elective” the fetus is living and it’s death is intentionally caused inside the uterus at time of or prior to removal from the uterus using the same procedures as above. I can’t imagine and certainly hope that a woman will ever be blocked from having a procedure to have her spontaneously deceased fetus removed from her uterus. That IS a necessary medical procedure and should never be outlawed. Unfortunately, there are many people out there, including legislators, who are uneducated and or lack understanding of the differences in the situations and circumstances. The understanding of these differences certainly doesn’t get conveyed to the public by the legislators, as the term “except to save the life of the mother” is a very vague term really. For example, does that mean the medical community cannot intervene with a “therapeutic abortion” until the mother is literally dying from septic shock and hemorrhage or can they intervene well before it gets to that point. Other discussions need to be had with more transparently as well. For example, do we really want an 8, 9, 10 year old (yes, that happens much more than you realize) victims of incest or rape to have to carry a pregnancy to term OR do we want to allow the biological/genetic evidence of a crime to be destroyed at the insistence of the perpetrator of the crime? I would have a hard time believing that there are not unscrupulous practitioners out there even today, performing forced abortions on young girls in order to hide evidence. Are there any laws requiring a medical practitioner to preserve this evidence for prosecution? There is a lot to consider re: this whole issue that never really gets covered.

What state? Should be pretty easy to confirm what you're saying if we know that.

Another lie that I'm tired of seeing is "this is just removing the decision about abortion from the federal government and placing it back in the hands of the states". Does anyone seriously doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold a federal abortion ban if the Republicans were able to take control of the federal government and pass one?

clarence thomas is the only one who has said that he wants to overturn those other rulings.

no they didnt lol

@@lemurwrench6344 The other right wing judges have the same politics as him. They absolutely will do it.

@@enriquesanchez9016 you're assuming that. Being conservative doesn't mean they'll all agree on everything.

One of my friends is a nurse, and told me about one of the first lectures she had at university. The lecturer was talking about the responsibilities of those in the medical profession, and some girl in the audience asked 'but what about my religious beliefs? What do I do if someone wants to do something that I can't do because of my religion?'. Without missing a beat, the lecturer just said 'then get a different job'

@@cyber_rachel7427 that lecturer deserves a standing ovation

conscientious objectors should be protected. you can't force someone to do something simply because they can. most EU laws thankfully have codified that doctors can object to perform abortions and the patient will be passed on to someone who can.

@@cyber_rachel7427 The correct answer is refer to another physician, you don't have to do it but you shouldn't deny your patient autonomy. In general though a life spent in healthcare (at least to some degree at the sharpend and if you got into it for the right reasons leads to you being pragmatic and dismissive of most of the BS involved. (Of course you can sprecialise in doing lip fillers etc. instead). Obviously there are limits to what is practical - once had a med student say she refused to touch men's hands...

@@4x4r974 what about the saint daime Religion. Their practicioners use an alucionogenic tea to conect them with God. They would be able to be high as a kite in work...

Probably not. It would be pretty hard to prove they were aware of the woman's intentions. Doesn't mean someone won't try to do that to pressure them into prying into private affairs to prevent more suits, but it almost certaintly wouldn't work.

Maybe, but I think you would have to prove that they knew about the reason for the travel when they sold the ticket.

@@zephid11 how do you prove the Uber driver from a home to the DALLAS airport WAS for an abortion?

If the person went to Delta and said "I need to get an abortion in New Mexico so I'm flying there" then yes, though they may defer to making whatever agent helped them out. It was already made clear that an Uber driver could be sued for knowingly taking someone somewhere to get abortion, even if it was out of state. Now proving either would be difficult.

yes, you can sue but you most likely won't win. If you do win, then every carrier would end up asking every woman traveling if they plan on an abortion.

But that would be logical and make sense and these idiots are far from logical.

Haha everyone look at rob

@Tnkrhll I had a friend who went to a pro-choice rally, and they went across to talk to the counter protesters, asked them, in effect, this very question that I posed, and the person they spoke to, in effect, gave the exact same answer you just did. To be fair, this is coming second hand, and I'm sure everyone was all riled up, so who knows what they'd say in private when everyone is calm and can talk rationally. Also, I know many (Catholics in particular, it's the descendants of the Puritan Protestants seem to have a tendency more towards the line of thinking you refer to- although I'm sure there are many Catholics who share it, and many Protestants who are compassionate) but there are many Christians who ARE compassionate towards the unwanted children and support many programs for them.

@Tnkrhll Yeah, agreed. There are tendencies in groups but people are not monolithic. Also, although you didn't say it in so many words, you kind of inferred it- I think it's an excellent point that certain POLICIES and govt. programs can prevent NEED for certain amounts/kinds of charities. This is a point many conservatives and libertarians either don't seem to get or don't like. Also, I'd agree that most conservatives are not CONSCIOUSLY trying to take away rights. They're not sitting and twirling their mustaches or anything- but the net effect is basically that.

It's about punishing women for having sex and/or being physically defective as baby factories (which is why some people make exceptions for rape, a thing which has no bearing on if the fetus is a person). The reason we're seeing this in law now is because people are choosing to have fewer children, meaning the supply of both captive consumers and desperate laborers is no longer compatible with the infinite growth of stocks. Children have never had anything to do with it.

She's the governor of South Dakota, by the tragedy she meant nothing in relation to the mother, but like Mrs. Lovejoy, she's just "thinking about the children", meaning the tragedy would be 2 funerals. Take note that incestuous relations often lead to unviable babies, but you have it was god's plan answer for that.

That was South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R). Devin took that clip from an interview in which she was asked to comment on the Ohio case of a pregnant *10 year old* who was forced to travel to Indiana to obtain the abortion she needed and/or desired, thanks to Ohio's draconian trigger laws that would have made it a crime to end that pregnancy. Gov. Noem was being asked a "what if" question: "What if this happened here?" Her response was that it would be too bad for the *RAPED* 10 year old, but that aborting the fetus added a second tragedy onto an already existing one, that being the rape of a little girl. Noem is an extreme forced birther who does not care about the impact a pregnancy has on a person's body or mental well-being.

That's Kristi Noem, a literal demon

Can we PLEASE stop trotting out that straw-man argument when it comes to pregnancies that are resultant from rape and incest. Those tragic circumstances represent a tiny fraction of abortions in this country and, while there are any number of pro-life people out there who might consider a compromise where that exception was carved out, there's not a single pro-abortion activist who would agree to that compromise, so we should stop acting like it's any kind of legitimate sticking point.

@@Ellis_Hugh It obviously is. This isn't about a compromise, this is about situations where even many of the anti choice can see they are wrong. They don't become any less wrong because pro choice people won't go "if you do at least that I am alright with the rest." Doing the right things shouldn't require getting something in return. If anti choice places don't want them to be brought up they simply have to add sufficiently strong exceptions that it doesn't happen.

You could say the same thing about Roe v Wade

@@dongquixote7138 wat?

@@dongquixote7138 A statement that dumb definitely needs some foundation

@@dongquixote7138 Agreed

Based.

@@jongtrogers pregnancy is based on the principle of continuous consent. Somebody may initially want to get pregnant, but later decide to change their mind. Maybe the pregnancy is affecting her health negatively, or maybe she just decides she doesn't want the pregnancy. A blood donation can take 10 to sometimes 15 minutes. If I consent to start a donation, but shortly after they stick me with a needle I decide to change my mind and stop, does the donation center have the right to restrain me to force me to complete my donation? Of course not. I'm continuously consenting to the process over the full length of time the process takes, but I could change my mind partway through the process and my decision must be respected. In the real world this probably rarely happens, but you do have to account for it and respect the change of consent for the rare case it does happen. Somebody's life may depend on that blood. Maybe it's a rare blood type and I'm the only known viable donor. Doesn't matter, I have to consent for the whole duration of the donation process. Nobody has the right to force me to complete the process against my will.

@@shellrie1 Not all hero’s wear capes and you’re a good example

@@jongtrogers So is getting behind a wheel where you're immensely more likely to create the need for a blood/organ donation, more so if you consented to driving an SUV/Truck

Don't have sex; you don't get pregnant. It's not complicated.

Agreed!

Why must people construe this kind of thing? An unborn child IS a person, there is no doubt about that. But they are not a passenger in the car, as they are not wearing their own seatbelt, and are not in a car seat.

@@DavidRay39 Um, so if I don't wear a seatbelt, then I am not a passenger?

@@DavidRay39 "Eliminating abortion is only to reduce the rights of women, never to increase their rights."

Roe V Wade was about privacy, not person hood or the right to life. It's repeal doesn't legally mean a fetus is a person. Because the old verdict didn't support that, it just said the government has no right to regulate something it has no right to know about (a medical procedure). Kind of curious how you watch this video but still didn't get that

@@KappaKiller108 Curious how you didn't understand that this applies to the Texas legal system that became active after the revocation, but it sounds like you just wanted to make angry comments that aren't adding anything.

When my grandma was pregnant with my mom she took a prescription for her morning sickness that was "safe". It was for her, but my mom was born with a horse shoe kidney and needed surgery as a 5 year old and a 15 year old. Lots of drugs are deemed "safe" until proven otherwise.

@@christinebenson518 Lots of correlations are deemed causation by people who are not medical professionals.

Maybe stop taking drugs? Drugs are the LAST resort, not the first. Women should take drugs with EXTREME caution, even aspirin could kill you under the right circumstances. "Anti-depressants", I mean common..have you ever heard of psycho therapy?

@@thomasbones7973 Some drugs are necessary and life saving. Notice how she mentions chemotherapy? No one takes chemo for the funsies.

@@thomasbones7973 There is this little thing called hormonal balance in the brain, no amount of therapy can cure it, it just is, you can be doing you regular day and suddenly you are depressed, you don't need to add the hormonal cycles of a woman also, this is common in men too, that is what pills do, they can't cure a depression that arise from other sources, I am not completely sure that i translate you correctly on the psycho therapy stuff, i will assume you meant psychological treatment from a psychologist and not some pseudo-science stuff, you should know that many of the people that have prescriptions were derived from a psychologist to a psychiatrist, also, you can't cure things like John Nash, that basically was aware that he was seeing things that were not there after a certain point in his life, he was a rare case, but he ignored his hallucinations, they still were there, I will suppose you want people to have psychotic breaks and blame them for it all the while you want to deny them the treatment

I work in the ICU and the idea of a heartbeat bill is hilarious. The heart beating means jackshit if your brain doesn't function. We declare people dead through brain death studies not heart death.

Such a good question!

I doubt it. This whole Roe v. Wade move was made fully from a position of self interest. I would be surprised if that scenario was considered when making the decision.

I also doubt it. It’s likely that the heartbeat argument was made for unborn fetuses because they’re eventually growing into a human with a functional brain, so it’s an argument hinging on that. With a coma, the livelihood is purely stipend on brain functionality.

We should just pray to Jesus for a sign that a body is NOT a legal person. If Jesus does not provide a tangible sign, then the body is still a person or is now a person. This can be gamed in any direction and should satisfy both sides as we can prove the existence of Jesus and still maintain basic healthcare at the same time when Jesus moves tables or whatever to say that it's okay to administer terminate a pregnancy.

Even better, could a woman justify abortion under "stand your ground" legislation?

@@olenickel6013 I think in that case the abortion would have to take place in their home. Or is that castle defense laws? Whichever it is, I know you have to feel your life is in danger when at home to kill in self defense

I am against abortion and I believe in child support from the moment of conception

@@TAMAMO-VIRUS Threat to life isn't necessary for self-defense. You are allowed to use deathly force to defend yourself against crimes in many circumstances, including bodily harm, which a pregnancy by definition involves. Now, you have a duty to retreat, normally, meaning if you can reasonably flee the scene, it is not self-defense if you stay and fight instead. Stand your ground laws remove this duty, allowing you to use deathly force even if you could flee. This extends to all places where you are legally allowed to be, not just your home. Granted, this would be a moot point, because you can't flee from pregnancy and terminating it is the only way to avoid harm, voiding any duty to retreat. Either way, a pregnancy unavoidably involves pain and bodily harm inflicted upon a woman, comes witha risk of death, loss of income etc. So, reasonably, if a fetus is a person, you would be allowed to use deadly force against it if we apply any kind of standard we apply to other instances of a person inflicting harm upon you.

@@juancristobalrojas9212 Well you're consistent at least! More than I can say for a lotta ppl lmao

America is a free country under the Constitution. If states decide that abortion is legal, then it is legal in that state. Sweden isn't supposed to control abortion in Poland. Neither side of the Vasa family won the wars between Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

No one cares about Sweden

@@ronmaximilian6953 Great word "free", it's vague and the moment you try to define it, you immediately antagonize everyone at the connotations and consequences of what you're actually implying. Free to perform crime? Free to have the means to perform crime at any moment? Free to brainwash anyone or harm them in indirect ways? You contradict yourself, you're free, and yet the state can decide whether something you do is legal or illegal by manipulating the law? Where is the freedom there? Define the word first and see what happens next.

@@popopop984 I meant free in terms of having our sovereignty and rights as a nation and people. We're not under control of an extra national government like the European Union. But I also think that people having democratic rights to decide things also makes us free. I'm actually a Swedish American and gave up Swedish citizenship because I couldn't stand Sweden, The oppressive government, and the Nordic cultural norms defined by the laws of Jante. The state has the right to decide whether killing a person is a crime. Your fundamentally confusing freedom in a nation state with anarchy.

I'm glad other countries are seeing what is happening. Enshrine abortion rights!

"Outcome-driven" is a good term. "Hypocritical" is another one I've come to realize that conservatives don't want to conserve or perserve how things are, or even how they were however many years or centuries ago. They want control, end of story. In my opinion, power is like money; it should be a means to an end, and not the end itself. Power for power's sake is... not a good recipe.

I think scotus would block either Bill as they seem very set on narrowing the scope of the commerce clause and giving power to the states.

Hypothetical: pro-lifers get their way first on a nationwide ban. SCOTUS upholds the ban. A couple years later democrats have enough control to flip the law 180 degrees and prohibit the states from banning. How could the SCOTUS possibly undo the pro-choice law at that point short of just outright saying “we’re Republicans?”

@@kinghashbrown6951 , Then why not just overturn Wickard v. Filburn itself?

Lol, yeah and it's ENTIRELY possibly that someone, somewhere, at some point, has choked to death on a chicken nugget. The statement means absolutely nothing.

How do you figure?

@@Sewblon Because the majority IS being hypocritical AND additional constitutional rights are under threat.

@@AdmiralKnight That is circular logic.

@@Sewblon I think suggesting that judges being hypocritical could lead to the erosion of other rights is pretty sound logic.

@@AdmiralKnight What I meant was, where is the hypocrisy in this case?

As a fellow Canadian, I suggest you seek other popular opinions on this matter if you’re interested in seeking legitimate unbiased opinions on this issue.

@@mrplow3874 then why are you here if you don't agree with this channel?

@@EcoWarriorNB I enjoy this channel most of the time, and when I disagree, I am not upset. The reason why I follow this RU-vidr is because I like a variety of view points to not live in an echo chamber. Question for you; why so hostile? Are you against discussion?

@@mrplow3874 well your initial comment certainly didn't come across as someone who enjoyed this channel at all.

@@EcoWarriorNB 95% of media personalities have a very obvious bias. As independent thinkers we try to reduce our own personal biases as much as possible. I do not dislike this channel, or the creator him self because I perceive a bias in certain explanations. Your original comment, to me, seemed to mean your haven’t had a proper explanation until now, and that you’re an armchair legal expert and enjoy this type of thing. I understood that to mean you’re open minded and so I suggest you do more digging to get a fuller picture. If discussion is not something you’re comfortable with, law isn’t your topic.

The ratio problem you mentioned is exactly the law-makers' intent. They used to have to be tricky about putting as many obstacles between a pregnant person and abortions as possible, but now they can openly force people into becoming parents.

They have forced mating laws?

@@blastphantomgames6369 No, but we have a new anti-choice law. Thats what he meant by force.

@@blastphantomgames6369 Forced mating is not quite within the legal reach of conservatives yet, but give it a few years and they'll be argueing that "Rape is an issue of states' rights" and the "traditions and benefits of rape have been ignored by liberals"

Pregnant women cannot be jailed as you would also send an innocent citizen to jail.

Your terms are acceptable

The census should also count them, which would likely skew political demographics since I would assume the unborn fetus would considered the same party member as the mother

Since a fetus is the ultimate in 'dependent', then claiming it on one's taxes should be a given with the overturning of Roe v Wade. If this weren't so horrible, it would be hilarious to watch.

@@johnlach2199 lmao imagine

+

if fetal personhood is a thing, is there an imminent apocalyptic lawsuit against industries (like coal power generation) associated with higher rates of miscarriage?

@@jacksonmarsten1791 Where'd you dig that BS from? A liberal tabloid?

@@DavidRay39 L

@@DavidRay39 no it’s logical. If we define foetuses as people, any external negligence that causes the termination of the foetus can be defined as murder. High pollution causing a miscarriage being one of them.

It isn’t a valid argument. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has no actual limit on how they choose to interpret the Constitution so they can legally make things up like “deeply rooted in history” to justify anything. As they already erased the wall between church and state at schools I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw the practice of certain religions at this point given they quoted a ruling from an infamous witch burner in their abortion decision as a dog whistle to Evangelicals to ramp up support for November.

In the very broad sense of whether rights not explicitly granted in the constitution are implied, I can see it being generally applicable. In this narrow case, I think there's a good argument that the problem is that it was applied incorrectly (both by ignoring the early American history of abortion, and that the idea of constitutional rights applying to the unborn only came about in the late 20th century).

Because conservatives will use literally anything they can come up with to take away rights? Honestly, I don't think it is taken particularly seriously. It's just an excuse to obtain an outcome they were already dead-set on achieving. When the inevitable backlash to all of this comes (it always does, though it may take a while and the cost to get there will likely be depressingly high) I would not be surprised if the formal elimination of the "deeply rooted" argument is one of the legal reforms involved.

It's used because people will take it seriously and treat it as a serious argument, even though it isn't. They'll literally use whatever spurious reasoning they can invent to support what they want to do, and by pretending that they believe their own argument, you're falling into their trap.

"I do not think that matters at all when you try to decide which rights a person should have." Don't most laws decide which rights are protected or restricted. For example, in respects to riparian rights, to protect the rights of other landowners of proceeding the parts of the river, one is not allowed to block off and is restricted in what they can do on their land.

It’s almost like they didn’t learn history, because this exact social behavior you have described is the same social behavior that occurred during the prohibition era, that ban on alcohol causes people to just not regulate it and continue to obtain whatever it is they’re looking for, even if it’s much more dangerous, and ultimately causes more harm than good.

Me too :-(

If anything, he should do a shallow dive into the Constitution and let viewers know that the 1973 Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional and that this Supreme Court rightly gave power back to the state as outlined in the 10th amendment. Then he should end the video because that's all that matters.

@@dleblanc Do you think Red states should be able to punish women who go to blue states for an abortion?

Same

@@dleblanc This video literally talks about the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was used as the rationale for legalising abortion.

This is a critical, overlooked factor. Would a pregnant woman or girl have to just claim rape at a provider? Identify a perpetrator? Or would the abortion be delayed until an investigation concludes a rape occurs?

@@mobanstudio3695 I wouldn't be surprised if conviction by a court of law was required.

@@mobanstudio3695 the investigation would conclude close to the end of the pregnancy, at which point it would be WELL past the legal date to abort.

@@dontmisunderstand6041 It would have to be. I thought about this because I was wondering why some states would have that incest/rape stipulation. If it wasnt settled in court then anyone could claim rape/incest with no evidence.

Rape or bot, just put him/her up for adoption

Not so hard to believe. This is an easy cop-out for them. They know which states are against what and they're happy to let the decision-makers in those states be the scapegoats while they watch civil rights be removed one by one because of "lack of historical precedence".

Let’s not forget the heterosexual couples who are not doing the correct intimate relations to contribute to “potential life.”

The court wasn't arguing for protecting potential life at all, he is putting that in their mouths. The court specifically just talked about how there was no constitutional basis for the previous decision it had nothing to do with being pro life or pro choice anyways, legally speaking of course. And a fetus is not a potential life, it is an individual human life. Now I'm not saying we can never kill other humans, I'm stating scientifically speaking what the fetus is. I was a fetus the EXACT same way I was a teenager. I myself with my 46 chromosomes was never a sperm. Which is a 23 chromosome haploid. That's not me nor was it ever, it gave its 23 in order to substantiate my DNA code that I then use to actualize my features. People need to get the science straight and maybe we'd have a chance here to not think everyone else is idiots

Just because one justice thinks or wants that, doesn’t mean all do.

@@DanielKolbin the majority of the supreme court justices do, because 3 were chosen by an ex president who committed a terrorist attack on his own country. WE KNOW the public doesn’t want this. they don’t care

Unborn personhood has not fully gestated in US law.

Tennessee Bill 1257 is trying to define it I believe

Personhood is not essential to pro-life thought. I think that should be left to philosophers. My POV is the state has every right to protect precious forms of life including endangered species (and their eggs) as well as human fetuses as life itself is objectively precious, special, and belonging to our world and future, and worthy of statuary protection. (And of course with exceptions for abuse victims and when the procedure is deemed medically necessary) I would not claim though that fetuses should be considered persons in constitutional terms or that the constitutional requires protection.

That’s the most lawyer thing I’ve heard in a while

@@andreygromov3492 Thank you

Jefferson never intended for it to be in the original form for this long. He wanted it revised every 20 years which means that we are well overdue.

Excuse me “YamiOni” but do you understand the repercussions of “rewriting” the constitution let me explain something to you the way America works is a system of checks and balances so not one branch of government has too much power what this dose is it makes it so people with power don’t get drunk with power. Now why is this important? Well if the constitution was rewritten who is the one rewriting it? If it is the judicial branch they would make it so they have all the power. This same logic applies to all other branch’s of government. In the constitution never is there a right to abortion. And even if you rewrite the constitution to “remove ambiguity” which it doesn’t have, people will still try to make interpretations that they use to push what they want. I would suggest reading the constitution before saying “oh people argue what it means just rewrite it”

@@goldenpawn6194 countries rewrite their constitutions all the time. If we did it once, why exactly couldn’t we do it again? If one proposed version gives one branch too much power, we simply wouldn’t adopt it. It’s an outdated, obsolete document at this point and rewriting it at this point is the only way this country can move forward

@@jennifertarin4707 Yep. Let's shred the Bill of Rights, and give States 100% power over their own laws, destroy the Federal government, and effectively dissolve the entire "United" States. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I think you have a GREAT idea there... Hope you own a gun to defend your rights though...

What is a right and isn’t, is pretty clear. There’s even a Bill of Rights that specifically outline what the protected rights of the individual are. The only people who can’t figure it out are the people who feel entitled to some things, and take from others.

Trust me, he would. He would just find away to protect his marriage.

No, you can't prove paternity of a fetus. No, it's illegal to kill an illegal immigrant, just because you can't kill the fetus doesn't mean it's a citizen. Maybe? That's the sort of service that could be offered, but I don't see the demand, or the security in the insurance.

@@merlintym1928 You absolutely CAN conduct paternity testing with a fetus. The procedures aren't even all that invasive, and can be conducted as early as 7-8 weeks. If a fetus began their "life" within the borders of the country and has "lived" that entire time there since then, then by definition it's impossible for them to be an illegal immigrant as they never immigrated anywhere. The citizenship question is a separate but somewhat overlapping one. Currently citizenship begins legally at birth, but with this judicial decision erasing the legal significance of birth as the important temporal boundary for certain rights, how is that same boundary not at least drawn into question for other rights? You seem to be arguing a fetus should be a stateless persok until birth when they are granted citizenship, but if legal personhood begins at conception what is the legal basis for that delay/discrepancy? Most of these anti-abortion bills contain some pretty vague language expounding about rights that at least opens the door for this sort of argument about fetal citizenship to be made.

@@siukong Cool! Didn't know that. Maybe it should then. I think free healthcare for pregnancy/illness/injury would make more sense than "make the guy pay for it" but if the government is going to mandate an asymmetric cost be paid during reproduction, they should at *least* make it as economically viable as possible. I didn't say they were an illegal immigrant, I said you can't kill illegal immigrants. Who are not citizens. Similarly, a fetus, which isn't a citizen, also wouldn't be able to be killed. Citizenship is defined in the 14th amendment of the constitution as being afforded at birth, and the federal government has no position on when life begins. A state might grant protections and privileges to non citizens, like New York does with its immigrants, but they can't afford citizenship, and the supreme court, no matter how conservative, couldn't overturn a constitutional amendment. So in the context of citizenship, it's not in question.

@@merlintym1928 Actually, legally speaking the constitution grants citizenship to the person on the moment of birth because birth is the legal point where person-hood begins according to past Supreme Court rulings. While the amendment itself uses the language of birth, it also says any person "subject to its jurisdiction", and also says that States cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Many federal laws regarding citizenship are dependent on the definition of person-hood, and as a result, redefining person-hood redefines the legal processes by which persons become citizens. For example, the Immigration and Nationality act. A child of a US citizen overseas can apply to become a US citizen. You may argue that a fetus has not been born therefore the law cannot apply, right? However, the legal language takes into account the fact that not all children of US citizens are born to US citizens; adoption exists. That means the legal language is broad enough to include any "child of a US citizen", and a child does not necessarily have to be born, to them, which means the legal language excludes in crucial cases the language of "born" and "birth". That means that the definition of what a child of a US citizen is depends on legal language; if a fetus is given legal person-hood, they would be classified as "unborn child". Considering that the criteria for someone to obtain citizenship is that "The person is a child of a U.S. citizen parent(s)" and the fact that the legal definition of child does not in fact require the child to be born explicitly (thanks to the ambiguity necessary to include adopted children), if an illegal or legal migrant is pregnant with the child of a US citizen, then the child could obtain immediate citizenship (since they are a child of a US citizen, and these laws do not recognise the difference between born and unborn children since unborn fetuses have not had person-hood until potentially now, the fetus now matches the criteria). The story is more complicated if both parents are migrants without citizenship, but considering that the child obtains legal person-hood in the US it could be considered to meet the criteria to be granted either immediate citizenship (upon conception or after 6 weeks, depending on the language used by the Supreme Court and Congress depending on how things turn out) or could gain the right to apply for citizenship and be put in one of several special categories that grant citizenship faster than others, making them a citizen before they are born.

Agreed. This is not getting the attention it deserves. I was about to ask for a video detailing this case.

@@tubesteaknyouri Can you explain it to me as if I were a 4 yo please? I´ve tried looking it up but I don´t understand anything (english is not my 1st language, so technical vocabulary like the one on wikipedia is confusing).

@Nick Naylor Basically will allow states to gerrymander with no oversite at all.

@@QueenJneeuQ really? Your country is screwed

Lol what democracy?

Uncle Thom is only one Justice. His opinion on that doesn't matter if the majority disagrees.

At least one republican senator has already said that the "issue" of interracial marriage should be left up to the individual states, too 🤬

I wouldn't give into the fear mongering on that one, there's just no interest in that issue amongst the people or the parties outside of a very small handful of idiots. Abortion was always a polarizing topic that split the population, interracial marriage isn't something most of the population cares about any more (as in: it's just accepted).

@@TheDeconstructivist going to disagree with you as, as a person of color, I can verify through many experiences how much folks in charge wish the Loving act didn’t pass.

@@christianokami2220 Though I don't doubt your personal experience, it's anecdotal. The data I've seen on the issue shows that interracial marriage has the support of roughly 95% of the population. And, again, there isn't a conflict of rights as there was for Roe. Without public interest in the issue and no conflict of rights, there is no reason to believe the court would act against Loving. These are massive differences from Roe.

I imagine the women would probably be put in some kind of intensive care room to be monitored until the child is borne then eventually moved to jail cell and placed under criminal charges of "child endangerment."

Murder, if done for convenience. Pro choicers call it termination of pregnancy and removal of the contents of the womb but it is murder

Probably because as a lawyer he knows a fallacious argument when he sees one

funniest convo I've seen was about car pool lanes. People go with the idea that simply having more than one person counts for carpools... the reality is that many car pool lanes only count people old enough to drive. Thus children don't count under the carpool regulations anyways. Pre-birth, infant, toddler, grade school... it doesn't matter. Not old enough to drive.

This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. I watched some of him during the Rittenhouse trial, he would straight up lie in the videos

@@PEJK6771 Could you provide a concrete example of something he said that was false?

The guy is definitely a partisan hack. He will in fact twist things to get the desired political outcome. This wasn’t education or information. This was little more than propaganda disguised as education and legit legal opinion.

@@RTTGunsGear I'll agree this video was extremely short on law specifics (much more speculation than usual, but given the topic, maybe it had to be?). But for the Rittenhouse case (which the other commenter mentioned), I remember him showing how the judge was quite reasonable and fair (e.g. not using term victims, not using term thief unless shown to be a thief, scolding prosecutor after jury left room, etc). Seeing as Rittenhouse is considered a 'right-wing win' AND the fact that he showed in detail how all the allegations about the Rittenhouse judge were false, I don't see him as being "a partisan hack". Though I agree it's obvious his politics are left-leaning. Which parts of this video did you find most egregious?

Considering nearly half of them lied to get onto the Supreme Court, your argument is valid.

They have.

They will, we are dealing with a rogue court that needs to be abolished, co-equal branches means exactly that, co-equal, SCOTUS instead is ruling over congress and the executive branch, it has far over-reached its authority and needs to be reigned in.

Then we should apply more pressure on Democrats to reform the court. The Republicans went nuclear here twice and Democrats are too worried to overstep boundaries to correct this because they're worry they'll lose a campaign issue and then power.

@@CroneLife1 lol no they didnt

That wouldn't make Thomas' own marriage illegal any more than overturning Roe made the last fifty years of abortions illegal. The constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, or retroactive laws, and if his marriage was legal when it occured, then no law can change that. Overturning Loving could make future interracial marriages illegal, but only in states that choose to ban them. While abortion has been a highly controversial topic for decades, interracial marriage has not been. It helps that marriage occurs between two consenting adults while fetuses are incapable of consenting to an abortion, and the equal rights clause of the fourteenth amendment is a more clear foundation for interracial marriage than the due process clause is for abortion.

@@7slavok That makes sense. I hadn't considered that overturning Loving wouldn't invalidate all interracial marriages up to that point, but it's logical now that you've pointed it out. I used to ask my husband these questions since he was a lawyer, but he's not around anymore to explain them. However, I still find it telling that he didn't mention Loving. I'm also wondering if the 14th Amendment will protect the rights of people from the LGBT community in all states if Obergefell and Lawrence will be overturned. In my opinion, these laws should have been codified as soon as possible.

What was the point of getting the White House and the Senate and Congress!?! With all this power there is no power and the minority who have no power are dictating how everyone should live. What is the point? Why should people even vote if the fundamental rights of liberals are stolen from them every time. I fear the future is written in blood. But then maybe so was the past...

First of all you have to show that substantive due process is a legitimate way to interpret the constitution. If you do think it is legitimate then to have to say Dredd Scott was correctly decided. That is the only way to get a right to privacy into the constitution. Thomas is right. Any decision based on substantive due process is incorrect and must be overturned

Loving was correctly decided on an equal protection basis. It is unrelated to Roe, which was decided using substantive due process

I would argue yes, fewer will learn it. I base it off the situation here in Germany, where some complicated legal compromise resulted in abortions being "illegap, but not prosecuted". So for all intents and purposes of having an abortion, they are legal, but formally it is still a crime. They aren't taught in med-school (we only have ethics classes that give you the impression something the vast majority of Germans by any statistic support is "very controversial") and they aren't required parts of an OB Gyn residency either and for the largest part aren't taught by the professional association of gynecologists, resulting in doctors travelling abroad to learn modern techniques, many still practicing outdated techniques like curretage which the WHO has been advising to replace for a while now, as well as abortion pills being used for a far smaller percentage of abortions than in neighbouring countries. Mind you, this is all the consequence of a legal situation where abortion is decriminalized. I expect the US to face tougher challenges.

Yes. There are several New England journal of medicine articles on this.

this is currently in the case in many places in the world like Poland and in the past, Ireland, and the result tends to be that doctors will only start the life saving procedure once the patient is on the verge of death, because if they know something has a high chance of death but can't prove it would definitely have lead to the patient's death, they're now at extreme risk of being thrown in jail. this basically means that the majority of life-saving abortions that would've been performed will be replaced by doctors watching people die in front of them instead.

It's a different procedure, pretty sure, so it may still be taught.

Not sure it would depend on how broad or iron clad they made the laws around it if they specify that that is legal then it should be completely safe but if they don't it is a grey area

They shouldn't be able to being that you can't enforce your laws in another country.

That's tricky, you don't really need to travel, they can mail you the pills you need and the abortion would be performed illegally. It's really stupid to cross the border to take a pill...

They CAN, however, enforce their laws on the individual citizen. If a state has criminalized the procedure, the "mother", the pregnant person, can be held liable for that crime, even if the institution who assisted doesn't end up being held in the same manner for whatever reason.

@@zockheem I'm thinking back to file sharing sites that were based in other countries, like New Zeland, where non-US citizens were brought to the US to be tried for crimes against US companies. Not a perfect example, but the US has done stuff to that extent before. I'm afraid the answer might not be as simple as we hope.

@@KatotsuSama file sharing (digital property exchanging) laws are different than medical procedures laws.

That's the best part. Nothing is deeply rooted enough. They will uproot everything that isn't on the constitution, and then try to break that too. Keep in mind abortions were legal and commonplace when the constitution was written. I don't know how much more deeply rooted they want to get.

Nothing is stopping it, thankfully. We can only hope such an outcome comes to pass.

@@artemisgaming7625 Well now it's a fun game for me to look for your ridiculous arguments in these comments. If you truly believe that half the population should not be allowed to vote, then *you* should not be allowed to vote because clearly your ability to make rational decisions is severely impaired. See you in the next silly point you're going to try and make ;)

The 19th amendment.

don't forget slavery, it was also not "deeply rooted in history" that people should be free, or, more accurately, that black people are people, so, that is the message the US is sending to the world right now.

Uh. You are aware that Dred Scott was decided on the same substantive due process basis as Roe right? That is why both were incorrectly d3cided

(googles) Oh...Oh no...

They’re unhinged at this point 😔

This is going to be the end of representative democracy in America.

Can you explain this in simple terms please 😂 as a brit I am confused

@@Nicoladorablexo legalized gerrymandering. it would allow state legislatures to set election rules with zero court oversight. Want to gerrymander every Democrat into a single district? Go for it. Want to toss out precincts if you don't like the results? Sure thing. Want to appoint electors? Why not? Not like you can be taken to court over it anymore.

We already saw that with the Terri Chiavo debate. The conservatives wanted to keep her alive and the left was in favor of ending a life they didn't want to keep. The pandoras box is that once you legalize murder where does it end?

As a matter of fact, this very topic has been another battleground of the religious right, too. But you have it backwards. Cases like Terry Schiavo were meant to be stepping stones toward an abortion ban. Now that a nationwide ban appears imminent, the Christo-fascists have little need to concern themselves with people in a persistent vegetative state. This was and will always be about controlling women.

If the family decides to pull the plug, is it now murder?

Vegitative adults are not consumers of laborers waiting to happen, so nobody will lobby anyone to pass laws making sure those vegetative adults are around to exploit in 20 years. It would also be harder to convince half the country that this is what they want, because basically anyone can become brain damaged, so there's no hierarchy to enforce like there is with abortion bans targeting women.

@@generatoralignmentdevalue vegetative patients provide an immediate need for healthcare workers. Then there is expensive equipment needed to help them.

I actually hope that loving vs Virginia is overturned because I want a mass overthrow of the government

Meh. There's plenty of black people who voted for Trump and hate their own people and culture. He probably rejects his skin color and heritage as much as possible. These people are a lot more common than you think. There are anti-black black people, anti-asian asian people, anti-hispanic hispanic people, and all sort of people who hate themselves.

It’s easy. The law in question involved in Loving involved a racial classification, long recognized by Thomas and other originalists to violate the equal protection clause.

So do I. I've been picking at this since the Roe decision came down.

@@mjenningssmith Loving v. Virginia was decided using the due process clause, the exact same reasoning used in Roe, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Thomas himself wrote, "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

Gotta keep those cuntservative boomers in power somehow, stealing organs seems like the logical next step. /sarcasm, mostly.

Anyone and everyone who has sex knows there’s a risk of pro-creating. Irregardless of how much protection you use, you may want to commit the action, but you are not free from the consequence of that action.

By that logic, is Texas not treating abortion being similar to having the ability to scrap a car?

@@daggern15 Well no, because while it's property, it's also a human life Wait a minute...I've seen this before

@@tomc.5704 A slippery slope, isn't it? Sad to say, those of us with brains already see just how far this could be taken and I'd bet good money those making these "minute decisions" already have a final goal in mind and the terrifying part is they're proving they can get away with it so long as they only take rights away in small increments and we don't know just how far they're going to take it.

This person gets it. They can't have it both ways, but they sure are trying. And doing it one way or the other, forced pregnancy or forced child support, still takes away the people's ability to make decisions about themselves. And mostly women's at that.

Almost like the whole family court system needs some serious fixing (as well do our culture and morals) and simply aborting an unwanted child isn’t the answer.

Men already don't have the right to not pay. We been paying lol

I get the impression that creating an imbalance of power is the very intention of this ruling.

I was going to say this same thing but thought I'd read through first in case someone else already did. Thank you, Guadalupe. :)

There's no actual thought that goes into any anti-abortion law. It completely disregards all medical science and human rights in favor of backward religio-fascism and irrationality.

I'd be down for punishing women who give their children birth defects from their bad choices during pregnancy. Speaking as someone who has had a lifelong battle with asthma because my mother smoked when she was pregnant with me.

@@Skeloperch but if the exposure to such things were not done willingly? For example, what if the mother worked in an area with high levels of air pollution when she was pregnant, resulting in the baby having chronic breathing difficulties? Will she be accountable then?

@@Skeloperch What about women who don't know they are pregnant? Can women never drink or smoke because at any moment they could become pregnant and not know for several weeks or months?

Well, I'd agree with a law like that, FAS can have lifelong effects, and a lot more people than you think suffer from it. The more interesting effect would be that, due to carding laws, the bartender supplying alcohol would also be on the hook. Basically, any given bartender would need to be able to prove they aren't serving to a pregnant woman; which is obviously more or less impossible for them to reasonably do, so would essentially become a law against women drinking.

Let me break it down for you, then. The Court said, in layman's terms, "It is not the government's business deciding a case like this. Keep us out of it. Let the states decide."

@@DavidRay39 They made this decision based on reasoning that is strictly hypocritical and nonsense, and often just out and out lies.

@@DavidRay39 I'm not saying I didn't understand what they were saying, I'm saying what they were saying was contradictory, and thus didn't make sense.

@@DavidRay39 "it is not the governments business" "Let the states decide" Like the actual states are deciding? the land itself? or is there some form of governance to this land?

@@DavidRay39 news flash: "the states" are a form of government

Honestly? There are a lot of people claiming “this is how it should be, states decide!” But I think I would disagree. Something we as a country have been struggling with since the founding, is, how can we as a nation claim “all men are created equal” if we allow states to determine to what level of equality their people are treated? Slavery, segregation, etc. all issues that butt up against the idea of if one state is allowed to curtail certain rights then we are not all equal… and I think a lot of abortion legislation falls into that category….

@@MrSkeltal268 ... definitely need another civil war.

@@MrSkeltal268 thats a VERY bizarre argument. Are you suggesting that american people can only be legal if every law is the same in every state? What would be the point of states then?

When it comes to Constitutional rights, state laws should not supercede the Constitution. Back in my day patriotic Americans understood that. We fought an entire war about it.

@@Kraus- That war was as much (or more) about slavery than about states rights. The moral question being asked has relevance

Fundamentally the problem is that the founders did not expect their constitution to be so enduring and entrenched as it turned out to be. But now we're stuck with it, so we have to make the best of it.

and lets not forget the black justice who decided roe wasn't 'deeply rooted' uh-oh

Wasn't segeration ended cuz equality and 14th ammendment ARE deeply rooted?

Segregation was ended by amendments to the constitution. SCOTUS can’t “cancel” a constitutional amendment. They just interpret existing laws, which is why they overturned Roe V Wade. The U.S. constitution doesn’t address abortion. It’s Congress’ job to pass a law that addresses that, one way or the other. So no, anti-segregation laws can’t ever be on the chopping block unless 2/3 of Congress agrees on that. People are less and less racist every year. So no, that’s never going to happen. I’d be surprised if even 1% of the public would support that.

@@jcflores1774 yet it's _so strange_ how it still took near a century for non caucasian people to - at best legally, and even that's hella shaky - be treated equally under the law. "Deep rooted" my ass, the Right would overturn those protections if they had a chance of succeeding. And they'd 100% pull some BS, deep rooted or not, if it meant feeding blood to their base. Miss me with that shit.

People jump to segregation, but it's worth considering the steps. Same sex marriage is almost certainly next on the block, if they can't rule on some other subset's basic humanity first. That'll almost certainly go if it ever gets that far, because... well. And states will absolutely jump to immediately criminalize some pretty benign behaviors as soon as that happens. Only after that will they try for interratial marriage, which might need to wait until one more justice dies and is replaced. That one is going to be more difficult, but that would absolutely need to be overturned before segregation becomes viable. If they do end up overturning that on it's Roe V Wade basis, it'll need to be re-connected to another right (i.e. the 14th) - and while it's off, states will absolutely play funny-buggers with it. I'm not saying it won't happen, because I'm not an idiot. I'm just saying - the next step isn't going to be overtly racial, much like this step wasn't overtly racial.

That is the interesting thing about the US Constitution. The Founding Father's intended for it to be flexible, to evolve with the Nation's beliefs, but hopefully not flexible enough that some would-be Tyrant can come and rip it to shreds

Then there needs to be some new clauses that protect women's rights on the matter. Women being underrepresented in US history is not an excuse to continue being sexist and ignore women's rights. That only perpetuates sexism.

sometimes that provider is bound by the company they work for to refuse these things. They often do not have a choice when working for say a Catholic hospital of which there are many in this country.

@@jennifertarin4707 See, that's why the hospital providers themselves need to be held to account, too. If your religious beliefs cause your patients to suffer, you're in the wrong both ethically and spiritually, and there needs to be legal consequences.

Most abortions have nothing to do with medical issues... Most are done for excuses of convenience like money or it simply not being the right time for a child. Do you at least agree that if a healthy woman tells her doctor "I don't want a child, I want an abortion" that the doctors should say something like "you're healthy, your unborn child is healthy, not wanting a child is a horrible excuse to kill a child, so I'm not going to kill your unborn son or daughter"?

@@mathildeyoung1823 Uhhhh nope. Pregnancy and birth are never 100% risk free. Sure, the odds of something bad happening are lower if the pregnant person and the unborn child are healthy, but that doesn’t eliminate the risks. Nobody has the right to use my body to keep themselves alive without my express consent. Also, are we asking the lawyers or the doctors who is “healthy enough” to be denied an abortion?

@@sally8708 There are lots of things innocent humans may not have a right to do - it doesn't mean they should be killed though. Our youngest human beings have a right to be cared for though - at least as long as it takes to be handed off to someone else SAFELY. If a toddler you've never met wanders into your house are you allowed to kill them because they DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to be in your house (oh no!)? Or... do you need to figure out how to SAFELY remove them (e.g. by calling the police, tracking down their parents etc - no matter how long that takes? hmmmm A good doctor would consider a woman and her unborn child(ren) as patients. They would know when a woman's life is endangered and could deliver the baby if needed to save her life. And certainly a good doctor would be smart enough to know that if a woman says she wants an abortion because she "cannot afford a child" that in no way is that a risk to her life. Her happiness, maybe, but someone's happiness should NEVER mean they can kill an innocent human being - born or unborn. Roe v Wade already dismissed the "ongoing consent" nonsense when they said that states could restrict abortion at some point in the pregnancy.... And that was when they saw the unborn child as a "potential". Now that we know they are actual human beings (duh) we need to be able to protect them from the moment they were created - i.e. at fertilization.

@@mathildeyoung1823 Pregnancy and birth aren’t risk free. There can be more than one reason to get an abortion. Your example is someone who can’t afford a child should be forced to carry the pregnancy and give birth, but the risk for blood clots are three times higher in a pregnant person than in someone who is not pregnant (just for ONE example of a physical medical risk, there are many others). Maternal/infant mortality rates in America are crazy higher than every other developed nation. Also, a toddler wandering into my house is completely different than them wandering into my body. That’s not even close. The lost kid isn’t relying on my body and my organs to keep them alive. And nobody can use my body or organs to keep themselves alive unless I choose to let them. That decision to consenting to use your body to keep someone else alive is the difference between someone donating a kidney of their own free will and someone waking up in a bathtub full of ice. The difference is between taking and giving. I may decide to give someone the opportunity to live using my body, but they cannot just decide to use me to stay alive without my consent.

@@sally8708 Abortion is ALWAYS deadly to the unborn child. Way more dangerous to the unborn child than 99.99+% of pregnancies are to women. That is why abortion needs to be illegal. Paranoia over a complication months down the road is a horrible an excuse to kill an unborn child is just like paranoia over being attacked while walking down the street is a horrible excuse to take out a gun and mow down everyone walking around you. The lost kid in your house is relying on you to BE RESPONSIBLE (oh no!) and ensure their safety until they can be safely handed off to someone else - even if that means using your precious body against your precious will and possibly enduring the toddlers wailing (which could cause stress or high blood pressure! oh no! or cause you to be late for work and possibly be fired).... By pro-abort "logic" that has to be good enough excuses to k-ill the child, throw them in the garbage and go on about your day. An unborn child doesn't consent to be killed. Since they cannot consent they need to be PROTECTED. Our children, born and unborn, don't need consent to be cared for - they are supposed to be cared for (at least as long as it takes to hand them off safely to someone else).

Your logic is sound.

The logic is about as sound as the use of the commerce clause in 90% of all the contexts its used in, so yes. yes it could

Ofcourse it is.

Someone would very likely try. Though hopefully most people would be sane enough to recognize how much of a stretch that would be and wouldn't let it see the light of day, but I won't hold my breath.

Since it seems like everything is a target of Texas anti-abortion laws you are probably right about that. Tab for a Cause is going to court in Texas! And The Supremes are going to rule in Texas's favor, when it gets to them. Where does it end? Texas is about to get messed with. I bet you they're going to come out Democrat pretty soon. There's been a lot of migration out of California. Smug ass Texans. They need a lobotomy to get rid of some of their Republicans. LOL.

See 4:30 for your second question

Better yet keep a fertilized egg in the freezer and claim it as a dependent, claim as many as you want

A woman can give the baby up after birth in any condition. You hust say you cant look after ot and its done. I expect a LOT of foster babies in the near future, so much so that abortion bans will be lifted from lack of funds

@@hahahaaha7208 You are more optomistic than I am. I imagine there will be the passing of laws revoking the psuedo right to abandon a child to the state or imparting some form of penalty like child support. I do not ever expect a Conservative majority to do the kind and socially supportive thing.

@@hahahaaha7208 adoption agencies actually want this due to the "domestic supply shortage of babies" the United States currently has

Or.... the possible hundreds of professionals who I'm sure have been designing laws for many many years, can be just a 'littleeeeee' competent and design a law that states that 'being a baby' is not a disability. Oh, but I'm sure that would be wayyyy too hard for them to do that and they'll only invalidate their previous reasoning if they tried, yup.

I mean, not really. There are two issues here, legally speaking: 1. Certain rights begin at a specific age (the big one being voting, which generally starts at 18). The various laws could be interpreted to mean that eligibility for benefits start at birth or whatever. 2. The bigger issue of what qualifies as “disabled” - the current social security guideline requires that such a condition “has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” There probably is an argument to be made for dependent status on tax filings though.

I might be mistaken, nur personhood and citizenship are seperate constructs. A foreign diplomat would be a person, but not citizen. But sure there are likely some laws that could be exploited until the right declares that they still dont care about consistency.

@@gachivalantine3792 I get and agree to your point, but a) fetus =/= baby, b) a healthy baby does have (limited) means of communication and transportation. There is a difference and that likely will have to be accounted for in future laws.

No

Or a governor saying "going out of state for an abortion is illegal" and the state next door, who may actually have a governor in the same party, saying "going in our state for an abortion is legal and privacy of who does it is protected". Which one State law will be upheld? The Supreme Court hasn't opened a can of worms, it released the entire factory of worm cans

Every Ideology claims Freedom, its not that special but it has never been fully realized. USA has for example, never been the freest country in the world, it just claims to be.

Let ppl vote on it

@@brodiekelly3026 you mean in gerrymandered states where it's basically impossible to vote meaningfully?

The Supreme Court has not - and will not - rule against a national law that codifies Roe v. Wade... they simply said, and correctly so, that it is not appropriate for their body to make laws or policy, merely to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws. Just as they don't think its their responsibility to ensure abortion for all, so, too, is it not the court's responsibility to ban abortion for all.

I would also commit suicide, regardless of how I got pregnant. I would not allow anyone to force me to be pregnant for any length of time.

@Yahweh Ben el Be quiet foreigner.

Well said, the harm this is going to do is going to be tragic.

@@azazel166 How can the King of kings be a foreigner?

@@yahwehbenel1027 Because I'm not talking to Him, but you.

They had 50 years to code protection of Abortion into federal law, but they never thought they would need to do so while states coded trigger laws for the instance of overturning of Roe vs Wade.

I mean this is obviously conjecture

@@ryancreevy418 Probably because abortion was recognized as a right based on the constitution. In most of those 50 years we didn't have to deal with Trumptards, social media, and QAnon.

LOL. Maybe you should get the Legal Eagle to do 30 minutes on squatter's rights, renter's rights, eviction law, and property in general. Spoiler: you're not going to like it given this laughable take.

If the law is very very poorly written than yes.

I think the mother should say she felt threatened and stood her ground.

@@angusmcculloch6653 Squatters take more than 9 months to gain rights over the domicile, and only apply if the owner is not also using the property. Renters have more protections, but fetuses don't pay rent.

@@angusmcculloch6653 Your defenses to their logical argument are the real laughable take. They have no legal basis, as some described further in the comment chain.

Well said. I never imagined we'd see this day. I wished the politicians & judges would have left this alone and focused on real problems facing this country. Instead, they've put a lot of people in crisis while doing nothing to solve the real problems of why people choose abortions in the 1st place. If they don't solve the 'why' people are going to continue to find ways to get abortions. Since there will be more babies born in bad situations, we need to plan and prepare to care for them.

@@nleem3361 I don't understand how you or anyone else for this matter didn't see this coming? The moment SCOTUS made corporations 'people', the democratic experiment that was the United States of America ended.

@@nleem3361 Also over 70% of people aborted for no reason.

​@@emeraldstories3586 for "no reason". Are you saying that the women up and decide to walk into a hospital to get an abortion for "no reason". A procedure that they got for no reason even though it is still dangerous. A procedure they likely paid thousands for(America) for no reason. Dude I don't think you know what "no reason" means.

@@titandarknight2698 The stats say no reason was given for the abortion.

Then wait until it's, "You might become pregnant, so we're going to deny you medication that might cause fetal abnormalities if you become pregnant".

@@Zorae42 yup, and it’s “oh your in a sexual relationship? No drinking, smoking, or driving. You could get be pregnant and not know it”

People have already been charged with homicide for miscarriages. This isn't a what if scenario, this is actual reality.

@Merula Amethyst Of course, because the point is to remove women's right to autonomy completely -- that means rights to jobs and votes, too. Finally, the right to say 'no' to spousal rape, too.

@@Zorae42 This is unfortunately already happening in some states 🥴

In the same way that a two year old does not consent to medical procedures, a fetus would not have to consent to delivery, it does not violate their rights.

@@kirstenadams5191 Right, it would be the parent's job to con- well, shit.

@@insertcreativenamehere7970 and you got the prize for also giving a medical reasoning for abortion

@@alenasenie6928 huh? I don't think you meant to reply to me specifically. So here's your award for not having any idea how to navigate RU-vid comments 🏆

@@insertcreativenamehere7970 no i think they just mean you gave another reason why abortion should be allowed, from a medical law standpoint

No, no, no. That procedure isn't deeply rooted in history. We can't have new things here.

In some states eviction is illegal in the winter months.

Or is it a tresspasser? If the embryo have not made acontract with her.

Just say the fetus tried to kill you and so removing it is self defense

Just move to California. They won’t outlaw it.

@@bennynortheast1328 I don't think moving out of state is as easy as you think it is.

you have full rights over YOUR body. you dont have the right to kill another though.

@@texx07 but women are being forced to use their bodies to incubate and raise the fetus without their consent. That is the issue.

@@texx07 I know what kind of argumentation will ensue if I say this but: foetuses aren't people.

I hope you are pulling yourself out of that rock. We need you to dive in. I know how stressful it is out here but we need everyone to stand up.

@@Whateverhasbeenmynameforyears It's not particularly easy to find reliable news sources, let alone one that is unbiased.

Same I hate politics cuz it’s boring and no one just shoots straight with the facts. Legal eagle is great at summarizing this malarkey

@@joshuaa7266 Finding an unbiased news source is impossible. Nobody is truly unbiased. One can, however, draw conclusions about the unbiased truth by looking at the overlap between diversely biased sources.

@@Whateverhasbeenmynameforyears nah, I look at politics way too much, its not worth it. Its a lot of work. If you don’t have free time to protest, vote, etc, then just try to live ur life. If you have time then its still annoying. This is my opinion. Politics does impact your life, but for me it feels like more annoying than it is worth. I am not charismatic, hard working, rich, or otherwise influential. So, I see no point other than curiosity to continue. Ya’ll can disagree, but I personally think politics in US is just more stress than it is worth.

Unlike mathematics, what is absurd to you is not clearcut to all.

Same way we can say - pregnancy is a potential to worsening medical conditions or potential sickness/loss of ability to work/death.

​@@scimaniac I'd say there are some pretty clear cut absurdities that can happen when calling fetuses humans. For instance, the fact that any potential human life is a person means that if a woman is negligent in caring for the fetus and something happens to the baby then that could be counted as manslaughter and that's pretty insane. After all, if a person trips and accidentally kills the fetus then in theory that would be counted as manslaughter. Or if a woman smokes or drinks during pregnancy then that would end up being illegal since that's technically damaging a "human life". Alternatively, since fetuses are extremely fragile and can die very easily, what's stopping a state from mandating that pregnant women must be admitted to a facility where they are monitored 24/7 to make sure that nothing happens to the fetus? Or maybe we could go full handmaids tale because an unfertilized egg (or sperm) is "potential life" so maybe the states have the right to enforce the rights of eggs and sperm as well.

I don't see a problem with the Arizona law, as it should guarantee a woman to have an abortion. Namely, if a fetus at conception is legally equivalent to a person, then the fetus at conception is a threat of great bodily harm (which is all pregnancies) to the mother, and the mother has a right to self defense under arizona law.

@@triopsate3 “so what are you in here for?” “Grand larceny. You?” “I had a miscarriage as a result of falling down some stairs”

All legal systems are made up crap. We made them, and while some are decent, most are horrible

He still looks like Ryan Reynolds’s older, more distinguished brother.

This has nothing to do with woman's rights, the people in charge, both parties, will allow a period of no rights to take place for one reason only. The birthrate must be raised to allow the ponzi scheme that is this country to continue. It's simple math. New taxpayers must be born. The end. Only difference is democrats won't admit it

For my part, for about the past 6.5 years I have been aging in dog years. I doubt I am alone in that.

The last 2 years have aged all of us a decade, at least. I feel like I gained I went from like 20 to 40. For the record I'm turning 35 next month.

His personal views are reflected in the cases he decides to cover or avoid the sht out of.

Could be from day negative 6 in the case of states banning emergency contraception.

the thing about this too is that if we are to consider a fertilized egg a full human, naturally occurring abortion (or miscarriage) would be by far the deadliest epidemic in human history yet that doesn't seem to bother anti-abortionists at all. shouldn't someone who cares about all these "children" be outraged that, in their mind, children a dying in droves?

Actually that might help people who get abortions, particularly the medication kind. A miscarriage is an accident, whereas an abortion is a deliberate act. Remember, in order to convict someone for murder, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their conscious actions killed the victim. Accidental deaths out of their control do not count. I.e, women could defend themselves by sowing reasonable doubt that it was an accident. It would be really hard for the state to prove that their "miscarriage" was not an accident, I would imagine. Even expressing public support for the pro-choice cause is not proof.

In a word, juries can vote not guilty and have plausible cover that they only looked at the facts. Which is what I plan on doing, if I ever get summoned for an abortion trial.

Absolutely nuanced thinking is forbidden. because if they were allowed to have nuanced thought they wouldnt be doing this. that's why conservative media focuses on anger and outrage because that shuts down the rational centers of the brain, making people easier to control.

Umm..he does skew info with his own opinions...why do you think he never covered any of the illegal crap biden has done

@@jjtt1890 ok.

ok

@@kennysorel giving illegals money and other stuff is illegal and then he tried giving them voting rights? That's also illegal...the shmuck should be convicted of treason and impeached

Lol His fake news hitpiece on the Lafayette Square riots was nothing but hysterics and anti-Trump propaganda. He lied that Trump ordered an attack on “peaceful protestors” just for a photo op, when actually he had nothing to do with the action officers took that day on a rowdy crowd that have been violent in the prior days. LegalEagle is a DNC shill and a corporatist hack.

Good point. Having life long terms means every time a justice dies or retires both liberals and conservatives are heavily encouraged to use every dirty trick in the book to ensure their guy gets on the court. Though I have heard that elected judges tend to skew more "tough on crime" when said elections are around, since people associate incarceration as contributing to society.

"Politicians are like Diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reasons" - Isaac Arthur We have short terms for both Congress and the Presidency, why can't we have short terms for the Supreme Court? The longer a Politician stays in charge, the more of their own personal beliefs they can start enforcing on the masses

Robin Williams

This is what happens when a political minority can delay an appointment until the next election cycle. Also, while I agree life terms are far too long (the average lifespan when the constitution was implemented was much lower), we must keep in mind that RGB served until she died. She was a liberal rock that kept the court from falling apart for years.

@@Robynhoodlum So life terms would be theoretically allowable, if we could guarantee good liberal judges. Also I've heard that averages for deaths are weighed down by infant mortality. Once you got out of toddlerhood you could easily reach 70s or 80.