That’s a huge IF that I don’t think will ever come to light.
Again, just because it might effect other things doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be overturned for being a shit decision with no constitutional backing and playing legislature.
2 Likes
If the “precedent” was set by Roe V Wade and then it is overturned, any case that used the precedent can be called into question.
My wife is pretty level headed and understands the judicial process having recently taken the class dealing with this exact thing.
1 Like
Can be - doesn’t mean it will be.
That is awesome.
I’ve been practicing for 10 years and I still don’t really know shit 
.
1 Like
You think all fetuses magically become viable at EXACTLY 22 weeks? You don’t think some of them may be viable at 20 or 21? If so, is it ok to kill them because they are outliers?
1 Like
Fair enough I was unfamiliar with your background. Shame on me for making assumptions. Wife is finishing year 2 today. One more tough year to get through.
I feel the same in engineering. Been at if for over 10 years and still don’t know shit.
2 Likes
No worries man.
I will say with our current political climate and divisiveness the chance for idiocy is at an all time high, so I may be too optimistic.
1 Like
Apologize if you answered this upthread:
Do you think this leak greatly undermines the integrity of the court?
1 Like
Don’t we still have HIPAA to ensure medical privacy though?
Not like the govt ever gave a shit about privacy regardless though. They’d rather we have none, as evidenced by the Patriot Act and Stellar Winds.
1 Like
I am not well versed enough to comment that intelligently.
I will say it is interesting that the “right leaning” justices who should be for personal privacy were ready to move on this overturn.
Overall, I agree with your assessment that privacy is almost non-existent anyway. Hell, we all carry personal trackers in our pocket.
2 Likes
Yes, yes I do.
The timing couldn’t be more suspect either.
2 Likes
FWIW, my wife is a very progressive, sjw type. I am a good ways right of her. When she first went through roe vs Wade in law school she cringed at how shaky the legal ground is and how big of a leap she thought the ruling made. I was shocked at how understanding she was when this draft ruling came out.
3 Likes
I don’t think their decision has anything to do with privacy as that was a faulty designation to provide a “right to abortion” in the first place.
This was more a federalism issue where the issue should stay with the states or Congress to address.
Very true. From what I understand, health is supposed to be up to individual states (based on the constitution).
It’s known that even the bastion of the left, RBG, questioned the validity of the decision.
1 Like
Some don’t become viable till 30 months. But, there has to be a line in the sand, and so we use best available info to inform decisions and the general consensus in the medical establishment is 22 weeks.
When in doubt, err on the side of the mom because we know for certain she is a life.
I think if you remove emotions from it and detach from the issue on that level and put your lawyer hat on - that is the conclusion anyone would come to. Just from a purely legal and constitutional grounds.
That really is my main crux with it and why I am not surprised that it is being overturned. I don’t morally agree with abortion, but I don’t think government should limit it personally. The government definitely is in no place to be the arbiter of morality.
I have a handful of close female friends from law school that are FAR left compared to me and they completely agree with your wife’s understanding of it.
Agreed.
Where I disagree with you is that it is not liberal alarmism to think the GOP and “the right” is now targeting contraception, ivf, and gay marriage in some states using this ruling as the basis for their strategy. It’s already being publicly discussed by senators and legal strategies are being workshopped and cases are being filed. It’s a big concern, and would be extremely unfortunate for residents of those affected states.
The Bible seems to be okay with abortion in the case of infidelity. In fact it lays out a whole procedure for it. See Numbers 5:12-31 KJV.
Well considering the official Court opinion isn’t even out yet - filing cases with it as a basis is not possible, yet.
I agree there might be concern in some states in small pockets, but attempting to mess with gay marriage mostly anywhere I think would be political suicide.
I have more concern on the IVF and contraception fallout, particularly IVF.
My take on this is both involving killing, but only one is considered murder. Killing isn’t always illegal, murder is. Killing can be justified, and legal, and currently the interpretation of the 14th in Roe gives women justification (right to privacy / bodily autonomy) to kill their unborn.
That logic just doesn’t compute with me.
So, depending on who does the killing decides if it is murder or not.
The only justification for intentional killing not to be murder is self-defense, which is clearly outlined as a right. I get what you are saying - it just seems like some extreme logical gymnastics.
1 Like