#planned parenthood vs. casey

[thenib]

Mattie Lubchansky.

#mattie lubchansky #joe biden #roe v wade #casey vs planned parenthood

[youjustgotlawyered]

The overwhelming majority of abortions are obtained in the 1st trimester.

Per the CDC, in 2019, 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤ 9 weeks gestation. 92.7% at ≤ than 13 weeks. Help stop the spread of misinformation.

#lawblr #the real lawblr #abortion rights #abortion #roe versus wade #roe v wade #casey vs planned parenthood #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #scotus #stop the spread of misinformation #signal boost #boost #healthcare

[entomjinx-reblogs]

I'm mentioning this because not enough people are: Roe vs Wade wasn't just about abortion rights. It's about the right to privacy between you and medical professionals. It was the basis for HIPAA. Your medical history is now at risk to be accessible and sold to anyone who wants it.

So even if you're a part of the pro-life crowd, or someone without a uterus, you are also affected by the overturn of Roe vs Wade. Everyone in America lost part of their right to privacy.

Not enough people are acknowledging this and speaking about it. They're only looking at the fact that abortion is now illegal in several states. While that is a major issue and set back for the people of this country, the rest of what we have lost cannot be overlooked.

#roe versus wade #planned parenthood vs casey #pro choice #america #signal boost #important #the HIPAA act would have to be overturned for people to have access to your records #but with the basis being overturned that will be much easier than you think #that's why their next targets are Obergefell Lawrence and Griswold #they also have connections to Roe vs Wade as well as the 14th amendment #so it's just one big domino effect

[im-a-sokka-for-you-ooh]

NINE PEOPLE HAVING THIS MUCH POWER OVER A POPULATION THIS SIZE CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVER MAKE SENSE TO ME!!

#abolish the supreme court #roe v wade #casey vs planned parenthood #codifyroevwade #codifycaseyvpp

[in-finitesuns]

free abortions, no explanations or apologies needed. fuck anyone who says that they’re not pro-abortion. it’s time to be pro-abortion. not just in cases of rape or incest or sexual assault. we should be able to get abortions without conditions.

and if you walk away from this with the message to, uh, VOTE HARDER or to EXPAND THE SUPREME COURT, 1) tell me why you still think the supreme court is a legitimate organization, and 2) tell me when to go vote for supreme court justices.

#roe versus wade #casey vs planned parenthood

[thisjudasofabody]

#abortion #roe versus wade #supreme court #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #planned parenthood #planned parenthood vs casey

[misalpav]

y'all the american constitution was written in 1787 at a time when:

women were seen as property

women couldn't be represented in the government

POCs were seen as property

POCs couldn't be represented in the government

same-sex marriage was banned in this country

so forgive me if I don't give a flying fuck what old, white, self-entitled men had to say 235 years ago about my rights with my body

I'm sorry I'm venting after a not-so-entertaining conversation with someone ik irl

#abortion #abortion access #abortion rights #constitution #american constitution #united states of america #america #united states #roe v. wade #roe vs. wade #roe v wade #roe versus wade #roe v casey #planned parenthood v. casey #scotus #supreme court #law #human rights #feminism #planned parenthood #shri's posts: politics #american politics #politics #usa politics

[chickawah23]

Codifying Roe vs. Wade would've needed majority support to pass the judicial review, which is not something the Dems have. Even executive orders from the President need to pass a judicial review before it can be acted upon.

I have no love for the establishment or the Democratic party, but codifying Roe vs. Wade was never a viable possibility because too many Alt/Far-Left voters put maintaining their idealogical purity over ensuring a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, I'm saying this as a Progressive D voter myself.

I’m going to put this on the growing disdain for bipartisanship in todays day and age.

Roe was decided in 1973. Planned Parenthood v. Case was decided in 1992. Democrats have had control of the senate and house on 10 occasions since roe. 4 of them with dem presidents. 2 of which were after Casey.

[awutar]

Yep endorses its commitment to the right to abortion with new notification after Roe vs. Wade

Yep endorses its commitment to the right to abortion with new notification after Roe vs. Wade

The Yep application presented this Tuesday a new notification to your users for Crisis Pregnancy Centers that clearly distinguishes them from clinics that provide abortion services. Following the decision of the Supreme Court of annul Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the ability to access safe abortion care has become more limited for millions of women in the US, making access to…

View On WordPress

[isaiahbie]

Does Viability Determine Personhood?

Among the criteria that have been proposed to exclude unborn human beings from having the status of “person” or bearer of a right to life—and thus justify killing them by abortion—one of the least defensible, it seems to me, is viability. I’m not aware of any thoughtful pro-choice advocate who defend viability as the point at which a developing human being acquires a right to life. In fact, distinguished pro-abortion philosophers such as Michael Tooley and Peter Singer have shown that the viability criterion is clearly “untenable” (Singer’s word).¹

But the view that viability is the standard for fetal personhood is common. Maybe this is because of Roe vs. Wade. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe vs. Wade, and reaffirmed in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, that viability is the point at which the State first has a serious interest in protecting the life of a developing human being. (That doesn’t mean post-viability abortions can be prohibited under the Court’s rulings. The post-viability “health” exception, detailed in Doe vs. Bolton, is so broad that virtually any reason is sufficient to justify an abortion late in pregnancy; the effect is that abortion on demand is permitted throughout the entirety of pregnancy.)

Why is viability so relevant? Here is the Court’s entire argument, in its 1992 Casey vs. Planned Parenthood ruling (decided by a 5-4 vote):

“Viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman.”²

That’s it. As Francis Beckwith writes, this is fallacious:

“For the Court to make its argument valid, it would have to add to its factual premise [the fact of fetal nonviability through roughly the first six months of pregnancy] the normative premise: whenever a human being cannot live on its own because it uniquely depends on another human being for its physical existence, it is permissible for the second human being to kill the first to rid the second of the burden.”³

That controversial view was assumed (not argued for) by the Court in both Roe and Casey. So American abortion policy—and all the unborn human lives sacrificed because of it—hinged on an unmentioned, undefended moral assumption by five philosophically-untutored (clearly) lawyers.

Problems with the viability criterion are not difficult to find. “Viability” is determined not just by the physical maturity of the fetus, but by the current state of medical technology, what facilities and resources are available, and the skill of doctors. That’s why the typical point of viability has moved earlier in pregnancy as medical technology has advanced. But if viability determines personhood, then one’s basic rights depend on the technology and doctors available, and those rights can be gained or lost depending on the circumstances or time period one finds oneself in (e.g., a developing-world country). That is absurd.

A conjoined twin depends entirely on the body of another for survival, but no one suggests that she is not a person who merits full respect. Further, we are all “nonviable” relative to our environment. Writes Beckwith: “If any one of us were to be placed naked on the moon or the earth’s North Pole, we would quickly become aware of our nonviability. Therefore, the unborn prior to the time she can live outside her mother’s womb is as nonviable in relation to her environment as we are nonviable in relation to ours.”⁴

Ultimately, viability is a measurement of dependency on other people and things. But we are all dependent (on other people and things) to varying, and often-changing, degrees. So dependency seems a shaky basis for determining whether someone has the right not to be killed. It seems more accurate to say that the dependency and vulnerability of some members of the human family impart on us a special obligation toward them—not a justification for killing them! The viability criterion has it backwards.

Notes:

¹ Peter Singer, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, St. Martin’s Press, 1994, p. 102. ² Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). ³ Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 37. ⁴ Ibid., p. 36.

[thewarfox]

You're probably too much of a little bitch to answer this but how come all pro lifers are so conditional about which life is worth protecting? Are the lives of women who've had abortions sacred? The lives of people who offend your delicate sensibilities? If you can actually come up with a reasonable argument I'll shut up. And probably still disagree with you.

You ask a lot! I do appreciate that you place so much faith in me that, despite your skepticism that somehow I'll be the one to change your mind.

I hope you'll understand that I'm not really pro-life though. I'm more of a practical person than that. I'd prefer to not see a child-abuser live, for instance, even though realistically they might reform someday and try to atone for their actions. I'm no Christian, though, so perhaps I'm just vengeful like that.

I'm a student of history. I have learned that prohibitions are generally a bad idea, as we've seen with alcohol, and are currently seeing with various kinds of drugs. I may prefer, for instance, that no abortions happened, but I recognize that even if illegal, some will happen anyway. In general, as a more Moderate sort of person, I prefer compromises that everyone can live with over something more absolute. At the end of the day, I'd accept a compromise that allows for abortion in limited circumstances, within a limited timeframe(and most people land in some level of this range), as long as the practice is not unnecessarily widespread.

With the logic that, illegal or not, abortions will happen, I'd prefer they were 'Safe, Legal, and Rare', over what they have become today. And that's one of the things people seem to be missing, is that people like me were uneasily accepting of the compromises of Roe v Wade. The problems really mounted when it came to Casey vs Planned Parenthood, which pushed Roe past the point of uneasy compromise, which made the practice permissible way past a certain point, and much more widespread than I think is reasonable.

There have been States across the USA, where abortion had been legalized even after birth, where freshly born children were allowed to die without ever knowing the touch of their mother. Rare though that is, I recognize that, but early-term abortions used to be rare too. I shudder at the idea of a future where such a post-birth practice became commonplace. I think any doctor or mother that allowed for such a thing to happen should be jailed at the very least.

There is a point where something is too permissible. Where more damage is done in its unrestricted allowance than if it were prohibited altogether. We don't allow for people to drive drunk, for instance, or high. These inebriations CAN be done safely, without endangering others. Abortion cannot. Someone is dying when an abortion is performed successfully. A person's life is ended. They'll never know what it's like to take a breath, or hold someone's hand. They'll never fall in love, or have children of their own. Perhaps they had a rotten future ahead of them! Maybe they would suffer. Maybe they would see hardship. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think if their life is to be ended, they should at least have some say in it. It shouldn't be someone else's decision, or be put in someone else's hands.

I would rather there were no abortions. This is true. I was willing to live with the compromises of Roe v Wade. Pro-Deathers pushed things too far. They asked for too much. They took a practice that should be awful, unpleasant, and done regretfully and tried to wash it clean of any negativity. They refused to recognize that the babies being aborted were people. They denied them that basic dignity. 'Just a clump of cells' is a common and abhorrent refrain. I think if an innocent life is to be taken you should do the basic courtesy of recognizing they were a person who deserved life. See them buried at least, as any other. Be remorseful over what was done. Don't celebrate it. Don't revel in it.

But that's not what Pro-Deathers did, now is it? They stripped these innocents of their humanity. They indoctrinated women into thinking the unborn are 'parasites', that they'll 'ruin their future', that they will 'end your career', and 'ruin their body'. They treated such a consequential procedure as little more than having a blemish treated, or a little bit of gel injected to plump your skin. Harmless. Hardly anything at all. That's the kind of thing the Nazis did to the Jews. Clinical extermination. Justifications of how much better things would be without the people they were killing. People coming out the other side with unjustly clean consciences.

If I have a choice between a world where a baby isn't recognized as a person until some arbitrary point post-birth, or a world where a baby is recognized at conception, then I choose the latter. I would have accepted a world where abortions were rare, done with regret, and treated the child with at least some basic human dignity. Pro-Deathers pushed well beyond that though. They've deluded mothers into things, of ending lives. Often gleefully. Too often with only worry about their own futures. Very often in support of oppressing vulnerable populations.

I ask you, if you were to die, would you be okay with being snuffed out without a trace? With no one remembering you? With your very humanity being stripped away? Would you at least like for people to have given you a name? To have a thought thrown your way on the anniversary of your death? It's not asking for that much, is it? Perhaps you'd like your mother to apologize to you for it, on occasion. Just a little recognition of the unfair thing that was done to you.

If I have to choose between a mother who did an awful thing with sorrow and regret, or a mother who did an awful thing with relief and a smile on her face, I will choose the former. I'm sick of this infantilizing of women, like they didn't have choices. Contraceptives have been around for a long time now. Condoms, IUDs, the Pill, and still other methods of preventing pregnancy exist. You can choose to use them or not. Abortions should be for emergencies, like a victim of rape(and even then I'd prefer at least considering letting the innocent child live, but a compromise is acceptable), or some rare illness that will kill the mother. They shouldn't be a replacement for basic contraception.

And just like I would hold men to account for their decisions to have sex, to have them support their child, I don't think it's unreasonable to do the same for women as well. They made a choice to have sex. We live in a world where we know the consequences of that. We've made abundantly available methods to prevent pregnancy. Women aren't fucking children who are too stupid to understand the consequences of their own actions. I think it's fucking disgusting for a child to die because its mother made a 'mistake' in judgement. If men are expected to take responsibility for their actions, to support their children, then women can take responsibility too. It takes two to tango. Stop treating women like children. Compromise was possible. It was an uneasy thing, but it was possible.

Now it's up to the States to decide. Now it's up to the people, instead of some detached court that created law when it had no place to. The balance of power has been righted. The people can choose, in their own states, what to allow and not allow. People can move to states that suit their values, as it should always have been. That's the whole fucking point of the USA, a coalition of states with different values that work together for their common interest.

And just like how I look with disgust at countries like Saudi Arabia, who throw gays from rooftops, I will look with disgust at states where babies are allowed to cry on a tabletop until they die cold and alone. You can have your consequence-free abortions in your state. I will lobby for the basic human dignity of the unborn in mine. Just like I am willing to consider compromises, I hope you will consider the same. You stated I had little hope of changing your mind, and I grieve for that, but know that if you were aborted, I would have been upset on your behalf too.

#abortion #roe vs. wade #states rights #compassion #pro life #anon answered

[mundolatinomedia]

OPINIÓN: Crece la tensión en Estados Unidos rumbo a las elecciones de medio término - Los Angeles Times

OPINIÓN: Crece la tensión en Estados Unidos rumbo a las elecciones de medio término – Los Angeles Times

Por Gregorio A. Meraz Especial para LA Times en Español Estados Unidos está inmerso en una creciente y peligrosa tensión en víspera de las elecciones de medio término luego que la nueva mayoría ultraconservadora de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación revocó la decisión Roe Vs. Wade, que legalizó el aborto durante 49 años y el caso Planned Parenthood Vs. Casey. Esta medida, permite la…

View On WordPress

[youjustgotlawyered]

Listening to Chemerinsky speak about abortion post-Dobbs:

#lawblr #the real lawblr #roe versus wade #roe vs. wade #casey vs planned parenthood #abortion rights #abortion #reproductive rights #reproductive freedom #this is the worst #I knew all this but still not great hearing it from him #constitutional law #stare decisis #the office

[loulou1943]

Joe Biden spoke Friday in response to the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health, in which the court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The speech was heavy on outrage, but light on truthfulness. Here are a few of Biden’s worst whoppers. Claim 1: “Today the Supreme Court of the United States […]

[conformalcycliccosmology]

Echo chambers

Vedo sui social che tanti si affrettano a commentare ideologicamente la sentenza della Corte Suprema americana, sull'onda di quello che leggono sui giornali che fanno parte della loro echo chamber -  scritti da giornalisti che non hanno neanche letto la sentenza, ma hanno semplicemente espresso la loro solita opinione ideologicamente orientata. Per chi vuole sapere ciò che è veramente successo, la sentenza della corte è qui; se non volete leggervi le intere 213 pagine, leggete almeno le prime 8. Quello che dice la corte suprema, è ben più del semplice dirimere un conflitto d'attribuzione tra stato federale e singoli stati. La sentenza "Roe vs. Wade", e ancor più la " Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. vs. Casey" avevano introdotto nella giurisprudenza statunitense il concetto che il diritto all'aborto fosse un diritto naturale dell'essere umano di sesso femminile, in quanto legato strettamente al concetto di liberà dell'individuo, e pertanto fosse automaticamente protetto dalla Costituzione, del cui rispetto è tutrice e guardiana l'Unione. Rovesciando tali pronunciamenti, la corte suprema ha affermato che tale diritto non fa parte dei diritti legati alla libertà dell'individuo, e pertanto non sia da considerarsi costituzionalmente garantito. Solo in conseguenza di ciò, la legislazione in materia è diventata di attribuzione dei governi eletti dei singoli stati. Questo è il punto centrale: il diritto all'aborto è un diritto naturale dell'individuo, da garantire costituzionalmente, oppure no ? Io personalmente non ho una risposta.

#roe vs. wade #abortion #echo chamber

[thisjudasofabody]

#abortion #roe versus wade #dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization #supreme court #planned parenthood vs casey #planned parenthood