SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge to Mississippi Abortion Law
The Mississippi law bans abortions after 15 weeks. SCOTUS precedent doesn’t allow states to ban abortions before fetal viability, which is considered 24 weeks.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which asks if “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”
The case involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. It brought the case against Thomas Dobbs, the State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the law. SCOTUS precedent does not allow states to ban abortion before fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks.
Mississipi wants the justices to reexamine the accepted viability timeframe:
In the case, Mississippi is asking the justices to reexamine that viability standard. The state argued that the viability rule prevented states from adequately defending maternal health and potential life.
“It is well past time for the Court to revisit the wisdom of the viability bright-line rule,” Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote in a brief filed with the justices.
Babies born at 22 or 23 weeks can survive with “experienced specialists in state-of-the-art NICUs.” It’s a slim chance, but a chance:
For babies born at 23 weeks or earlier who do survive, the odds of significant complications and/or lasting disabilities are much higher than for those that stay in the womb a few weeks longer.
A 2015 study showed that babies born at 22 weeks may also have a small chance at survival, but death or serious health issues have an even higher probability of occurring.
Also, note that according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, babies born before 23 weeks have a survival rate of just 5% to 6%. Of those that do survive, 98% to 100% have substantial complications and/or disability.
A pregnant woman can feel her baby move around 13-16 weeks. Around that time the movement feels more like a flutter, but she still feels the baby move. It becomes more pronounced around 20 weeks.
A pregnant woman can also find out the sex of her baby as early as 14 weeks. The ultrasound is generally taken between 18-21 weeks, but still, she can find out at 14 weeks. Maybe even earlier if she chooses to take the amino test to find out if the baby has any disorders.
More importantly, you can detect the baby’s heartbeat at six weeks via ultrasound.
Anyway, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization presents an opportunity for the three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump.
However, I’ve noticed that SCOTUS justices take the easy way out by claiming they have to follow precedence despite science proving life begins at conception and a baby can survive at 22 weeks.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Is the so-called conservative majority on SCOTUS a fact or is it a fable? Perhaps this case will reveal the truth. Or not.
Can they abort the baby a.k.a. fetus (to socially distance), cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too? That is the question.
Do they follow The Constitution, a consensus of laws for the People and our Posterity, acknowledge the Declaration: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (without diversity including ageism), or are they socially progressive and subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion, the wicked solution? That, too, is the question.
Yes, that, too, is the question. And the answer to your question will give me the answer to my question.
Their religion: Pro-Choice, dictates that the wicked solution is an ethical choice to relieve the “burden”, the feminist and masculinist choice is to keep women appointed, available, and taxable, and they rely on technical terms of art (e.g. fetus) to socially distance themselves from their victim. The answer, for at least a minority of the population, is clearly yes. However, a larger population will go along to get along, take a knee, a la “good Germans”.
I expect that their opinions will be nuanced, likely more conservative than before Trump, but not on every issue.
I hope, but do not expect, for Justice Delivered.
Unfortunately, liberalization or divergence, is a historically established, seemingly unavoidable, progression in even the most enlightened societies. As for conservativism: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, provides a viable foundation for sustainable and successful development.
Fable
This SCOTUS is a champion dodgeball team. Expect nothing to be resolved either way from these fools whom Christ would spew from his mouth, so to speak. Regardless, the only necessary pro-life law to be passed and then defended in Court–but never will be because the RINO Party is actually glad that the poor and stupid are killing their own spawn–is to acknowledge that a fetus at the moment of conception is a literal alive human being. SCOTUS has never identified the moment when “life” begins. It dodges with terms like “viability.” And no state legislature has ever had the guts to assign humanity to a fetus either. Doing so would confer all natural rights to a fetus, and SCOTUS would then either have to agree and outlaw abortion OR rule that human life begins at some other point. Either would make for some interesting and long-overdue societal upheaval.
“the RINO Party is actually glad that the poor and stupid are killing their own spawn”
—–
If I weren’t independent, I’d be that kind of “RINO.”
Neural tube closure and the beginning of fetal brain wave activity circa week 7. That should be the standard IMO.
“SCOTUS justices take the easy way out by claiming they have to follow precedence despite science proving life begins at conception and a baby can survive at 22 weeks.”
Justice Roger B. Taney, please call your office. The Supreme Court has been serially plagiarizing the Dred Scott decision.
Indeed, a legal standard that codifies obsolete medical capabilities is bad law, period.
Conservatives, be careful what you wish for. If the Supremes overturn Roe v Wade and the red states pass bans, there will be a backlash at the grass roots. There is a significant cohort of voters who don’t like abortion at all, but who don’t think it’s the government’s business.
The Roe framework was a well-crafted compromise, allowing states to ban late-term abortions unless the mother’s health or life is at stake. Conservatives are on solid ground, IMO, in opposing the radical “abortion until delivery” doctrine pushed by the “progressives.” That goes way too far, and I support conservative opposition.
Here’s the problem, and it’s one for both sides. Someone(s) have a principled view of an issue, with solid support. They are unwilling to take “yes” for an answer, partly because for some of their group, the principled view is just the opening. We see it most commonly on the left, but with abortion it’s both sides doing this.
The Kavanaugh circus was all about the “progressives” and their radicalism on abortion. The newer laws in MS and TX, to be followed by other states, are the embodiment of “pro life” absolutism. This sort of thing was captured well by Eric Hoffer’s “True Believer,” a ’50s-era amateur political science tract that I criticized in an upper-level undergrad poli sci class — yet really loved despite its flaws.
Another impetus toward purism is what I’d call “micro-institutionalism.” You see it all the time from “activists” who have become accustomed to their paychecks and their righteousness. An example that I’m more familiar with would be the LGBTQIABCDEFG activists who cannot take “yes” for an answer because to do so would mean getting on with their lives.
I am in my 60s and have been gay forever, and was married after the 2015 Supreme Court decision. I could give a college-level lecture on the post-WW2 gay rights movement in America, and am here to tell anyone that today’s environment is day compared to night. The vast majority of gay people only want to live our lives in freedom — nothing more, nothing less.
We got what we pursued for 67 years following Kinsey’s 1948 book, “Sexual Bhavior in the Human Male.” To put it mildly, it wasn’t easy. And suddenly, really out of nowhere that I can tell, the transgenders were grafted on, and now we have activists equating objections with bigotry. I could go on, but suffice to say that I mightily disapprove, and have the research to show why.
But where would the Human Rights Campaign be without the Ts? So I get these e-mails trying to scare money out of me. I think the same thing is going on with “Pro-Life Inc.” and their push to overturn Roe and make abortion illegal. All I can say is this: “Be careful what you wish for.”
To put it more succinctly, while I do not share the “pro-life” position on abortion prior to the third trimester, I respect the principle behind it while not agreeing with it. Kids, in the end, you will not succeed in outlawing abortion. But you might succeed in triggering a voter backlash that will keep the Rs out of power for a long time, and in places that will shock you.
I’m only one guy, a price-taker in financial market terms. All I can do is watch while other people lose their equillibrium and push too far. We shall see how it goes.
I certainly agree with the principle points you raise. There is a tendency to try and claim, on both sides, that the issues are simple and reduce to yes or no. It seems like we have common ground in that I take the gradualist view where pre third trimester the choice is (relatively trivial) and after should be undertaken for good medical reasons. As time goes on the reasoning for abortion needs to be more robust in my view.
You’re not keeping good company there, crank.
@healthguyfsu
You mean random crank can actually make an argument based on reason.
Maybe when you come up with some reasons for something you support I might agree with you
In other words you argue that there is no unalienable right to life, or that this government wasn’t instituted to secure that right. When there are no longer enough people that pledge to support that declaration with their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, would someone please turn off the lights.
In other words, I argue that I am not a purist. The rest would be you lying about me. Fanatics will do that, be they leftwing liars or, like you, rightwing liars. Congrats, True Believer.
So not being a “purist” would mean what? Some human beings are endowed with an unalienable right to life? John C. Calhoun, in his Oregon Speech, argued that some men were created equal, others, unfortunately were not. 3800 Americans were killed in the Revolutionary War and 365,000 were killed in the Civil War because they believed “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life. They were certainly some true believing, purists.
Not being a purist means that I’m not a suicidal fanatic like you.
@ALPAPilot
The right to life entails personhood otherwise it’s too broadly applicable. Additionally there are exceptions in certain circumstances as you are well aware otherwise you are arguing that accidental or otherwise killing someone in self defence is unacceptable for example. Or indeed that by extension unfettered access to guns is not acceptable. I’m not sure that’s something you are wanting to argue.
The principle is reconciliation. Personhood is a fluid criteria (e.g. planned parent/hood).
There are four choices. The Pro-Choice religion denies human rights for the sake of social, political, economic, and medical progress.
Guns are not an issue until they are used to take human life (e.g. Ashli Babbitt) for light and casual causes.
@ n.n
Dissecting each point
1) The principle is reconcilation
Reconcile what exactly? Be specific because as it stands this doesnt make a whole lot of sense.
2) Personhood is fluid
In manner of speaking, that’s reflective of it being very difficult to establish when personhood is. Philosophers have debated what that entails for a long time and there isn’t an easy answer to it. Its especially difficult for a fetus.
3) Four choices you mention four choices a lot yet have never actually stated what they are and what relevance they have?
4) Pro choice religion
Ironic since the pro choice position is based on philosophical argumentation whereas the pro life position is typically linked to the Catholic position.
5) Sake of political, economic and medical progress
This makes no sense, no pro choice advocates use any of these criteria to justify abortion. The main justification are bodily autonomy and personhood.
6) Guns are not an issue
You are missing the point i made which is the logic advocated by ALPAPilot means that having a broader right to life necessarily entails having a consistent position across a broad spectrum of issues. If you cant justify an abortion of a fetus how can you justify other exceptions?
I merely point out that your arguments contradict the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The response? Only name calling. These are the judgments of great men.
Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. Frederick Douglass
But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. Abraham Lincoln.
The American dream: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, without diversity (e.g. color judgment including racism, sexism, ageism).
There is ZERO chance that Roe or Casey will be overruled. The fatal defect in the Mississippi ban is right here.
Discovery concluded and the Clinic moved for summary judgment. The Clinic submitted evidence that viability is medically impossible at 15 weeks LMP. The State conceded that it had identified no medical evidence that a fetus would be viable at 15 weeks. It also conceded that the Act bans abortions for some women prior to viability. Still, the State opposed summary judgment because the Act “merely limits the time frame” in which women must decide to have an abortion and because the Supreme Court has left unanswered whether Mississippi’s asserted state interests can justify the Act.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs (5th Cir. 2019) 945 F.3d 265, 270, cert. granted in part sub nom. DOBBS, MS HEALTH OFFICER, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH, ET AL. (U.S., May 17, 2021, No. 19-1392) 2021 WL 1951792
The State conceded there is no medical or scientific basis for a ban at fifteen weeks. That is fatal to the States case.
Yes, the baby, he or she is not independently viable at 15 weeks, and premature extraction will likely abort her life. This is knowledge that all women and men possess beforehand. Viability is both a technical apology to rationalize the Pro-Choice religious doctrine and the feminist and masculinist’s compelling excuse to keep women appointed, available, and taxable.
“The State conceded there is no medical or scientific basis for a ban at fifteen weeks. That is fatal to the States case.”
That is incorrect. They conceded that a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks with current medical capabilities, but argue that the viability age has lowered since Roe and could likely be lowered further in the future. In addition they raised other issues regarding the increased risk to the Mother beyond 15 weeks and the growing understanding of the pain experienced by the child.
Also, the Court has limited itself to only considering the following question: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”
Seems to me that this sets up a small modification to the current standard which will allow restrictions on abortion at earlier time in a pregnancy.
You are partly right, understanding of pain has increased but the two threads are that a) that feeling of pain isn’t like ours since the brain hasn’t developed until 24 weeks and b) pain relief is viable for the fetus. From the literature I’ve read it’s circa 18 weeks when it would be considered ethical to provide pain relief.
You are certainly right that viability is earlier now but there is still a great deal of risk in terms of disability to the baby once born.
The baby, fetus for technicians and abortionists to socially distance themselves, from conception to birth, remains viable until a natural or elective abortion, including premature extraction for purposes of social or medical progress. Her nervous system develops from around four weeks following conception. The Pro-Choice “ethical or relativistic” religion avoids reconciliation.
If as I’ve told you fetus is a technical term. The viability is increasingly unlikely the earlier you get. Previously 24 weeks was considered the earliest reasonable viability, that’s clearly changed slightly as medicine improves. Im not sure exactly but 22 weeks sounds about right.
If you think a 4 week embryo (its not even a fetus at that stage) is viable then you really are out of touch with the scientific literature.
Still don’t know what you mean by reconciliation in this context.
If life begins at the 3rd or 2nd trimester or at the detection of a fetal heart beat, it is only logical that it begins at conception. Anything other than at conception is just arbitrary and a rationalization. I doubt the US will ever eliminate abortion but the “right” to such in Roe v Wade was an illegitimate contrivance that has nothing to do with the rights outlined in the Constitution
Yes, this exactly.
Abortion will likely not ever be outlawed but restrictions are necessary and right. But at the state level.
And public opinion is evolving in that direction. The hearts and minds are changing. It’s the science.
The science does not support banning abortions. Nor does it go as far as you suggest by any stretch.
That’s right. Science is merely a near-domain philosophy and practice to characterize our world. Elective abortion (e.g. reproductive rite, planned parent/hood), human rights, individual dignity, intrinsic value of human life, is a religious (e.g. moral, ethical) choice.
Carried to the extreme, one could argue that allowing any egg to go unfertilized is the same as abortion.
A more nuanced approach is to say that we can only properly raise a limited number of children, that being the case, we want to raise the best that we produce.
Raising an extremely premature baby denies other children their due.
In the end, I think that this is solely each family’s personal business. We have too much government.
No, that’s a popular strawman and handmade tale. The goal is to acknowledge science, acknowledge a woman and man’s agency, mitigate progressive corruption through shared responsibility schemes, reject aborting human life for medical progress and profit, and reconcile to affirm human and civil (excluding the Twilight Amendment) rights. There are four choices. Planned Parent/hood, the Pro-Choice religion, the wicked solution, denies all points.
“SCOTUS precedent does not allow states to ban abortion before fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks.” Shouldn’t that sentence read, “SCOTUS precedent does not allow states to ban abortion before birth”?
Yes, while slavery and diversity were original sins, elective abortion is a progressive sin. The precedents once made, are difficult to overturn. Rejecting the Twilight Amendment (i.e. penumbras and emanations), not limited to legalizing reproductive rites, is the first step; but, normalization (e.g. social progress) has consequences. Baby… fetal steps.
It would seem to me the crux of the case isn’t at what point an unborn child becomes viable outside its mother’s womb, but whether viability is what we should use to mark the point at which we stop killing unborn babies. Moral issues aside, viability is a moving target medically.
Viability is not just an attribute of the individual, but of the individual and its environment together. A fetus is perfectly viable in the womb at any stage of gestation. A healthy adult would be highly non-viable floating in the middle of an ocean. For a very short time.
A large percentage of pregnancies spontainously abort. If the fetus was viable, that would not happen.
Spontaneous abortion happens. It is Her choice. An act of Gaia. The issue is elective abortion or her choice to abort a viable human life for social progress (i.e. light and casual causes). To keep women appointed, available, and taxable.
Viability and mortality are two very different things.
How old are you, 14?
Yes, you have to be immature to recognize the four choices, a woman’s agency, and still subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion.
What a douchebag comment.
Roberts and Kavanaugh will side with the lefties.
Most babies are perfectly viable if left alone in the womb. I t depends on what you call viable. All born babies would die without care for several years.