Roe v. Wade, EXPLAINED [NO LONGER Required Supreme Court Cases] 

Ayup

It's not overturned yet, just expected to be overturned.

3 months of learning the case just for it to be overturned soon. Ironic lol

So I’m curious to hear how someone who actually understands this case. Do you think it was a good decision to overturn? Or not?

@@jupiterbryant4301 overturned now

just the vid is out of date. They took out this case from what ive been told.

Nope, roe v wade is still in the curriclum

@@mxgicjustice FRom what I have gone over no its not.

@@mxgicjustice no it's not 💀💀

As someone who is currently taking AP gov, it is no longer in the curriculum

LMAO IKR

technically it hasnt been done yet

But the fact that a draft was leaked is even a bigger issue!

Heck yes! It’ll be good to have you on the roster!

Probably men who don't want to pay child support.

Oh no no no. Men have to lead that. Who can't have babies. That's like letting only the mom decide whether a boy should be circumcised or not.

Amy Coney Barrett voted to overturn it

We're all birthing people now. Your rules, not ours. Lmao

@@emmittmatthews8636 Wrong issue, dude.

Never

Dobbs v Johnson

if youre still wondering, we are expected to know the case and might be asked in MCQs about its content only. But I believe we will not be asked about it in FRQs or argumentative essays because of how controversial it is and that it's overturned, etc.

I’m in AP Gov rn, and I looked at the college board which they said Roe v. Wade is not expected to be on the 2023 AP Exam

Love it

1st week of Summer, the fun is just starting.

We're prolly just going to have to remember both cases now T^T

If you're still curious, it's part of the curriculum this year but is most likely not on the AP exam.

@@wiiugamer7595 Haha Im taking ap gov this year and IT IS NOT REQUIRED ANYMORE PHEW thank god im cramming rn the mock is tmrw (one less SC to do )

give up

Howd u end up doing?

​@@mahirmehmud1578rude

Chill bro, this is to help ap gov students study for exams, not for you to try and start arguments in the comment section

There are over 1 million elderly people in nursing homes in the US ... most of them develop psychiatric issues and are totally dependent in all aspects of care. Should we kill them ? 🤔 I don't think the answer is to end a life because they overwhelm a system. Who are we to decide that? Wouldn't it make more sense in the case of abortion to hold the two people that did the act to create the new life accountable for their actions? Is it THAT hard to abstain from doing the act of sex? It's really easy to avoid the consequence of having sex if you aren't ready to be accountable for those consequences. I don't see the difficulty at all. And before anyone brings up the scenarios that make up less than 2% of abortion cases ... let's remember an overwhelming majority are performed simply for convenience for the mother.

The disabled, the elderly are financial burden cause they cannot take care of themselves should we kill them off too

@@immanuelbartsch4439 - actually first, look up your 1st amendment! Second , the title doesn't imply that. It's an explanation... you can study with it or scrutinize it with a wine bottle. Relax yourself

Yep

@@heimlershistory HEIMLER I LOVE YOU THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO

My teacher said it was not?

actually, no, the College Board website says "Consequently, teachers and students should not expect exam questions related to Roe v. Wade on the 2023 AP Exam."

​@@alisonhanshaw1508 it is not

Ben Freeman and Emily Glankler (Anti-Social Studies)?

Reckon it is

It’s the IMPLICIT right to privacy

@@heimlershistory but if they ask u on the scotus frq what do u say

@@jeremychung948 he literally said it😭 you’d say the implicit right to privacy

Heimler is wrong. The Due Process Clause was the primary tool used to justify this ruling. They extrapolated a right to privacy from solely the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Ninth Amendment (which was used in Griswold).

Yes.

No.

@@notcosmiclobsternoooo118 Why no? Can you explain?

No, Roe v Wade limited the states ability to prevent abortions before the 3rd trimester, much in a similar way that England used to tax us, without representation. Now that the decision is overturned the other side of the issue is grappling with the democracy sidestepping loophole that can occasionally be the supreme court.

@@JrSwar07 this case gave people the right to medical privacy, it’s not only about abortion

Texas passed their abortion law in direct contradiction to the ruling in Roe. In this decision, abortion was made legal without restriction in the first trimester. The Texas law made abortion illegal after fetal heartbeat (roughly 6 weeks). They did it because they believe there’s a good chance the current SCOTUS roster of judges will take the occasion to overturn Roe.

@@heimlershistory objectively speaking, that’s clever of Texas

@@mujtab8siddiqu1 The 6 week bill is rly bad because most people find out they are pregnant around 4-9 weeks.

But they don’t care about that, they just want to police women and keep them in check

​@@Orangeyougladx3It was Constitutionally incorrect. Why is it that the left thinks that Roe MUST be (have been) followed by every state to the letter of the... ruling. Yet states don't have to abide by 2a, 45/50 state constitutions that also protect the 200+ year old right to bear arms, and MULTIPLE Supreme court rulings?

@@dantheman9919 lol I know , I just didn’t feel like it was an intellectually honest explanation. To each their own

It has indeed

I wanna hug you too shrenyanshu I hope you did well

Aaaaaaaas are you

I don’t rightly know… crazy day

The fight goes on.. both ways.. forever and ever. Now it's just at the state level, but we'll see what happens in the future.

We don’t really disagree. I know it’s more nuanced. However, remember to keep in mind that I’m reviewing curriculum to help students study for exams, not giving a nuanced account of all I believe.

@@heimlershistory Yes, and you do a truly excellent job of helping students. In my opinion, you are among the absolute best people on RU-vid who is putting out historical material. And the AP curriculum provides an excellent framework to study history. Perhaps the thing that I like the most about what you do is how you handle controversial issues. There are many such issues in the AP curriculum. It is possible to make out an argument for what one believes while respecting those who disagree. And you do. One recent trend in US society that I disagree with is people are increasingly aligning their beliefs according to the "liberal" or "conservative" party line. For example, there used to be many pro-life Democratic Party supporters and many pro-choice Republican Party supporters. Not any more. I consider myself to be a pragmatist, which means that I have some beliefs that are traditionally "liberal" and others that are traditionally "conservative." For example, the First Amendment's establishment clause. In my opinion, if you think that a law is establishing a religion, then you have to be able to say which religion is being established and how that law is privileging that religion. That is a "conservative" interpretation which would allow New York's generic school prayer. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the US Supreme Court in saying that the 2nd amendment sets up an individual right to bear arms. Nowhere does the text of the 2nd amendment ever state that. In my opinion, the first sentence of the 2nd amendment makes it clear that state National Guard units (as a well-regulated militia) are OK. As far as I know, there are zero other countries in the entire world whose provinces/states have a right to maintain a military force. That is, of course, a "liberal" interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Which means that I support people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions about controversial issues. And your excellent videos provide information to enable people to do just that.

@@kevinlove4356 We were really the only country that protected the right of individuals to keep and bear arms even back then too. 🤷‍♂️ I mean... it's Madison..."Father of the Constitution" saying it's an individual right that the people have, which no other people around the world do. ... in the Federalist Papers nonetheless ...describing the new Federalist system and Constitution. 🤷‍♂️ "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ~ James Madison - Federalist 46.

@@emmittmatthews8636 This is, of course, totally untrue. The English "Bill of Rights" which received Royal Assent on December 16, 1689 contains a right to bear arms. So does its equivalent in Scotland. As with the USA's second amendment, this is not an unlimited individual right.

@@kevinlove4356 I posted 3 comments in response. Not sure what all you can see, what with this... platform being the way it is.

I mean, I suppose you could make the argument that the right to privacy (implicit within the bill of rights) also extends to the right to keep one's medical history and medical decisions private, which would therefore mean that the government cannot infringe upon the medical procedures one chooses to undergo. Even in the case that someone believes life begins at contraception, abortions are still a medical procedure, and if a person has the right to keep their medical history and medical decisions private, then they have the right to get an abortion. As for your question about euthanasia and assisted suicide, I'm not exactly sure. I am not too knowledgeable on either of these topics.

The right to privacy does not extend to the right of abortion. It’s stupid and we are trying to overturn that.

@@littlepwnrr I hope you fail :)

@@littlepwnrr it’s doesn’t really connect but I’m am extremely glad that it made abortion legal for women. Sadly people are trying to make it a illegal again

Hm so you can say in simple terms that someone out there is prego and of course it's none of our business of how she got prego, so its the right to privacy here. When someone is prego, there's tons of changes to the body, and which is super risky for the mother in biological perspective. Theres also other factors like financial factors, social factors, and even people who got unwanted pregnancy through someone forcing them to open their legs, which makes people consider abortion. In my opinion, if abortions were completely banned, then the mother mortality rate would increase by a lot. And ur question is valid, but the reason why this topic is controversial is because no one knows when the true human life starts. one person could say at 3rd trimester another person could say 1st trimester. In my opinion, it should be up to DOCTORS who decide medical abortion laws for humans, not ignorant politicians

Ah.. no

@@emmittmatthews8636 explain

@@Gabe-cv4yr Was Roe v. Wade Atheist Supremacy? 🤔 lol If the SC ruled that all abortion, nationally, was banned or heavily restricted then I would tend to agree with you. It just overturned a poorly constructed ruling, and correctly returned power to the states.... Which STILL isn't a perfect solution. Some republican states will go to far imo. So, yeah.. some "Christian Supremacy" I guess..but in democratic states they allow late term abortion, so is that Atheists Supremacy? This issue sucks in all honesty. It will never go away either. 🤷‍♂️ 1

@@emmittmatthews8636 last time i checked lated term abortion is less than at about 1%. Thats when it looks human so its harder/virtually impossible for a human to justifiably abort it. When its a cell with no organs then it makes sense, Christianity before what it was today had no such opposition to the idea, alot of other major religions dont.

praise jesus

If states can determine our right to privacy, what can’t they do?

@@sebastianyepez6204 ending a human life should never grant you the right of privacy to the law

@@leonardobonilla7701 not amazing in the slightest

@@sebastianyepez6204 associating abortions with privacy is one of the biggest stretches in Supreme Court history. Sounded much more like judicial activism than anything

@@galaxybrain97 So go ahead and give up your right to privacy. All this burden on women by the very people who actually create the pregnancy Hypocritic neanderthals. Do you think your God? Did God give up His job to republicans?

Your point would be correct if all states allowed for that decision to be made for the individual under reasonable circumstances.

Regardless of your personal beliefs everyone should have the right to do what they want with their body.

good for your opinion, but I think you're on the wrong type of video to be talking about this stuff.

@@jacobrendon13 Read the Bible

@@TheGreatAndYOU not everyone is christian bro... freedom of religion in the first amendment

@@jacobrendon13 it's not just thier life. They are carrying a child that has the constitutional right to Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

I’m still a little shocked by it

Yep, that’s not what I was saying. I was acknowledging that different people make different assumptions about the world…

What about communists? 🤔

yea but what if the child is endangering the mother's life.

@@editsforyoutubetotal4743 Too bad. It's not the baby's fault.

@@BettyWhite2171 well I guess so but if the mother dies so does the baby

@@editsforyoutubetotal4743 Wrong.

Well said

Ehhhh... there are some adults that have babies and are worse than those high schoolers!