Dobbs v. Jackson: Understanding the Post-Roe Landscape | Petrie-Flom Center

[@peterkotchev7802]

Thank you Harvard Law School for making such an informative panel open to the public.

[@NicholasMendez-e1m]

Can you make more videos like this, with a panel of experts, and maybe cover cases on the different topics on the MBE. (Covering the precedent and the Post-Case landscape) What a great video, thank you Harvard! This is so beneficial for me as I am on the journey to take the bar, the non-traditional route because I'm unable to even apply to somewhere like Harvard because of my life circumstances. Thank you!

[@NicholasMendez-e1m]

one thing I took away from this, was a consideration that ideally should be apart of these judgments; Accessibility I can't even imagine all of the possibility and restrictions for people that might now even have the ability to access help in these situation. It's a bummer that the Justices tried to discredit everything before Dobbs too.

[@Stud_muffin]

As I recall from school, America largely split from England, to escape religious persecution. Britain has/had "state religion" and if you didn't follow that religion, you were persecuted. I believe Northern Ireland was an example of this and why they tried to be independent or split away from England. I grant that I am simplifying here, taxes and self-governing certainly was part of it, but religion was a major part. In America you could be Quaker, Catholic, Lutheran, etc., or no religion at all and were allowed to follow your beliefs or lack of them. Religion or separation of Church and State was reason for prayer to be removed from public schools. When R v W was overturned, Alito cited the views of the colonies in the 1700s and 1800s, as the reason to allow it to be overturned. So how is it that states are now removing that separation in all things, starting with abortion and contriceptive bans, ie, forced values of religions regardless of the people of that state's views on religion? It should not matter if the views are in the minority. Is this not a form of religious persecution, since states are also planning to procecute?

[@gopher7691]

There is nothing in the constitution about abortion in the constitution. That is why SCOTUS returned its regulation to the states. Religion had absolutely nothing to do with it

[@gopher7691]

According to the science of embryology the embryo/fetus is a human being at an early stage of development. So a human being is killed in an abortion. That is not a religious view, it is a scientific one. Many atheists and agnostics oppose abortion because they trust the science and don’t want it legal to kill a human being just because it is inconvenient People of religious faith oppose abortion because they oppose murder, just like non religious people do. It is not dogma but science and civilized morality that drives the pro life movement. It is quite similar to the abolition movement

[@charlesjenner1951]

I don't understand your position: Removing the legal protection of a right by case law does not at all mean that the right cannot be asserted in a local or federal law. If there was religious persecution, the Supreme Court would simply have said that the human person from the moment of conception enjoys the protection of the constitution as if he or she were born (which would be the position of some Christian denominations or whatever). On the contrary, it is these particular believers who have been persecuted in their belief since Roe vs. Wade although they were not persecuted before (when the states legislated on this subject). This misunderstanding (mine) explains quite well the increasing violence and radicalization that has taken place in the political debate over the last 50 years, in the U.S. or in Europe

[@gopher7691]

Charles Jenner the federal government has no authority to regulate abortion. It is strictly a state police power Congress can no more nullify state abortion law than it can nullify a state burglary law

[@cocoaddams4502]

Roe v. Wade wasn't decided based on any religious grounds. At least, not overtly. The underpinning of the fight against Roe v. Wade, however, has been supported by extremely conservative religious groups. Not just conservative -- rigidly conservative. Religious groups who believe women's roles should be confined to bearing children, men make all the decisions because God speaks thru them, spare the rod, spoil the child, white people are superior, etc. These groups have very deep pockets and fervent believers who have been increasingly feeling threatened. There's an organization called the Federalist Society which espouses many of these ideas. About 20 years ago they came up with a plan to start putting very, very conservative justices on benches across the country. They started small by paying the tuition for promising conservative law students. Law students become judges. What we're seeing now is all that work and money paying off.

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you all.

[@honorandspite]

I've been listening to several pre and post Dobbs decision discussions on KZbin. I find them useful and it's good to learn from calm, rational people I don't agree with. I appreciate how this program brought up the abolitionist movement, and I believe that to remain legally and logically consistent, prosecution of, and punishment of women who obtain an abortion is just and proper. Another thing I noticed in this program, is the frequent and nauseating use of the term "pregnant people/persons". It's Women. Expectant mothers.

[@RebeccaColmanettiMartinez]

Lawrence, thank you. I've had to do a bit of scrolling to get past the idiocy but I've reached your comment and I'm thankful to God to read some sense and reason. I wonder if you noticed also that the murderer here on the panel (the OB/GYN) slipped up on a couple occasions referring to women as women (before alsmost frantically correcting herself) and later the use of "she" before "they" and the insulting "he" as well.

[@dwade3kingbosh]

How do you have so many Ivy League lawyers, researchers, and instructors in a video all saying "pregnant people/persons"? Do you mean pregnant women?? Our esteemed scholastic institutions are screwed

[@crankypants9960]

Grow up 😬

[@dwade3kingbosh]

@@crankypants9960 I did grow up. I grew up in what's called reality. These people in the video may want to join the rest of us in it

[@scepticalbeliever]

Yeah I thought it was supposed to be about "women's rights".

[@americanbookdragon]

It includes pregnant children, who are not women, but girls.

[@scepticalbeliever]

@@americanbookdragon why not say female then? Sounds to me like they don't want to offend anyone

[@charlesmorley9690]

IS THERE A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS??

[@alirezadavarpanah2797]

It was really useful, I used it ...

[@susanlatta8445]

Noting others complaints about Harvard's unbalanced panel.. kind of like the unbalanced SCOTUS,, which we've already heard from?

[@RebeccaColmanettiMartinez]

Liberal justices have had the Court for decades. Roe permitted murder of preborn children. Harvard has the freedom to be biased, but they shouldn't make themselves off as if they're not--as if they're a diverse group of free thinkers. They're not. The Court had noted at many points, Scalia in particular comes to mind, that the Court is not fully representative of all the interests that exists. This is clear. We should also hope that this is the case. Why? Because we have standards, for instance, of education, experience, commitment, etc. We have expectations. Here Harvard has chosen to ignore, neglect, and forget conservatives, to say that approving of murder is the normal and one and only acceptable opinion. Moreover, other beliefs are quite evident, despite even the OB/GYN murderer here slipping up at least a couple times in referring to women as women rather than the insulting "pregnant persons/people" that we've recently begun hearing with more frequency.

[@cocoaddams4502]

Absolutely chilling descripition of what will happen to women with ectopic pregnancies. They''re all going to die. All of them.

[@gopher7691]

All abortion laws make exceptions if moms life is in danger. As usual you are wrong

[@teevee5884]

@@gopher7691 yes, but the laws aren't clear. Many doctors are confused and may delay medical care to these woman on fear of being charged with a felony.

[@gopher7691]

@@teevee5884 so lobby your legislature to clarify the law

[@gopher7691]

@@teevee5884 can you give an example?

[@gopher7691]

Tee Vee doctors should think twice before they slaughter an unborn human being in the womb Doctors are supposed to heal, not kill. A doctor who performs an abortion just because the pregnant woman would be inconvenienced by having a baby is violating his oath as far as I’m concerned

[@kylefontenot5937]

I wish there could have been an agreement that maybe allowed for medical abortion and stopped inconsistencies with defining “viability” because while I’m pro choice as Roe intended, I think a compromise that many actually wouldn’t oppose would be such. 15 weeks is almost 4 months and I think that’s reasonable.

[@kylefontenot5937]

It also is important and the court should have stated that in cases of rape, incest, harm to the mother, or in cases when a fetus born is brain dead and won’t function or we know will pass in just months should have all been included because as one judge told a 12 year old girl I believe, “consider this an opportunity.” Disgusting. But at the same time if justices believe a fetus to be a human life and therefore under normal circumstances abortion is considered murder or a crime, it would implicate that the unborn child of a rapist is less important than that of a consensual birth. So I can see reasoning from that line but a simple, clearly defined 15 week ban i think would have been most appropriate. Also, I wonder what this means for things like Plan B. Will some states consider Plan B an abortion because you’ve got 72 hours to terminate a possible pregnancy? Note “possible”, but still. I think it’s important to understand that far right advocates may be against this even though it’s for a possible pregnancy. Contraception comes into play as well, because is that abortion? Thinning the uteral wall or other ways contraception works may be considered abortion so the court needed to be clearer because this raises just as many questions as the hotly debated definition of “viability” Also, I believe in South Dakota a bill is trying to be passed where a man may murder his wife or partner if she is purposely seeking an abortion. I think that’s absurd but it’s already in legislation sadly

[@RebeccaColmanettiMartinez]

The Court returned the question to the states to decide with their constituents. Several stated have codified Roe into state law such as Proposition 1 did for California, and others like Texas have enacted a state-wide ban. In essence, Dobbs said to each their own. Putting aside the fact that abortion (by all medical and biological definitions) murders a child, the Court was quite clear that Roberts' position (the one you have just expressed-- of why there can't simply be a line drawn at fifteen weeks) cannot stand. The Court said as much for the following reasons. First of all, challenges would ensue from pro-lifers for the protection of the preborn at the gestational age of fourteen weeks, thirteen weeks, and so on. When should the Court say it's enough? Second, the three trimester framework established by Blackman was self-confessed to be 'dicta' (see Library of Congress Papers), an insanely significant admission. Not only this, but he was clear that if it could be proven that the fetus was indeed a living being, the Fourteenth Amendment would have to be invoked in favor of its protections. Third, what is the legal and medical justification for such an arbitrary line? How would the Court go about proving this? Fourth, but certainly not finally, Respondent Julie Rikelman (correct me if I'm wrong) in the Oral argument (viewable on Oyez.org) said there were "no half measures" --that the Court had to uphold Roe and Casey or overturn it in it's entirety.

[@MidnightRambler]

great news,pass a law or allow the states to decide

[@FarberBob678]

Such an unbalanced panel. Not one of them are willing to support or defend either the Dobbs decision or the anti-abortion movement in general. Hearing both sides of an issue is the best way to actually educate yourself.

[@enriquesanchez9016]

And the Supreme Court is extremely unbalanced as well but of course you don't care about that.

[@FarberBob678]

​@@enriquesanchez9016 The supreme court being unbalanced doesn't mean this panel also has to be unbalanced. Of course I am very concerned about the balance of the supreme court. Even though SCOTUS has six conservatives, it also has three liberals. That's not at all a balanced supreme court by any measure, but at least the left and right are both represented.

[@Uberqueenbee]

Guerilla pharmacy. I would certainly promote that to provide contraceptives. Would donate as well.

[@gopher7691]

Thomas is right. Any decision based on substantive due process should be overturned

[@crankypants9960]

Why is that?

[@gopher7691]

Crankypants well because procedural guarantees don’t have substantive content. All it promises is fair procedure before the state can execute you, incarcerate you, or fine you. It doesn’t have any thing about the substance of the law The due process shouldn’t be a blank slate into which unscrupulous justices like Blackmun, Kennedy, Breyer can write in their wet dream radical left wing policy preferences That’s why.

[@gopher7691]

Crankypants substantive due process gave us the Dred Scott decision. That should be reason enough to reject it as a valid method of constitutional analysis. Yet justices persist in doing it. It gives them power that they otherwise wouldn’t have. It’s too tempting for them

[@gopher7691]

Crankypants that’s why it must be resisted whenever it is encountered

[@hoangly8557]

Not right but ig I can't stop your KKK movement bud

[@arunavadasgupta2147]

Inspite of That Community People Don't Get Lesson

[@ImBABYJANEHUDSON]

Very unbalanced panel. Come on, you can do better than that.

[@crankypants9960]

Why would you say they’re unbalanced?

[@ImBABYJANEHUDSON]

@@crankypants9960 I learned a lot about the pro-choice stance. I learned nothing about the other side. Other panels, I've watched have managed to include at least one pro-life perspective.

[@americanbookdragon]

@@ImBABYJANEHUDSON And what does a pro-life person have to add other than fake reassurances and stanch moral platitudes about murder?

[@hoangly8557]

Judaism defines that human life starts at birth. How about that? Jewish cultures also have abortions to protect the life of the mother. Taking away choice clearly violates Equal Protection. Those who argue on the "pro-life" side are clearly butthurt that their views aren't valued more than others in a pro-choice view.

[@gopher7691]

@@americanbookdragon yes thou shalt not kill is just a platitude. Sophisticated people can’t be bothered with such moralizing when they are busy killing unborn human beings, excuse me, terminating a pregnancy

[@gopher7691]

Couldn’t Harvard find someone to defend Dobbs on this panel?

[@arunavadasgupta2147]

Member International Court of justice Peace place Hague Netherland

[@ravindertalwar553]

CONGRATULATIONS 👏 AND LOVE 💓

[@WilliamBrothers]

So in layman's terms: how did something this "extreme" happen on the Court, limiting access to abortion will impact women negatively (but no mention of the unborn now having a chance to live), and this is what we can do for abortionists moving forward. It sounds like this discussion was more of a social narrative response that was upset with the case decision rather than what this honestly means for both sides of the argument

[@dbeazrn3934]

I love living in a Constitutional Republic in which the rights of an individual is protected rather than be governed by mob rule. May God bless our beloved Republic.

[@Everything3DCreation]

Dobbs v. Jackson seems to have been written by a 13-year-old, one that is mostly clueless about the law. The court that approved of Roe v Wade was a super majority conservative court as it is now. And it was their opinion that women's bodily rights was in the constitution along with all the rights constructed on that theory. Dobbs v. Jackson has violated the constitution, in that they made a fetus equal to the woman herself. Therefore, turned the female into a slave to be in servitude to the fetus which is strictly forbidden by the 13th Amendment. It has made rape of a woman legal because a human has the right to be inside a woman without consent. A rapist can now use Dobbs v. Jackson as proof of his right to rape a female.

[@gopher7691]

I don’t think you read Dobbs. All it does is return abortion regulation to the states. It did so because there is nothing in the constitution about abortion, explicitly or implicitly. Now if you think it should be legal for a pregnant woman to slaughter the unborn human being in her womb you will have to convince your state legislature to pass such a law

[@banardadams8776]

This is so far from the truth it’s sad

[@gopher7691]

@@banardadams8776 thanks for explaining how I’m wrong

[@banardadams8776]

@@gopher7691 There’s so much wrong with your logic I’d take so much, but to start even RGB wasn’t fond of the reasoning in Roe vs Wade because she knew it wasn’t a strong argument grounded in the constitution. Whether or not the court was conservative is completely irrelevant. “It has made rape of a woman legal,” is so completely far from the truth it’s quite frightening someone believes that. You yourself haven’t explained how it does that and all SCOTUS did was give the power to the states and in extremely controversial topics such as abortion, that is the best thing.

[@gopher7691]

@@banardadams8776 I think you are responding to the wrong gopher. I agree with you

[@therationalanarchist]

Finally common sense from the court.

[@joemcmurtrey1]

Wow, just a panel criticizing the judgement and conservative judges. Sad.

[@soccer21928]

If you’re going to call the pro-life side “anti-abortion” you should be consistent and call yourself “anti-life”.

[@crankypants9960]

Someone’s feelings are hurt.

[@soccer21928]

@@crankypants9960 why would my feelings be hurt? We won remember 😂😆

[@justherefor]

@@soccer21928 it's not anti life when there's a choice.

[@soccer21928]

@@justherefor the baby getting murdered never gets a choice, do they?

[@gopher7691]

@@justherefor can I choose to kill my infant daughter? These child support payments are really cramping my style

[@Davidgrinstead1]

Such bull. Have a conservative in this discussion.