U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

The U.S. Supreme Court hears the oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case concerning the constitutionality of Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. www.c-span.org...
00:51 - Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart begins argument.
45:11 -Julie Rikelman, Center for Reproductive Rights Senior Director, begins argument.
1:24:35 - U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar begins argument.
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org...
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org... Download our App www.c-span.org... C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service. Subscribe to our KZbin channel: / cspan Follow us: Facebook: / cspan Twitter: / cspan Instagram: / cspan Subscribe: C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org... Newsletters: www.c-span.org... #cspan

[@agoniaXdunya]

Thank you for keeping the comment section open and allowing this marketplace of ideas to thrive.

[@TheReverendPaqo]

It's pretty generous to call it a "market place of ideas" when it's filled with minds that were already made up before the comment was ever written or the video ever watched. It's more accurate to call it an echo chamber of either disingenuous prejudices or espousing religious beliefs as if they are factually based arguments derived from law, all borne for the internet and youtube algorithm to witness.

[@foxhound6364]

@@TheReverendPaqo Bro, that's literally what the "marketplace of ideas" is about. The people who have their minds set can shout out their viewpoint while the people on the fence or somewhere in the middle can hear the different perspectives and see which ones, or which parts of each they agree with. Obviously the more neutral people in the middle aren't going to be commenting much, if they don't have a fully formed opinion yet.

[@choblgobblrr1074]

​@@foxhound6364 They're referring to the fact that it's hardly a marketplace of ideas if the only ideas present are on in the same. If there is no diversity of thought then you don't really have a marketplace of ideas. Without discourse there is no marketplace of ideas. Like they said... it is simply an echo chamber and they are right. You don't go to the figurative marketplace of ideas if the ideas have already been decided.

[@punapeter]

@@foxhound6364 If it were a "marketplace" and IF men could get pregnant there would be an abortion pill machine in every sports bar restroom,​ liquor store, McD's, Walmart​,​ train station,​ 7-11, gas station, uber back seat, airport or church.

[@closeencountersoftheweirdkind]

Marketplace of ideas? jesus

[@ASDFUIL]

The state lost the case at 1:14:10. Justice Alito asks Julie Rikelman to cite her "best case" that establishes a precedent that abortion is a constitutional right. Rikelman cannot, and responds with boilerplate pro-choice slogans instead.

[@rktsnail]

Yup

[@adrianmcgilly6181]

Hey C-span, from 11:51 to 13:12 in your video you identify the speaker as Justice Kagan when in fact it's Justice Sotomayor making her highly publicized "will this institution survive the stench" remark. I'm really surprised you got that wrong. It's kind of insulting to both justices. I hope you can avoid this mistake in the future.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

She can't fathom contemplating the possibility that the court got it wrong due to political views in the first place.

[@RashidMBey]

And I guess Robert can't fathom contemplating the possibility that the court got it right, in spite of political views, in the first place, seeing that evangelicals articulated support of the court decision alongside many non-religious people.

[@samsca8529]

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 The court was far less politicized in 1973 than it is today.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@samsca8529 the nomination of Supreme Court Justices wasn't nearly as much of a televised circus for soundbites as it is now (it used to not be televised at all). However I can only assume that the idea that the court was less politicized in the 1970s is due to historical ignorance if anything. Definitely not like nowadays though, that much can be more or less fairly granted.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@RashidMBey spoiler: they didn't get it right. They made up a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution. If it can't be voted and agreed upon in Congress, any and all issues not already specified in the Constitution automatically belong to the states.

[@ArnoldTeras]

To be fair, American abortion laws were in fact VERY permissive compared to most other Western and European countries: "Meanwhile, the United States has, overall, more permissive abortion laws than almost anywhere else in the world. It is one of only seven countries - the others are Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam - to allow elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column has confirmed."

[@Real_PlayerOne]

Oh to be in the rarest of rare air and be amongst the greats, in terms of laws, China and North Korea!

[@nunyabusiness8498]

@@Real_PlayerOne You’re missing the point. Stewart is saying there’s no history or tradition of it. But the fact that it is so unique to our identity that only 6 countries share such laws, shows he is wrong.

[@paulthomas963]

It really drives me nuts clueless Europeans are always chiming in to say 22 weeks is The Handmaid's tale when their own countries ban it after 17, or whatever.

[@JupiterCyclops-l5x]

"Washington post fact checkers"???? Hahahaha! Thats like the perfect reverse barrameter. You can almost believe the opposite every time

[@Sirsk8ordie]

Sotomayor "75% of women in America are poor," where is that statistic from?

[@JDAfrica]

Depends what the definition of ‘poor’ is I suppose.

[@Sirsk8ordie]

@@JDAfrica that is correct but we would have to know where the statistic is from to find that out as well.

[@Marcelg13]

We are all poor compared to Bill Gates but not sure how she pulled this number out of her you know what.

[@ASDFUIL]

Her ass

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

When did she say that?

[@engledelaffety4380]

Abortion is never the desired outcome. It harms the mother and the fetus and disproportionately affects poor people. However, we live in an imperfect world and the law is designed to reflect the imperfection of our world, not morality. Women should not be burdened with dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. The same people that are against abortion, are they also happy to have their taxes dramatically increased to pay for care for those unwanted babies? Do they adopt? - Do you want the laws to be changed to reflect moral codes? Shall we criminalize divorce? Adultery? It's always 'easy' to sit on the sidelines and criticize women who have abortions. Women are not the enemy, stop treating them as such.

[@rosedrown4925]

People who don't want babies can skip sex.

[@engledelaffety4380]

@@rosedrown4925 Wow, how insightful you are. Moron.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

Murdering babies is not the way to improve an imperfect world.

[@rosedrown4925]

Seems some people think intelligence is dumb.

[@engledelaffety4380]

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 Are you trying to be stupid, or this is the limit of your critical thinking?

[@skippyone2769]

Anyone thinking the Justice's have not already decided this case are fooling themselves. 50 years of comment and debate, there is not one argument not already raised and considered.

[@josephkerrigan733]

What's the result going to be then? If you know what they've all decided already then?

[@lazypops3117]

It was literally the criterion for which Coney Barrett was rush-nominated, against the express wishes of the outgoing judge...

[@yottachad5245]

@@lazypops3117 who cares what RBG wanted!? Are we a monarchy? Do officials get to choose their successors

[@wernerfoerster3666]

@@lazypops3117 the express wishes of the outgoing judge and $4 will get you a cup of coffee

[@lazypops3117]

@@wernerfoerster3666 and a sense of respectability for the institution with it. you do know how mcconnel denied obama's nominee for the SAME reason, don't you

[@MaHomeGurlShananay]

Six months later: "Held: The constitution does not confer a right to abortion."

[@scottcamuto8410]

@josh montana drinking water would be upheld as an unenumerated right

[@thisisanewusername4662]

@@scottcamuto8410 lol

[@wernerfoerster3666]

@@TechmoChamp You don't have a constitutional right to drink water. Why would you think everything under the sun, good and bad, is addressed by the constitution? It isn't.

[@scottcamuto8410]

The supreme court's line of thinking is that if something is not explicitly a right in the constitution it can be an unenumerated right but there better be irrefutable evidence that there is a history of it being recognized by legislative, scholarly and common perception at the time of bill of rights or before 14th ratification. Given that things as common as breathing drinking and eating are fundamental to human existance these would be examples of unenumerated. Abortion on the otherhand is not.

[@DCLayclerk]

@@TechmoChamp De minimis non curat lex. (The law does not concern itself with trivialities). Klondike can ax the Choco Taco and it isn't a constitutional issue. Not everything in life is in the Constitution.

[@bearbait7405]

1:26:36 U S Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar states, “Baby.”

[@ChazWalkerWonders]

That's pretty damming.

[@ASDFUIL]

Nice to hear pro-choicers admit abortion is killing a baby.

[@michaelmcchesney6645]

I very much agree with the Supreme Court's decision NOT to allow televised arguments. But I think being able to listen to arguments in real time (or near real time) is a great way for the public to at least get a sense of those arguments. This video had 27,000 views when I started watching and I bet no more than 25,000 of those viewers were lawyers or law students. One question that was raised was whether there are non religious "philosophers" that were pro life. I am not sure what the significance of being a philosopher is, but I know there are pro-life atheists. I am one of those myself. The problem with the fetal viability line is, in my opinion, that it is completely dependent on the state of medical technology. Eventually, that line will be pushed back to conception. I just have a problem with the rights of an unborn child being dependent on technology. As a matter of constitutional law, I believe the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. I predict a 6 - 3 decision overturning Roe and Casey. I think the Chief is very reluctant to overturn those decisions and would have been unlikely to have been a 5th vote to do that out of fear of what the decision would do to the Court's public standing and the likelihood of a "successful" Court packing law. But if Justice Barrett is the 5th vote, he is likely to be a 6th under the theory that a 6 - 3 decision will get more respect than a 5 - 4 decision. Since I am in a prognosticating mood, I will also predict that if the Court is ever packed, within 30 years (50 at the outside) we will have more Supreme Court Justices than senators. That is the end of my prognosticating, since I have no idea what the effect of the Dobbs decision will have on the midterms. But a 6 - 3 decision might be the only way the Democrats can hold the Senate.

[@Archangel251]

I doubt it’ll be 6-3. The reason is because Chief Justice Roberts is a strict follower of stare decisis. In other words, despite his conservative judicial philosophy, he ISNT a fan of overturning precedent unless new evidence is presented that points to the erroneousness of the previous court decisions. Since Roe, plaintiffs haven’t presented new arguments besides an interest in protecting unborn human life. Medical technology has evolved to give us a more graphic understanding of fetal development, but you’re right: an unborn child’s rights shouldn’t be dependent on technology. I think the Supreme Court taking on Roe made it more political than it had ever been before. Despite public opinion, overturning Roe would be a step in the right direction to restoring neutrality and public confidence in the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn’t explicit state that a woman has the right to an abortion. The right was abstractly decided. What I mean by that is that if you look at Roe’s history, cases like Griswald - which concerned birth control and contraception rights - developed a right to privacy under the 4th Amendment that was loosely applied to Roe. Blackmun wrote in his opinion that Roe relies on the deprivation of personhood from the fetus and how this is done is by calling the woman’s right to an abortion a “right to privacy.” In addition to protecting life, Roe should be overturned for those reasons.

[@databasedesignstar308]

I agree with your prediction.

[@amr8506]

the house will flip to R, no court packing lol

[@dr.g9564]

@@Archangel251 There is a lot of speculation going on and I would like to add another one: Roberts will convince Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to uphold Roe and Casey about the right to choose but limit it that states can issue statutes to protect the unborn as far as they don't take the right to choose completely. Roe talked about trimesters, Casey about viability, so the supreme court can even under the acceptance of stare decisis draw the line of "undue burden" differently. So the 15 weeks-law is pretty clever and completely in line with other countries of the western world, including mine. A 7:2 (kind of a classical result for abortion cases of this magnitude) would be a big signal for all citizens to finally stop the fight (Alito and Thomas should retire anyway).

[@Archangel251]

@@dr.g9564 Barrett and Gorsuch are Catholic and they’re originalists. Originalists aren’t fans of abortion because it wasn’t in the founding fathers minds when they wrote the Constitution. Moreover, Roe relies on a right established by substantive due process. Originalists dont believe in rights established that way. Even if Roe and Casey are both rewritten, I guarantee you it isn’t going to stop the fight. Even if They’re overturned entirely, pro life groups are gonna continue to pick off states that still have abortion legalized. Roe is the beginning, not the end

[@DonYutuc]

How awesome is this in 2024? Especially when you can only listen 🎶 without watching the video of the justices and lawyers. Thank you, C-Span.

[@CapnKV]

The federal government lost this case at 1:33:21 the moment she argued Plessy could not immediately be overturned after it was decided

[@r.j.macready]

The government lost this case when Donald Trump bizarrely won the presidency with a minority of votes and proceeded to pack the court with reactionaries. That is absolutely not what was argued. She merely stated how the court has operated in the past.

[@carlosmcse]

They already won when we made Trump president.

[@entertainmentvending3325]

I think people will look back at how poorly she tried to defend a clearly erroneous decision

[@nouseforaname3345]

overturning Plessy was granting rights while overturning Roe is taking them away.

[@wednesdayschild3627]

@@nouseforaname3345 she has not proved that there was a right to abortion. Abortion existed but people did not believe it was a right. She has not proved that women benefited from Roe. The original suffragettes thought abortion was bad, because women were coerced. I want to see these studies she mentioned that say women better. What does better even mean?

[@aquariusrizing]

Thankyou C-Span!!!

[@jimmyjames9752]

CHINA 🇨🇳 PUPPET

[@b4u334]

This is a question for Congress and the respective state legislatures. Quit trying to legislate during judicial review processes.

[@quovadis9233]

@Eugene Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene Abortion is not protected by the constitution no matter how erroneously the 1973 court ruled. Swing and a miss.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene No. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the constitution provides contextual basis for the right to travel: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Swing and a miss.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene You are the one being disingenuous. In Saenz v. Roe (1999), the Court noted that there are three components to the right to travel: (1) the right to enter and leave a state, (2) the right of visitors to a state to be treated like residents, (3) and the right of visitors wishing to become permanent residents to be treated like residents. The Court held that (2) was protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and (3) was protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14A. The Court did not state the constitutional source of (1) of the right to travel because it was not implicated in that case.

[@b4u334]

@Eugene No, the SCOTUS explicitly stated the constitution protects at least 2/3 of these specific components relevant to the right to travel with a contextual basis. The third has not yet been defined because it has not yet needed to be defined. This is entirely different from a whole-cloth right to privacy because there is nothing outside of the 4A, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, that has anything to do with privacy. Extending the 4A to include the right to "privacy" is pure fantasy. In Griswold v Connecticut, the Court ruled that a Connecticut state law prohibiting the use of contraception violated the “right to privacy” which was found in penumbras of the Constitution via the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Ie there is no contextual basis. The SCOTUS simply subjectively determined that the Bill of Rights should have included a right to privacy. However, it is nonetheless incorrect to suggest that if a word itself is left out of the constitution (just like how liberals say "gun" needs to be in the constitution even though "arms" is in the constitution) it means there is no right.

[@taylorbarrett384]

If the court is supposed to apply the law rather than make the law, then the answer is undeniable. If the court is to make the law, well, then it's whatever the justices want it to be.

[@rhynosouris710]

The purpose of the courts is to make laws by judicial fiat, according to their personal feelings and opinions on a matter. Otherwise we might fall into that dangerous trap of having laws made by the elected representatives of the people.

[@ewanmccartney8469]

@@rhynosouris710 Completely incorrect.

[@grantpitt3040]

@@ewanmccartney8469 woooosh

[@waldodilone4516]

@@rhynosouris710 could not be wronger

[@lehman]

@@waldodilone4516 how wrong?

[@curleygurlie]

Also- props to Cspan for keeping the comments section open! Most msm and the WH channel could never..🙄

[@mobileasaurus]

The people to who cause problems on those channels can't focus on (or maybe understand) the stuff streamed on cspan.

[@AdamBechtol]

Ya

[@dissident_420]

Hard not feel that Casey and/or Roe are deeply in trouble after hearing the Justices' questions.

[@KFCezikiel]

bingo

[@annparkin2709]

I was poor and had a baby in 1983 he was human and is human I did not listen to the doctor.

[@latoyarichards9507]

Yes that’s your choice, you have no right to tell another woman what to do with her body, this is akin to slavery.

[@FamilyMSV]

@@latoyarichards9507 killing children is WORSE than slavery.

[@meteoric91]

@@FamilyMSV A pre-viability fetus is NOT a child.

[@liemtran2402]

@@FamilyMSV you're a sick person for comparing aborting fetuses to slavery? welp as expected from a member of the terrorist republican party

[@thisisanewusername4662]

Thanks for overpopulating the planet!

[@jong3404]

It is wholly disingenuous to claim that abortion is a fundamental right. As Justice Thomas says from 1:26:57-1:27:02, “What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

[@wernerfoerster3666]

Of course. It's made up. A fiction. You can even replace "fundamental" with "constitutional".

[@dankghoul1438]

1:48:19 "This is a fundamental right of women" Justice Kavanagh should've asked her, "what is a woman?"

[@treed6038]

Interesting that Justice Satomayor claimed that 48 years of water under the bridge lends illegitimacy to arguments today; however Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy V. Ferguson, which was 62 years earlier. We should be careful with stare decisis arguments. I'm sure she knew this when she asked, and maybe she was just asking the question to see what his answer was, but I do wonder.

[@Archangel251]

I don’t think the court when they decided the roe considered the fact that the fetus is a human being rather than a clump of cells. It’s new evidence like that that’s presented before the court that justifies reasonable departure from stare decisis

[@elizabethdillon4945]

Give me the basic tenants of plessy versus ferguson.

[@treed6038]

@@Archangel251 The key item in Roe was when Thurgood Marshall stated that they couldn't say the fetus was or was not a human and that the Court should take a look at it again if science ever figured it out. Then Casey really f-d things up. That one was a poor decision by all concerned.

[@treed6038]

@@elizabethdillon4945 Plessy v Ferguson was the ruling that allowed segregation by declaring that separate could be equal. Brown v Board of Education overturned it and outlawed segregation. Plessy was later pardoned by the President in the 1920's I think.

[@valvevac-systemchecker3773]

@@treed6038 I think this doesn’t necessarily make a difference the key issue at hand is that Roe v Wade created a constitutional right to privacy effectively out of thin air. The premise of “Liberty” enshrined in the constitution is not absolute, state governments can decide to limit certain liberties for the public good depending on their issues and core beliefs. I believe that Sotomayor is simply engaged in judicial activism by arguing Stare Decises for highly contentious judicial reasoning, especially one where there is not legal basis beyond case law in Roe v Wade.

[@Ri5004]

1:22:00 barrett destroys her

[@imbonnie]

Is it a "religious belief" that Sotomeyer is alive?

[@shays7771]

Sotomayer constantly interrupted Mr. Stewart every time he spoke to answer her questions. Very obvious she is not interested in hearing any one else’s voice other than her own. I did not hear any other justices do this to the Pro abortion representatives.

[@dmephibosheth9765]

@@shays7771 I had to laugh because it seemed like she perfectly embodied the typical pro-choice rhetoric: ignoring answers, interrupting, constantly shifting her position, and using "aren't you just trying to codify a religious belief" as a tr*mp card.

[@freedomfighterletsgobrandon]

@@shays7771 Sotomayor does it all the time. She talks very slowly until she stops, only to start talking again when the attorneys have already started to answer. She clearly loves to interupt people and she clearly loves the sound of her own voice, the total opposite of the very modest and very polite Thomas.

[@violetlamptey9221]

No she thinks when her life begins is a religious belief not when her life has already began .

[@elealee3621]

“40 percent of dead people would recoil” at the answer Her gloss on the detriments of any given pregnancy...ended in pregnant ellipses

[@daveverplank]

8:55 Precedents get overturned all of the time. Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land for 57 years before it was overturned by the Brown opinion.

[@MsBlushing24]

The difference is, as the Court held in Brown v. Board of Education, that American culture and society had intensely evolved from plessy precedent. In Dobbs, this Court made no reference to the historical evolution in American culture and society regarding abortion. Unlike in Plessy, a vast majority of Americans supported Roe precedent, unlike in the 50s when Plessy was overturned. Moreover, plessy directly violated multiple aspects of the Constitution in which Roe did not.

[@daveverplank]

@@MsBlushing24, where is abortion in the Constitution? The Supreme Court doesn't MAKE law; Congress or state legislatures do.

[@gopher7691]

@@MsBlushing24 Roe violated the constitution by rewriting it. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion so the court had no authority to write it in

[@moses4769]

@@daveverplank There are plenty of things that aren't in the constitution. Every single matter can't be in the constitution.

[@alex-brs]

​@@moses4769Things are implied or explicit. Abortion is neither.

[@brian4407]

Sotomayor gets so mad when confronted with logic.

[@AmericaFirst-hm4fc]

EVIL HAS BEEN OVERTURNED!!!!!!!!!!!

[@marthaurquilla2172]

Good job! Thanks C-Span!

[@perfectsense3240]

Takes some really skewed logic to explain away the atrocious decisions in Casey and Roe by likening them to Marbury. Yikes

[@rickybobby3536]

Clarence Thomas with the lady who ingested cocaine argument, lmao

[@evelynmilne4683]

She should have been jailed for attempted murder.

[@rickybobby3536]

@@evelynmilne4683 no doubt. Just dont see how it was relevant to the case lol seemed out of left field

[@NO-bw5dn]

@@rickybobby3536 he explained its relevance re: bodily autonomy

[@Archangel251]

@@rickybobby3536 he’s giving other examples of how states have an interest in regulating pre-viability pregnancies. If you agree that the state has the right to prosecute a woman who ingests cocaine while pregnant, how can you justify precluding the state from regulating a pre-viability abortion? That’s the point he’s trying to make

[@michaeltelder177]

@@Archangel251 Comparing cocaine to a medical procedure is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with the case. The state would prosecute a woman who wasn't pregnant for using cocaine and it ignores the intent and details of both situations.

[@Politicalfan17]

Beginning at 1:33:00 Jackson’s whole case came crashing to the ground like a demolished highrise.

[@entertainmentvending3325]

exactly. she was so full of it

[@Ethan-sx6lg]

I predict a 6-3 decision overturning Roe and Casey, with Roberts reluctantly joining the 5 other conservatives. There just isn’t any *legal* basis for a middle ground, and that fact is what will prevent Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts from being able to stake one out. I don’t think any of those three, based on what I know about their jurisprudence, are gung-ho about overturning but will likely do it reluctantly. I think that is why Kavanaugh made the specific point that really, it’s not rare for the Court to overturn precedent. Some key gay rights decisions did. So there you have it.

[@r.j.macready]

@@sapereaude6935 not exactly but they were close. Roberts concured in part (upholding the 15 week ban) but did not join in overturning Roe and Casey.

[@jobroskull7623]

Moral of the story when it comes to controversial decisions a lot of times we don’t use facts and logic to make logical decisions, we use them to make decisions based on emotion or to justify how we feel morally on a topic

[@crysiscore2051]

That applies for both sides. There's no real reason we must assume that the Right-wing are the side with "facts and logic." Assuming someone like Stephen Breyer doesn't use "facts and logic" is pig-headed.

[@finnb2318]

​@@crysiscore2051 Scalia, however crudely, characterized it correctly when he accused evolutionists of staring at the ceiling or the navel, when, in his example, passing judgement on "cruel and unusual punishment" and the constitutionality of the death penalty. However many polls you consult, or census date, were it available, these ultimately, as does an evolutionist interpretation of the due-process clause, lack democratic legitimacy. In another, splendid interview he ridiculed evolutionists for having "no answers", as theirs change forevermore. Departing from the common law "age of reason", 12, to 16, again on the constitutionality of the death penalty, and incrementally up, first to 18, as the justice now deems that age to serve as guarantor for the punishment not being "cruel and unusual", ten years on to 21, and with the turning of the wheels of time, so shall it continue.

[@samuelhong4272]

@@crysiscore2051 it's funny cause you're the one politicizing it and Justice Breyer is never mentioned in this comment. Way to project buddy!

[@nickm1587]

There’s no way the failure rate of contraceptives is 10% when used properly

[@danielslonim4739]

If I recall right, the state's brief says that in order to get that stat, they had to include notoriously unreliable methods, like withdrawal, along with more effective ones.

[@rosedrown4925]

Pill and iud ARE abortion.Wondering why everyone wants to be a murderer.Is the Mafia having a hiring blitz.Sin costs you clear thinking.Doctors are forbidden by oath to do ANY harm to a patient.Has Auschwitz combined with Mafia and Planned Parenthood PROMISCUITY promotion to make sure everyone deserves a life sentence with no parole.Is murder and mutual masturbation the new thing taking the place of greatness of character and integrity.Has Hell become the most popular vacation destination?!

[@alejandrogonzales743]

@@rosedrown4925 the fuck you just say?

[@rosedrown4925]

Seems truth is not of interest.Lazy? Busy? Callous? Criminal? What is the problem.Lust turns a man or woman into an animal.Deprives them of right and clear thinking,Success,Stable wealth.Lust destroys life.Love creates life.Who chooses lust when love is the real and better choice.Who chooses curses when blessings are the better choice.Virtue blesses all.Lack of it, curses all.See Deuteronomy 30:19 til u get it.

[@rosedrown4925]

My people perish for lack of knowledge of My Word.

[@Here4Years]

Watching the justices go through the motions for a case all 9 have already decided was...interesting.

[@johnsmith1474]

5-4 they strike down the law under stare decisis.

[@jos_meid]

I guess it isn't clear to me that they have all decided. Roberts sounded somewhat unsure about what the correct course of action was, and might be leaning to a modification of casey rather than an overturning of it. Additionally, while I would assume Breyer would side with Jackson Women's Health Organization, some of his questions seemed to express some uncertainty on some of the points.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@jos_meid - Of course it's unclear, you got it. H4Y is a crank, you should see that by how he proposed his unserious observation.

[@joshcameron6014]

​@@jos_meid It's common for the justices to play devil's advocate during arguments. I wouldn't infer much from their questioning.

[@zipity2782]

If that’s your view than this court has truly failed

[@Yatlick]

It's embarrassing that Sotomayor only asks questions from the perspective of a policy maker, not as an interpreter of the law. She doesn't even know what her job is.

[@wernerfoerster3666]

That's nothing new. Liberal activist jusges who saw themselves as Kings and Super-legislatures started making up laws wholesale with the Warren court. Eg "sustantive due process". The result was predictable: the politicization of the Court.

[@adh0522]

the inescapable irony of sotomayor invoking "brain death"

[@venitadavis6308]

She's correct, I didn't know that I was pregnant until I was five months, and then, my grandmother was the one that knew first. I was 15, a rape victim.

[@deathtotruthers1]

First, there are ways to deal with that now - there are pills rape victims can, and should, take, to prevent pregnancy. Second, and more importantly, this is an edge case - we don't make laws for edge cases. We make them for the vast majority of cases.

[@TrumpsEarBandage]

@@deathtotruthers1 big facts, rape and incest are all you hear about from women, arguing the extremes because they can’t argue for the 85% of abortions performed because of “choice”

[@heyitsme881]

Rape doesn’t change the fact that a human being cannot be murdered.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

I'm sorry for what happened to you. Why weren't you checked out though?

[@joshez1]

​@@heyitsme881take it out the womb and it can't survive. It's not human yet

[@gabrieliacoboni6951]

It is interesting how precedent and morals were so interweaved into these arguments.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

All laws are expressions of morals.

[@gabrieliacoboni6951]

@@thaddeuspawlicki4707 True.

[@marg22az]

It is OK for teens to tote guns and kill and be killed by cops... but YOU CLAIM YOU ARE PRO LIFE.. zBS..You WILL NOT TELL WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODY SIR. KEEP it in your pants.

[@marg22az]

Hang the cocktail. Too soon .Gotta Go Premature man

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

@@marg22az It's wrong to murder babies.

[@cammstyle738]

One question if answered would have been incredibly helpful here is this: Generally how many abortions are being performed after 15 weeks in Mississippi? Also, this decision doesn’t take away a woman’s right to abortion. Constitutionally the right never existed. What I like about putting the question back on the states is the following: pro choice electorates will have to specify how much “choice” women will actually have on this issue. No more can they lean on Roe for precedent. They will have to affirm exactly how much choice women will have in their states. 15 weeks is not enough time well exactly how much is enough time? Can’t wait to see the answers.

[@elionlima9055]

Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan are the Court’s Three Stooges.

[@richardhunter1467]

Men and women are equal under the law but wildly different by nature and biology.

[@tonyoconnor1892]

What if you're transgender? lmao

[@johnsmith1474]

Such a Manichean review of humanity is old hat, full of holes, does not say anything & is thus not even interesting.

[@miguelvalencia4823]

@@tonyoconnor1892 Doesn’t make a difference. Your DNA can’t be manipulated so you’re stuck in it’s what you are born with.

[@undomiel152003]

@@miguelvalencia4823 Behavior is largely part by social conditioning though. If you are taught all subjects and are given the same level playing field. Both sexes can pick either same areas or completely different ones, based on personality and again social upbringing.

[@michaelcarter7079]

@@tonyoconnor1892, being transgender is a behavioral concern, its not based on science. A person is either born Male or female. This is established at the point of conception where DNA and all traits are what you are biologically. Same with homosexuality is based on behavior, not on true science. There is no such thing as I am aware of a transgender gene or a homosexual gene. What confuses us is that some people have more testosterone or estrogen than others giving us the characteristics of what we would say that's a boy or a girl. Giving a girl hormone therapy doesn't make a girl a boy, or a boy a girl. Going through puberty sometimes a rush of hormones might make us think differently, but after that rush slows down, a boy will become a man, and a girl becomes a woman.

[@gesheepistemology8050]

Buddhists 2500 years ago, with logic and ration deemed the moment of conception as the beginning of that life.

[@cwp2614]

Well, Buddhist’s got one thing right! They knew a long time ago. We are so proud of hanging in there with both China and India and keeping up with their abortions.

[@foundationforlife767]

Duh

[@albertmagician8613]

@Geshe Sperm and an egg are certainly alive. What are you blabbering about? What counts are the existence of an individual.

[@gesheepistemology8050]

@@albertmagician8613 moment of conception egg head!

[@iBEEMproject]

What a Solicitor General ... He was a hero here

[@dr.debbiewilliams]

If it please The Court, I also asked whether I could be protected from harassment because I said I am not LGBTQIA, and have no plans of ever trying to have more children. Despite the fact that I am 54, I have been completely abstinent for well over seven years here in Philadelphia PA, and don't plan on getting remarried or dating any time in the foreseeable future. I also don't want to be a "Political Plaything".

[@karenmainor4275]

I'm surprised that no one made a credible argument that a fetus, prior to viability, is not a "person" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, & that therefore the fetus' rights prior to viability, if any, are not equal to the right of the woman to decide what's in her own best physical & mental health interests.

[@jacksonstenhouse4429]

None of them made that argument due to the fact that it is not a credible argument

[@kimmiewise1044]

And black people use to be 3/5ths a person according to the constitution until a war broke out proving otherwise. This is why it needs to be substantiated into law based on legislative intervention instead of the Supreme Court. There is not affirmation or condemnation of abortion in the constitution and it therefore needs to go to the states and those who live in them to vote and discuss the issue. That’s all the overturning would do.

[@fingersmcoy]

mental health? if a woman doesnt want a baby, dont get pregnant.

[@THall-vi8cp]

The Constitution didn't say that black people were each 3/5ths of a person. The three-fifths compromise allowed for the counting of 3/5ths of the total number of "all other persons" for the purposes of congressional apportionment, and it was a compromise made to entice the slave states to ratify the new Constitution - it was well known at that time that if the newly formed United States (which were still under the Articles of Confederation) did not ratify the new Constitution, the country would be weaker and vulnerable to dissolution or invasion.

[@bakgatfromgb]

What is meant by the term “viability”?

[@henrys7014]

That was Justice Sotomayor, not Justice Kagan at the beginning.

[@amoswollen3860]

Phew. I thought he'd be cancelled beyond cancelled for that one.

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

Yeah I noticed that too

[@captbiggun]

Babies have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Adoption is the option where the survival rate of both goes up by 50%.

[@josecano8809]

Yet nobody wants to adopt or make it harder for parents to adopt!

[@lilianaprina5991]

It is not only a control of a woman's body we are searching, it is about autonomy, independence, freedom the main reason why we live in the United States of America. I don't want my life being rule or limited by someone who finds research statistics on The Economist.

[@arcticwolf4707]

The court did the right thing. leave it up to the state!

[@jeffreyd700]

It's a shame that Justice Alito interrupted Scott Stewart before he answered Sotomayor's question

[@torturedsoul8066]

Arguments seem to stray from the question. Do babies have a right to life at 15 wks. The viability, success or failure of the child is separate from the right to life. Will the child be successful is a question secondary to their right to life. Questions should be directed to addressing what happens if a woman is required to bring a child to term. Have they then become surrogates for the state? and what rights do they have if they are assigned that categorization? Is this viable? The viability of the Courts ruling must be a consideration to obtain a just result.

[@torturedsoul8066]

And I think that no one has an answer to a woman questions about what happens IF? EX: If in a rape does a woman have a right to compensation for being a state serrogate? This Q must be answered. It cannot be ignored. So I think the real question is if a woman can be forced to carry an unwanted child to term. A heartbeat determines life so I would say yes BUT in doing so would also invoke constitutional protections for the woman as well and mostly for some form of compensation for carrying the child. Then the Court will be placing a massive burden onto the legislature which has been dysfunctional since the clintons took office. I do not envy the Court in the least in ruling on this case.

[@torturedsoul8066]

In the end a babies life hangs in the balance and a core principle on which this nation was built is that "it is more important to protect the innocence in our communities than it is to punish guilt." This is an order of operations. I know of nothing more innocent than a Childs life. The Court knows what it must do.

[@JoeShapiro]

@@torturedsoul8066 embedded in your statement is that the fetus is a child. While it clearly will become a child if carried to term, it’s totally NOT clear that it’s a child at 15 weeks. Or even at viability for that matter.

[@wernerfoerster3666]

people, SCOTUS is not a legislature ... the sole issue is whether the right to abortion is contained in the constitution. It isn't.

[@hollyprice4351]

@@JoeShapiro That is why the people and their elected representatives in the States under the 10th Amendment should be the ones dealing with this, not SCOTUS.

[@helenbeam7586]

Mississippi as a state government history has shown it is biased against race, for many Africa Americans were murdered by lynching. This state prosecutor is now in bringing this case to end Roe for a rationale it is OK to cause a course of legal action to permit women's freedom to be denied them therefore endangering a woman's safety and life as pregnancy does. This state government represents an advancement of denying freedom, protection of the lives of autonomy a person should have over their body for their freedom is not given by this and other state governments that as history has shown makes laws against freedom.

[@evansjohnarek2271]

Justice Atito, is indeed a consummate Judge whose jurisprudence in pro toon of human life is indeed commendable.

[@thisisanewusername4662]

nop

[@tonycampbell4982]

Roe vs Wade should of been overturned along time ago.

[@juliannadzierwa]

Absolutely! On the grounds that the government has no right to make any restrictions on any citizens right to their privacy or property (aka body).

[@LegalAmerican4]

Sotomayor focuses completely on emotion and implications rather than the Constitution. She's a genius, but a naked partisan.

[@xSONYA-s7j]

Thank you glad we still here.

[@professormeow7432]

Just overturn Roe v. Wade already.

[@johnnybuxtons5489]

yeah... Then make women wear burkhas and overturn the 13th 14 and 19th amendment immedieatly while were at it. And if the fetus is gay rip it apart when its born.

[@professormeow7432]

@Vanguarded_Heart 117 Winning!

[@furorz]

Sotomayor comes off really in a bad light in these arguments

[@-dash]

Lol I'm not sure if Justice Sotomayor's analogy of braindead people recoiling to stimuli works in her favor- one has to accept that the fetus is a person in order for the analogy to work at all.

[@evansjohnarek2271]

Justice Army, is not really bad a search, she is still learning the rules of the game, In future she projects to be the best Judge in their entire American Jurisprudence. Loon live Justice Barret

[@whiteandright1958]

Enduring v evolutionary. Is the Constitution ever evolving or is it a stable document to be interpreted as written? As the late Justice Scalia said, SCOTUS exists to do legal work, not to rule based on public opinion. That's for the legislature, federal or state should do. That's the basis for this. The viewpoint of those adhering to an Enduring viewpoint uses the 10thA for their case. The evolving side uses the 14thA as their legal viewpoint.

[@sheilaiam2]

I really think it should be the woman who decides whether or not she has a baby.

[@TrumpsEarBandage]

Good thing society could care less what you think

[@streamawake2871]

@@TrumpsEarBandagesociety says otherwise

[@MasterofSFL]

This case was decided properly. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your personal, political position on abortion is, the original Roe v Wade case was Unconstitutional along several lines. The Judiciary acted as Legislators, usurping authority and enacted a law from the bench. The logic it used to justify it's decision wasn't based on English Common Law or the logic of the Constitution, but the application of the judicial notion of 'substantive due process.' That notion requires specific interpretations of the Due Process concept that then allows Judges to take enumerated and implied rights and attempt to draw connections to other actions or activities, giving them the same protections. Through the Substantive Due Process notion, the Court drew from an implied Interpretation of privacy (The State did not have the authority to intrude into your private affairs in order to determine whether or not you were complying with an edict) and through that implied right, also couldn't intrude on a woman to determine her pregnancy status and whether she's committed an abortion. That implied right to privacy extends to her interactions with an abortion provider. Therefore legislating against the procedure affects the provider, which indirectly affects the privacy between a woman and her provider, which then in a round-a-bout way intrudes into the private affairs of the woman and is tantamount to checking her pregnancy status and whether or not she's complying with a State edict. This entire line of reasoning can and is used to effectively incorporate anything and everything under the umbrella of Constitutional protection, effectively creating law, which distorts it. This is especially so when it comes into conflict with centuries long precedents and foundational premises our system is built on, which also occurred in the Roe case. All Alito and Thomas did was reject this five steps separated reasoning and instead applied history and the Constitution as is, nothing more. By doing so, they not only did their duties as Justices, but partitioned The Court from one of the most politically toxic decisions it's ever made. We've spent the better part of 50 years orienting our entire Federal system along the lines of Roe, which politicized the Supreme Court nomination process with the failure to elevate Judge Robert Bork and all subsequent judicial nominations. It's also marred every election for half a century, being a wedge issue that deepens divides every 2 years, because the question was never properly settled. For any of you who felt Roe was of dire importance, ask yourself why it was over these 50 years Federal and State laws never mirrored the decision. Yes, you can blame the Conservatives and Republicans all you want, but Democrats and Liberals have held full control of the US Federal and State governments multiple times. Your ire shouldn't be with the Justices who did their duty, it ought to be at the politicians who've told you how important Roe was, but failed to ever codify it whenever they had the chance. Had they done so, whatever challenges Roe may have faced, the only outcome would have simply been rectifying a decision made on spurious grounds.

[@wednesdayschild3627]

Not all women think abortion is good for women. Why is she speaking for the women who do not agree? I see more women in poverty than before Roe? How do we know what caused that? I want to see those studies. I would bet those studies are flawed and had no independent controls.

[@Mod0308]

It wasn’t. If it had been…the states would have voted for what abortion restrictions they were comfortable with and we would have stopped fighting about abortion rights 40 years ago. Be happy we’re the ones that will get it settled once and for all and not our granddaughters

[@Vandicoup]

@@wednesdayschild3627 And not all women think abortion is bad for women. Your point? She never said she's speaking for all women. She's just speaking for women to have those rights, to have those options, whether they want abortion or not. They don't have to agree. But having abortion as an aspect of healthcare, a fundamental right to either utilize or not utilize, depending on each and every individual, is what she's arguing for, that's all.

[@Vandicoup]

Great job supporting tyranny, authoritarianism and an Orwellian-esque society. Justice Clarence Thomas literally just stated that he wants to now revise Gay marriage and a right to privacy in the BEDROOM. Have fun with that now. Be careful what you wished for.

[@Vandicoup]

the right to privacy has been heavily upheld in previous decisions by the court, the right for a woman to abort a fetus without any intrusion from the state is an example of privacy. Is there an explicit statement that privacy is a right in the constitution? No, but if we establish that privacy isn’t a right (which we just did) then so many other things are now in jeopardy. Contraception, sex, marriage, and guns. This is one of the worst decisions by the SCOTUS in recent history, may be the worst since Bush v Gore

[@avzeolla3960]

Great arguments on both sides and tough questions from the justices. Wow.

[@mirio-jk]

You rarely get to hear educated people arguing differently points of view respectfully these days

[@avzeolla3960]

Yes you are right

[@ishaanbreinig6572]

Victory! Roe is overturned!

[@adamcadovius4566]

Mississippi: The Constitution says… Center for Reproductive Rights: Stare decisis!

[@lauriemanno7829]

IT will be sent back to the states, that is the safest way to go for the SCOTUS.

[@robertjensen1048]

That is a very bad idea.

[@lauriemanno7829]

@@robertjensen1048 Whoever writes the for the majority 6/3 perhaps 5/4 decision will decide where it is going. If it is a 6/3 decision than I believe Roberts will write the opinion?? In my own personal opinion, I believe the question should be is it right or is it wrong, but that is me. The SCOTUS is not going to do away with Abortion. No one should think that it is, it is a touchy subject for sure. I remember before Roe vs Wade. Robert, I do think it will be sent back, a good or bad Idea we are all going to find out. I listened to the whole oral argument and that is the sense I got.

[@lauriemanno7829]

Based on questioning in oral arguments, it appears likely there will be a major change in abortion law and culture concerning abortion and pregnancy. The change could overrule Roe and Casey outright and eliminate the constitutional right to abortion created by Roe or it could be to restrict the abortion right created by Roe and modified by Casey. If the Court overrules Roe and Casey, the issue of abortion would be returned to the states, where it was prior to Roe. Each state could decide whether or not abortion would be legal in its state and under what circumstances - and, if legal, what restrictions and regulations should be adopted. Alot of things can happen between now and June 2022. It is going to be very interesting at best.

[@TrumpsEarBandage]

@@robertjensen1048 how so?

[@danielh1830]

Sotomayer has no idea what she is talking about regarding what is and isn't brain dead.

[@chadkeaton2765]

Nobody is forcing these women to get pregnant

[@user-xi7lz6gs5z]

The man gets them pregnant. They need to wear condoms. Be responsible.

[@chadkeaton2765]

@@user-xi7lz6gs5z don’t have sex

[@user-xi7lz6gs5z]

Brilliant idea.. Just don't have sex. What about rape or incest? That's not sex but can result in pregnancy.

[@robertmcginness4610]

This court never had the authority to legalize slavery either. Nor does it have the authority here to begin with justice Bryer

[@a.k.7341]

And yet scumbag conservatives are trying to enslave women. They are trying to subject them to gestational slavery. Everything inside a persons body is 10000% their own. Any departure from that is a form of slavery..

[@samuelmerkel2888]

@@a.k.7341 And during slavery, anything a person bought was theirs, and the government had no right to take it away from them. However, a sense of objective morality takes precedent in this world. That comes from both freeing slaves, and stopping abortion. Furthermore, no one is forcing women to get pregnant, so you argument falls a bit flat. Sex is a woman's choice, abortion is not. If you made the choice to have sex, it's an obvious fact that pregnancy may come from that.

[@concernedcitizen8272]

@@samuelmerkel2888 What if a woman didn't make that choice? I wouldn't want to have my rapist's baby, nor my fathers!

[@samuelmerkel2888]

@@concernedcitizen8272 Then that would be a different conversation to have. Personally I'd still be against it, but there'd be a much better legal argument for that. However, legally being debated right now is about elective abortions, the kind that are made by women not in dire circumstances, which is over 99% of abortions. While I think the argument you're making is a more sound one, it's not really the one at stake here.

[@burningphoenix6679]

The 14th amendment states people have a right to their own bodies.

[@thewealthbuildingtx]

This argument turns expectant mothers into the biggest threat against an unborn baby.

[@juliannadzierwa]

Well ... Pregnancy IS a risky engagement for both. Most fetal life does not make it. Most is naturally refused by the woman's body. And lots of women develop health problems and even die due to the complications of pregnancy.

[@nicholasdibari9095]

@@juliannadzierwa With all due respect, you run the risk of pregnancy if you engage in sexual intercourse so have sex at your own risk

[@juliannadzierwa]

@@nicholasdibari9095 yes, when women consented to sex and insemination, we DID run the risk of pregnancy, BUT that was before our societies science and technology advanced. Science and technology is what opened the door for safe options. Science and technology may even advance to the point where the pendulum sways in the other direction; it may provide safe options for the fetus to survive into healthy humans outside of the womb. Logically, that is the only time we could revisit this argument. To say; we can have our cars and computers and our phones and our TV's and our robots; all which you could argue are detrimental to our health; but women can't have advanced reproductive technology because of a moral opposition from a minority population in our country. That's not a fair or democratic conclusion.

[@nicholasdibari9095]

@@juliannadzierwa Science and technology may be progressing but scientifically speaking the beginning of life is conception. If a single celled organism on Mars is considered life why isn’t a human embryo on earth considered life? Respectfully, to say that life doesn’t begin at conception is biologically inaccurate and logically dishonest.

[@nicholasdibari9095]

@@juliannadzierwa Abortion is the literal termination of a pregnancy by ending the growth a human being forming in the womb to call that an advance in technology is quite frankly wrong. Technology has always strived for the betterment and sustainment of life for human beings abortion on the contrary only provides one service to terminate a pregnancy nothing more and nothing less

[@glorywardlaw9014]

20 years ago To USA Supreme Court. When I went into the Hospital for help because I am Homeless no income; What was asked? When did your last period come?. Eyes and laws all on me. Asked because the church put me out on 4/23/2002. 3 days to change their minds by 4/26/2002. Now I applied and contacted the State of New York all this time for New York State Public Assistance. Can not say Disability. Social Worker Never came to hospital as many times in beginning dates 10/14/2002 to November 28, 2002 I wait for worker to come in morning.

[@edwardmiller4190]

God Bless Sam, Clarence, Neil, Brett, and Amy.

[@neonbible08]

Pro choice arguments are all very weak.

[@SpaceBethC131]

Because they can easily be reversed. That's why I'm pro life

[@bryanalexismoya397]

Saying that it is a weak argument for a woman, a person, another human, who is already alive and part of society- to have autonomy over her body when it only affects her directly, that is insane.

[@TomBarbashev]

​@@bryanalexismoya397The unborn human being has a right to life, at least at some point. 3 minutes before birth? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? Viability? Before that? Idk the exact answer, but i do know there's absolutely nothing in the enumerated powers of the Federal government to decide this issue. Therefore it falls to the states and the people.

[@jerimiahjohnson8113]

Alito’s questioning was too good.

[@callystarr]

More like too rude

[@NoName-or4vm]

@@callystarr is that all you got from his questioning? Are you that dense?

[@BoriPR82]

Leave a one year old in a house alone for a week and lets see if its viable and in no need of the mother

[@sammarchant2703]

Just Soto Mayor literally just pointed to freedom of religion as something that is not listed in the constitution, but that the court deduced from it's structure. It wasn't "deduced from it's structure"

[@ladeacarr4245]

yep judicial review... grants the supreme court power to interpret the constitution to ensure it remains a living documemt

[@mobilizedpanda3795]

Wrong. 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It is written very clearly in the first amendment that congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. How is this "not listed" or "deduced from structure." It is true that the court has always had to interpret how religious freedom is protected (the same as any other right) but to claim the right itself came from judicial review is factually incorrect.

[@sammarchant2703]

@@ladeacarr4245 yeah how stupid can you get. It's explicitly written in the 1st amendment. That's the point.

[@derkaderkastan420]

@@mobilizedpanda3795 sotomayor is constantly incorrect. She’s the breathing form of “if diversity hire was a person “

[@AquaMarineFBVA]

@@mobilizedpanda3795 I mean the form that "respecting an establishment of religion" literally could mean anything. without a court to interpret what that means you don't have a law you just have words..

[@118Columbus]

Women should also have liberty interests to offer commercial sex for money and men should have a liberty interest to purchase commercial sex for money.

[@mizzyroro]

I haven't listened to the full oral arguments. I am at 33 minutes in. So far I am surprised how much it is less about arguing the law but more about ideological or perhaps I could say political arguements.

[@messybuttons7525]

I’m having the same reaction.

[@josh-mf7lt]

Yeah Sotomayor says she's worried about looking like a political actor for striking rvw down but she looks way worse here arguing and cutting off the man at every turn while clearly arguing for rvw rather than just calmly judging a single full sentence from the man.

[@xSONYA-s7j]

Wrongfully convicted and given a death sentence for no reason.

[@mariebeckshaw6306]

i took one look at the comments section and immediately scrolled back up. the stupidity made my brain hurt.

[@melc1918]

Life begins at Conception. 24 hrs after Conception ....the child has their own DNA. has mothers curly hair an d Dad's brown eyes.

[@robertjudge2015]

Julie Rikelman: "States forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term." This is a trick of sophists. There fundamental premise starts from a mid point of the consequential action. In the case of pregnancy, Ms. Rikelman posits that a woman being pregnant is the starting point, when in fact, the decision by the woman to engage in sexual intercourse precipitated the pregnancy. So moving it back to, if you engage in a behavior that results in a particular consequence and you do not want the consequence, do not engage in that behavior.

[@juliannadzierwa]

This logic could have been sufficient before the information, development, and access of medical science. We are at a different marker in Human history. People can do a lot more with their bodies. They can make lots of choices which can better project the outcome they want in their future now. So, this argument honestly, needs to be shelved. It was honestly never a good one to begin with because there are a lot of forced pregnancies.

[@robertjudge2015]

@@juliannadzierwa The rape argument, if that is where you are going, makes up less than 1% of all abortions/child murder. However, even in that case why does the innocent human being have to suffer the death penalty because the actions of another guilty party? We still then must begin at the beginning and that is if you do not wish to get pregnant, don't engage in the behavior that will cause that. Pregnancy is the effect of the cause of sexual intercourse. It's how human beings are pro-created.

[@juliannadzierwa]

@@robertjudge2015 I would love to argue those with you, but I'm afraid the root of this argument starts further back and pretty much ends there; There is nothing in the Constitution about fetal life or it's value. It does however outline the criteria for citizenship, of which is naturalized at birth. This is where the argument comes to a sharp stop. Fetuses, fetal persons, fetal life, unborn babies; whatever your preference; have not been born. Therefore they have not inherited these inalienable rights via citizenship. And therefore are outside the jurisdiction of United States law. To give these entities these specialized rights, which in the case of an involuntary pregnancy would Trump the mothers actual naturalized rights, distorts the fabric of our system and it's foundation. It distorts the rule of naturalization. The unequal quality of the rights also breaks the rule of equality. It gives a blank check to the government for regulations to which there is no evidence of in our founding documents. Citizens have an equal and inalienable right to their liberty, privacy, and property. There has to be probable cause of a crime for the government to even search and seizure. We are not required to report pregnancies nor are they a crime. So.....? Sorry, but the government is a necessary evil not a solution to every earthly moral failing.

[@avishevin1976]

The rape argument is a great argument given the desire by conservative religious fuck wits to ban abortion even in the case of rape. And we have proof of this from Texas, whose recent law makes no exception for rape.

[@robertjudge2015]

@@avishevin1976 Why is it that you have descended into ad-hominem attack of someone with whom you disagree instead of addressing the argument?

[@dionnefreelance]

An abortion is different than parental rights.

[@benjiradach347]

"Make you poorer"? Seriously? Based on that reasoning, people can do away with their toddlers--and more so their college kids. Justice Sotomayor isn't doing herself any favors in this one.

[@juliannadzierwa]

I agree. She's not putting up any good arguments because she is coming at the argument the wrong way. She should've argued that the Constitution clearly outlines that all born citizens in the United States are naturalized and inherit inalienable rights to their liberty, life, property, and privacy. The Constitution says nothing about unborn fetal life. But it is unborn, so we can conclude it is not a citizen and therefore not within SCOTUS jurisdiction. To enfringe on the privacy and property of a citizen by unprecedentedly giving embolden rights to a non citizen; rights which trump the rights of a naturalized citizen is definitely tipping the scales. All of these are dangerous precedents.

[@gopher7691]

@@juliannadzierwa no one has a right to kill another human being, whether born or unborn.

[@sterlingsimms7291]

Well, tonight's news was predictable.

[@tolgaakdemir3803]

Some of those judges are way to less listening and way to much interrupting to make their point.

[@xSONYA-s7j]

Thank you. I'm a master Sargent in Army and USMC. I will to try to leave this web page alone thank you.

[@Jay_red305]

Who gives af about another county's standard of permitting abortion due to "Socioeconomic issues" these people are evil

[@crimony3054]

When you get to be an old guy like me, you don't have to make excuses if you listen to Supreme Court arguments on Saturday night.

[@Zxx459]

But you are not a woman ..is not your life,body they are deciding about.

[@crimony3054]

@@Zxx459 They've already decided men can be drafted for combat, a violation of bodily autonomy, and that men can be imprisoned for failure to pay child support, another violation of bodily autonomy. Why does society grant women greater rights than men when it comes to war and parental responsibility? 🤣

[@liamdaniels2764]

Pregnancy involves 2 humans, not one. Neither the woman nor the baby initiated conception, why does the woman decide who lives and dies?

[@20shourya]

and if she was raped? Then who decides what?

[@jektonoporkins5025]

@@20shourya Most pro life people agree that there should be exceptions for the health of the mother and rape. But those are like less than 1% of abortions. The rest are initiated for convenience. The rape exception is a big fat red herring.

[@genevanoel120]

Fertilization involves two adult humans, frequently without consent. However pregnancy... bringing a baby to term... childbirth involves a very alone human not represented by whoever fertilized her eggs, nor the people in power, nor by a growing fetus/"unborn human". Going by your name, unless you are trans masculine, you have never had to contemplate becoming pregnant. Impregnating another, perhaps, but not physically bearing a child. (Much less had to deal with a period. As a reminder, female humans are born with all of the eggs they will ever have in their life, and they regularly lose them from the time they begin puberty.) However, upon fertilization (or "conception" per Evangelical interpretation, though... if the egg has been there all along, that term feels egregiously outdated and misplaced), anyone with a fertile womb that contains a successfully fertilized egg will begin to bodily transform in ways that have a huge affect on the already-independently existing life of that person. This phenomenon exists across species in the natural universe, she would exist on her own with or without nations and laws. If nations, synthetic organizations meant to protect the natural rights of their citizenry, do not protect her natural autonomy, they are illegitimate. If the Constitution of the United States fails to protect the autonomous freedom of naturally autonomous beings, it becomes a failed endeavor.

[@1974jrod]

@@20shourya there a provisions in the law for that.

[@yahirbrito1032]

Because they aren’t the one carrying it

[@aimsmallcq1218]

Many arguments hold that a young woman can't be held responsible for planning all pregnancies, I agree, but somehow a guy of a similar age can be held financially responsible for Eighteen years for it. A bit hypocritical.

[@yuweizhou7071]

Solicitor General Scott Stewart is effectively dodging questions asked by Associate Justice Sotomayor

[@vegascougar]

I thought he was just effective.

[@eight3467]

Praise the Lord for our babies. Thank you

[@expensivepink7]

they're being murdered in schools

[@ericlevi5729]

Thank God for JusticeThomas. Robert’s was moved to Chief Justice by BUSH whose a RINO

[@peterpalmer7014]

These people can't even define what a woman is.

[@davidanderson2519]

Revisiting this case today (6/24/22). The Republican nominees learned valuable lessons from the Bork Hearings. The stars seemed to align. RBG not resigning during the Obama Years, McConnell blocking Garland and the Election of Trump all have consigned Roe to the ash heap of History. Good Riddance.

[@fakereality96]

This. 👆

[@Arrozefeijao1234]

Quem defende Roe V Wade é CANALHA

[@Guenwhyever]

Sotomayor: ~27:20 "How is your interest anything other than a religious view?" I can't imagine hearing such insane indifference for human life, and the inevitable family of a baby, from a justice of the supreme court. Is a mother not sad if she miscarries at 14 weeks? Or is that just "a religious view" that makes her sad? Is the father of that baby not sad? Are their grandparents not sad? The resources invested by the state in helping bring that baby to term, the resources invested by the father, the family, are those all not wasted? Healthcare is a resource which is intentionally limited by the government. Pre-natal healthcare resources spent on women are gone. Do no doctors care for the fetuses they have helped to 14 weeks? Is a doctor telling their patient not to get an abortion because of the stretch marks, are they just a religious nut? Guess they're all just religious nuts. Thanks for your wisdom, Sotomayor.

[@messybuttons7525]

She was responding to the lawyers argument that a scientific study he was pushing , showed fetuses can feel pain and have self awareness in the womb. This study is not accepted by the scientific community at large which is required to be used as an argument for the case. Since the lawyer had no argument other than a study that really isn’t valid, her inquiry was, what evidence do you have based in science that this claim is true? He had no answer, so she can only assume their argument is based on religion which is true. The large majority of anti-choice people are religious and that is their motivation for denying women rights to make decisions about their body. And religion is not a valid reason to deny abortion. Hope that helps.

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

@@messybuttons7525 she literally says the issue of when life begins is a hotly debated topic among philosophers. (hmm, sounds like states deciding independently on when it does would be a good idea instead of pro-killers reigning over the country). If its hotly debated, that means some people must be arguing for Stewart view on non religious grounds

[@shgh2695]

@@Daniel-ih4zh You people claim that the answer of this should be up to the people, yet wants states to have the ability to assign their own restrictions. This doesn’t leave it up to the people. If you want the people to have the ability to determine when abortion is moral or immoral, then why not leave it up to the individual women who are pregnant, as it was for the last 50 years.

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

@@shgh2695 it's strange that the "silence is violence" can't see that if someone believes another is being murdered, it's the states duty to step in.

[@shgh2695]

@@Daniel-ih4zh not when no one is being murdered

[@whatthefrickbro]

Overturn Roe and save the unborn

[@MrLTLB]

If they're not born how can we save it? Only someone who's born and living it's life and it's life might be endanger, is what could need saving...the unborn does not need saving because it doesn't have a Life that needs saving.

[@usernotfound7531]

Two major non legal questions. 1) men are not held responsible or should they 2) do women actually have not only choice but means to exercise that choice. Choice of sex , choice of contraception and choice to carry a child to term?

[@heyitsme881]

You can choose whatever you want but you can’t choose to murder another human.