One of the reasons SCOTUS ruled in 1973 that a woman can pursue an abortion based on privacy issues:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. — Roe, 410 U.S. at 153
Why would they change now? Is it a change in the leanings of the court?
OR
Is it related to vaccine mandates? Can I argue that I don't want to take the vaccine and use Roe v Wade as the legal basis?...unless the SCOTUS weakens this ruling.
OP: you worded it perfectly! Thank you for your effort!
For those reading through this thread: First of all: Scotus did not make abortion legal. This idea must be put of out our heads for good! Because it shows your bias.
What SCOTUS did was ACKNOWLEDGE freedom to be the basis of choice as it had been for hundreds of years in our societies within the first semester!
Here is a high resolution encyclopedia: the first edition of the Brittanica:
https://digital.nls.uk/encyclopaedia-britannica/archive/144133900
My choices made in liberty are not your goddamn business, nor the State's business. However, and here is where things went off the rails:
Argument 2 was a slippery slope, as medical prowess improves over time, turning this issue into a medical debate instead of a moral one. Hence the Texas law, prohibiting abortion beyond 6 weeks.
Argument 1 is spurious at best. The States prime directive is to be a bullwark against abuses of law to impede the rights of the people.
This had a couple of consequences. The abortion lobby and planned parenthood, and the outgrowth towards a disgusting practice. The governments being in the middle of it, thanks to taxpayer money support.
As I have argued before, those that do not want an abortion, for whatever reason, are not forced to have one. Those that want one, are able to get one, provided they pay for it themselves, or with the help of private support groups. This has been standard practice under common law for AGES.
It is a private matter, not a state's matter.
This is whatever freedom argument from the Constitution you want to use comes down to.
I think it was 2 or 3 years ago, a guy refused to pay taxes until such time this government funding was scuttled. He was ruled to be right in court.
To halt the abuse the right remedy has to be employed.
Excellent information. Thanks for sharing. You must be a JD.
Nope. I am merely reading, thinking, assessing and concluding. But here are some basics to think about:
Find the definition and etymology of the word: Lawyer.
The basis of right(Law) is freedom. The basis of legal is servitude.
What is the trivium and the quadrivium.
Study it, use it.
Generally, the court has made the decision, then looked for reasoning to support it. In Roe v. Wade, they first decided to make abortion legal, then looked for a way to tie it to a constitutional right.
Big reason for the push for the Equal Rights Amendment was that everyone knew the reasoning in Roe v. Wade was stupid. The term "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution. The term used in the 4th Amendment is "right to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable search and seizure."
At no time did the 4th Amendment mean that something was legal because it went on behind closed doors.
There's a weirdness to the decision, because the liberal justices never saw a baby they didn't want to abort, but it's probably not about vaccines. If they decide to rule we have to take the vaccine, they'll rule that way and damn precedent.
Very interesting angle. Sacrifice Roe to push the vaccine passport.
Was this the cabal plan all along or a white hat strategy to give liberals a common ground with us?
The SC made no ruling on this case. Instead they let it sit there till the clock ran out, so the Texas law went into effect as scheduled. This also means they were totally silent about their thinking in this matter.