General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNoted booze-hound, attempted rapist, and illegitimate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ...
recently referenced Roe v Wade in a discussion of "wrongly decided" SCOTUS findings.
In a related story, Susan Collins (R-ME) is reportedly seeking medical treatment for an excess of "deep concern" which has recently begun to gush uncontrollably from her ass hole.
Doctors, citing HIPPA concerns, will only describe the condition as pre-existing, but did note a worsening of her symptoms.
Ninga
(8,277 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)(i) Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. Pp. 864-869.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER concluded in Part IV that an examination of Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and subsequent cases, reveals a number of guiding principles that should control the assessment of the Pennsylvania statute:
(a) To protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, see id., at 162, the undue burden standard should be employed. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.
(b) Roe's rigid trimester framework is rejected. To promote the State's interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, the State may take measures to ensure that the woman's choice is informed. Measures designed to advance this interest should not be invalidated if their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.
(c) As with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, but may not impose unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.
(d) Adoption of the undue burden standard does not disturb Roe's holding that regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.
(e) Roe's holding that "subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother" is also reaffirmed. Id., at 164-165. Pp.869-879.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/
I'm no fan of Kavanaugh, but what he actually seems to have done was explain that Casey did not overturn Roe but modified the standard to be applied while acknowledging the fundamental right it protected. One of the first things I learned in law school is that you have to not only read the footnotes, but the cases cited in the footnotes.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)That being said, let's not forget the enormous damage that Casey has done. It is the primary reason why the GOP has been able to launch the all out assault on reproductive rights that they have undertaken in recent years.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Kavanaugh mentioned Roe v Wade.
I tried to choose my words relatively carefully, fully aware that DU word parsers are ubiquitous in regard to certain topics (guns and abortion most particularly).
There was no inaccuracy in the OP. (Other than the obviously satirical Collins medical riff.)
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)
Pepsidog This message was self-deleted by its author.