SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

1
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The court’s order sets up a showdown over abortion, probably in the fall, with a more conservative court seemingly ready to dramatically alter nearly 50 years of rulings on abortion rights.

The court first announced a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and reaffirmed it 19 years later.

The case involves a Mississippi law that would prohibit abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. The state’s ban had been blocked by lower courts as inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent that protects a woman’s right to obtain an abortion before the fetus can survive outside her womb.

The justices had put off action on the case for several months. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion-rights proponent, died just before the court’s new term began in October. Her replacement, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is the most open opponent of abortion rights to join the court in decades.

Barrett is one of three appointees of former President Donald Trump on the Supreme Court. The other two, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, voted in dissent last year to allow Louisiana to enforce restrictions on doctors that could have closed two of the state’s three abortion clinics.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Ginsburg and the other three liberal justices, said the restrictions were virtually identical to a Texas law the court struck down in 2016.

But that majority no longer exists, even if Roberts, hardly an abortion-rights supporter in his more than 15 years on the court, sides with the more liberal justices.

The Mississippi law was enacted in 2018, but was blocked after a federal court challenge. The state’s only abortion clinic remains open. The owner has said the clinic does abortions up to 16 weeks.

The case is separate from a fight over laws enacted by Mississippi and other states that would ban most abortions as early as six weeks — when a fetal heartbeat may be detected.

A central question in the case is about viability — whether a fetus can survive outside the woman at 15 weeks. The clinic presented evidence that viability is impossible at 15 weeks, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the state “conceded that it had identified no medical evidence that a fetus would be viable at 15 weeks.”

The Mississippi law would allow exceptions to the 15-week ban in cases of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. Doctors found in violation of the ban would face mandatory suspension or revocation of their medical license.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 1f341c9f5a
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

4
And to hell with Griswold as well. "There's no Constitutional right to privacy" they've been falsely touting for 48 years.
Yet unless the right to privacy, like the right to breathe, isn't inherent in the Bill of Rights, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, then the ENTIRE Bill of Rights makes no sense at all. Every.Single.Amendment in the BoR makes little to no sense without an IMPLICIT right to privacy--to be left alone by the govt.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

5
The 4th is explicitly about a right to privacy. Limits on search presuppose privacy rights, just as limits on seizure presuppose personal property rights. And they're all about privacy, as long as it applies to offshore accounts, tax filings, and donations to superpacs.

The problem here is that there is an extremely tenuous relationship between abortion and privacy. We're lucky that medical science has progressed a great deal in the past half-century, but I still expect a horrific outcome.

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

6
Since the party of "get the government out of people's lives" has decided that it will INSIST on getting into the lives of pregnant people and their families with their (usually religion-based) BS arguments about "sanctity of life" when they routinely chant "death to abortion doctors,"

Yeah, they make almost that much sense to me, too.

I LOATHE gynoticians.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

7
The Supreme Court’s Monday decision to reconsider the right to an abortion drags President Joe Biden into an incendiary political fight that will loom large heading into the mid-term election.

As a presidential candidate, Biden largely stayed quiet on the issue while Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and other Democratic contenders took the lead in putting forward sweeping abortion rights policy platforms. He conceded when pressed, however, that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide should be written into federal law and the longtime ban on federal funding for abortion should be abolished.

But by placing the issue front and center, the high court immediately forces his administration to reconsider its measured strategy that’s largely consisted of rolling back Trump-era policies on reproductive rights and appointing some vocal abortion rights supporters to key federal health jobs.

Pressed Monday about how the administration will respond to the court’s taking up Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the administration is “committed to codifying” Roe but declined to say how such legislation could get through an almost evenly divided Congress.

Psaki’s response is in line with the administration’s general reticence on the subject. In his first 100 days in office, Biden rolled back restrictions on abortion pills, reversed restrictions on funding Planned Parenthood and overseas groups that provide abortion referrals and removed hurdles to medical research that uses fetal tissue obtained from abortions.
The abortion fight even hangs over Biden’s forthcoming fiscal 2022 budget. Progressive advocacy groups are pressing Biden to get rid of the long-standing ban on federal funding for abortion, stressing that the right to an abortion is “meaningless” for many low-income people around the country who are barred from using Medicaid to pay for the procedure.
The Supreme Court won’t hear the Mississippi case until the fall, and any decision likely would not come down until the following spring or summer during the run-up to the 2022 midterms.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/1 ... ght-489218


There are six Catholic justices on SCOTUS; Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Sotomayor wouldn't vote to restrict Roe and Roberts would be the swing vote, he's antiabortion but how far would he go to restrict it.


There has been some drama playing out over the last few weeks among the reactionary/traditionalist wing of US Catholic bishops and the moderate/progressive wing. The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles Jose Gomez a reactionary is president of the US bishops' conference. At their meeting next month he planned on having the bishops vote on a draft document denying communion to politicians who are pro-choice like Biden and Pelosi and many others.

The Catholic archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone issued a pastoral letter supporting denial of communion to Catholic politicians like Biden. A few days later the Catholic bishop of San Diego Robert McElroy wrote an essay for the magazine America stating,
The Eucharist is being weaponized for political ends. This must not happen.
The proposal to exclude pro-choice Catholic political leaders from the Eucharist will bring tremendously destructive consequences.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2 ... ops-240596

Then the Vatican stepped in, the head of the doctrinal agency Cardinal Luis Ladaria wrote a letter to Gomez on the draft document.
Ladaria, in his letter, said any new policy “requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.”

Even then, Ladaria advised, the bishops should seek unanimous support within their ranks for any national policy, lest it become “a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”

Ladaria made several other points that could complicate the plans of bishops pressing for tough action:

— He said any new statement should not be limited to Catholic political leaders but broadened to encompass all churchgoing Catholics in regard to their worthiness to receive Communion.

— He questioned the USCCB policy identifying abortion as “the preeminent” moral issue, saying it would be misleading if any new document “were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.”

— He said that if the U.S. bishops pursue a new policy, they should confer with bishops’ conferences in other countries “both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”

— He said any new policy could not override the authority of individual bishops to make decisions on who can receive Communion in their dioceses. Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches in the archdiocese.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/1 ... lic-486791

Getting unanimous agreement from the bishops is impossible and ultimately the Vatican wouldn't approve of a ban. Another defeat for the reactionaries.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

8
FrontSight wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:44 am Stacked court, I think women's rights are about to take a big hit.
In spite of the 3 new, trumpista kids on the court, opining about 'precedent', I think for those backward states..east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line..plus a few others like texASS, are going to put the squeeze on women's rights. Hopefully the GOPathetic hear about it at the polls.

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

11
Without the filibuster issues like abortion would be legal when the WH and Congress were held by Democrats and illegal when Republicans control the trifecta. Same with gun rights.

It already happens with federal regulations.
In his first 100 days in office, Biden rolled back restrictions on abortion pills, reversed restrictions on funding Planned Parenthood and overseas groups that provide abortion referrals and removed hurdles to medical research that uses fetal tissue obtained from abortions.
When a Republican president takes office they will all be reversed and become illegal, it's gone on for years and years.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

12
Most federal regulations - the ones delegated by Congress to be written by specialized executive-branch agencies like FAA, EPA, NHTSA - process is important. Timelines for public comment and review, that sort of thing. The last administration lost the vast majority of their regulatory challenges because they couldn't be bothered to follow procedure in their rush to placate the boss.

It's easier for Biden to defend systematic reversals because they can demonstrate systematic malfeasance by their predecessors. Reverting to Obama-era regulations and interpretations is on sound legal ground because those followed the book.

Abortion isn't popular, but the right to have one has much stronger support. It's the majority-of-a-majority problem. 26% of the electorate can control policy - or limit it - in a strictly partisan system. Since the electorate is smaller than the census count, it's even worse than it looks. Replaceable oligarchies suck.

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

13
highdesert wrote:
The Supreme Court’s Monday decision to reconsider the right to an abortion drags President Joe Biden into an incendiary political fight that will loom large heading into the mid-term election.

As a presidential candidate, Biden largely stayed quiet on the issue while Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and other Democratic contenders took the lead in putting forward sweeping abortion rights policy platforms. He conceded when pressed, however, that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide should be written into federal law and the longtime ban on federal funding for abortion should be abolished.

But by placing the issue front and center, the high court immediately forces his administration to reconsider its measured strategy that’s largely consisted of rolling back Trump-era policies on reproductive rights and appointing some vocal abortion rights supporters to key federal health jobs.

Pressed Monday about how the administration will respond to the court’s taking up Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the administration is “committed to codifying” Roe but declined to say how such legislation could get through an almost evenly divided Congress.

Psaki’s response is in line with the administration’s general reticence on the subject. In his first 100 days in office, Biden rolled back restrictions on abortion pills, reversed restrictions on funding Planned Parenthood and overseas groups that provide abortion referrals and removed hurdles to medical research that uses fetal tissue obtained from abortions.
The abortion fight even hangs over Biden’s forthcoming fiscal 2022 budget. Progressive advocacy groups are pressing Biden to get rid of the long-standing ban on federal funding for abortion, stressing that the right to an abortion is “meaningless” for many low-income people around the country who are barred from using Medicaid to pay for the procedure.
The Supreme Court won’t hear the Mississippi case until the fall, and any decision likely would not come down until the following spring or summer during the run-up to the 2022 midterms.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/1 ... ght-489218


There are six Catholic justices on SCOTUS; Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Sotomayor wouldn't vote to restrict Roe and Roberts would be the swing vote, he's antiabortion but how far would he go to restrict it.


There has been some drama playing out over the last few weeks among the reactionary/traditionalist wing of US Catholic bishops and the moderate/progressive wing. The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles Jose Gomez a reactionary is president of the US bishops' conference. At their meeting next month he planned on having the bishops vote on a draft document denying communion to politicians who are pro-choice like Biden and Pelosi and many others.

The Catholic archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone issued a pastoral letter supporting denial of communion to Catholic politicians like Biden. A few days later the Catholic bishop of San Diego Robert McElroy wrote an essay for the magazine America stating,
The Eucharist is being weaponized for political ends. This must not happen.
The proposal to exclude pro-choice Catholic political leaders from the Eucharist will bring tremendously destructive consequences.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2 ... ops-240596

Then the Vatican stepped in, the head of the doctrinal agency Cardinal Luis Ladaria wrote a letter to Gomez on the draft document.
Ladaria, in his letter, said any new policy “requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.”

Even then, Ladaria advised, the bishops should seek unanimous support within their ranks for any national policy, lest it become “a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”

Ladaria made several other points that could complicate the plans of bishops pressing for tough action:

— He said any new statement should not be limited to Catholic political leaders but broadened to encompass all churchgoing Catholics in regard to their worthiness to receive Communion.

— He questioned the USCCB policy identifying abortion as “the preeminent” moral issue, saying it would be misleading if any new document “were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.”

— He said that if the U.S. bishops pursue a new policy, they should confer with bishops’ conferences in other countries “both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”

— He said any new policy could not override the authority of individual bishops to make decisions on who can receive Communion in their dioceses. Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches in the archdiocese.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/1 ... lic-486791

Getting unanimous agreement from the bishops is impossible and ultimately the Vatican wouldn't approve of a ban. Another defeat for the reactionaries.
Stuff like this (and the child molestation cover-up) is why I left the Catholic Church (and I got divorced, lol) I became Catholic “light” (ie Episcopal) which is much more inline with my values. I’m pretty much non- practicing now. All my relatives who are still Catholic are pro-choice dems - or as I call them “cafeteria” Catholics.

But sheesh. I was also educated in a Jesuit university, and the education commitment of the Jesuits is extraordinary—- but the jesuits are a “liberal order.”

The Catholic Church does not change rapidly. I seriously wish the best for it & I thought Pope Francis was a positive direction for the church ... but even he is welded to an old order world view. I wish they would focus on the teachings of Jesus and eliminating poverty.


I’m not so sure RvW will be vastly changed. Roberts has shown to be a center right Chief Justice that is worried above all else of his legacy, and not wanting his jurisprudence overturned by future courts. I think he will be very moderate. Who can say about crazy Clarence “long dong silver”Thomas, Kavenuagh or the handmaiden.


I could go on on this topic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

14
At the end of the day, the Constitution and federal law are clear - citizenship starts no earlier than birth. We damn well should have codified Roe in 2009, rather than trust in the consistency of the Court. But it will be far easier for the Supremes to kick it back as a states rights issue than to invent a justification for a wholesale ban.

I'm sitting here expecting a wholesale ban. Makes me shudder.

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

15
INVICTVS138 wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 7:41 pm There has been some drama playing out over the last few weeks among the reactionary/traditionalist wing of US Catholic bishops and the moderate/progressive wing. The Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles Jose Gomez a reactionary is president of the US bishops' conference. At their meeting next month he planned on having the bishops vote on a draft document denying communion to politicians who are pro-choice like Biden and Pelosi and many others.

The Catholic archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone issued a pastoral letter supporting denial of communion to Catholic politicians like Biden. A few days later the Catholic bishop of San Diego Robert McElroy wrote an essay for the magazine America stating,
The Eucharist is being weaponized for political ends. This must not happen.
The proposal to exclude pro-choice Catholic political leaders from the Eucharist will bring tremendously destructive consequences.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2 ... ops-240596

Then the Vatican stepped in, the head of the doctrinal agency Cardinal Luis Ladaria wrote a letter to Gomez on the draft document.
Ladaria, in his letter, said any new policy “requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.”

Even then, Ladaria advised, the bishops should seek unanimous support within their ranks for any national policy, lest it become “a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”

Ladaria made several other points that could complicate the plans of bishops pressing for tough action:

— He said any new statement should not be limited to Catholic political leaders but broadened to encompass all churchgoing Catholics in regard to their worthiness to receive Communion.

— He questioned the USCCB policy identifying abortion as “the preeminent” moral issue, saying it would be misleading if any new document “were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.”

— He said that if the U.S. bishops pursue a new policy, they should confer with bishops’ conferences in other countries “both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”

— He said any new policy could not override the authority of individual bishops to make decisions on who can receive Communion in their dioceses. Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., has made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches in the archdiocese.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/1 ... lic-486791

Getting unanimous agreement from the bishops is impossible and ultimately the Vatican wouldn't approve of a ban. Another defeat for the reactionaries.
Stuff like this (and the child molestation cover-up) is why I left the Catholic Church (and I got divorced, lol) I became Catholic “light” (ie Episcopal) which is much more inline with my values. I’m pretty much non- practicing now. All my relatives who are still Catholic are pro-choice dems - or as I call them “cafeteria” Catholics.

But sheesh. I was also educated in a Jesuit university, and the education commitment of the Jesuits is extraordinary—- but the jesuits are a “liberal order.”

The Catholic Church does not change rapidly. I seriously wish the best for it & I thought Pope Francis was a positive direction for the church ... but even he is welded to an old order world view. I wish they would focus on the teachings of Jesus and eliminating poverty.


I’m not so sure RvW will be vastly changed. Roberts has shown to be a center right Chief Justice that is worried above all else of his legacy, and not wanting his jurisprudence overturned by future courts. I think he will be very moderate. Who can say about crazy Clarence “long dong silver”Thomas, Kavenuagh or the handmaiden.


I could go on on this topic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]


You're right, the Catholic Church moves at glacial speed. Under JP II and Ben XVI, the reactionaries/traditionalists held power, but with Pope Francis it came to an end and they haven't adjusted well to it. Francis is a Jesuit as is Cardinal Ladaria, Gomez the head of the US bishops conference in this drama is a member of the ultra conservative Opus Dei. Yes the Jesuits are big in education in the US they own 28 colleges and universities and many more around the world.

I agree I don't think SCOTUS will overturn Roe but allow more state restrictions, we'll know sometime next year.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS accepts a major abortion case for next term

17
Here's a twist.

The Satanic Temple has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division alleging that certain state-mandated abortion restrictions violate TST members' religious beliefs.

--snip--

TST spokesperson Lucien Greaves says, "I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states, will be proud to see that Texas's robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion."
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/texas-lawsuit

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests