Dobbs

@sh76
The dissent also worth a read...

The Constitution protects travel and speech and interstate commerce, so today’s ruling will give rise to a host of new constitutional questions. Far from removing the Court from the abortion issue, the majority puts the Court at the center of the coming interjurisdictional abortion wars.” Id., at ___ (draft, at 1). In short, the majority does not save judges from unwieldy tests or extricate them from the sphere of controversy. To the contrary, it discards a known, workable, and predictable standard in favor of something novel and probably far more complicated. It forces the Court to wade further into hotly contested issues, including moral and philosophical
ones, that the majority criticizes Roe and Casey for addressing.

@wildgrass said
Yeah we discussed viability in another thread. I agree that it set a reasonable standard for states to follow.

The new standard of letting states decide on the question of "WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?" will be a complete mess, I think. Abortion clinics lined up on the border of Texas like liquor stores.

@averagejoe1 said
Of course it will be a mess, because it will Never be resolved.....that is, 'when life begins'. Think of the time and money and sweat and black eyes that will be exhausted over the years, with never any end.

@wildgrass said
It ended 50 years ago, drawing a reasonable line at viability. Now we gotta deal with it all over again. As quoted in the dissenting opinion above, the Dobbs decision "... discards a known, workable, and predictable standard in favor of something novel and probably far more complicated."

@averagejoe1 said
No,no,no.....by my saying that it will never end, I meant the discussion about when a baby is a baby. That is the subject of my sentence, what is your subject?

@sh76 said
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).

Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.

I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.

As fa ...[text shortened]... ed in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.

It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.

@mghrn55 said
It is amusing that those who are deepest into the debate about when a fetus becomes a baby are those with less than the minimum of biological background.

If you are against abortion, you will move that line back.
And the line moves forward if you are for it.

So where each debater in this forum (where I expect there are very professionals in the field) draws that line is driven by something else.

@mott-the-hoople said
the scotus job was to rule on the constitution regarding this, not to rule on personal feelings, plain and simple, abortion is not addressed in the constitution, scotus doesnt possess the power to allow abortion, they returned it to the states where that power does exist Besides that point, the scotus didnt ban anything.

And further more, dems could have made this law themselves, they didnt, they rather try to use it to score political points

@mott-the-hoople said
pregnancy is a process where human life is started, death is where human life stops. shall we start killing of the old people that are a burden on their families?

@no1marauder said
When are you going to get it through your thick head that a right doesn't have to be "addressed" in the Constitution to be protected?

The Constitution says so (though it wouldn't matter if it didn't).

@averagejoe1 said
No,no,no.....by my saying that it will never end, I meant the discussion about when a baby is a baby. That is the subject of my sentence, what is your subject?

@mott-the-hoople said
idiot

"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

@no1marauder said
Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

@vivify said
The whole point was to set a precedent for future decisions. By establishing this precedent they can now overrule decisions like gay marriage or contraception rights. Thomas, in his opinion, said SCOTUS decisions like Lawrence v Texas should be "reconsidered".

This terrible ruling was deliberate and politically motivated.

@mott-the-hoople said
idiot

"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."