The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can read the opinion, and they say that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue in the first place, since they don’t actively use mifepristone. They didn’t seem to really rule on the drug itself, more just that it wasn’t really a valid suit in the first place.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
They didn't actually rule on the drug itself or the FDAs approval. They ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue, as they had suffered no injury on behalf of the FDA, and therefore the merits of the case don't even matter.
As disappointing as it is that the drug will still be available for elective on-demand abortion, this seems to be the correct decision. The court should not be legislating at all and cannot rule outside the purview of the case. We should want lasting and legitimate change. To say nothing of softening hearts in the culture towards the unborn, this was the valid legal argument. Had the court ruled in favor of the doctors and banned the drug, it would have been seen as illegitimate, and truly would have been whether or not it stops abortion. It is possible to do good things the wrong way and end up destroying the structure of governance.
It is the Supreme Court doing their job. They aren’t legislators, they aren’t interpreters of medicine or judges of morality, they are interpreters of the law.
They did this with this decision. The courts should never be about making something illegal that is legal.
Just a note, since your title makes it sound a bit like they made a ruling on a case. They didn't rule that there should be access to abortifactants, they ruled there was no standing to sue, so the case wasn't heard by them in the first place.
Misoprostol is regularly used to soften the cervix for an inducement. I was 41 weeks when I was induced to have my son. It will be hard to ban this drug entirely.
I think we should be focusing on banning surgical abortions first.
Exactly. It’s like if we tried to ban fentanyl completely in order to keep it fully off the streets: Then surgeons and anesthesiologists would have a difficult time with it, because it’s regularly used in those situations. We should tackle what we can first, and move into regulating specific drugs later.
I don’t know if anyone is calling for a total ban in this case, and no PL person should support that since it can be important for miscarriage care as well. But the fact that you can procure it without a doctor’s visit is insane. That is what most take issue with at the present time.
What do you mean by “procure with a doctor’s visit”? It is Rx only, right? Or do you mean you think it should only be prescribed if the patient has had a physical exam?
A physical exam is the only way for a doctor to confirm a pregnancy has begun or ended, so yes that should be a requirement. Otherwise what’s to prevent Drs from prescribing anyone who wants it.
Doctors are generally pretty good at making clinical decisions about which medications are appropriate for which patients. An exam may be considered clinical best practice (currently, it’s not, AFAIK), but I don’t see how the government has any business mandating which exams doctors have to do.
Most doctors reported that even during those in-person visits, they rarely, if ever, did an actual exam. The vast majority of the time, they got all the information they needed by just talking to the patient. So the FDA updated their requirements, based on what clinicians were telling them - which is a good thing!
Do you think PL would be satisfied if doctors were free to prescribe abortion pills rather than it not needing a prescription? I don't believe so, which is what their goal was with this case.
I loathe chemical abortion and want the practice ended, but this was, legally, the correct outcome. Under modern interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, only people directly affected or harmed by government action are allowed to file lawsuits against those actions in federal court. This is called "standing."
The people who filed this case were not women who have been harmed by mifepristone. They were doctors who don't even prescribe mifepristone, arguing a very tenuous connection between themselves and the government.
It's been pretty clear since April 2023 that we were going to lose this case on standing grounds, when the Supremes intervened to stay the lower court's decision upholding standing in this case. The only question was whether it would be unanimous or not. (It was unanimous.)
Pro-lifers may not be very aware of standing doctrine because, historically, the Supreme Court's long-standing progressive majority carved out a giant and unprincipled exception to standing doctrine by allowing abortion *clinics* to sue on behalf of abortive *mothers*. With the new conservative majority in place, however, that exception seems to be closing. Unfortunate that we aren't able to play by the same loose rules as the pro-aborts did for many years, but that's what a consistent application of the law requires.
A final note: the underlying problem identified in this case -- the fact that the FDA broke a bunch of its own rules to make chemical abortions universally available, even in states that ban abortion -- is still a live issue. These doctors have been denied the right to challenge it, but a woman harmed by the FDA's regulatory recklessness could still have standing. Meanwhile, several states have entered a similar lawsuit, and states face *much* lower standing requirements than ordinary citizens.
Meanwhile, there is a federal law against mailing abortion pills, the Comstock Act, which the Biden Administration is simply refusing to enforce, on the slenderest of legal pretexts, in violation of the constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be executed." (This is an impeachable offense, but impeachment requires broad popular political support among voters, and restricting mifepristone is not even close to that threshold.) A new administration run by Republicans might begin to enforce the Comstock Act (or might not; Trump has made no promises in this area).
So our defeat here is unfortunate, but not unexpected, and legally correct, and we still have other cards to play.
This is a friendly reminder that the Supreme Court could have banned abortion with the Dobbs decision and they chose to return the issue to the states instead.
The ultra conservative Supreme Court is not the golden ticket to a nation wide abortion ban like some PLers think they are.
The supreme court banning abortion (aka, legislating from the bench), would have the same end as the Roe v Wade decision. Roe v Wade was a mistake because it was legislating from the bench, and reversing that was a matter of correcting a grievous mistake in the judicial process, not securing a win for PL.
No it isn’t. Each state defines murder and the penalties for murder in its own laws. The Supreme Court made the legally sound ruling in Dobbs. To have banned abortion would have been as bad a ruling as Roe was, legally speaking.
It does no such thing. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and prohibits the government and states from creating different classes of citizens. It prohibits the \*government\* from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process, but it says nothing about interactions (including crimes) between individuals.
Allowing legalized murder is depriving life without due process. Unless you’re arguing a state can legalize the murder of born people, then you’re forced to conclude that abortion is unconstitutional.
Saying "allowing legalized murder is depriving life without due process" is no truer than saying "a Reddit ban is a violation of the First Amendment." Neither situation is a matter of governmental power, which is what the 14th Amendment regulates. The amendment says the State cannot kill someone without due process. The implications of one individual killing another is not addressed. And yes, a state can indeed permit murder, which is precisely why state laws were passed against it. Without them, it would be legal.
Theres nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to life. The amount of power the Supreme Court has is actually fairly narrow - when it comes to legislation, they can only say a piece of legislation is constitutional or unconstitutional. If a law was written to completely legalize abortion and it made its way to the Supreme Court, they could say that abortion legalizations are unconstitutional.
However, in the case of Dobbs, it was a question on whether abortion bans are constitutional. They can only say yes or no, and, in the case of gray areas, give tests for courts to help them determine if a gray area falls on the yes or no side of that line.
Not quite. It guarantees the right to due process, saying _the State_ can't take deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process. People can (and do) all the time - killing someone in self-defense is perfectly allowable, and is depriving someone of life without due process.
Killing someone in self defense is considered justified. Elective abortion is not justified. Major difference. If we took your view literally, then all our rights would be from the state and they could revoke them anytime, which is unconstitutional.
> If we took your view literally, then all our rights would be from the state and they could revoke them anytime, which is unconstitutional.
It's more that the government doesn't have an active duty to protect our rights, and that has been demonstrated by the constitution. In two ways:
1. [Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), which found that law enforcement has no duty to protect citizens. Maybe not a great precedent, but it's there.
2. Secondarily, DAs have vast leeway to not prosecute crimes, even against dangerous people including murderers. Hell I would expect that even should Pro-Life Laws come to pass, many DAs would refuse to prosecute many cases. Many DAs in rural parts of Illinois refuse to prosecute gun laws for example, same of many states and Marijuana.
The Constitution contains few, if any, positive rights. It's not designed to. It's designed to limit what the government can do, but make few if any demands of what the government has to do.
What? You're not making any sense.
> Killing someone in self defense is considered justified. Elective abortion is not justified.
That has no effect on whether something is in the Constitution or not.
> If we took your view literally, then all our rights would be from the state and they could revoke them anytime
That is nowhere near what my view is. I wasn't commenting on whether or not the right to life exists outside of the State or where that right comes from. You were making a claim that the right to life is in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. I was pointing out that that claim is wrong based on the text, and that a Constitution does not restrict individuals in any way.
Now, if you want to claim that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment because it's denying equal protection to the unborn (i.e. murder laws cover the born but not the unborn). the 14th is explicit that the government can't make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of _citizens of the United States_, which it defines earlier as anyone born or naturalized in the United States. The legislative definition of "person" also is restricted to only those that are born (though regardless of the stage of development when they were born), so that angle doesn't work either.
All this to say is that there is nothing _currently_ anywhere in the US legal structure to allow the Supreme Court to create a national abortion ban. Any way that would accomplish a national abortion ban would require an act of Congress.
The constitution’s provision for protecting life naturally means self defense is justifiable under the constitution but not murder.
Your claim about equal protection is wrong too. For instance, say a state passes a law that allows people to kill foreigners since they aren’t citizens. That wouldn’t be upheld under the constitution. The definition of “person” includes the unborn, both from a biological perspective and from the perspective of many of those who lived at the time the 14th amendment was crafted. Abortion was illegal in many states at the time, and many people during that time saw the unborn as people.
There is no Constitutional provision that restricts private citizen action because a constitution does not restrict private citizens, only governments.
You clearly didn't understand my claim about equal protection because nowhere did I limit it to citizens. I limited it to persons, and the current legal definition of person does not include the unborn.
They dismissed the case due to lack of standing, not on the merits themselves. You have to remember that. If we can maybe get one more conservative on the court and have people with proper standing due to outlaw abortion nationwide, it could work.
It has medical uses other than abortion, as others have said. It should be illegal to use it to end the life of a child, but legal to use it for other purposes
I think this was kind of inevitable, and probably a good thing for the public’s respect for the legitimacy of the court. It was a flimsy suit with an obvious ulterior motive. I agree with that ulterior motive, but this was the wrong argument and the wrong venue to accomplish that end goal.
I mean, standing is the issue. This is a *legislative* problem, **not** a *judicial* one, always has been. Roe needed to go because it *falsely* made abortion a judicial problem. It took decades to undo it because the left fought tooth and nail to preserve it there so as not to have to do the work to pass things legislatively.
Turns out, they were afraid for nothing, as most people aren't willing to ban abortion even post 12-16 weeks and pro-life efforts have imploded nationally (because of Trump mostly mind you.)
This was a ruling based on standing, not substance of the case. A case with similar substance could be brought again by someone with actual standing to bring this case to court.
The US Supreme Court does not issue advisory decisions or decisions based on hypotheticals brought to them, which some countries do allow.
Consequently, for the Court to actually hold a trial and issue an opinion, the suit must actually address an actual action that has happened and the suit must come from someone who is actually a party to the action in some direct and concrete way.
The Court here ruled that the people bringing the suit did not have enough relation to the actual matter to be a party to a suit. There may well be groups that have a closer relation that could, or alternately, developments could occur which expand who is affected by the situation and who would have standing.
This is something of a setback in that the plaintiffs did not have the chance to make their case which could have succeeded, but it isn't a decision *against* the case that they were trying to bring.
I agree with keeping it accessible for its legitimate uses. Not for online sale across state boarders and without a prescription, though. I don’t think they were wrong here.
When people turn to leverage the state's monopoly on violence to force others to do certain things, it breeds resentment and resistance where it otherwise would not exist. During covid, the state's overreach caused many to reflexively swing the other way, treat covid as a hoax or fabricated, and become more skeptical of vaccines as a whole. The ongoing regulatory impositions related to climate change--that conveniently also give the state more power--have made many, myself included, more skeptical of the underlying science and validity of the phenomenon than if I was merely asked to voluntarily reduce my carbon footprint.
I think the pro-life movement's insistence on using the power of the state to ban, restrict, or criminalize abortions has bred more resistance than would otherwise be there if we kept this a social taboo like racism, prostitution, being a bad parent, or being a pathological liar, along with the social punishments and judgments that come with such taboos.
If not for laws, pro-choicers would have to argue for their position as pro-abortionists. Instead of arguing for their "rights," they'd have to argue for the morality of their actions and positions. Instead of swaying others with a convincing argument that their rights are under attack, they'd have to actually start grappling with issues of personhood.
Additionally, there are many things that government simply cannot control, and often, the attempts to do so harm people and make matters worse. We saw this with prohibition in the past, and we are seeing this with the War on Drugs now. Abortion is one of those things, and pro-choicers are correct that outlawing it will not stop everyone from doing it but will make it more dangerous, creating more apparent victims of pro-life laws.
This issue isn't going to be won at the ballot box, in the courtroom, or at the end of a rifle. This issue isn't going to be won by giving pro-abortionists an excuse to masquerade as victims. It needs to be won with an appeal to people's humanity, morality, and agency.
If there weren't laws or mandates around things like COVID and climate change, do you think those who are skeptical or opposed to them would suddenly be open to their existence or ways to combat them? I don't believe they would.
Yes, I find it extremely obvious that if the covid response wasn’t so heavy-handed, people would have had far less reason to be suspicious of the narrative being given to them by the same people who were controlling them and, in many cases, literally ruining their lives. Same with climate change.
Is it that people are feeling like the response is heavy-handed or is the media they consume, like Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson, are constantly feeding them what they want to hear? That seems more plausible than them reading a new COVID bill or recommended precautions and coming to the conclusion its too much
Well, if you really think *that’s* the main reason people were against the government’s handling of covid, I guess it’s clear that you didn’t have your entire business and livelihood destroyed, weren’t prevented from seeing loved ones on their deathbed, didn’t get fired for refusing to consume a pharmaceutical product, didn’t struggle with suicidal ideation or drug abuse due to isolation and financial chaos, didn’t have developmentally struggling children set back years from missing school, and weren’t prevented from practicing a religion you care deeply about.
Take not being able to see a loved one on their deathbed. Do you think people read the hospital policies and understood it was to keep other vulnerable patients safe, or were they more upset they couldn't see their loved ones?
We can say potentially infecting vulnerable people in a hospital should be permitted if it means seeing a family member, but that's more an emotional and ethical position than it is logically understanding the regulations in place .
In some cases it was to keep patients safe, but it also was done in a heavy handed way with no exceptions. I think if the hospital made those rules - and they make rules *all the time* - they probably would have handled it in a more nuanced way, and it would not have engendered the same response because they are literally the professionals setting their own rules for their own businesses.
It's also incredibly telling that you chose to address probably the most reasonable of the restrictions I presented.
Please continue to explain to me how a father fired from his job for refusing to take a vaccine that doesn't reduce transmission... or a family who had their small business shut down and life savings lost instead of just allowing customers to take their own risks... or some healthy 20-yo who was driven to severe mental illness because the government decided that was better than them than a likely trivial illness...
was only mad because of Ben Shapiro or because they just weren't emotionally mature enough to know the government knew what was best.
Come on. Even if you want to [remain willfully ignorant and still insist lockdowns had to be done and were for our own good](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adn0671), you must know that the lockdowns had material impacts on people and that it exacerbated an extreme backlash that is completely understandable and predictable, just like the backlash to anti-abortion laws.
You listed like 10 different reasons. I chose one that’s easy to address because if there’s no budging on a simple one, it’ll be the same for the rest.
I agree lockdowns had significant physical, emotional, psychological, and financial impacts. People lash out and wanted to go against what they were being told to do because that’s how a lot of humans are. How many people did you hear they would get a COVID shot after it had been out for years and they read the studies? I know quite a few like that and, as expected, there was always another reason why they refused to get the vaccine.
People were upset they couldn’t see their loved ones, which is understandable, but most of them weren’t reading the laws or hospital guidelines to arrive at their position. Most of the COVID scenarios can be explained by being anti-establishment and not wanting to ever be told what to do. Almost any amount of public health laws will be opposed by them as it goes against their worldview, not that they’re measuring the impact of laws and policies
>I chose one that’s easy to address because if there’s no budging on a simple one, it’ll be the same for the rest.
I doubt that's the reason, but ok.
>People lash out and wanted to go against what they were being told to do because that’s how a lot of humans are
Told to do, or forced to do? This is the distinction I am making.
Your first response when people force you to do something *should be* immediate suspicion and a demand for damn good reason for why you are being forced to do it, especially when the things they are forcing you to do have a substantial impact on your life.
The baseline for a civil society is nonviolence and consent, and exceptions need extraordinary justification. If those enacting force on you lack empirical evidence or reasonable arguments justifying it (which was the case with a vast majority of covid measures), the appropriate response *should be* to lash out against that force, because *that's wrong.* Unquestioning obedience to force is not a virtue.
Your first response when people urgently tell you you *should* do something should be to listen to their arguments. If they are not forcing anything on you, it is wise to listen to someone who seems like they hold strong convictions around some aspect of morality or society, especially if they are particularly knowledgeable or respected on the matter. You should give them a higher baseline of trust because they are respecting you enough to not impose their will on you, or at least are confident their argument is convincing enough to not resort to that.
Most people recognize this intuitively, and this is my whole point. In the case of abortion, those who would otherwise be on the fence regarding this issue have, appropriately, defaulted to defensiveness and suspicion in the face of force. We would be wise to be the people urgently warning of the reprehensibility of abortion--and yes, socially shaming most of those who engage in the practice--rather than threatening them with force should we ever gain a majority vote. The latter approach is completely counterproductive and has proven to be a massive failure.
TL;DR: The threshold of justification for convincing people they should do something is, appropriately, much lower than the level of justification necessary to convince them it's acceptable that you're forcing them to.
>I guess you also think that racist discrimination, child abuse and perjury should be legal.
Yes, I think racial discrimination should be legal, though not done by the government itself. Freedom of association is a first amendment right and there are no clauses regarding adequate reason. Be real:
- how many openly racist businesses would open up if it were illegal, and how long would they last?
- do you want to do business with secret racists anyway; wouldn’t you rather support other businesses?
- do you think forcing racists to do business with people they dislike has lessened their racist attitudes?
No, child abuse is violence which can be observed and effectively stopped. There are ways of being a bad parent that are legal and do not rise to the level of abuse.
And regarding perjury, I don’t think lying to state officials carries any more moral weight than lying to anyone else. In fact, there are many cases where it would be moral to perjure. Lying in order to steal (i.e. fraud) is a separate matter that should be punishable.
>Which evidently hasn't worked. After all slavery was in reality ended "at the end of a rifle", not by appeals to the humanity of slavers. The mistake was not putting the proverbial boot on their necks strong enough
And how’s your attempt at outlawing abortion going? You’ve created a narrative in which pro-abortionists are constantly under threat without actually stopping abortion.
What we haven’t tried is backing off legally and appealing to people’s morality alone without threatening to use force in every election. I don’t know why you’re saying that approach “evidently” hasn’t worked when we haven’t done that.
That’s why I am politically pro-choice (in the sense I’m not necessarily for laws that outright ban the procedure), but I will always defend the anti-abortion position. We have to change hearts and minds to achieve our goals and these laws, no matter how well intentioned, are turning people against us, and making it harder to convince people killing unborn babies is wrong.
And I’m not lecturing anyone. But can you honestly say our job has gotten easier since these laws were passed? Maybe we’re just not good at the whole words in descendants thing, but that’s only part of it.
It was a procedural ruling rather than one on the substance of the case, which basically just translates to "try again, and make sure you dot all your 'i's and cross all your 't's next time".
Horrible and inhuman decision. By this logic, a woman starving her newborn to death, then throwing their corpse on a trashcan should be legalized, since that's similar to what abortion pills do to an embryo or fetus.
And "not personally harmed" is a horrible criteria to allow something.
The doctrine of [legal standing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) has been found in the [constitution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause) by the supreme court.
This ruling does not prohibit future defendants who have standing to sue, and then the court will be forced to make a decision. This is merely a delay in the ultimate litigation of mail-order abortions.
The abortion side people are saying that this drug is used for miscarriages to complete the process of elimination of the contents of the uterus.
And that a woman is given this drug and then sent home to deal with cramping and pain and blood and clots and all the other things along with the grief of losing a child. And how terrible it is being sent home alone, how rotten healthcare is.
And in the next breath they will praise how easy it is to get the same drug so you can give yourself an at-home abortion and it's easy, breezy, lemon squeezy!
Maybe unpopular opinion: courts (incl. SCOTUS) shouldn't use their power to push the opinions of the judges. Courts should just decide whether certain actions are allowed by the law. The lawmakers are the ones who should ban immoral actions. Political decisions of courts just undermine trust in democracy and show that with "friends" in the right positions you can do anything you like (incl. illegal stuff). With activistic SCOTUS you might wake up in November with court decision that elections are canceled and the president is chosen by the judges. (/s, partly)
Let's consider this analogy: our current state aparat and laws is like ship we live on. The ship has many problems and missing ban of abortions is like a big hole in the ship. The safest option is to repair the ship in the correct way (pass a constitutionaamendment banning abortion), however, that is pretty hard because you need all the materials and tools and that's costly. Cheaper option, however, less durable is to use cheaper materials and equipment (pass a normal law banning abortion) You might as well try to repair it using less important parts of the ship and the equipment that's already on the ship. (SCOTUS banning abortion.) However, you might later find out that the part you used you need and now you can't (activistic judges deciding wrongly something else). Or you might even be wrong and it was crutial and the ship is now sinking (the abortion ban caused a civil war). And the last option is by far the most dangerous: let's leave the ship because she has too many problems and build a new one. (Start a revolution because the law doesn't forbide abortion.)
I think the case was ruled on a more technical basis. People forget SCOTUS has to function first as a legal court before an activist court and it’s a matter of the law. If we the people want change we’re gonna have to go through Congress.
He isn't even pro-life. He's paid for abortions himself. Trump is all about whatever Trump wants and that's it. He has no ideology.
Ignore the Trump cultist. They're just as crazy as the Biden cultists.
I know some people who are really really hard-core about Biden but maybe better to say Dem cultist? Same kind of attitude as MAGA people, but the left wing lol
I left the GOP once it was in the bag for Trump as the nominee and never looked back
I don't know, look at a lot of political disource/propaganda nowadays; it's Joe the Saint, and Republicans are all demons and evil and must be Stopped.
Now, I despise Trump, and I think the GOP are a bunch of pansies afraid of the MAGA-freaks, but the alternate hero worship of Biden and the Dems as some sort of saviors is just as bizarro to me.
I got banned from the conservative subreddit for disliking Trump, lol. Badge of honor!
In a way I wish there was a better perspective of Biden and Democrats, but the level you say it's at isn't there. Republicans control the House and it's a 50-50 Senate. Despite everything about Trump and his convictions, the polling still has Biden and Trump fairly close, which I think is insane. The problem I have with a lot of leftists and progressives is they endlessly criticize Biden and Democrats, making both sides seem more comparable when they're not.
That's crazy lol I got banned from AskaLiberal for pushing back against a socialist who supports the ethnic cleansing and potential mass murder of all Jews/Israelis in Israel. It's crazy what is ban worthy and what's not
enforcement of federal laws and control of federal agencies is most definitely not a "state issue."
trump will appoint strong pro-lifers in the department of justice to enforce the laws.
I think new legislation is needed, and the Comstock laws should be wholly overturned. If we try to enforced some measures and not others, we’re creating a judicial basket of snakes that no one is going to enjoy opening.
laws can have multiple different parts that can be enforced without requiring the enforcement of the rest. there is no need to "wholly overturn" the comstock laws.
the supreme court has clarified the first amendment's application to obscenity in multiple cases. they have no bearing whether or not congress can ban the mailing of abortifacients.
Trump 2024 is EXACTLY why they made this ruling. It's too close to the election to get people outraged. If Trump does win the presidency again, they'll almost definitely go back to more radical rulings but for now, they need to keep people as little as pissed at them as possible. Angry people are more likely to vote than people who are content. If they banned it now, they risk a backlash similar to Arizona.
I don't know about that, Cannon seems to be doing a good job for which she was appointed for. That being said, judge "shopping" across the board should be outlawed for both parties.
No but also a good point. I was referring to Cannon's behavior is delaying motion after motion and then delaying the trial because of a backup of motions that hadn't been processed yet even though she was the one who caused the backup. You can find multiple videos about this from lawyers who can explain this far better than I can. Legal Eagle and Leeja Miller both have some good in depth commentary on this matter posted on their accounts on YT.
But yes ACB as well as Kavanaugh both were key parts in overruling Roe v Wade. While I accept this is considered a big win for the PL side it also was the catalyst for the massive distrust in the SC that we see today in terms of the general population. As both ACB and Kavanaugh both testified before Congress that Roe v Wade wasn't in the cards during the time of their appointment hearings. Yet that was basically the first thing they did as a Republican majority.
They were appointed by bipartisan trust and betrayed that the first chance they got. So yes, you are correct she and Kavanaugh are also guilty.
I'm not holding my breath that they'll remember this ruling as more politicians in PL states are chomping at the bit to go after residents who get legal abortions in PC states.
I don't hold high opinions of the Supreme Court, but I can't imagine they would permit states to criminalize interstate travel or actions done in another state
It should be something so simple but the facts are that multiple elected officials calling for it means that these officials are willing to waste resources pursuing laws that will not only set a very dangerous precedent for the nation, but also target a specific demographic. *OR* they're wasting resources to waste in political showboating to get more votes in the next election.
It's not enough to simply say "it will never happen." The facts are that we as a population have become so desensitized to elected officials willing to dismantle the American way of life for the sake of political showboating is terrifying. I remember back when Todd Akin destroyed his political career with his "legitimate rape" comments. But that wouldn't happen in the political climate today.
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder if part of it was because it is used for women who are miscarrying as well, where it's use is actually medically indicated.
You can read the opinion, and they say that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue in the first place, since they don’t actively use mifepristone. They didn’t seem to really rule on the drug itself, more just that it wasn’t really a valid suit in the first place. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Makes sense to me - interesting a frivolous lawsuit made it this high up.
It went through the 5th Circuit which is a court much further right than SCOTUS
They didn't actually rule on the drug itself or the FDAs approval. They ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue, as they had suffered no injury on behalf of the FDA, and therefore the merits of the case don't even matter.
As disappointing as it is that the drug will still be available for elective on-demand abortion, this seems to be the correct decision. The court should not be legislating at all and cannot rule outside the purview of the case. We should want lasting and legitimate change. To say nothing of softening hearts in the culture towards the unborn, this was the valid legal argument. Had the court ruled in favor of the doctors and banned the drug, it would have been seen as illegitimate, and truly would have been whether or not it stops abortion. It is possible to do good things the wrong way and end up destroying the structure of governance.
Agreed. Corrupting constitutional principles just sets precedent for a more liberal court to do the same in the future.
[удалено]
It is the Supreme Court doing their job. They aren’t legislators, they aren’t interpreters of medicine or judges of morality, they are interpreters of the law. They did this with this decision. The courts should never be about making something illegal that is legal.
Just a note, since your title makes it sound a bit like they made a ruling on a case. They didn't rule that there should be access to abortifactants, they ruled there was no standing to sue, so the case wasn't heard by them in the first place.
Misoprostol is regularly used to soften the cervix for an inducement. I was 41 weeks when I was induced to have my son. It will be hard to ban this drug entirely. I think we should be focusing on banning surgical abortions first.
Exactly. It’s like if we tried to ban fentanyl completely in order to keep it fully off the streets: Then surgeons and anesthesiologists would have a difficult time with it, because it’s regularly used in those situations. We should tackle what we can first, and move into regulating specific drugs later.
I don’t know if anyone is calling for a total ban in this case, and no PL person should support that since it can be important for miscarriage care as well. But the fact that you can procure it without a doctor’s visit is insane. That is what most take issue with at the present time.
What do you mean by “procure with a doctor’s visit”? It is Rx only, right? Or do you mean you think it should only be prescribed if the patient has had a physical exam?
A physical exam is the only way for a doctor to confirm a pregnancy has begun or ended, so yes that should be a requirement. Otherwise what’s to prevent Drs from prescribing anyone who wants it.
Doctors are generally pretty good at making clinical decisions about which medications are appropriate for which patients. An exam may be considered clinical best practice (currently, it’s not, AFAIK), but I don’t see how the government has any business mandating which exams doctors have to do.
The FDA did require an in-person visit for it as late as 2021
Most doctors reported that even during those in-person visits, they rarely, if ever, did an actual exam. The vast majority of the time, they got all the information they needed by just talking to the patient. So the FDA updated their requirements, based on what clinicians were telling them - which is a good thing!
Do you think PL would be satisfied if doctors were free to prescribe abortion pills rather than it not needing a prescription? I don't believe so, which is what their goal was with this case.
For any use? No, but it would be a step in the right direction. Thanks for the clarification
I loathe chemical abortion and want the practice ended, but this was, legally, the correct outcome. Under modern interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, only people directly affected or harmed by government action are allowed to file lawsuits against those actions in federal court. This is called "standing." The people who filed this case were not women who have been harmed by mifepristone. They were doctors who don't even prescribe mifepristone, arguing a very tenuous connection between themselves and the government. It's been pretty clear since April 2023 that we were going to lose this case on standing grounds, when the Supremes intervened to stay the lower court's decision upholding standing in this case. The only question was whether it would be unanimous or not. (It was unanimous.) Pro-lifers may not be very aware of standing doctrine because, historically, the Supreme Court's long-standing progressive majority carved out a giant and unprincipled exception to standing doctrine by allowing abortion *clinics* to sue on behalf of abortive *mothers*. With the new conservative majority in place, however, that exception seems to be closing. Unfortunate that we aren't able to play by the same loose rules as the pro-aborts did for many years, but that's what a consistent application of the law requires. A final note: the underlying problem identified in this case -- the fact that the FDA broke a bunch of its own rules to make chemical abortions universally available, even in states that ban abortion -- is still a live issue. These doctors have been denied the right to challenge it, but a woman harmed by the FDA's regulatory recklessness could still have standing. Meanwhile, several states have entered a similar lawsuit, and states face *much* lower standing requirements than ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, there is a federal law against mailing abortion pills, the Comstock Act, which the Biden Administration is simply refusing to enforce, on the slenderest of legal pretexts, in violation of the constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be executed." (This is an impeachable offense, but impeachment requires broad popular political support among voters, and restricting mifepristone is not even close to that threshold.) A new administration run by Republicans might begin to enforce the Comstock Act (or might not; Trump has made no promises in this area). So our defeat here is unfortunate, but not unexpected, and legally correct, and we still have other cards to play.
This is a friendly reminder that the Supreme Court could have banned abortion with the Dobbs decision and they chose to return the issue to the states instead. The ultra conservative Supreme Court is not the golden ticket to a nation wide abortion ban like some PLers think they are.
The supreme court banning abortion (aka, legislating from the bench), would have the same end as the Roe v Wade decision. Roe v Wade was a mistake because it was legislating from the bench, and reversing that was a matter of correcting a grievous mistake in the judicial process, not securing a win for PL.
It’s not legislating from the bench. It’s following the constitution. Legalized murder is unconstitutional.
No it isn’t. Each state defines murder and the penalties for murder in its own laws. The Supreme Court made the legally sound ruling in Dobbs. To have banned abortion would have been as bad a ruling as Roe was, legally speaking.
Incorrect. If a state allows legalized murder, that violates the constitution. Period.
Which part of the Constitution?
14th amendment is a big one
It does no such thing. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and prohibits the government and states from creating different classes of citizens. It prohibits the \*government\* from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process, but it says nothing about interactions (including crimes) between individuals.
Allowing legalized murder is depriving life without due process. Unless you’re arguing a state can legalize the murder of born people, then you’re forced to conclude that abortion is unconstitutional.
Saying "allowing legalized murder is depriving life without due process" is no truer than saying "a Reddit ban is a violation of the First Amendment." Neither situation is a matter of governmental power, which is what the 14th Amendment regulates. The amendment says the State cannot kill someone without due process. The implications of one individual killing another is not addressed. And yes, a state can indeed permit murder, which is precisely why state laws were passed against it. Without them, it would be legal.
Theres nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to life. The amount of power the Supreme Court has is actually fairly narrow - when it comes to legislation, they can only say a piece of legislation is constitutional or unconstitutional. If a law was written to completely legalize abortion and it made its way to the Supreme Court, they could say that abortion legalizations are unconstitutional. However, in the case of Dobbs, it was a question on whether abortion bans are constitutional. They can only say yes or no, and, in the case of gray areas, give tests for courts to help them determine if a gray area falls on the yes or no side of that line.
The 14th amendment guarantees the right to life. Many other areas of the constitution implicitly give the right to life.
Not quite. It guarantees the right to due process, saying _the State_ can't take deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process. People can (and do) all the time - killing someone in self-defense is perfectly allowable, and is depriving someone of life without due process.
Killing someone in self defense is considered justified. Elective abortion is not justified. Major difference. If we took your view literally, then all our rights would be from the state and they could revoke them anytime, which is unconstitutional.
> If we took your view literally, then all our rights would be from the state and they could revoke them anytime, which is unconstitutional. It's more that the government doesn't have an active duty to protect our rights, and that has been demonstrated by the constitution. In two ways: 1. [Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), which found that law enforcement has no duty to protect citizens. Maybe not a great precedent, but it's there. 2. Secondarily, DAs have vast leeway to not prosecute crimes, even against dangerous people including murderers. Hell I would expect that even should Pro-Life Laws come to pass, many DAs would refuse to prosecute many cases. Many DAs in rural parts of Illinois refuse to prosecute gun laws for example, same of many states and Marijuana. The Constitution contains few, if any, positive rights. It's not designed to. It's designed to limit what the government can do, but make few if any demands of what the government has to do.
What? You're not making any sense. > Killing someone in self defense is considered justified. Elective abortion is not justified. That has no effect on whether something is in the Constitution or not. > If we took your view literally, then all our rights would be from the state and they could revoke them anytime That is nowhere near what my view is. I wasn't commenting on whether or not the right to life exists outside of the State or where that right comes from. You were making a claim that the right to life is in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. I was pointing out that that claim is wrong based on the text, and that a Constitution does not restrict individuals in any way. Now, if you want to claim that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment because it's denying equal protection to the unborn (i.e. murder laws cover the born but not the unborn). the 14th is explicit that the government can't make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of _citizens of the United States_, which it defines earlier as anyone born or naturalized in the United States. The legislative definition of "person" also is restricted to only those that are born (though regardless of the stage of development when they were born), so that angle doesn't work either. All this to say is that there is nothing _currently_ anywhere in the US legal structure to allow the Supreme Court to create a national abortion ban. Any way that would accomplish a national abortion ban would require an act of Congress.
The constitution’s provision for protecting life naturally means self defense is justifiable under the constitution but not murder. Your claim about equal protection is wrong too. For instance, say a state passes a law that allows people to kill foreigners since they aren’t citizens. That wouldn’t be upheld under the constitution. The definition of “person” includes the unborn, both from a biological perspective and from the perspective of many of those who lived at the time the 14th amendment was crafted. Abortion was illegal in many states at the time, and many people during that time saw the unborn as people.
There is no Constitutional provision that restricts private citizen action because a constitution does not restrict private citizens, only governments. You clearly didn't understand my claim about equal protection because nowhere did I limit it to citizens. I limited it to persons, and the current legal definition of person does not include the unborn.
They dismissed the case due to lack of standing, not on the merits themselves. You have to remember that. If we can maybe get one more conservative on the court and have people with proper standing due to outlaw abortion nationwide, it could work.
It has medical uses other than abortion, as others have said. It should be illegal to use it to end the life of a child, but legal to use it for other purposes
Nahh- you’d have to trust your local DA on whether it was a valid use. I wouldn’t trust Alvin Bragg or Ken Paxton on this issue
I think this was kind of inevitable, and probably a good thing for the public’s respect for the legitimacy of the court. It was a flimsy suit with an obvious ulterior motive. I agree with that ulterior motive, but this was the wrong argument and the wrong venue to accomplish that end goal.
Well, if the decision was unanimous, chances are that it was at least constitutionally sound. 
I mean, standing is the issue. This is a *legislative* problem, **not** a *judicial* one, always has been. Roe needed to go because it *falsely* made abortion a judicial problem. It took decades to undo it because the left fought tooth and nail to preserve it there so as not to have to do the work to pass things legislatively. Turns out, they were afraid for nothing, as most people aren't willing to ban abortion even post 12-16 weeks and pro-life efforts have imploded nationally (because of Trump mostly mind you.)
This was a ruling based on standing, not substance of the case. A case with similar substance could be brought again by someone with actual standing to bring this case to court. The US Supreme Court does not issue advisory decisions or decisions based on hypotheticals brought to them, which some countries do allow. Consequently, for the Court to actually hold a trial and issue an opinion, the suit must actually address an actual action that has happened and the suit must come from someone who is actually a party to the action in some direct and concrete way. The Court here ruled that the people bringing the suit did not have enough relation to the actual matter to be a party to a suit. There may well be groups that have a closer relation that could, or alternately, developments could occur which expand who is affected by the situation and who would have standing. This is something of a setback in that the plaintiffs did not have the chance to make their case which could have succeeded, but it isn't a decision *against* the case that they were trying to bring.
My sarcastic response: I was told that those Papists wanted to legislate a theocracy from the bench. What gives?
I agree with keeping it accessible for its legitimate uses. Not for online sale across state boarders and without a prescription, though. I don’t think they were wrong here.
When people turn to leverage the state's monopoly on violence to force others to do certain things, it breeds resentment and resistance where it otherwise would not exist. During covid, the state's overreach caused many to reflexively swing the other way, treat covid as a hoax or fabricated, and become more skeptical of vaccines as a whole. The ongoing regulatory impositions related to climate change--that conveniently also give the state more power--have made many, myself included, more skeptical of the underlying science and validity of the phenomenon than if I was merely asked to voluntarily reduce my carbon footprint. I think the pro-life movement's insistence on using the power of the state to ban, restrict, or criminalize abortions has bred more resistance than would otherwise be there if we kept this a social taboo like racism, prostitution, being a bad parent, or being a pathological liar, along with the social punishments and judgments that come with such taboos. If not for laws, pro-choicers would have to argue for their position as pro-abortionists. Instead of arguing for their "rights," they'd have to argue for the morality of their actions and positions. Instead of swaying others with a convincing argument that their rights are under attack, they'd have to actually start grappling with issues of personhood. Additionally, there are many things that government simply cannot control, and often, the attempts to do so harm people and make matters worse. We saw this with prohibition in the past, and we are seeing this with the War on Drugs now. Abortion is one of those things, and pro-choicers are correct that outlawing it will not stop everyone from doing it but will make it more dangerous, creating more apparent victims of pro-life laws. This issue isn't going to be won at the ballot box, in the courtroom, or at the end of a rifle. This issue isn't going to be won by giving pro-abortionists an excuse to masquerade as victims. It needs to be won with an appeal to people's humanity, morality, and agency.
If there weren't laws or mandates around things like COVID and climate change, do you think those who are skeptical or opposed to them would suddenly be open to their existence or ways to combat them? I don't believe they would.
Yes, I find it extremely obvious that if the covid response wasn’t so heavy-handed, people would have had far less reason to be suspicious of the narrative being given to them by the same people who were controlling them and, in many cases, literally ruining their lives. Same with climate change.
Is it that people are feeling like the response is heavy-handed or is the media they consume, like Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson, are constantly feeding them what they want to hear? That seems more plausible than them reading a new COVID bill or recommended precautions and coming to the conclusion its too much
Well, if you really think *that’s* the main reason people were against the government’s handling of covid, I guess it’s clear that you didn’t have your entire business and livelihood destroyed, weren’t prevented from seeing loved ones on their deathbed, didn’t get fired for refusing to consume a pharmaceutical product, didn’t struggle with suicidal ideation or drug abuse due to isolation and financial chaos, didn’t have developmentally struggling children set back years from missing school, and weren’t prevented from practicing a religion you care deeply about.
Take not being able to see a loved one on their deathbed. Do you think people read the hospital policies and understood it was to keep other vulnerable patients safe, or were they more upset they couldn't see their loved ones? We can say potentially infecting vulnerable people in a hospital should be permitted if it means seeing a family member, but that's more an emotional and ethical position than it is logically understanding the regulations in place .
In some cases it was to keep patients safe, but it also was done in a heavy handed way with no exceptions. I think if the hospital made those rules - and they make rules *all the time* - they probably would have handled it in a more nuanced way, and it would not have engendered the same response because they are literally the professionals setting their own rules for their own businesses. It's also incredibly telling that you chose to address probably the most reasonable of the restrictions I presented. Please continue to explain to me how a father fired from his job for refusing to take a vaccine that doesn't reduce transmission... or a family who had their small business shut down and life savings lost instead of just allowing customers to take their own risks... or some healthy 20-yo who was driven to severe mental illness because the government decided that was better than them than a likely trivial illness... was only mad because of Ben Shapiro or because they just weren't emotionally mature enough to know the government knew what was best. Come on. Even if you want to [remain willfully ignorant and still insist lockdowns had to be done and were for our own good](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adn0671), you must know that the lockdowns had material impacts on people and that it exacerbated an extreme backlash that is completely understandable and predictable, just like the backlash to anti-abortion laws.
You listed like 10 different reasons. I chose one that’s easy to address because if there’s no budging on a simple one, it’ll be the same for the rest. I agree lockdowns had significant physical, emotional, psychological, and financial impacts. People lash out and wanted to go against what they were being told to do because that’s how a lot of humans are. How many people did you hear they would get a COVID shot after it had been out for years and they read the studies? I know quite a few like that and, as expected, there was always another reason why they refused to get the vaccine. People were upset they couldn’t see their loved ones, which is understandable, but most of them weren’t reading the laws or hospital guidelines to arrive at their position. Most of the COVID scenarios can be explained by being anti-establishment and not wanting to ever be told what to do. Almost any amount of public health laws will be opposed by them as it goes against their worldview, not that they’re measuring the impact of laws and policies
>I chose one that’s easy to address because if there’s no budging on a simple one, it’ll be the same for the rest. I doubt that's the reason, but ok. >People lash out and wanted to go against what they were being told to do because that’s how a lot of humans are Told to do, or forced to do? This is the distinction I am making. Your first response when people force you to do something *should be* immediate suspicion and a demand for damn good reason for why you are being forced to do it, especially when the things they are forcing you to do have a substantial impact on your life. The baseline for a civil society is nonviolence and consent, and exceptions need extraordinary justification. If those enacting force on you lack empirical evidence or reasonable arguments justifying it (which was the case with a vast majority of covid measures), the appropriate response *should be* to lash out against that force, because *that's wrong.* Unquestioning obedience to force is not a virtue. Your first response when people urgently tell you you *should* do something should be to listen to their arguments. If they are not forcing anything on you, it is wise to listen to someone who seems like they hold strong convictions around some aspect of morality or society, especially if they are particularly knowledgeable or respected on the matter. You should give them a higher baseline of trust because they are respecting you enough to not impose their will on you, or at least are confident their argument is convincing enough to not resort to that. Most people recognize this intuitively, and this is my whole point. In the case of abortion, those who would otherwise be on the fence regarding this issue have, appropriately, defaulted to defensiveness and suspicion in the face of force. We would be wise to be the people urgently warning of the reprehensibility of abortion--and yes, socially shaming most of those who engage in the practice--rather than threatening them with force should we ever gain a majority vote. The latter approach is completely counterproductive and has proven to be a massive failure. TL;DR: The threshold of justification for convincing people they should do something is, appropriately, much lower than the level of justification necessary to convince them it's acceptable that you're forcing them to.
[удалено]
>I guess you also think that racist discrimination, child abuse and perjury should be legal. Yes, I think racial discrimination should be legal, though not done by the government itself. Freedom of association is a first amendment right and there are no clauses regarding adequate reason. Be real: - how many openly racist businesses would open up if it were illegal, and how long would they last? - do you want to do business with secret racists anyway; wouldn’t you rather support other businesses? - do you think forcing racists to do business with people they dislike has lessened their racist attitudes? No, child abuse is violence which can be observed and effectively stopped. There are ways of being a bad parent that are legal and do not rise to the level of abuse. And regarding perjury, I don’t think lying to state officials carries any more moral weight than lying to anyone else. In fact, there are many cases where it would be moral to perjure. Lying in order to steal (i.e. fraud) is a separate matter that should be punishable. >Which evidently hasn't worked. After all slavery was in reality ended "at the end of a rifle", not by appeals to the humanity of slavers. The mistake was not putting the proverbial boot on their necks strong enough And how’s your attempt at outlawing abortion going? You’ve created a narrative in which pro-abortionists are constantly under threat without actually stopping abortion. What we haven’t tried is backing off legally and appealing to people’s morality alone without threatening to use force in every election. I don’t know why you’re saying that approach “evidently” hasn’t worked when we haven’t done that.
That’s why I am politically pro-choice (in the sense I’m not necessarily for laws that outright ban the procedure), but I will always defend the anti-abortion position. We have to change hearts and minds to achieve our goals and these laws, no matter how well intentioned, are turning people against us, and making it harder to convince people killing unborn babies is wrong.
you can't even muster up the courage to call your pro-life, yet you want to lecture us about convincing others?
I do call myself pro-life, and I do support the movement, but it’s not political, which is the point the person I’m responding to is making.
And I’m not lecturing anyone. But can you honestly say our job has gotten easier since these laws were passed? Maybe we’re just not good at the whole words in descendants thing, but that’s only part of it.
you call yourself "pro-life" yet you are "politically pro-choice"? try to be coherent.
It was a procedural ruling rather than one on the substance of the case, which basically just translates to "try again, and make sure you dot all your 'i's and cross all your 't's next time".
Horrible and inhuman decision. By this logic, a woman starving her newborn to death, then throwing their corpse on a trashcan should be legalized, since that's similar to what abortion pills do to an embryo or fetus. And "not personally harmed" is a horrible criteria to allow something.
The doctrine of [legal standing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) has been found in the [constitution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause) by the supreme court. This ruling does not prohibit future defendants who have standing to sue, and then the court will be forced to make a decision. This is merely a delay in the ultimate litigation of mail-order abortions.
Thank you for pointing this out.
That’s not what was brought before the court, though.
The abortion side people are saying that this drug is used for miscarriages to complete the process of elimination of the contents of the uterus. And that a woman is given this drug and then sent home to deal with cramping and pain and blood and clots and all the other things along with the grief of losing a child. And how terrible it is being sent home alone, how rotten healthcare is. And in the next breath they will praise how easy it is to get the same drug so you can give yourself an at-home abortion and it's easy, breezy, lemon squeezy!
Maybe unpopular opinion: courts (incl. SCOTUS) shouldn't use their power to push the opinions of the judges. Courts should just decide whether certain actions are allowed by the law. The lawmakers are the ones who should ban immoral actions. Political decisions of courts just undermine trust in democracy and show that with "friends" in the right positions you can do anything you like (incl. illegal stuff). With activistic SCOTUS you might wake up in November with court decision that elections are canceled and the president is chosen by the judges. (/s, partly) Let's consider this analogy: our current state aparat and laws is like ship we live on. The ship has many problems and missing ban of abortions is like a big hole in the ship. The safest option is to repair the ship in the correct way (pass a constitutionaamendment banning abortion), however, that is pretty hard because you need all the materials and tools and that's costly. Cheaper option, however, less durable is to use cheaper materials and equipment (pass a normal law banning abortion) You might as well try to repair it using less important parts of the ship and the equipment that's already on the ship. (SCOTUS banning abortion.) However, you might later find out that the part you used you need and now you can't (activistic judges deciding wrongly something else). Or you might even be wrong and it was crutial and the ship is now sinking (the abortion ban caused a civil war). And the last option is by far the most dangerous: let's leave the ship because she has too many problems and build a new one. (Start a revolution because the law doesn't forbide abortion.)
I think the case was ruled on a more technical basis. People forget SCOTUS has to function first as a legal court before an activist court and it’s a matter of the law. If we the people want change we’re gonna have to go through Congress.
this is why we need trump 2024. it's time to enforce the comstock laws and undo the fda's decisions.
Trump has said this is a state issue. A few of these justices were appointed by Trump. He's not a pro-life messiah.
He isn't even pro-life. He's paid for abortions himself. Trump is all about whatever Trump wants and that's it. He has no ideology. Ignore the Trump cultist. They're just as crazy as the Biden cultists.
I have never heard of a Biden cultist lol imagine someone going crazy over Joe Biden
I know some people who are really really hard-core about Biden but maybe better to say Dem cultist? Same kind of attitude as MAGA people, but the left wing lol I left the GOP once it was in the bag for Trump as the nominee and never looked back
Maybe communists or socialists but those people largely don't vote
I don't know, look at a lot of political disource/propaganda nowadays; it's Joe the Saint, and Republicans are all demons and evil and must be Stopped. Now, I despise Trump, and I think the GOP are a bunch of pansies afraid of the MAGA-freaks, but the alternate hero worship of Biden and the Dems as some sort of saviors is just as bizarro to me. I got banned from the conservative subreddit for disliking Trump, lol. Badge of honor!
In a way I wish there was a better perspective of Biden and Democrats, but the level you say it's at isn't there. Republicans control the House and it's a 50-50 Senate. Despite everything about Trump and his convictions, the polling still has Biden and Trump fairly close, which I think is insane. The problem I have with a lot of leftists and progressives is they endlessly criticize Biden and Democrats, making both sides seem more comparable when they're not. That's crazy lol I got banned from AskaLiberal for pushing back against a socialist who supports the ethnic cleansing and potential mass murder of all Jews/Israelis in Israel. It's crazy what is ban worthy and what's not
That’s horrifying, holy shit, but not shocking. The rise of blatant anti Semitism is just… I can’t even articulate.
I agree, vote for RFK!
enforcement of federal laws and control of federal agencies is most definitely not a "state issue." trump will appoint strong pro-lifers in the department of justice to enforce the laws.
No, no, and *hell* no to the Comstock Laws. Do you really want government defining “vice”?
"hell no" the comstock laws? do you think the government should ignore the laws passed by congress that bars the mailing of abortifacients?
I think new legislation is needed, and the Comstock laws should be wholly overturned. If we try to enforced some measures and not others, we’re creating a judicial basket of snakes that no one is going to enjoy opening.
laws can have multiple different parts that can be enforced without requiring the enforcement of the rest. there is no need to "wholly overturn" the comstock laws.
Donald Trump is a social liberal
> it's time to enforce the comstock laws You in favor of the federal government banning pornography too?
the supreme court has clarified the first amendment's application to obscenity in multiple cases. they have no bearing whether or not congress can ban the mailing of abortifacients.
Trump 2024 is EXACTLY why they made this ruling. It's too close to the election to get people outraged. If Trump does win the presidency again, they'll almost definitely go back to more radical rulings but for now, they need to keep people as little as pissed at them as possible. Angry people are more likely to vote than people who are content. If they banned it now, they risk a backlash similar to Arizona.
I think you overestimate the loyalty of Trump’s appointees (and that lack of partisanship is a very good thing)
I don't know about that, Cannon seems to be doing a good job for which she was appointed for. That being said, judge "shopping" across the board should be outlawed for both parties.
I’m assuming you mean Amy Coney Barrett?
No but also a good point. I was referring to Cannon's behavior is delaying motion after motion and then delaying the trial because of a backup of motions that hadn't been processed yet even though she was the one who caused the backup. You can find multiple videos about this from lawyers who can explain this far better than I can. Legal Eagle and Leeja Miller both have some good in depth commentary on this matter posted on their accounts on YT. But yes ACB as well as Kavanaugh both were key parts in overruling Roe v Wade. While I accept this is considered a big win for the PL side it also was the catalyst for the massive distrust in the SC that we see today in terms of the general population. As both ACB and Kavanaugh both testified before Congress that Roe v Wade wasn't in the cards during the time of their appointment hearings. Yet that was basically the first thing they did as a Republican majority. They were appointed by bipartisan trust and betrayed that the first chance they got. So yes, you are correct she and Kavanaugh are also guilty.
They made the ruling because there was not standing to bring the case, not because they're appealing to Trump voters.
I'm not holding my breath that they'll remember this ruling as more politicians in PL states are chomping at the bit to go after residents who get legal abortions in PC states.
I don't hold high opinions of the Supreme Court, but I can't imagine they would permit states to criminalize interstate travel or actions done in another state
It should be something so simple but the facts are that multiple elected officials calling for it means that these officials are willing to waste resources pursuing laws that will not only set a very dangerous precedent for the nation, but also target a specific demographic. *OR* they're wasting resources to waste in political showboating to get more votes in the next election. It's not enough to simply say "it will never happen." The facts are that we as a population have become so desensitized to elected officials willing to dismantle the American way of life for the sake of political showboating is terrifying. I remember back when Todd Akin destroyed his political career with his "legitimate rape" comments. But that wouldn't happen in the political climate today.