How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade 

I wish he was alive right now. I'd love to hear him talk about this

He wasn’t wrong

Would be accurate if abortion was ever actually listed as a right in the US Constitution and not invented by a self-proclaimed activist in 1973... you know... so long as the baby wasn't "viable". Seriously, where people got the idea that abortion was a right is something I will never understand because rights are a universal thing, not something that can only apply to women.

Now babies have the privilege to live. Very cool!

So I guess you missed the whole 'just because the right isn't listed in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist' part.

Even if people agree with this decision completely its not something to pop champagne about. In the same way overturning slavery was understood to provoke a serious social conflict. Sometimes doing the right thing is difficult and even painful.

It must be hard to learn you can’t kill your own baby.

@@ashbyalec14 You mean it must be hard to be forced to give birth against your will.

@@ashbyalec14 oh grow up

@@ashbyalec14 can you just be normal?

I mean, if they're going to say that there were no history of abortions until about the second half of the 20th century, they are obviously ignoring the glaring fact that those procedures were only made safe and accessible in recent history, that's why they were not that common. Penicillin (1st antibiotic) started being mass-produced in 44, systematic sterilisation of surgical instruments started in 68 and misoprostol (non-surgical abortive) was patented in 88

It's a very accurate quote as well. The arguement that abortion isn't "deeply rooted in the founding of the country" and this being justification for it not being an unenumerated right is completely arbitrary. It sounds like something they made up on the spot to make their ruling sound more based in facts and not the complete conjecture that it was.

@@Jaydoff Using their "deeply rooted in the founding of the country" defense means that contraceptives, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, etc... can all be easily overturned since those are either only slightly older or much newer.

Let's be honest - we all do it! However, you would expect better of any judge, and especially those of the supreme court. But I think it is difficult to use such an old document to make rulings on modern cases - what does the constitution say about data protection? Or genetic engineering? And likewise it is only in the relatively recent past that abortion has become very safe, so the deep rooted argument can't be seen to have weight, irregardless. (I should state that I am a coward, I am not pro or anti abortion - it is one of those debates that I would like to defer to those who know better.)

@@jeremyschulthess63 not to mention slavery

Imagine if cable news was like this...

Fun game to play: Next time your Finnish friend brags about the Winter War, ask them why they don't brag about the Continuation War.

It's basically a regurgitation of the dissent. You're not getting an objective view, but I think you didn't want one.

If the SCOTUS can make a raped child grow a baby with no brain outside her uterus, I can't imagine a law they can't make.

@@riparianlife97701 I'd read the first thing about the matter before commenting. The Supreme Court isn't making anyone do anything. It's just interpreting the Constitution, which contains no right to abortion.

Originalism is just a bunch of history professors trying to be judges and justices supporting their backers being the top of the socioeconomic heap. Look to the past to ensure rich people remain on top.

Sure is convenient how originalist thoughts somehow align exactly with the person who is making them. Almost like it's really just what they want. They have an outcome and create evidence to justify it.

@@FloorFerret Yup, its just conservatism with a good helping of muh founding father fetishism.

I can't believe people think that the Founders were unified in their intentions with respect to the Constitution. The Convention was never framed as a party of agreement. Hell, even with these legal opinions we have concurring opinions (which is to say opinions of agreement but for different reasons). Imagine trying to find the "originalism" in this case. It'd be impossible because there are different reasons by different Justices- even the ones that agree.

@@FloorFerret This is honestly why it's so ridiculous and even dangerous to have Justices hold office for essentially as long as they feel like it

Colorado needs to hop on that

That actually is really cool of them! 😃👍

@@kennethdavidson6508 One law good but another law bad, checkmate Connecticutians.

@@kennethdavidson6508 we don't have any. Gun laws are unbelievably restrictive here. Oh but it's easy to kill a baby!

@@picachugirl2036 I bet it's possible. We're one of the few non-coastal states that have consistently been early supporters on progressive and libertarian issues. It's kind of funny to see political maps where Colorado constantly stands out amongst all the surrounding states. I hope we keep on the right track there and don't get infected by the brain worms of the fringe freaks like Boebert.

ok

He strikes a good balance. It’s tough to take something like this, which is hundreds of pages and nuance reasoning, but bring it to a level a non-lawyer can comprehend. Because their reasoning in this is wonky, even for lawyers. Roberts at least had a reasonable take.

And by reasonable I mean I can at least see why he opined as he did. Whereas the majority essentially destroyed substantive due process to eliminate one, while saying the others should remain.

How many 6 years old need to be pregnant from rape to make abortion legal? White little girls?

Ok so here's the translation.....I rather be in jail than pregnant.

Non-delegation is next.

I've waited 5 days for this. He's been very, very busy.

Yeah. I got that “ad” where he talks about Nebula and how you can view his content there. Made the contrast so much more jarring, but I can’t see any reason why he’d be that energetic, and you said exactly why.

This is one of the most egregious decisions ever issued by the court, and fundamentally erodes the rule of law in America.

This one hits different. Thanks for your hard work.

Lies. Abortion didn't exist in Benjamin Franklin's time.

Wow, SCOTUS failed their history that bad, huh? What idiots.

Context is always so important. Historical context for abortion: "it wasn't codified because the FFs thought it was already a basic medical thing and didn't see the need to."

Yes, but we can't relly consider that. Obviously, women didn't exist back then or they'd be in the Constitution.

Lies.

I don't know if it's worth a video but it is interesting to think about. There are some states that already considered a murdered fetus (from something other than abortion) to be a victim.

He could have done better... like explaining how the Court came to the conclusion that a fetus is not a person... because that one "little" decision is what enabled everything which followed. Even more, that is the biggest point of current debate... "when does life begin".

@@nyetzdyec3391 isn't the crux of it, if the government should decide when a women gets an abortion or if individual women and doctors should decide?

this guy doesn't get it right either. he is cherry picking. go to the supreme court website and read the damn 213-page document yourself.

@@whwhywhywhywhywhywhy I think the most basic crux of the problem is... When does a fetus become a person? Once you establish that, THEN you can decide if a State gets to limit it, or if it's a "basic human right" that the mother has.

@@nyetzdyec3391 You can't forcibly take organs or even blood from an adult human being, even if doing so is the only way to save another's life. You can't even take organs from corpses without the dead person's written permission. "personhood" doesn't matter. A fetus doesn't have the right to use another person's resources and literally live inside them for the better part of a year, and then cause excruciating pain when exiting.

let just appreciate that he is a us layer and can inform us about that level of fckd up

@@satakrionkryptomortis I was gonna comment something along those lines.

I've been waiting for this video for days...

@@jacobtanaka6398 So was I

@@jacobtanaka6398 Me too.

Three steps... Can't say how excited I was to see your icon, Ralph!

@@dwpetrak still looking for that instruction manual!

Dude pushes his own politics in his videos, often ignoring crucial information, in order to push his own agenda. If you want actual legal info, the last person you want to get that info from is a lawyer that allows their own bias in their legal breakdowns. I unsubbed from this dude like 3 years ago because of this shit, and this video is another example of that. I just can’t help but check out his videos every once awhile to see if things have changed, and they haven’t.

Legal analyses aren't "biased" just because you don't like the conclusions. Every time I've put in the time and effort to peer review this channel for legal accuracy, it's been rock solid. If you want people to take your post seriously, give specific examples of "crucial information" that he skipped in order to misrepresent something to viewers.

@@DerekHise I’d recommend you take some reading comprehension classes in the near future.

Lol.

Well he is a lawyer that is literally his job

Yea that's his job

@@YellowTwerker and he is good at it. Imagine if Amber Heards lawyer was trying to articulate this

hes probably one of the least educated youtube lawyers. There are way better lawyers in law tube.

Nebula.

We are excited for the ban on roe v wade

How is it ‘grim’, exactly? Abortion isn’t suddenly illegal. It’s just a legal issue that’s been kicked down to the states where it was before and should’ve always been. Many states already have laws dealing with abortion already, most of which only ban it after a number of weeks (I believe about 15 at minimum, which is more than even places like Sweden) and only the most conservative states would outright ban it. Really, it doesn’t appear like much is going to change.

Funny how conservatives don't "want big government in my life" ...until it's in their favor. Gee, that sounds almost hypocritical.

@@zachj7953 stop defending the genocide of children.

@@zachj7953 they’ve always been hypocrites

he does give his opinion. You can tell where he stands based on his reaction to certain statements he reads based on how he talks about them. Its fine that he leans pro abortion, but dont pretend he is just giving facts lol

@@brettt141 without question his opinion is here, more talking about the sequential trail to lead to the overturning of Roe

Conservatives played the long game

@@mox9076 and they will lose, by and by.

@@NAWWMANNN you never lose when you play the long game. It's a measured amd steady plan. Democrats/Liberals actually thought that Conservatives wouldn't have the balls to do it. But they've shown time and time again that they'll do any and everything. Gerrymandering is another example. This may cause an extreme response from the other side.

I agree. There are several viewpoints I don’t share with Devin but I can not fault him for being impartial, only giving his personal opinion on rare occasions, and also saying that it his personal viewpoint and not the law.

Didn't you get the memo ? We're supposed to be angry and go out to vandalize a few churches. Why aren't we complying and following through with the plan ? 🤨

Preach

What people don't understand is, if you frick out for everything as activists usually do, then people will stop taking you seriously, because you desensitized them. If everything is urgent then nothing is.

@@Jose04537 Great point, i think this is a big thing that more people need to get on top of but they have spent so much time screaming and hurting others over issues that no one takes them seriously since they do it over every little thing.

By their ideology, whatever they think up is correct.

The difference is that free speech is an enumerated constitutional right, however that's interpreted, and abortion is not.

@@killergoose7643 Your response is invalid. The right to freedom of speech does not grant personhood to corporations.

@@killergoose7643 money being speech is not an enumerated right and nowhere in the constitution

@@killergoose7643 Actually one must be careful of how you view the amendments referred to as the The Bill of Rights. If you study those amendments carefully they actually are a list of things that the federal government has no rights to, and maybe should be called The Bill of NO Rights.

Incredibly off-topic but up until now I wasn’t aware that his name’s Devin

It is very serious. But we have a ray of hope now that Roe is overruled! Thanks to Dobbs.

@@cald1421 I don't think most of our society is looking at the issue of abortion with sufficient sobriety to really come to what might be called an equitable and morally justifiable conclusion; many of the thought leaders on the right are attempting to find justifications for their preferred outcomes and applying them selectively, while the more extreme element is pushing for even further restrictions, including eliminating the possibility of abortion when it is a medical necessity or very narrowly defining what constitutes a medical necessity, even in the absence of any evidence of what constitutes necessity from the medical profession. Likewise, the extremism is infecting the left, wherein the mantra of "safe, legal, and rare" is being discarded in favor of "anytime, on demand, no apologies." Regardless of what one thinks about the morality of abortion, it is one could easily assert that the Court in this case has performed the equivalent of throwing a live hand grenade into a fire.

@@jackturner214 Allowing the wheels of democracy to turn on this issue once again is not throwing a grenade. The Court properly restored the people’s ability to decide for themselves on abortion. What’s telling to me is that after 50 years, the left has never had to make an argument for abortion. Which is why their side is frightened, angry and weakened. When you set aside the euphemisms and stop using a slim minority of cases for rhetorical impact, the stark reality is that most abortions are for a the convenience and career advancement of adults. Not just women. But men too. People who want to escape the consequences of their own actions by engaging in a certain kind of lifestyle and then chopping up a baby in the womb. We know a the unborn have a heartbeat at 6-7 weeks. We know the unborn can feel pain and react to stimuli as early as 12 weeks. We also know that there are a thousand other choices people can make from abstinence to protection to adoption that do not result in extinguishing a life for their own gain. I understand humans are fallible. We can’t expect everyone to behave well. All I ask is that when people mess up, don’t punish the unborn life that is literally innocent in all of this. Abortion is one choice. But there are so many others that let life win.

@@cald1421 Respectfully, I disagree, but allow me to take your points as I think they are most relevant. First, I think the criticism that the Left has not been able to make an argument for abortion is facile; perhaps you mean that those who favor legal abortion have not been able to convince you? If so, well and fine, but the majority of the country supports access to abortion, even if with gestational restrictions, and has so since before Roe v. Wade was decided. Consequently, I don’t think your critique here is justified. Likewise, conservatives have spent the last 50 years attempting to outlaw abortion, partially or wholly, but have done little to attempt to changes hearts or minds. A more effective strategy would have been to pursue policies so as to make it unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases. In general, prohibitions don’t work, particularly when society is not convinced as to the wisdom of the prohibition (this is why there is no temperance movement in the United States any longer). Instead, the right has pursued a path of hardening political positions, with a similar reaction on the left; given the hardening of attitudes by the extremes of both parties, and given the decision did not settle anything but instead upped the stakes in the politics of the moment, this is why I regarded the decision as being so potentially destructive, because it will be! Second, it is my observation that those persons who are supportive of abortion access feel as though this is not returning the issue to the people, as a majority of the population, based on polling, supports at least some access to abortion (and always has historically), but the majority of states have already prohibited abortion or are sufficiently conservative as to expect that they will prohibit it in the near future. Likewise, given that most electoral districts are heavily gerrymandered towards one party, it makes it unlikely that, in the near term, abortion law in the states will adequately reflect the will of the majority; thus, the notion that the people are “deciding for themselves” is euphemistic, at best. Likewise, there is understandable concern that if the Republican Party is able to regain control of the other two branches of government that a national abortion ban may be on the table; though it is possible it may be struck down by the court, as we have seen from this session, this court is not above applying its reasoning selectively; a more cynical person might say it is not beneath them to arrive at the desired partisan outcome. Likewise, it is easy to set aside the “slim minority” of cases if one is interested in coming to a desired outcome, which I am inferring would be a total ban on abortion. However, a total ban can and will create specific harms, especially medical harms, with women receiving improper or incomplete care due to fear on the part of medical professionals of litigation (in places like Texas and Oklahoma) or criminal penalty. Even if the number of harms is small, is it not ethically more reasonable to reduce the number of potential harms rather than callously disregard them? That being said, the stated premise itself is unworkable, because there are no useful statistics from neutral sources on the rationale behind abortion decisions, and the studies that have been conducted demonstrate multivariate reasoning in decision making, meaning that any particular study would be subject to methodological deficiencies if it attempted to classify them into singular motivations. Let me take issue with further thing you mentioned on this topic: you stated that I should “set aside euphemism” designed for rhetorical impact and focus on what you presume to be the fact; in that vein, one could easily encourage you to set aside the more gruesome euphemisms that you employ to describe abortion, since the most abortions are pharmaceutically rather than surgical. While you are correct that there are multitude of choices, there is something disingenuous about asking someone to make a different choice while simultaneously removing the displeasing alternative. But, again, I don’t believe conservatives are really concerned about unborn life as much as they are the naked exercise of power in this instance. If they were so interested, as I suggested previously, there would be more support for those who find themselves in “crisis” pregnancies, and they would have pushed for greater social supports for unwed mothers; instead, the pro-life movement has primarily focused on pushing people away from abortions (sometimes stringing them along until they pass the legal gestational limits then cutting them off) while simultaneously cutting the social safety net in the name of getting rid of the freeloaders in the system. If all you really want is for people to choose giving birth when they have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you should have spend your time making that a real choice, not the only choice under force of law; otherwise, your call to make a choice that is the only choice available is very hollow.

I mean...it's not really that complicated. The dissenting opinion said it: the majority overturned Roe not for any legal reason but because the majority have the votes to do anything they want and they despise the idea of women having a right to abortion.

It seems that modern people use "nuance" as a shield to avoid hard decisions and accountability for unconscionable actions.

The right itself is as plain as day. Your body, your choice. The abuse of the legalese + dark ages fundamentalist fascism behind the repeal of the law is entirely another thing.

ive been waiting for both the LegalEagle's and Steve Lehto's takes on this.

@@davidstorrs No, the court in 1973 passed Roe because judicial activists had the votes to do whatever they like. Substantive due process is a sham and should be done away with.

I'm not so sure. Not because I disagree, but because it seems like the logical next step in the impassable political divide. I'm just waiting for one party or the other to decide to make opposing political stances criminal by default. Unfortunately, it's a question that suffers a bit of a quantum state conundrum. The moment you make a bet on which side will try it first, you're adding an opinion behind one side or the other - one that risks encouraging zealots - whether you mean to or not.

I don't think you understand what was meant by majority rule in this context. They meant majority supreme court rule.

@@FirstnameLastnames "ting the constitution as the end all be all of human rights." Uh, those of us who disagree with the repeal of Roe say the Constitution does imply a right to abortion!! We are not Britain, we have a written Constitution. So yes, rights are derived from that. And no, we don't agree with the Court majority that said document does not provide a right to abortion.

@@neutrino78x it provides a right to bodily autonomy and agency though. If you're pro life, calling a pregnancy a consequence seems disingenuous. The founding fathers had no real conception of medicine Modern medicine would be literal magic to them

Aren't constitutional ammendments made by majority vote?

The right to be in control of one's private matters, such as relationships or medical procedure

There really is not one definition and the concept is involving over time. In Europe, data protection has recently been ruled to fall under the right to privacy, so it’s more than just “the right to be in control of one’s private matters”, like the other commenter said. Even in public you have some privacy protections, according to the European Court of Human Rights. If I were forced to provide a definition, I’d say it is the claim of individuals to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.

@@alexd4566 your proposed definition, centered on “information”, is close to what I thought it meant. But the definition proposed by Akay is much broader, and doesn’t have much to do with information.

The Right to be in control of one’s private matters, falls apart with Child P***. This whole debate is centered on ONE question; do you believe a Fetus is a Person?

@@arkad6329 I don't think it boils down to that question, as the US does not legally obligate donation or use of a person's body to save another even if it's their own child. Say I had a rare blood type and my child absolutely needed a blood transfusion from me to survive. Would I be legally compelled to have my blood extracted even against my will? How about a kidney? Would a risk to my own life by losing an organ be legally justified even if the chance of a successful transplant is low?

Are we allowed to say "woman" now? As in a woman's right to choose? The forehead thumping woke zealots said we can't use the word "woman" anymore, so that means we can't talk about "women's rights" anymore. Or are we flip flopping back to "man" and "woman" again? Please tell me so I can know how to think politically correctly.

Especially as "over the past few years" seem more recently to often condense to "past few weeks"

@@AOverload It surely doesn't seem to be slowing down 😆😭

LegalEagle is hardly objective.

Same. Greatly appreciated.

Goldberg warned Uncle Thomas: When this SCROTUS throws out Loving v Virginia, they'll be coming for HIM.

Can't wait for "Justice" Thomas to explain how interracial marriage was a right that the authors of the Constitution originally intended.

@@robgronotte1 so you're against interracial marriage? Or just against a black justice?

@@kane357lynch Likely against a black justice cherry picking which rights he believes are correct based upon his own interests, showing a clear bias, but you already knew that and ignored it to suit your narrative.

I'm against someone with a clearly selfish agenda being a Justice... Especially one who was well known for sexual harassment before confirmation. He would not have been confirmed b with his record had he been white, and he has been the worst Justice of at least the last 50 years.

Ensure your State protects the rights that you desire

There is other good lawyer on RU-vidrs like Legal Bytes, and Nate the Lawyer

@@normaaliihminen722 and kicking lawyer

I don't know if I'd say "trusted." I mean, I used to subscribe here but @LegalEagle has such a strong left leaning bias that as a libertarian it is sometimes very disturbing to hear him shill -er, talk. I do still enjoy Nate the Lawyer and will have to check out the others mentioned by Normaali.

@@dwpetrak don't forget kicking lawyer he is a libertarian or republican I believe

@@dwpetrak you are so right dude

I read some of the dissent before watching this but LegalEagle breaks it down in a perfect way for us

The descent never actually refers to the law. It’s almost entirely politically motivated. You may enjoy it but from a purely legal perspective, the descent is utter dreck.

@@readsomebooks666 When does the majority opinion refer to any laws? It's pure fiction.

@@readsomebooks666 right. Because there was no law to site and Roe lied about the assault. People.

@@readsomebooks666 says the guy calling it “descent”, while Alito quotes a guy who supporting witch burnings 🤣

Hope you learned from this how you NEVER had a right to abortion.

@@mcmarkmarkson7115 Considering it’s effectively infanticide with extra steps then yeah you never did. You can’t kill people for the sake of convenience. There has absolutely no legal protection for that, simple as.

@@mcmarkmarkson7115 Except people literally did have that right. It was recognized in court and existed for 50 years based on constitutional interpretation. That court case created limitations on what laws could do. That's literally what a right is.

@@MESchem The supreme court made a mistake, the new members of the supreme court fixed it. Just like when Americans had the right to own slaves and that mistake god fixed later on. Let's just all be thankful that there will hopefully be less baby murder. Just use a condom, or 100 other things instead of waiting for a baby to develop where you need to tear its body into pieces.

And all of them will be thrown out because of the religious beliefs of the Catholic judges. Plain and simple. The law does not matter, the Constitution does not matter. The direction from the Catholic church DOES matter.

It's not that hard, it's not a constitutional right, so the decision will go back to the states.

thank you for wanting to understand things like this, Bryce!

@@issoctz7000 well sure. I understood that. But there's a lot more to the story. Also my reply was more towards the general content of legal eagle. Which far surpasses the knowledge showcased in this one video.

In all honesty, this! Our government is freaking frozen solid thanks to the Filibuster and 2 party dominance. The only ones winning here are the politicians lol.

Places like Israeli and belgium are not going well with thier legslatures either, just diffrent problems. My own country nz has opposite risk if we became as polarized wr are called the 'fastest legislature in the west'.

I agree, but isn't this decision exactly what you would want to see to rectify that problem? The judges saying we shouldn't be the ones finding the balance between the unborn's rights and the woman's rights?

@birds In this case who's fundamental rights, the child or the unwilling parent?

The Injustices serving on the court are tyrants. Let's not sugar coat the fact they're enemies of the people

Right. That's because Kavanaugh *will* vote to overrule Obergefell and he will make more excuses and say "No next time I really won't be lying (I'm lying right now)."

If only but seriously they won’t have the majority to overturn those cases. Roe was in it’s own class, the life of a human being is no longer in play. Relax, those cases are safe. But it should give liberals pause and understanding that legislating from the bench is over. Democracy and actual diversity is back on the menu.

That is literally them saying he doesn’t have the power/majority support for it ofc that’s what they are saying.

@@seth8629 no they have said they will not

@@Mich-jk2ze the same way they said they wouldn't overturn roe?

His voice sounds different too. like he was choked up moments before recording... Devin, I hope you're okay.

Km km bbm BBC mmmubbmbbn was a member of the law law school school law by t

Yeah this video is excellent. I'm maybe more sympathetic to pro-life arguments than most supporters of choice, and even I thought the video was objective and balanced. With the tone, LegalEagle just barely shows his hand and I think that's perfect for a ruling of this magnitude.

Be

N. Mac Bar Waz

He knows just how much blood will be spilled because of this completely unnecessary and completely political decision. The lack of protections from the State won't stop women from trying to save their life from either insane debt or actual death; it'll just mean they die trying more often than not. It's a ruling that only creates suffering and death. Crime is going to start spiking as folks are forced into desperate situations and folks they rely on start dying.

@The Mystery Gamer Ok SIMP

@The Mystery Gamer Even if you believe that enacting *Roe* was damaging, tearing it down after decades of it being the legal and national precedent is even more damaging. You can't "right" what you believe to be a "wrong" by enforcing another "wrong" that purposely screws people that don't agree with what you think.

@The Mystery Gamer Buddy, the issue of States Rights vs Federal Authority died in 1865 with the surrender of Lee at Appomattox. Ever since then, the Federal Government has been the true power in the United States. The individual States do not have as many rights as they used to, and I believe that they shouldn't. Abortion is a very real issue, not a fake one. A lot of women want autonomy over their bodies, and they don't want individual States telling them that they can't have it. We as Americans are allowed to choose our partner, our job, our home, and to do what makes us happy. Women should have that same freedom.

@@saifallaha8407 The importance of the argument that I’m making is the substance of what you want from the law. For example, even though pro-life individuals say that they are acting in the interest of the child, they are retroactively acting against the interest of the woman who is getting the abortion in the cases of those women that do not want the child or the pregnancy (for any reason they choose). Whether knowingly or not, they are preventing a woman from living her life the way that she should be allowed to. Do I think abortions should even need to happen? No. I also wish that divorce didn’t have to happen. But people are people. People make mistakes. People commit crimes. Young girls and boys are not properly taught about their developing bodies and teenage pregnancies are the result, which is the main thing I have an issue with considering abortion. We need improved educational processes to combat that issue. I wish the world was perfect. But I’m not going to restrict the liberties of another person because I want them to be perfect in everything they do. The people that wanted to overturn this law are using a thinly veiled excuse of protecting the life of the child in order to purposely screw over the woman who is having the child, and potentially the man who also doesn’t want the child. I believe that they should be protected in their privacy of choosing whether or not to keep the child, as stated in the video. It is none of our business to tell somebody that they must carry a child that they don’t want.

But, would you at least concede that the proper venue for determining what the protections youre appealing to here is in Congress (if you support the fed govt acting) or the State legislatures rather than determined by nine unelected and largely unaccountable supreme court justices?

@@debatebore1057 yes! Ikr

but those under 0 are also definitely physically aren't ready to be teared from the womb. So we need laws that protect those under 18

@@NaliTikva Question. Are you a woman? If yes you can proceed to answer next question if not you shouldn't but it you still do you should question your morality as only people who the law is directly touching should have say in it. Like if you're not having man organs you shouldn't create laws about penises. That's the first important problem in the ruling. Now second question. If you are a woman do you consider that a fetus have rights that are above you? Like if doctors suddenly say that fetuses need music for 10 hours a day you should be legally forced to provide that by listening yourself or do you think that you should be able to say no? Do you think that if a baby is dying both parents should be legally forced to donate organs so it can live? I personally think not. As a woman and as a human. Noone can make me to donate any of my organs to save somebody's life. Even after my death. So if there ever be a living thing in me I should be able to decide if I want to use my blood and my organs (ex womb) to be donated to this living being. I want a baby one day but not now. I'm poor and I don't want it to start poor. I don't also want a baby if I don't have a partner that will help raising it with me. Right now if I was raped and the result would be a pregnancy I would definitely end it. Thank goodness I can where I live because I would rather stab my stomach than have a baby that will be looking at me and making me remember violence that was upon me. Also I don't have a mental capacity to keep a hamster alive because I have some mental issues so why should I be forced to keep alive a human that is way more difficult?

@@KiMiRi4you well you got one thing right you definitely do have some mental issues.

It is particularly interesting when one of the reason to overturn it was that is not considered 'deeply rooted in this nation's history' and that 50 years is not considered 'historical' either.

19th Amendment - 1920 Roe v. Wade - 1973 Not sure what one has to do with the other aside from the fact that one actually IS in the Constitution. Abortion isn't - if you want it to be, then the Constitution needs to be amended. No different than when women gained the right to vote.

I think it’s viewed judicially as very loosely coincidental

@@falco5150 abortion should be covered under privacy., as is all other medical info. So unless you're saying the government should be allowed to take your medical records and post them online or all over the news. Because medical privacy isn't mentioned specifically.

@@falco5150 do AK47s specifically have to be listen in the constitution? The legal precedent that the constitution has to explicitly mention every single manifestation of of a right is comically stupid.

But I need that closure!

The main cases that you need to know for this topic include Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Do you honestly think House Republicans would just stand by and allow such a thing to happen? Why do you think the term filibuster exists? Any attempt at all to codify abortion as a right in law would be immediately stomped out.

This is the most pertinent comment I've read on here.

@@c0lorman341 Even when the democrats have controlled the Congress? (As they did for a portion of the last few years)

@@c0lorman341 It's a Democrat thing as well. The guy that decided my state's only abortion clinic had 30 days to shut down should Roe V Wade be overturned is Democrat. That was during the Obama administration.

Wow. You democrats all put it on us that we do not want to murder unborn babies brutally. Think about this: You’re a woman, and you cannot have a child. You have a friend who becomes pregnant, and gets an abortion. How would you feel?

They tried a bunch of times and the repubs shot it down. even as recent as last few months.

Yeah but guess who is actively stopping us from codifying those things? SCOTUS gutted the voting rights act and campaign finance laws.

The issue is that progressive politicians enjoyed the ability to hold a possible overturn over peoples heads to garner votes. Its the left’s equivalent of the right’s “they’re going to take your guns away”. Should be just as, if not more mad at the politicians who were voted in for not even attempting to realize abortion into a codified right instead of SCOTUS. In SCOTUS’ defense, the 9th and 14th argument justifying the constitutionality of abortion was rather weak.

THAT PART!!!!

The problem is, If you try to codify abortion on the federal congress, specially without the 60 votes on the senate, then also the opposite can done, ban abortion at the federal level, including blue state. If you open that Pandora Box, you won't be able to close it again.

so... a guy praying on a field (once everyone is gone) and letting people choose their schools is "phenomenally disturbing"? Maybe instead of trying to shove "woke" ideas into children, public schools should focus on improving education standards, so that they are a viable option compared to private schools that tend to do a lot better

I too would like a break down of all the human rights that have been overturned in the past 2 weeks.

Actually secular hypocrites have grown too comfortable discriminating against religious American citizens who also pay taxes and live here like anyone else, and the court corrected that as they should have.

@@terrathunderstorms3701 This is nonsense statement. CPC strikes again!

@@terrathunderstorms3701 How is it discrimination to say that women should be allowed to have an abortion? You don't live in China, noones forcing you to have an abortion, if you don't agree with it don't get one. Preventing other people from getting one is infringing on their right to decide what will happen to their body. Fundamentalist religious organisations shouldn't be able to take the choice of abortion away from millions of women.

yeah, this is the same community that describes the old 4-1-4 court as being 'liberal skewed' equivalent of the current 7-2. balance is filtered through views of the natural order.

@@neeneko The current SCOTUS is not 7-2. How could you even think that?

@@Daniel-xm5ku not sure why I wrote 7-2, it should be 6-3.

It gave me quite a long anti-abortion ad. It made me angry at first, but then I thought, the longer it plays, the more they pay, so let’s take all their money and give it to Devin

I never mind the meal box ad where he's trying to cook in his suit & apron.

@@jediman05 well done!

Substantive due process is an oxymoronic, flawed method of interpreting the constitution. It is used by unscrupulous judges to write their policy references into the constitution with no warrant in the actual constitution Both the fifth and the fourteenth amendments say the state may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Any honest reading of this would say this is a procedural guarantee. The state can’t execute you, incarcerate you, or fine you without a trial. No substantive right is recognized only a procedural one Some justices have said this means there are some rights are so important that no process of law can legitimately deprive of them. Dredd Scott was the first and one of the most egregious use of this idea. The court said slaves are property and there is no legitimate process of law that a state can use to deprive you of your property. They morphed the procedural guarantee in the fifth amendment into a substantive right to own slaves

probably the biggest mistake that they made

They have to win elections somehow. If they did everything in a day, they would have nothing else to campaign on, and thus would make less of a profit then they otherwise would have.

They don't have/haven't had the votes to do such a thing is the problem. We need to support the politicians that will and make the change

Besides, this Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act by not requiring states like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi to be monitored. The south is my home; I've lived in Montgomery AL and Nashville and have seen and heard many exhibit racist bias or outright bigotry. So I agree, we need to support and elect politicians who will make changes.

Yes any Democrat currently in Congress should be blamed as well

Dissolve the EU and stop demanding countries to take in "refugees."

When were the laws prohibiting murder and manslaughter passed in Wisconsin?

@@946towguy2 relevance?

I imagine they were worried about having a strong enough base population to help the fledging state grow back then. especially considering a lot more children didn't make it to adulthood back then. So I could sort of see a semi-practical argument for it at the time. Those realities no longer exist. Outrageous that a law that's 170 years old now goes into effect out of this revolting violation of our basic human rights. It is sad that religious cultism has made it as far north as Wisconsin and nobody there is fighting back against it. At least in the legislature I mean. I can't imagine everybody up there is a brainwashed cultist or fundamentalist, is there any debate or anger at this going on up there right now?

@@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago Unfortunately we have one of the most heavily-gerrymandered state legislatures, so doing anything non-regressionary is all but impossible. I want to say that 2/3 of the State Assembly is Republican despite only receiving about 46% of the aggregate vote in 2020.

I would suspect that like the bill in Texas this will be held back by the courts and the legislature will have to re pass the bill if they do desire. Since the law was overruled it seems logical that it would be invalid and must re authorize the act

Or the ones who use abortion as a form of birth control or the ones who use it as a power trip porposefully getting pregant for the sole purpose of getting an anortion brcausr it gives them the same "power high" as a serial killer and psychopath or sociapath has when exercising power over a victim who they see as weaker than them and defenselss angsinst them

Which make up less than a single percentage point of abortions. Not really a good argument.

Isn't it still legal to abort due to health issues? I'm not defending the Texas law in any way, but I'm fairly certain that, that one case is still permitted.

@@sanderhansen7036 the issue is its so muddy. Doctors don't know how far gone a woman has to be before they are allowed to act. This is why one woman suffered 9 hours of misscaring and almost died becasue the doctor was on the phone with a lawyer trying to cover his butt.

@@richardgrace5043 Immaterial, alarmist, pointless hypotheticals intended as emotional appeals to distract from actual, knowable, examples, of conscious people being forced to endorse unimaginable suffering and/or their lives ended, from the past and into the future. Even if you were 100% correct and no women were to be harmed in the manner I describe, which we demonstrably know women will be injured and killed in such ways as to become a common enough occurrence to not be a news story, like a handgun death, it doesn't matter. You can no more force a woman to give up her blood to a fetus than I can force you to give up your blood to me. Even if you are maliciously responsible for my needing of blood.

TIME TO CELEBRATE!! NO MORE MURDERED CHILDREN!!!

@@africanlipplateandbonenose3223 lazy 🧌

@@africanlipplateandbonenose3223 based on your username I'm sure you're a troll but this only sends it back to the States and removes federal preemption. Now we can take our energy and go through the proper channels and add a new constitutional amendment. Also unborn fetuses aren't people anymore than sperm is. If it was murder then just about every man is a murderer.

@@africanlipplateandbonenose3223 No one is coming to your "Death of women" party.

@@africanlipplateandbonenose3223 YEA now we can dance on the graves of kids killed in shootings or those that are grossly neglected!! WOOT!!! PRAISE THE LORD!! 🎊 🎉 🥳

According to a Knoxville news service a decision on June 24th stated that 30 days after SCOTUS published their opinions, it would be a Class C Felony in Tennessee to provide any sort of abortion service. This law doesn't affect those trying to get abortions though. And there are zero exceptions according to Criminal Defense Lawyer Chloe Akers, this includes helping people who were forced into pregnancy. So to easily summarize this, it is illegal in Tennessee to perform an abortion unless it is to protect the life of a pregnant women.

I’d like to see this, too. And I hope you stay safe. I can’t imagine how hard it is to work at a high risk center and live someplace like Tennessee where the rights of women aren’t even considered. Even in so-called “progressive” states, like Ohio, we had a trigger law go live regarding heartbeat. Ohio now has a 6 week abortion ban, too… And I’m just floored… you can’t even get a positive pregnancy test until after the 4th week, because you’re not even pregnant then! Which leaves 2 (maybe) weeks, and that’s only if you have regular periods and you’re paying full attention to your body. Which you’re probably not going to do unless you’re actively trying to conceive… Realistically, the 6 week “heartbeat” ban is a full ban, and it’s beyond sexist, classist, and racist in all of its forms.

I'm so sorry you have to go through this. That was one of my concerns with all the abortion laws. Who gets to decide when there is enough risk to the woman to terminate the pregnancy? Just being pregnant automatically increases someone's chances of dying, and if the doctors and nurses do step in and decide there is enough risk but the mother comes out fine after the abortion, could they still be sued? I wish people would take their politics out of medicine

@@akoury Republicans truly are monsters.

@@kitkat3990 Especially when they think something like an ectopic pregnancy is viable, just needs to be reimplanted. They'll have to prioritize the embryo over the life of the woman.

Likely what States would try to do is criminalize the act of assisting women to get an abortion and target those people. Optics of targeting the women are just kind of really bad these days, And it'd also be easier to argue that the person helping is doing a criminal activity by assisting the woman because of the abortion isn't taking place within the state borders but the transpoetation is. The legality of that... I don't know but I mean what's Scotus how it is now States would probably be able to do that as it's basically what Texas Did months ago and they didn't shoot it down.

I may disagree with abortion but i at least believe that to be the case. Just to be clear I am only not ok with it if both lives would be born healthy otherwise I don’t believe anyone has a right to ask someone to sacrifice their life for another

Conservatives have always wanted the right to enforce their laws upon people who didn't want them. That's literally why the Confederacy was founded.

No idc

@@dontmisunderstand6041 Wrong, if you knew anything about the Civil War then you would know what "the cause" was and what and who "caused" it.

Being pregnant is not analogous to being engaged in a "reationship" with another human beng. except in extremely rare instances, the mother is pregnant through a specific consensual choice to have sex. There's a very simply alternative here...if you are not prepared to become pregnant and have a baby or contract a sexually transmitted disease, then you should control yourself and abstain from sexual intercourse/activity. Further, most states are preserving exceptions for legitimate risks to the mother's health (rather than the fake mental and emotional bases that abortionists would corrupt themselves to declare for a pregnant mother).

@@debatebore1057 Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. My body does not suddenly become the property of the fetus.

​@@cheerupemokid943 If you're playing baseball and you throw a ball through a neighbor's window, you're liable for the damage regardless of whether you meant it to happen or not (barring certain extreme instances such as mental incapacity). The legal term would be "assumption of risk". In no other situation in life do we say, "Well, they knew what could happen and did it anyway but we don't care if they harm another living creature in order to avoid the consequences of their action." It's not like there's anything confusing or extenuating circumstances about what could happen when you have sex. There's only 2 potential outcomes: pregnancy or no pregnancy. The fetus didn't choose to be there. You CAUSED it to be there. Without your consent to sex, it would not exist. Saying that you can perform an action, knowing what the potential outcomes are, but that you didn't consent to the outcome so you don't have to take responsibility for it... is just dumb.

@@Haylla2008 Do we force someone who drives drunkenly and puts someone into a state of medical emergency to for example give their blood for their victim if it is necessary for the victim to survive? They did know the risk of drunk driving. They are responsible even of a criminal act (unlike having sex which is not a criminal offence in and of itself), however there is one thing that we value more than the life of even a fully developed human in this case, that being the right to bodily autonomy. The state cannot force you to give any part of your own body, be it blood, a tooth or your liver not even in order to safe the live of another and that's a good thing because that would get distopian really fast (for example if someone gets lung cancer after being exposed to second hand smoking by a coworker which likely had a big part in causing the cancer does the smoker need to donate his lungs now? No? Why not? He's the most likely cause of the cancer after all.). Being forced to leave the fetus attached to your womb, as it literally requires your body to live, is a violation of your right to bodily autonomy.

​@@lepilz9529 The problem with your argument is that the drunk driver is not responsible for the victim getting in the car and all the risks associated with it. A pregnant woman (the vast majority of the time) IS responsible for the baby existing and all the risks associated with it. A woman exercises her bodily autonomy by choosing to have sex. There's no violation of bodily autonomy just because that sex results in unintended (but completely predictable) consequences. There's also a significant legal difference between forcing someone into bodily action and preventing someone from taking bodily action. The latter we do all the time. It's very rare to do the former and is, as far as I know, only done for the good of society, not individuals (e.g. military draft).

Yeah it's super important to learn about horse care.

@@justicedemocrat9357 I mean.. in the 18th century it was.

@@justicedemocrat9357 I’d compare it to checking your oil level, changing a tyre or how to jumpstart your car nowadays. You should know how to keep your primary means of transport working reliably. Even if you don’t own one personally, it’s a useful skill to have

That's misleading, At the time you could be punished and executed if you got an abortion past the quickening(when they believed life began), with science today we now know life begins at conception so they would definitely be pro-life today, and they would view today's leftist views as an abomination, they we're extremely religious and conservative in the colonial era, so I find it funny how you try to twist how they thought about abortion

@@CapPigDog I'd say it is because alot of ppl think u can hop on 1 and just go and dont care for thm correctly

Law is legislated morality

I think it sucks to be a certain type of lawyer. Saul Goodman types seem to be all over DC these days.

Laws are at an all time high, it is an excellent time to be an attorney

Did u just figure this one out? Or do u just say that to laws u don't like?

@@xAquinasx law is the legislated morality of whoever has power

Brown v board of education in 1954 overturned plessy v Ferguson which was from 1896 ...so was that a wrong decision since it was overturned "precedent " ? Everyone whines when their feelings are hurt or they don't get their way and do or say whatever is necessary to validate a position. I don't believe there was anything in the constitution that allowed for roe v wade according to RBG. Also abortion is still allowed especially in the states where all the major crying is taking place. People move to and visit other states for all sorts of reasons now we have one more. Besides I heard planned parenthood was starting a cruise line . International waters.

There have been about 30 times in it's history that the Supreme Court has reversed itself. So ,no it's not that rare. It's just not as so often that it gets such attention. If you study RBG and others who have offered legal opinion,it's been a long time coming. It was a bad decision. Most of the places where it matters most to people will be unaffected and I assure you,no one can be prosecuted ex post facto ( for an offence before the law was changed) that's also in the constitution. Also,there is no way that people can be prosecuted for going out of state. You can't be prosecuted for gambling in Las Vegas or hiring a prostitute there if you live in a state where it is illegal. Don't buy into the hype.

@@donfronterhouse4759 Thanks for the info. It's not something I've ever really heard of before, but I thought that might just be a profile/media thing. although overturning half century old precedents "on a whim" still seems weird. The law is complicated though, like that BS Texas thing where they "deputized" citizens to privately prosecute people for abortion rather than the state doing it - even if not strictly enforceable they have a chilling effect on many people who either don't know or are scared to "try it" or are scared of legal costs and so on.

@@oldmangamer8656 thank you for your ernest reply. I see you are not a troll fishing for conflict. I'm not a fan of abortion, particular for late term. I'm just stating what the law is. Some states may cause a chilling effect,how ever,the high court had turned it back to the states. That mean it is legal in those states. No state can punish you for any act in another. This Supreme Court will find that true,if they are indeed, originalists. If they do,I will join in action against them. I completely believe in our constitution. Period.

​@@donfronterhouse4759 God no, I'd rather have an interesting conversation than a bitching match, the latter is easy enough to find online already, the former not so much. I wouldn't exactly describe myself as a "fan" of abortion either, but I really think the same can be said for many pro-choice people. Even for those for whom it is the "right" choice, abortion can often be a stressful, upsetting and psychologically traumatizing experience. I'd much rather see abortion limited by better access to contraception, better sex education and so on. But even with those things unwanted pregnancies will happen. For many it's simply the wrong time, they are not emotionally or financially stable and mature enough to feel they can raise a child - it's far better for the parents, child and society if those parents are able to bring a child into the world at a time they feel they can do the best job of raising it. For many others they already have children and don't feel they are able to raise even more, forcing those people to give birth could have serious negative consequences for the children who are already alive. There a many children who already live in poverty, who are neglected, unloved and mistreated. Until society is able to take care of the children who already exist, throwing more unwanted children into the mix seems like a very bad idea. This is why I am skeptical about many pro-life advocates who claim that life & children are sacred and precious, but then vote against policies which would help feed and protect the children who do exist. I think it's better to have 500 kids who are happy, loved & well-cared for than 1000 kids who are miserable, neglected and abused - it's better for the kids, better for society, better all round. I'm not sure I entirely agree with you about the constitution. I do think the idea of a legal framework which protects basic rights and liberties IS definitely a good thing, but I don't believe a document written 250 years ago is necessarily enough to deal with the complexities of a world it's writers could never possibly have imagined. I think the 2A is a great example - it was created shortly after a great war for independence when there was no real standing army and states had to ensure their own defense using militias. It's right there in the text, "In the INTEREST OF MAINTAINING a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, the right to bear arms... etc". I cannot know, but I think the Founding Fathers would be horrified at what the 2A has become. Burger described it as "This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." - and I tend to agree. I'm not saying I think guns should be banned, but regulation is right there in the amendment, and this pro-gun lobby, pro-manufacturer free-for-all it has been twisted into is ridiculous. I think people have opted completely ignore the spirit of the constitution in favour of their own personal or political agendas. So constitutions are good in theory but in practice inflexibility and resistance to evolution allow bad faith actors too much latitude to pervert the document against the interests of the people and society. In short the original constitution is simply not nuanced enough to deal with the modern world, and "interpretation" can be selectively skewed and biased to support almost anything.

Q: When do conservatives use the "States Rights'" claim? A: When they're trying to make non-white people into property. State's Rights to keep black people as slaves. State's Rights to make women property of the State while she's pregnant.

@@Vohlfied did you know that planned parent hood was originally founded as part of program to reduce the number of black children being born and the first gun restrictions were to keep the guns out of black peoples hands?

@@Vohlfied Absolutely moronic take.

@@odyssey958 No, the take is actually pretty accurate!

@@Vohlfied to be more precise: they decry, "states rights" when there isn't an ability to allow an abuse on the federal level. The goalposts are moved to states because they are confident in securing support in regions on that scale. If there is no state support they would move the goalposts to county, to city, to home owner association (segregate neighborhoods to suppress dissent).

They can say as much or as strongly as they want that an opinion shouldn't be used as precedent in particular situations, but they have no more control over future courts and justices than the ones who ruled on Roe originally did on this court. There is always going to be someone willing to run with it. When the court decided Bush v Gore in 2000, they tried to declare it not to be used as future precedent, and yet it is cited by some in cases regarding election law. Whatever assurances Alito may try to place is not set in any sort of solid footing.

@@patrickrogers9689 The shortsighted fool.

I think that this is misreading Thomas's opinion, because he continues to state that those other cases if the reasoning itself overturned, would still need to be examined under other considerations like the "privileges and immunities" clause. He cites his own concurring or dissenting opinions from a variety of cases where he has been arguing this for years, so it's not something new. And even that RGB quote also says that Roe shouldn't have been a substantive due process basis. But again, he's the only person saying this. All of the others don't want to untangle 100 years of legal decisions and reexamine all of them just to end up right back in the same place again for other grounds.

I think you're right, he's just waiting for the first case on same-sex marriage to make it to the court

You do not need another ruling to know where theocratic fascists are going to take this.