U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 

It's pretty generous to call it a "market place of ideas" when it's filled with minds that were already made up before the comment was ever written or the video ever watched. It's more accurate to call it an echo chamber of either disingenuous prejudices or espousing religious beliefs as if they are factually based arguments derived from law, all borne for the internet and youtube algorithm to witness.

@@TheReverendPaqo Bro, that's literally what the "marketplace of ideas" is about. The people who have their minds set can shout out their viewpoint while the people on the fence or somewhere in the middle can hear the different perspectives and see which ones, or which parts of each they agree with. Obviously the more neutral people in the middle aren't going to be commenting much, if they don't have a fully formed opinion yet.

​@@foxhound6364 They're referring to the fact that it's hardly a marketplace of ideas if the only ideas present are on in the same. If there is no diversity of thought then you don't really have a marketplace of ideas. Without discourse there is no marketplace of ideas. Like they said... it is simply an echo chamber and they are right. You don't go to the figurative marketplace of ideas if the ideas have already been decided.

@@foxhound6364 If it were a "marketplace" and IF men could get pregnant there would be an abortion pill machine in every sports bar restroom,​ liquor store, McD's, Walmart​,​ train station,​ 7-11, gas station, uber back seat, airport or church.

Marketplace of ideas? jesus

CHINA 🇨🇳 PUPPET

The difference is, as the Court held in Brown v. Board of Education, that American culture and society had intensely evolved from plessy precedent. In Dobbs, this Court made no reference to the historical evolution in American culture and society regarding abortion. Unlike in Plessy, a vast majority of Americans supported Roe precedent, unlike in the 50s when Plessy was overturned. Moreover, plessy directly violated multiple aspects of the Constitution in which Roe did not.

@@MsBlushing24, where is abortion in the Constitution? The Supreme Court doesn't MAKE law; Congress or state legislatures do.

@@MsBlushing24 Roe violated the constitution by rewriting it. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion so the court had no authority to write it in

@@daveverplank There are plenty of things that aren't in the constitution. Every single matter can't be in the constitution.

​@@moses4769Things are implied or explicit. Abortion is neither.

Oh to be in the rarest of rare air and be amongst the greats, in terms of laws, China and North Korea!

John Roberts literally said public opinion wasn’t a factor

@@dragonflarefrog1424 Breyer is scared of the public outcry and possible violent repercussions if he votes against the pro=choice stance.

@@evelynmilne4683 If there are violent repercussions, we now have a precedent to lock up those who protest violently indefinitely without bail.

There in never one "entire concern" in something this complex.

@@josephlupo8969 - Her arguments and questions were superb and illuminating.

exactly. she was so full of it

Sure put her in jail for 30 days for getting an abortion. Eagles were and endangered species.

Bro this argument is way more complicated than that. Your ignoring the real human elemts that dictate the corse of the outcome of human abortion.

A fetus would not grow if it wasn't alive. 🤷🏼‍♀️

@@ellebrew719 viability of the life outside womb doesn’t make it not a human. 😳🤔

@@jasontaylor7954 huh? You're using double negatives so I cant tell what you're saying. Babies as early as 21 weeks have survived outside the womb if I'm not mistaken, but that's irrelevant because that is not what constitutes life. It's actually much simpler than that. The baby has it's own set of DNA that's seperate from her moms or dads. The baby is growing, as in it's advancing from one stage in life to another. This is life. The circle of life, if you will. Abortion ends that life. That is the only function of an abortion, and they take zero care to make sure the baby is even comfortable. They treat convicted murderers on death row more humanly during lethal injection than they do a 20 week old unborn baby.

Depends what the definition of ‘poor’ is I suppose.

@@JDAfrica that is correct but we would have to know where the statistic is from to find that out as well.

We are all poor compared to Bill Gates but not sure how she pulled this number out of her you know what.

Her ass

That's pretty damming.

Nice to hear pro-choicers admit abortion is killing a baby.

bingo

@josh montana drinking water would be upheld as an unenumerated right

@@scottcamuto8410 lol

@@TechmoChamp You don't have a constitutional right to drink water. Why would you think everything under the sun, good and bad, is addressed by the constitution? It isn't.

The supreme court's line of thinking is that if something is not explicitly a right in the constitution it can be an unenumerated right but there better be irrefutable evidence that there is a history of it being recognized by legislative, scholarly and common perception at the time of bill of rights or before 14th ratification. Given that things as common as breathing drinking and eating are fundamental to human existance these would be examples of unenumerated. Abortion on the otherhand is not.

@@TechmoChamp De minimis non curat lex. (The law does not concern itself with trivialities). Klondike can ax the Choco Taco and it isn't a constitutional issue. Not everything in life is in the Constitution.

Some call this supreme court "The Trump court" I don't care whose court you call it, it is on the track to be the greatest supreme court in decades. This court is a judicial dream team with everyone raising valid points with the exception of Sotomayor who made the analogy about abortion being about religion even though I know pro life atheists so she's wrong to politicize these cases but aside from that this court really knows how to q&a during oral argument and review.

BS

Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist. Trump ally. USA has failed

@@TheMChiReview "pro life atheists exist so acknowledging the fact that religiosity is an extremely prevalent and relevant factor in this matter is invalid" you do realize that you are officially an idiot, don't you?

​@@TheMChiReview you know pro life atheists so that means the supreme court justices are not acting on their religious opinion? How do you know that? Being an atheist doesn't make someone automatically more reasonable or able to check their bias and unless they have studied law their opinion doesn't really matter, however I would love to have a conversation with all these atheists and hear from them why they think this should be overturned after 50 years.

She can't fathom contemplating the possibility that the court got it wrong due to political views in the first place.

And I guess Robert can't fathom contemplating the possibility that the court got it right, in spite of political views, in the first place, seeing that evangelicals articulated support of the court decision alongside many non-religious people.

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 The court was far less politicized in 1973 than it is today.

@@samsca8529 the nomination of Supreme Court Justices wasn't nearly as much of a televised circus for soundbites as it is now (it used to not be televised at all). However I can only assume that the idea that the court was less politicized in the 1970s is due to historical ignorance if anything. Definitely not like nowadays though, that much can be more or less fairly granted.

@@RashidMBey spoiler: they didn't get it right. They made up a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution. If it can't be voted and agreed upon in Congress, any and all issues not already specified in the Constitution automatically belong to the states.

The government lost this case when Donald Trump bizarrely won the presidency with a minority of votes and proceeded to pack the court with reactionaries. That is absolutely not what was argued. She merely stated how the court has operated in the past.

They already won when we made Trump president.

I think people will look back at how poorly she tried to defend a clearly erroneous decision

overturning Plessy was granting rights while overturning Roe is taking them away.

@@nouseforaname3345 she has not proved that there was a right to abortion. Abortion existed but people did not believe it was a right. She has not proved that women benefited from Roe. The original suffragettes thought abortion was bad, because women were coerced. I want to see these studies she mentioned that say women better. What does better even mean?

The people to who cause problems on those channels can't focus on (or maybe understand) the stuff streamed on cspan.

Ya

It ist hard sometimes to stay silent when someone speaks utter nonsense for a certain amount of time. Some are more patient but I can understand her completely.

Stewart's arguements referring to a fetus as a life is ridiculous.. And his repeated calling the birth control horrendous or disaster is a personal attack based on religious preference. We a a country based on freedom of religion.. And freedom from religion. His arguements were not sufficiently countered by the defendant.

Rikelman was interrupted much more by roberts… maybe it just seems impertinent to you when a woman is interrupting a man?

@@diannebaginski3255 a fetus, even a zygote is alive. But not just "alive" living cell, like a cheek cell. It's a "living organism". The science of biology is quite clear on this. Further, all living organisms are classified. The zygote, the fetus are classified as homo sapien. This is not challenged in the court. Roe/Casey never addressed this science because it is already settled, they couldn't. Living organisms grow, they feed, they respond they reproduce (but not like skin cells regenerating an exact copy... the reproduce after mating with another living organism). This is what living organisms do. The zygote and fets and baby and child and adult are all human beings. They are not lumps of cells or a "parasite".

You nailed it.

People who don't want babies can skip sex.

@@rosedrown4925 Wow, how insightful you are. Moron.

Murdering babies is not the way to improve an imperfect world.

Seems some people think intelligence is dumb.

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 Are you trying to be stupid, or this is the limit of your critical thinking?

Because they can easily be reversed. That's why I'm pro life

Saying that it is a weak argument for a woman, a person, another human, who is already alive and part of society- to have autonomy over her body when it only affects her directly, that is insane.

​@@bryanalexismoya397The unborn human being has a right to life, at least at some point. 3 minutes before birth? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? Viability? Before that? Idk the exact answer, but i do know there's absolutely nothing in the enumerated powers of the Federal government to decide this issue. Therefore it falls to the states and the people.

The purpose of the courts is to make laws by judicial fiat, according to their personal feelings and opinions on a matter. Otherwise we might fall into that dangerous trap of having laws made by the elected representatives of the people.

@@rhynosouris710 Completely incorrect.

@@ewanmccartney8469 woooosh

@@rhynosouris710 could not be wronger

@@waldodilone4516 how wrong?

She’s referring to the fact that there is no evidence that suggests that a fetus feels any pain before 24 weeks of gestation. Or at least no new evidence to shed on that. She’s not saying there’s hasn’t been any medical advancements. :p

@@dudechill2 Yeah, but the medical advancement is not just about detecting pain early. Scientists have sucessfully grown animal outside of womb/egg (I think it's growing chick without eggs that they're working on. But I can be mistaken. Need to look it up). Soon, probably we could grow fetus outside of womb. The viability line would be on conception then.

@D. That's irrelevant. Once the viability line is shortened to conception, then the mother has no right to terminate the pregnancy at anytime. So the baby doesn't have to live outside the womb.

Exactly.

I don’t think the court when they decided the roe considered the fact that the fetus is a human being rather than a clump of cells. It’s new evidence like that that’s presented before the court that justifies reasonable departure from stare decisis

Give me the basic tenants of plessy versus ferguson.

@@Archangel251 The key item in Roe was when Thurgood Marshall stated that they couldn't say the fetus was or was not a human and that the Court should take a look at it again if science ever figured it out. Then Casey really f-d things up. That one was a poor decision by all concerned.

@@elizabethdillon4945 Plessy v Ferguson was the ruling that allowed segregation by declaring that separate could be equal. Brown v Board of Education overturned it and outlawed segregation. Plessy was later pardoned by the President in the 1920's I think.

@@treed6038 I think this doesn’t necessarily make a difference the key issue at hand is that Roe v Wade created a constitutional right to privacy effectively out of thin air. The premise of “Liberty” enshrined in the constitution is not absolute, state governments can decide to limit certain liberties for the public good depending on their issues and core beliefs. I believe that Sotomayor is simply engaged in judicial activism by arguing Stare Decises for highly contentious judicial reasoning, especially one where there is not legal basis beyond case law in Roe v Wade.

First, there are ways to deal with that now - there are pills rape victims can, and should, take, to prevent pregnancy. Second, and more importantly, this is an edge case - we don't make laws for edge cases. We make them for the vast majority of cases.

@@deathtotruthers1 big facts, rape and incest are all you hear about from women, arguing the extremes because they can’t argue for the 85% of abortions performed because of “choice”

Rape doesn’t change the fact that a human being cannot be murdered.

I'm sorry for what happened to you. Why weren't you checked out though?

​@@heyitsme881take it out the womb and it can't survive. It's not human yet

Constitutional law

But the Roe court pointedly refused to consider that science as to the question of when life begins, and only considered the science when it came to establishing suffering that pregnant women suffer. Selective censorship of science.

viability*

@@texasbeast239 RIGHT!

@Eugene Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

@Eugene Abortion is not protected by the constitution no matter how erroneously the 1973 court ruled. Swing and a miss.

@Eugene No. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the constitution provides contextual basis for the right to travel: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Swing and a miss.

@Eugene You are the one being disingenuous. In Saenz v. Roe (1999), the Court noted that there are three components to the right to travel: (1) the right to enter and leave a state, (2) the right of visitors to a state to be treated like residents, (3) and the right of visitors wishing to become permanent residents to be treated like residents. The Court held that (2) was protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and (3) was protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14A. The Court did not state the constitutional source of (1) of the right to travel because it was not implicated in that case.

@Eugene No, the SCOTUS explicitly stated the constitution protects at least 2/3 of these specific components relevant to the right to travel with a contextual basis. The third has not yet been defined because it has not yet needed to be defined. This is entirely different from a whole-cloth right to privacy because there is nothing outside of the 4A, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, that has anything to do with privacy. Extending the 4A to include the right to "privacy" is pure fantasy. In Griswold v Connecticut, the Court ruled that a Connecticut state law prohibiting the use of contraception violated the “right to privacy” which was found in penumbras of the Constitution via the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Ie there is no contextual basis. The SCOTUS simply subjectively determined that the Bill of Rights should have included a right to privacy. However, it is nonetheless incorrect to suggest that if a word itself is left out of the constitution (just like how liberals say "gun" needs to be in the constitution even though "arms" is in the constitution) it means there is no right.

What's the result going to be then? If you know what they've all decided already then?

It was literally the criterion for which Coney Barrett was rush-nominated, against the express wishes of the outgoing judge...

@@lazypops3117 who cares what RBG wanted!? Are we a monarchy? Do officials get to choose their successors

@@lazypops3117 the express wishes of the outgoing judge and $4 will get you a cup of coffee

@@wernerfoerster3666 and a sense of respectability for the institution with it. you do know how mcconnel denied obama's nominee for the SAME reason, don't you

Yes that’s your choice, you have no right to tell another woman what to do with her body, this is akin to slavery.

@@latoyarichards9507 killing children is WORSE than slavery.

@@FamilyMSV A pre-viability fetus is NOT a child.

@@FamilyMSV you're a sick person for comparing aborting fetuses to slavery? welp as expected from a member of the terrorist republican party

Thanks for overpopulating the planet!

I doubt his successor will be any better.

@@kylemohs8728 Nope. Incredibly, it is looking like she'll be even worse.

Jackson may not be perfect but ANYONE would be an improvement on that silly old coot Breyer.

Sotomayer constantly interrupted Mr. Stewart every time he spoke to answer her questions. Very obvious she is not interested in hearing any one else’s voice other than her own. I did not hear any other justices do this to the Pro abortion representatives.

@@shays7771 I had to laugh because it seemed like she perfectly embodied the typical pro-choice rhetoric: ignoring answers, interrupting, constantly shifting her position, and using "aren't you just trying to codify a religious belief" as a tr*mp card.

@@shays7771 Sotomayor does it all the time. She talks very slowly until she stops, only to start talking again when the attorneys have already started to answer. She clearly loves to interupt people and she clearly loves the sound of her own voice, the total opposite of the very modest and very polite Thomas.

No she thinks when her life begins is a religious belief not when her life has already began .

“40 percent of dead people would recoil” at the answer Her gloss on the detriments of any given pregnancy...ended in pregnant ellipses

All laws are expressions of morals.

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 True.

It is OK for teens to tote guns and kill and be killed by cops... but YOU CLAIM YOU ARE PRO LIFE.. zBS..You WILL NOT TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODY SIR. KEEP it in your pants.

Hang the cocktail. Too soon .Gotta Go Premature man

@@marg22az It's wrong to murder babies.

I doubt it’ll be 6-3. The reason is because Chief Justice Roberts is a strict follower of stare decisis. In other words, despite his conservative judicial philosophy, he ISNT a fan of overturning precedent unless new evidence is presented that points to the erroneousness of the previous court decisions. Since Roe, plaintiffs haven’t presented new arguments besides an interest in protecting unborn human life. Medical technology has evolved to give us a more graphic understanding of fetal development, but you’re right: an unborn child’s rights shouldn’t be dependent on technology. I think the Supreme Court taking on Roe made it more political than it had ever been before. Despite public opinion, overturning Roe would be a step in the right direction to restoring neutrality and public confidence in the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t explicit state that a woman has the right to an abortion. The right was abstractly decided. What I mean by that is that if you look at Roe’s history, cases like Griswald - which concerned birth control and contraception rights - developed a right to privacy under the 4th Amendment that was loosely applied to Roe. Blackmun wrote in his opinion that Roe relies on the deprivation of personhood from the fetus and how this is done is by calling the woman’s right to an abortion a “right to privacy.” In addition to protecting life, Roe should be overturned for those reasons.

I agree with your prediction.

the house will flip to R, no court packing lol

@@Archangel251 There is a lot of speculation going on and I would like to add another one: Roberts will convince Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to uphold Roe and Casey about the right to choose but limit it that states can issue statutes to protect the unborn as far as they don't take the right to choose completely. Roe talked about trimesters, Casey about viability, so the supreme court can even under the acceptance of stare decisis draw the line of "undue burden" differently. So the 15 weeks-law is pretty clever and completely in line with other countries of the western world, including mine. A 7:2 (kind of a classical result for abortion cases of this magnitude) would be a big signal for all citizens to finally stop the fight (Alito and Thomas should retire anyway).

@@dr.g9564 Barrett and Gorsuch are Catholic and they’re originalists. Originalists aren’t fans of abortion because it wasn’t in the founding fathers minds when they wrote the Constitution. Moreover, Roe relies on a right established by substantive due process. Originalists dont believe in rights established that way. Even if Roe and Casey are both rewritten, I guarantee you it isn’t going to stop the fight. Even if They’re overturned entirely, pro life groups are gonna continue to pick off states that still have abortion legalized. Roe is the beginning, not the end

That applies for both sides. There's no real reason we must assume that the Right-wing are the side with "facts and logic." Assuming someone like Stephen Breyer doesn't use "facts and logic" is pig-headed.

​@@crysiscore2051 Scalia, however crudely, characterized it correctly when he accused evolutionists of staring at the ceiling or the navel, when, in his example, passing judgement on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the constitutionality of the death penalty. However many polls you consult, or census date, were it available, these ultimately, as does an evolutionist interpretation of the due-process clause, lack democratic legitimacy. In another, splendid interview he ridiculed evolutionists for having "no answers", as theirs change forevermore. Departing from the common law "age of reason", 12, to 16, again on the constitutionality of the death penalty, and incrementally up, first to 18, as the justice now deems that age to serve as guarantor for the punishment not being "cruel and unusual", ten years on to 21, and with the turning of the wheels of time, so shall it continue.

@@crysiscore2051 it's funny cause you're the one politicizing it and Justice Breyer is never mentioned in this comment. Way to project buddy!

And I think that no one has an answer to a woman questions about what happens IF? EX: If in a rape does a woman have a right to compensation for being a state serrogate? This Q must be answered. It cannot be ignored. So I think the real question is if a woman can be forced to carry an unwanted child to term. A heartbeat determines life so I would say yes BUT in doing so would also invoke constitutional protections for the woman as well and mostly for some form of compensation for carrying the child. Then the Court will be placing a massive burden onto the legislature which has been dysfunctional since the clintons took office. I do not envy the Court in the least in ruling on this case.

In the end a babies life hangs in the balance and a core principle on which this nation was built is that "it is more important to protect the innocence in our communities than it is to punish guilt." This is an order of operations. I know of nothing more innocent than a Childs life. The Court knows what it must do.

@@torturedsoul8066 embedded in your statement is that the fetus is a child. While it clearly will become a child if carried to term, it’s totally NOT clear that it’s a child at 15 weeks. Or even at viability for that matter.

people, SCOTUS is not a legislature ... the sole issue is whether the right to abortion is contained in the constitution. It isn't.

@@JoeShapiro That is why the people and their elected representatives in the States under the 10th Amendment should be the ones dealing with this, not SCOTUS.

That never happened. They banned ELECTIVE abortion, not Life saving ones. Now the people in those states vote. Keep in mind, they already chose those representatives. Look up the abortion rate in someplace like Utah…it’s around 4% vs somewhere like DC where it’s 30%+. There’s obviously less need in one place than another

Someone had to interrupt her. She was absolutely monopolizing all of the questioning. It seems to me that, like Bill Clinton, she likes to hear her own voice.

5-4 they strike down the law under stare decisis.

I guess it isn't clear to me that they have all decided. Roberts sounded somewhat unsure about what the correct course of action was, and might be leaning to a modification of casey rather than an overturning of it. Additionally, while I would assume Breyer would side with Jackson Women's Health Organization, some of his questions seemed to express some uncertainty on some of the points.

@@jos_meid - Of course it's unclear, you got it. H4Y is a crank, you should see that by how he proposed his unserious observation.

​@@jos_meid It's common for the justices to play devil's advocate during arguments. I wouldn't infer much from their questioning.

If that’s your view than this court has truly failed

You rarely get to hear educated people arguing differently points of view respectfully these days

Yes you are right

Whose calls it murder? YOU? Are you god The word ABORTION is NOT in the Bible. Not 1 x. EVER. Do u know it takes 2 ppl to make babies yet I don't see any men's junk up for debate. HYPOCRITE twisted Bible thumpers. Can't find 1 verse that says ABORTION is against God. NOT 1

​@@greenwahine Not me, just science, facts, and the law. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the coroner makes two death certificates, and the police make a homicide arrest. A unique, separate life exists inside the womb even earlier than after 15 weeks of pregnancy, so yes it is murder. Nobody is arguing about the mother's body. It's the baby's body for which you seem to have no compassion. And if you want to bring the Bible into it, check the Ten Commandments. God and science are on the side of LIFE.

What science? So ur saying the pregnacy didnt go on without the womans body. Can u carry a pregnancy, The most hilarious yet disgraceful part was when the male judge & male lawyer were discussing the cost & damages to Pregnant Women seeking abortions in the states restricting their right to see a doctor without the governments involvement. Bring ur science & not videos thrown out of court for being fraudulent. Was it 6weeks or 15weks bc its hard to do coroner report on a the size of a seed. With no body. Do you even know when most woman know she's pregnant. Do u know what its like to be pregnant at any stage. To be such a good judge on this. Bring ur Bible verse. The ten commandments does't have the word abortion or fetus is alive not once. Your twisted religion is NOT mine. I'm an AMERICAN & we believe in the foundational principle of freedom of religion in ALL 50 STATES. WHY? Ask the Quakers why they came to America. Bc they didn't want to believe in the State Deemed religion of only protestant or catholic. So If you weren't these state deemed religions you were persecuted. Now radical conservatives are trying to deem 1 state religion & use those beliefs to put undo persecution on only women. I'm Christian my free will is not given by YOU. My body was not given by YOU. You or your religios beliefs own no part of my body at any time. YOU commit the greatest Sin of all the Sin of Satan. = Thinking you are equal to God or has the perfect judgment. God turns from sin equally in spiritual terms. Your feelings that your religion should decide USA 🇺🇸 governments laws Is the Opposite of why the Quakers came. Btw The anti Muslim & accepted violent rhetoric & BIG LIES accepted by trump supporters & radical conservative right DID lead to the deaths 0f capital police officers & Ashley babit. Along witb threatening to hang mike pence w a gallows. There are 6 ppl that were alive before January 6th 2021. Will you pass the same judgment for those deaths. If not then you prove ur judgment is just as flawed as any human & you should keep it to yourself. Just like your individual right to ur religion: "DONT ENVY VIOLENT PEOPLE OR COPY THEIR WAYS. SUCH PEOPLE ARE DETESTABLE TO THE LORD, BUT HE OFFERS HIS FRENDSHIP TO THE GODLY" Proverbs: 3: 31-32

@@RealRyanWorkman They're allergic to biology and logic. Just look at the case of mental hives you've given poor greenwahine. Whatever you do, don't tell her that abortion was only MADE a "right" by the decision of seven men.

@@TexGuvnah I really wanted to point that out, but I concur with your approach. You cannot have an argument with people who deny reality. Maybe I should take the administrative state’s approach and just exclaim, “I AM SCIENCE!”

Phew. I thought he'd be cancelled beyond cancelled for that one.

Yeah I noticed that too

Of course. It's made up. A fiction. You can even replace "fundamental" with "constitutional".

Your comment doesn't make it clear, you are for it or against it?

Um, I want it to be illegal.

It should be 0 weeks.

When abortions was illegal in the 1930s, 800,000 were still performed each year. Roe v. Wade was just a formality.

@@EastBurningRed source?

Consent of sex is consent of pregnancy. Don't the consequences, don't start

Exactly. So it should go back to the states. Let the elected representatives of each state decide what their voters want.

I think this is what going to happen at the end. The court won’t rule anything significant and just like it allowed Texas to have the Heartbeat Act in place it will continue to make abortion an issue of cooperative federalism.

@@djblock215 it shouldn’t be up to the states either. God forbids murder period, and he considers hands that shed innocent blood an abomination. We do not get to decide what’s moral or immoral that is for God to determine and He has made it very clear that He does not condone murder.

They aren't supposed to have a "neutral reason" whatever that means in your mind. They are supposed to have an honestly expressed legal reason, which they certainly will. The first factor is stare decisis, which by itself requires that the law as expressed in Roe be held as correct. There are other factors, but I'm not sure you get the process so I stop here.

@@chadkeaton2765 - In our Western world, 4000 years of contentious wondering followed by 500 years of reasoning serve to make perfectly reasonable that; in the whole history of the universe not one supernatural event has ever happened. Not one, ever. That's where we are at as rational beings - rational beings dismiss the supernatural. In any case we have a nation where citizens own rights, guaranteed under due process of law. People who invoke gods are expressing emotionally immaturity and simple ignorance.

Correct.

nop

Mississippi argument basically is that nothing in the text of the Constitution or the history of the US supports a right to an abortion. Roe and Casey were wrongly decided, so they should be overruled. The left leaning justices believe that 1) a lot of rights that the SC has recognized have no clear textual basis, 2) Roe was a watershed decision that needs extraordinary circumstances to be overruled, and 3) the SC will not seem legitimate if people feel like they keep flip flopping in this issue depending on who is on the court.

The right to an abortion is not in the US constitution. Period. End of Story. Dobbs corrects an error which was made in Roe

@@wernerfoerster3666 and they did it!

@@wernerfoerster3666 the right to privacy has been heavily upheld in previous decisions by the court, the right for a woman to abort a fetus without any intrusion from the state is an example of privacy. Is there an explicit statement that privacy is a right in the constitution? No, but if we establish that privacy isn’t a right (which we just did) then so many other things are now in jeopardy. Contraception, sex, marriage, and guns. This is one of the worst decisions by the SCOTUS in recent history, may be the worst since Bush v Gore

@@shgh2695 1. Yes, that is correct. Many other things are now in jeopardy as should be the case. Many other constitutional rights which do not appear in the constitution have been MADE UP by liberal activist judges starting with the Warren Court. Read Justice Thomas' concurrence. The concept of Substantive Due Process (which gives rise to all of these flavors of right) is simply patently ridiculous. Perverting the Constitution by reading things into it which don't exist is shameful. If you want gay marriage, contraception etc ... no problem ... contact your legislature, NOT SCOTUS. 2. I will remind you the key decision in Bush v Gore was 7-2 in favor of Bush. Also it was Gore who instituted legal challenges. 3. Dobbs is hopefully the first in a series of cases which will chip away at decades of judicial activism (via substantive due process) and the horrific notion of a "living constitution" effectively rendering SCOTUS a superlegislature as they can determine constitutional rights based on their own feel-good whims.

Yeah they never say that.

Thats not even inconsistent, what's your point?

@@johnsmith1474 Yup. Indeed, they've said the opposite pretty often. See "evolving standards of decency" in Atkins v. Virginia where they decided that executing the mentally retarded was a violation of the 8th Amendment just 13 years after they said it was tickety-boo.

Supreme Court: let’s not base our decision on public opinion Also Supreme Court: let’s not base our decision on public opinion

Wow people can be really obtuse about anything that was just stated compared to how they interpret it. Big words I guess?

That's nothing new. Liberal activist jusges who saw themselves as Kings and Super-legislatures started making up laws wholesale with the Warren court. Eg "sustantive due process". The result was predictable: the politicization of the Court.

and then when some of those children are born poor or disabled or black or gay fuck em right? Republican logic lol

@@khlkl9111 I don't think that's what he was going for there.

@@blackdahliastudios263 But that's the case. Many of these children who would be born as a result of a denied abortion would be put into an underfunded childcare system as their mothers simply aren't prepared to take care of them.

@@wheresmycar9559 Some would argue that living in an underfunded childcare system is better than not living at all.

@@khlkl9111 do you notice how retarded your logic is? so it's better to kill a baby than to let a baby live in a poor family household. so I guess every single child that lives in a third world country needs to be assassinated and okay bro. libtard logic

If I recall right, the state's brief says that in order to get that stat, they had to include notoriously unreliable methods, like withdrawal, along with more effective ones.

Pill and iud ARE abortion.Wondering why everyone wants to be a murderer.Is the Mafia having a hiring blitz.Sin costs you clear thinking.Doctors are forbidden by oath to do ANY harm to a patient.Has Auschwitz combined with Mafia and Planned Parenthood PROMISCUITY promotion to make sure everyone deserves a life sentence with no parole.Is murder and mutual masturbation the new thing taking the place of greatness of character and integrity.Has Hell become the most popular vacation destination?!

@@rosedrown4925 the fuck you just say?

Seems truth is not of interest.Lazy? Busy? Callous? Criminal? What is the problem.Lust turns a man or woman into an animal.Deprives them of right and clear thinking,Success,Stable wealth.Lust destroys life.Love creates life.Who chooses lust when love is the real and better choice.Who chooses curses when blessings are the better choice.Virtue blesses all.Lack of it, curses all.See Deuteronomy 30:19 til u get it.

My people perish for lack of knowledge of My Word.

She should have been jailed for attempted murder.

@@evelynmilne4683 no doubt. Just dont see how it was relevant to the case lol seemed out of left field

@@rickybobby3536 he explained its relevance re: bodily autonomy

@@rickybobby3536 he’s giving other examples of how states have an interest in regulating pre-viability pregnancies. If you agree that the state has the right to prosecute a woman who ingests cocaine while pregnant, how can you justify precluding the state from regulating a pre-viability abortion? That’s the point he’s trying to make

@@Archangel251 Comparing cocaine to a medical procedure is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with the case. The state would prosecute a woman who wasn't pregnant for using cocaine and it ignores the intent and details of both situations.

Good thing society could care less what you think

A woman’s rights are more valuable.

@@landonhumphreys1579 rights are more valuable than life? Without life, there's no rights.

@@landonhumphreys1579 And you will be perfectly able to make that argument to your state legislators.

Women's life is just as important. And yet scumbag conservatives are trying to enslave women. They are trying to subject them to gestational slavery. Everything inside a persons body is 10000% their own. Any departure from that is a form of slavery.

@@TexGuvnah And yet scumbag conservatives are trying to enslave women. They are trying to subject them to gestational slavery. Everything inside a persons body is 10000% their own. Any departure from that is a form of slavery.

None of them made that argument due to the fact that it is not a credible argument

And black people use to be 3/5ths a person according to the constitution until a war broke out proving otherwise. This is why it needs to be substantiated into law based on legislative intervention instead of the Supreme Court. There is not affirmation or condemnation of abortion in the constitution and it therefore needs to go to the states and those who live in them to vote and discuss the issue. That’s all the overturning would do.

mental health? if a woman doesnt want a baby, dont get pregnant.

The Constitution didn't say that black people were each 3/5ths of a person. The three-fifths compromise allowed for the counting of 3/5ths of the total number of "all other persons" for the purposes of congressional apportionment, and it was a compromise made to entice the slave states to ratify the new Constitution - it was well known at that time that if the newly formed United States (which were still under the Articles of Confederation) did not ratify the new Constitution, the country would be weaker and vulnerable to dissolution or invasion.

What is meant by the term “viability”?

Exactly why I think it’s up for the states to decide. Thanks for writing this comment.

I’m having the same reaction.

Yeah Sotomayor says she's worried about looking like a political actor for striking rvw down but she looks way worse here arguing and cutting off the man at every turn while clearly arguing for rvw rather than just calmly judging a single full sentence from the man.

It was a reasonable question to sort out what timeframe could lead to an undue burden for the woman.

Perhaps, but the Supreme Court is not governed by comments on RU-vid, regardless of 17 up votes (at the time of this comment).

Now 18 thanks to me and yes it is an impactful question.

@Eugene Actually the case will be decided by the conservative majority which means the likelihood of the supreme court need to adhere to the us constitution and American law not international law will be applicable to this case. The reason it will be applicable is because that question gets to whether these state laws concerning Abortion acted within precedent or is consititonally and or statutorally unique (not done before and therefore questionable or unreasonable) the us law question is about whether or not to adhere to precedent and how those laws of the past can inform their decision about laws made in the new Era. Past is prologue, it informs the current law on how to function therefore past is key when considering a law's potential legality or lack thereof. As said this and the question of previlaiblity vs viability is the two questions that this case definitely rest on. As a human being who has studied and seen the realities of Roe's broad decision, I actually hoped in this case they wouldn't adhere to us precedent since its a been unclear than international law. If you based us abortion laws on international law, it would mean that Mississippi and Texas acted within the usual limits thst countries all over the world limit or ban abortion including Liberal France. We literally join China and North Korea in allowing abortion up until the last minute. 💀 At what point do the state has an interest (a right to limit or ban abortion) im not arguing for an all ban but my goodness abortion law in America has no grey area. It either completely disregard the woman or completely disregard the fetus. I say at the point in which a hearbeat is detected the state has interest until then the state doesn't have a right to an interest and the individual can exercise that right under federal statue. My problem with Democratic Administration is have a ❤ at what point do you believe a fetus is a person who should be protected because right now General Prelogar (Biden Attorney to SCOTUS) didn't put a line and thats because many democrats don't believe there is a line a point where the fetus has developed enough for this to be the taking of a life and thats sad! Signing off!

And Julie destroyed him with her response

yep judicial review... grants the supreme court power to interpret the constitution to ensure it remains a living documemt

Wrong. 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It is written very clearly in the first amendment that congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. How is this "not listed" or "deduced from structure." It is true that the court has always had to interpret how religious freedom is protected (the same as any other right) but to claim the right itself came from judicial review is factually incorrect.

@@ladeacarr4245 yeah how stupid can you get. It's explicitly written in the 1st amendment. That's the point.

@@mobilizedpanda3795 sotomayor is constantly incorrect. She’s the breathing form of “if diversity hire was a person “

@@mobilizedpanda3795 I mean the form that "respecting an establishment of religion" literally could mean anything. without a court to interpret what that means you don't have a law you just have words..

Well, Buddhist’s got one thing right! They knew a long time ago. We are so proud of hanging in there with both China and India and keeping up with their abortions.

Duh

@Geshe Sperm and an egg are certainly alive. What are you blabbering about? What counts are the existence of an individual.

@@albertmagician8613 moment of conception egg head!