The Supreme Court and abortion: on the brink?
Yesterday the Court heard arguments on a Mississippi abortion law in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but the decision won’t be handed down till this spring. I don’t often write about SCOTUS oral arguments and make predictions, because I’ve learned that it’s a difficult game and many such predictions turn out to be wrong.
However, I sometimes make exceptions, and this is one of those times – not because I feel certain what will happen, but because this is potentially a very big case. Even before yesterday, it seemed to me that the subject matter of Dobbs, which is whether a state can pass a law limiting abortion to pregnancies under 15 weeks in duration, would be likely to be decided narrowly or broadly. I believe answer would be likely to be a narrow, “Yes, a state can do that.” In other words, I think there will be a compromise decision in which the Mississippi law is upheld but Roe and Casey, the two main laws establishing a national right to abortion, are not overruled in their entirety.
Prior to yesterday, it also seemed likely to me that Justice Roberts in particular, who doesn’t like to upset any law he considers settled (which is just about any law and precedent), would take the lead in guiding the Court to that opinion and leave the larger questions untouched. This still is my prediction, for what it’s worth – in other words, that there will be three liberal justices for invalidating the Mississippi law, three conservative justices for doing away with Roe entirely and upholding the Mississippi law, and three for just upholding the Mississippi law but leaving Roe, resulting in a 6-3 ruling that is limited to the Mississippi law and is written by Roberts. But it’s also the case that such a solution would open the door for further erosion of Roe and further expansion of the right of states to limit abortions beyond the parameters set in Roe and Casey (the latter relying on the viability standard rather than Roe’s trimester standard).
That’s why this case strikes fear into the hearts of abortion advocates. The question is what standard would be left that could not be further challenged with success.
I’ll add that in my opinion and that of so many others, Roe is a case built on air and the political desires of the left, with no constitutional underpinnings other than rhetorical ones. That is something that seems obvious, if you study it (see this as well as this). That is another source of the consternation experienced at the moment by abortion advocates, because they are well aware of the shaky grounds for Roe. The more conservative majority of today’s Court is also an obvious concern for them, and one of the reasons they were so vicious in trying to stop the nomination of Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Some of that shakiness apparently came out during yesterday’s arguments. For example, from Roberts:
“If you think that the issue is one of choice — that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy — that supposes that there is a point at which they’ve had the fair choice, opportunity to choice. And why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line? Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?”
In other words, how does viability make sense as a legal standard, if the legal basis is about a woman’s right to choose? The answer seems to me to be one of competing interests – the interests of the woman to choose and the interest of the unborn child to live – but that argument is subject to a similar challenge, which is why does that right of the child only become determinative once the child can live outside the womb (see also this thread by Jonathan Turley on viability)?
Roe advocates also employ the defense of Stare Decisis, the rule of binding precedent. But that’s not something sacred, especially for SCOTUS, which has overruled its own precedents before. If a case was poorly decided in the first place there is no requirement to keep it going in perpetuity, and the same is true if there have been relevant advances during the intervening years, such as those in medicine since Roe and Casey to learn more about fetal development and also about how to keep younger and younger infants alive.
Yesterday’s proceedings also featured a strange and repellent argument by Justice Sotomayor – the self-described wise latina – who bizzarely and repulsively (and illogically) compared the reactions of fetuses to painful stimuli to the reflexes sometimes shown by so-called brain-dead people:
Virtually every state defines a brain death as death. Yet the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead, responding to stimuli,” Sotomayor said. “So I don’t think that a response [to pain by] a fetus necessar[ily] proves that there’s a sensation of pain or that there’s consciousness. “
But it certainly tends to strongly suggest it, and there is no reason to think that there is any analogy whatsoever between a growing fetus and a person whose brain is so damaged as to be nearly inoperative.
To me, it’s clear there are only two ways that abortion should be legally regulated. The first is to overrule Roe and leave the decision to the individual states, which was the situation prior to Roe. The second is to pass a constitutional amendment. That amendment could either ban abortion, limit it in some standard way, or prohibit states from banning it.
However, when I did a quick search on the matter, I found surprisngly little discussion of this latter idea of passing a constitutional amendment in order to create any federal (rather than state) rule on abortion. It seems to me rather obvious, however, that this would be one way to go, and should have been the way abortion advocates went instead of SCOTUS deciding Roe as it did. It’s obvious why abortion advocates didn’t go the amendment route, however – it would have been too difficult at the time, and perhaps even now.
Is there some glitch in my reasoning? It seems to me that if there is no constitutional basis for a nationwide right to abortion in the Constitution, but if people want to give it such a basis, an Amendment would be the answer, wouldn’t it? Likewise, if there is no constitutional basis for a nationwide ban on abortion, but if people want to give it such a basis, an amendment would be the answer.
[NOTE: None of this has to do with my political or moral opinion on abortion, merely my legal one. If you want to read up on my personal opinion, please see this post, as well as this and this.]
One wonders whether the most fanatical supporters of abortion are even aware of the laws in other countries, France being an useful example. Although leftists seem determined to destroy the Tenth Amendment (along with the First and the Second, needless to say), perhaps it would indeed be best should this particular issue involving both law and morality be returned to each state for decision by the citizens of each.
personally, Im a limited legal safe and rare type that feels Roe was an abomination that damaged our nation and elevated the SCOTUS to a super legislature.
Also the issue is dominated by repellant extremes on both sides. we have feminazi abortion uber alles on the left and Todd Akins on the right.
While I am closer to Akin, people like him become defacto pro-abortionists because they scare sympathetic voters to the other side
One thing to keep in mind when it comes to Roberts and maybe a few other GOP-appointed Justices is that the organized effort to get federal judges on the bench and on the Court is a decades-long project that has been largely focused on overturning Roe. Some of the more libertarian elements of the campaign may want to pretend otherwise but that’s the fact.
If this Supreme Court…AT MINIMUM…doesn’t let the Mississippi law stand and invite further abortion limitations without officially overturning Roe or Casey, the conservative legal movement will undergo a full-blown apocalypse. And the GOP could find itself trying to win elections with a sizeable percentage of its base simply disconnecting from politics and refusing to turn out.
Imagine the response if a Democratic Congress passed a federal law banning gay marriage. THAT’S what it will be like. I think Roberts is fully aware of that and while he may care a great deal about the opinion page of the Washington Post, he also doesn’t want to be the guy who nuked the GOP from orbit.
Mike
the Dems always have an advantage here. The media backs them and if a Dem politician is deep down pro-life, he can be publicly pro-abortion knowing that his/her family won’t have one.
Many if not most Rep pols are secretly pro abortion and only give life lip service.
Others are truly pro-life , but would (as many other pro-life people would) arrange a quiet , early as possible abortion for their daughter if she were raped. And those Rep pols are afraid of Akin types
FWIW…
When I was in my late teens/20s, I was pro-choice as long as a woman made that choice within eight weeks.
When I was pregnant with my first child, I (foolishly, stupidly, ashamedly) thought if the sonogram showed a defect, I would terminate.
Age brings wisdom.
ALL* human life is precious, even if we, flawed as we are, cannot understand or imagine why.
One of my favorite movies is “It’s A Wonderful Life.” Clarence tells George Bailey, “Strange, isn’t it? Each man’s life touches so many other lives. When he isn’t around he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?”
We shouldn’t create holes.
PS. I lived in James Stewart’s hometown for 26 years. He was truly a great gentleman.
*At the same time, I support the death penalty for those whose guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; his or her soul is God’s decision.
I saw a comment elsewhere yesterday that Mrs. Roberts works for a pro-life organization. So the usual rules regarding the Chief Justice might not apply here.
As for a constitutional amendment – it won’t happen. You have to have a certain degree of concensus to push through an amendment (which also requires ratification by 75% of the states, iirc), but the issue is too divisive for that. I doubt you’d be able to get three-quarters of the states to agree to an amendment that locked in the pre-Roe status quo of “up to the state”, let alone an amendment that either banned it or permitted it nation-wide.
In any case, things are likely to get interesting here in California as the ruling date for this one approaches, despite the fact that we can’t even get a parental consent (with an option for a judge to stand in as the parent when appropriate) for abortion law past the voters in this state. Actually restricting abortion in some fashion doesn’t have a chance of occurring here at this time, which means that the ruling will mean nothing here. But that won’t stop the shrieks of outrage.
junior:
That’s my point. An amendment would be too difficult either way because of the lack of strong consensus. But that would be the proper mechanism to make such a change. There’s a reason the amendment process was made difficult. Major change that is not based on something constitutional requires an amendment and not just a SCOTUS ruling, and that used to be understood. That’s why there was an amendment for Prohibition, for example, and also one for voting changes such as race and age, and also the income tax.
Nowadays they’d do such things by executive order or SCOTUS decision or agency ruling instead.
Neo –
Agreed on the general point regarding an amendment. But the courts have been the Left’s go-to for decades now. This goes back to at least Warren, who at one point even bragged that he figured out the “right” result (i.e. the one he wanted) first, and then worked out how to twist the law to fit his desired outcome.
If you know that the Court will do this sort of thing in your favor, it makes your side lazy. Why go to the trouble of passing an amendment (which is hard), when the court can make it easy?
Which reminds me – an actual attempted amendment from that era was the Equal Rights Amendment. That failed when opponents claimed it would ban gender-segregated restrooms. Proponents of the ERA mocked that argument. But now…
junior:
Yes. The left has figured out long ago that the courts were the way to go when they don’t have popular support for their policies. That’s why their challenges to the confirmation of conservative justices have been so ferocious and no-holds-barred.
I think there is more to the pro-life movement than just opposing abortion in difficult circumstances. I think it is also a reaction to teaching young kids about masturbation and enjoying sex. And also about baby mamas and the failure of men to feel any responsibility for raising their offspring. In fact, too many people don’t seem to feel any responsibility for the next generation. Getting into a corporate boardroom is more important-
We have become so selfish and short sighted. I am old and come from a very big extended family, so I’ve seen how kids, relatives, nieces, and nephews are there for old people. I’ve seen how uncles and aunts step in when a younger person starts going down the wrong path.
Pro-life is really part of a very big picture.
A possible consequence of letting the states make their own abortion laws is that the outflow of people from blue states seeking responsible government and safer streets in red states might be reduced.
Assume that the court overruled Casey and Roe. Once the “constitutional right” to an abortion was no longer in place, in how many states would abortion be legal under current law? My guess is that the Democrats haven’t put such “safety nets” in place, because they like the hammer that abortion gives them–but that would quickly change if Roe/Casey went away.
I recognize that many of my friends on the right believe that abortion would be illegal in many states. I respectfully disagree. I suspect that in well over 40 states, abortion would be legal within a year of Casey and Roe being overruled. Some states would be restrictive (first 15 weeks, parental notification, and the like) and many would be permissive.
The bottom line would be that a large portion of the population would be within driving distance of access to an abortion. But the political process would have the chance to work and the decision would be made by the voters of each state.
Also, the US Congress can pass a law stipulating the “rules” of when an abortion can be considered legal.
No need to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for Congress to do anything. They gave up doing their job beginning during the FDR presidency.
Many of the problems in the USA are due to Congress’s unwillingness to consider needed legislation; they have literally abrogated their law making duties and passed them on to Federal Agencies or let the President become a law maker/breaker via executive order or just let the SCOTUS create (or not) new laws.
One solution would be for US Senators to be appointed by their respective State Legislatures; this is how it was done until about 1913 or so.
Nobody back then could have seen how electing a US Senator by popular vote would become, literally, a national issue, drawing in gobs of money from out of state and big shot party organizers, from out of state, to help someone get elected. as US Senator.
The result is that US Senators are just as apt to make decisions based upon the “influence” of out-of-state money and support, to the detriment of making decisions for the benefit of their home state denizens.
Senators today are not beholden to their home state constituencies, but to the national, big money, movers and shakers of their political party.
If ONLY women were to pass a law re: abortion, what time period would they choose beyond which an abortion would be considered unlawful?? (assuming healthy mom and fetus/baby).
What’s the big deal? It is Federalism. It is States’ Rights. The fix is simple, though the national harm done by murdering 60 million unborn US citizens since 1973 cannot ever be undone.
Ironically, and perhaps fortunately, the highest abortion rates are in the lowest, melanotic classes, who suckle at the federal teat more than anyone, with their income tax credits though they do not earn, etc. Our upper classes still marry, but the low classes simply rut. “Who’s yo Daddy?” Marriage and income/education are entirely linked.
That Democrats are murdering their own electorate by pro-choice has apparently never occurred to them.
It’s a nice idea, theoretically, but practically speaking, I think there is no chance that either a pro-abortion or an anti-abortion amendment would pass.
I also don’t think that many states, if any, will pass hard no-abortion laws. This would mean putting judges in charge of deciding whether a rape actually happened. With our slow justice system, babies would be born long before rape charges were tried and verdicts reached. Also, there are some women having conditions which make an accidental pregnancy a serious risk to their lives. I strongly suspect that most states will end with something like 12-to-15-week limits, and of course serious medical risk would always be allowed as a cause. (A friend of mine had an emergency termination for an ectopic pregnancy. Had she not gotten a second opinion and the emergency operation, she would have died along with the child.)
On the federal law proposal, on what basis would this be a federal matter? Democrats said they wanted to codify Roe, but I don’t see how it would stand, especially since it looks likely that the Court will let the Mississippi law stand.
Neo, thanks for this. I also read one of your earlier posts about those you knew who were confronted with this issue. Some thoughts. First no amendment would ever pass because the polls have shown consistently for 50 years that a 2/3 majority would favor abortion as an option only in the cases of rape, incest, or birth defects. Both sides cite the same statistic in their favor. Second, I think it’s clear that most states would settle on laws like Europe has–abortion allowed early in pregnancy but illegal later. Morally, I disagree with even that, but women in that situation deserve compassion, not condemnation unless their stance is straight out evil–I’ve met one of those, but only one. Every other woman I’ve met who’s had an abortion remembers it with great sadness if they can’t forget it. The pro-life people since Roe have always tried to help women in this situation. I know, I used to give $20 a month out of my $500/month earnings to a home for unwed mothers back in the mid-70s. I think Andrew Klavan was very wise when he said, “Our moral decisions about ourselves can be spiritual. Our moral decisions about other people can only be practical.”
I’ve sometimes asked, “Back in the bad old days, if a man got a woman pregnant, there would probably be a shotgun wedding. If no shotgun was needed, he was considered a stand-up guy. Now if a guy offers to pay for half the abortion and drive the woman to have it done, he’s considered a mensch. How is that a better deal for the woman?”
This would mean putting judges in charge of deciding whether a rape actually happened.
I have news for you, Kate. Courts make factual determinations every day.
Yes, courts make factual decisions, but do they do it in the required time frame?
Frank, I doubt that young people today even know what a shotgun wedding was.
Six step program…
1. I have dignity.
2. I have agency.
3. There is no mystery in sex and conception.
4. I had sex with a man.
5. It was my choice, and it was wonderful. Call me.
Sex Nazi: No wicked solution for you. Next!
6. Rock-a-my… our baby, in the treetop, when the wind blows…
On what basis do they deny woman’s bodily autonomy in the second or third trimesters? The fourth?
All’s fair in lust and abortion, I suppose.
To expand on the six step program, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, self-defense (but not a Capitol Hill “hero” with plausible cause), and still six weeks to hold a reproductive rite (i.e. wicked solution) for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes. Further, her Choice and Her Choice are separable.
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx. #HateLovesAbortion
I share neo’s viewpoint on the no guarantee but likely SC ruling.
As for the Roe VS Wade ruling permanently standing, besides its lack of constitutional basis, the fatal flaw in the argument for abortion is exposed in this man on the street interview; “Trying to Understand Liberals” in which Mark Dice poses but two scenarios.
The typical liberal response is that, if the pregnancy is welcome, it’s a baby. If not welcome, its a piece of trash.
https://choiceclips.whatfinger.com/2021/12/02/trying-to-understand-liberals/
early as possible abortion for their daughter if she were raped
Elective abortion through reconciliation is her Choice, including self-defense, rape… rape-rape (i.e. involuntary exploitation), and, perhaps, incest (i.e. superior exploitation).
Goddessoftheclassrom,
I’ve read that when Jimmy Stewart won the Best Actor Oscar, he brought it home and handed it to his Dad, who placed it in his hardware store window for the next 26 odd years.
IMHO, the death penalty for premeditated murder, rape of a child and treason is the appropriate and proportional consequence for those crimes. Especially in murder in the first and treason, the perpetrator has voluntarily forfeited their own right to life. As the perpetrator cannot unilaterally deny their victim’s right to life, while claiming that right for themselves. Treason generally results in the unnecessary loss of lives as well. Rape of a child rips their innocence from them and arguably destroys their lives.
Doc Zero reminds us that this decision isn’t just about abortion, as the lockdowns were not just about a virus.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1466036138439811074.html
The “ Viability” argument is interesting in and of itself. A baby not able to live outside of the environment and life support of the womb is not considered alive. If an Astronaut gets sucked out of the artificial womb of the space station , and dies, does that mean that astronaut was in fact, never alive? If a fish gets taken out of water, and dies, does that mean it was never alive? And as others have pointed out, if they ever find a single celled organism on *Mars, that was not previously found on Earth, all the headlines would exclaim that “ Life found on Mars!”
* Personally, it totally would NOT surprise me if there is cellular life below the surface of Mars.
Kate – a “pro-abortion or an anti-abortion amendment” would most likely turn out to be the 21 century equivalent of the 18th amendment. One attempt at trying to turn the Constitution into a policy statement is enough. Best leave the matter to the individual states
Excellent articles, if you want to have some background on the original case, or grist for your debate mill.
https://thenewamerican.com/roe-v-wade-still-lies-in-the-penumbras/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/right-to-abortion-comes-from-fight-against-slavery-cnn-legal-expert
You may recognize parts of this long, scholarly, yet passionate, post from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. See footnote [1] below.
I’m rather surprised at the venue; however, it is a public record in a matter of national importance.
https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/roe-and-casey-were-grievously-wrong-and-should-be-overruled-cooper-et-al/
Considering that opposition to Roe has grown after 48 years suggests that maybe the left better fold its cards and quit the game.
Four pages and 10 footnotes done; 25 pages and 126 footnotes to go.
I’m rather fond of this line: “In addition to being plainly and egregiously wrong, Roe’s reasoning is generally acknowledged to be unprincipled.”
Justice Thomas has rock-solid principles:
[1] This Article is adapted from the Brief of Amicus Curiae Ethics and Public Policy Center in Support of Petitioners and Reversal filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, available at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185234/20210729114228086_19-1392%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Ethics%20and%20Public%20Policy%20Center.pdf.
Justice Rehnquist’s Dissent in Roe has one of those paragraphs that make reading some legal opinions so rewarding.
http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/pdf/Roe_Rehnquist_Dissent.pdf
Neo, I appreciate the insight into your thinking on abortion from your earlier posts. My feelings are similar to yours, I think: I hate the idea that women should have a simple choice to end a human life, even within their own bodies, but the choice isn’t simple, or it shouldn’t be. Still, as you witnessed, if an unmarried woman became pregnant decades ago, the choice either way could be devastating.
If abortion is against the law, how do we punish the lawbreaker? And individual cases have to be so different: a pregnancy that occurs despite all precautions or when life circumstances present great obstacles differs greatly from a case in which abortion is applied as convenient birth control, sometimes repeatedly. The standard of “safe, legal and rare” may be the most reasonable, but how do we achieve “rare”?
The best, for now, may be to leave it for states to decide, and hope for a moral awakening on the left.
If the Mississippi (typing that was so much fun!) decision opens the door to states over riding Roe things will really get interesting. As several legal opinions cited in this comment thread have pointed out, Roe removed the resolution of this issue from where it rightly belonged – the legislative forum.
Polling – FWIW – shows a steady drop in support for abortion, particularly among younger Americans. Not surprising, as almost everyone under 35 has seen a sonogram of their self. Ironically, we could see abortion restrictions passed that are far more stringent than would have been adopted in 1973.
Sotomayor – what a Gorgon.
I recall several years ago hearing an abortion provider say that one of his victims had defensive wounds on his hands. Quite a fight there, in the womb.
Send it to the states for state laws and we can see who’s on the side of the kid with defensive wounds on his hands.
Heard some opining the other day that the Mississippi law would cover better than 90% of abortions we currently have, as they are within fifteen weeks and the balance of the rest within two more weeks.
After guessing which states would go with fifteen weeks if given the choice, it appears that the driving time, maximum, from a fifteen-week state to an any-time state would be about twelve hours.
IOW, not a major change to current practices nor a massive inconvenience.
But the taking of sides on the question, at the state level, would be interesting to watch.
Yes, courts make factual decisions, but do they do it in the required time frame?
There is no required time frame, except in your imagination. Conception via rape is rare as hen’s teeth and the mode itself does not alter the reality that the conceived child is a person.
That aside, a timely report and timely forensic examination should establish you were coerced. Why would you sit on your hands for 14 weeks if you were actually raped?
Overturn Roe V Wade? Hahahaha – This is the corrupt and cowardly Roberts court remember? All this seemingly overturn fever is just their way of demanding more dark money to their friends and relatives. It’s an old trick used by Biden, North Korea, et all.
Yes, Art Deco, the arguments you make sustain a twelve-to-fifteen-week window for the procedure without judicial review. This is where I would guess most states will end up when Roe is reversed, as I hope it will be.
neo, thanks for this post and thanks to the commenters here who’ve taken time to opine and expand on the topic. A lot of wisdom here.
Doesn’t the morning after pill now available simply remove all the excuses for a longer wait? Make it available over the counter.
Make it available over the counter.
Why?
Let’s posit that the law recognizes a baby in a woman’s womb after fifteen weeks as a person. Thus, a law making it a crime for a woman to abort the baby in her womb after fifteen weeks protects the baby person. If my state has such a law, is it somehow not a crime in my state for the woman to go to another state to abort the baby?
The morning after pill branded Plan B is already approved OTC by the FDA. I have seen it in a grocery store in Kansas. With that stated I would guess that it is available OTC in almost all states.
Martin,
I think a lot of states used the pandemic to change it to OTC since women couldn’t get to their doctors in a timely manner.
CapnRusty, seems to me that would be trying to do a Dred Scott on the situation. Opponents of Roe are saying it ought to be legislated state by state.
According to our local lefty news site, abortionists here in NC are already bracing themselves, they say, for numbers of women coming here from other states. That will work until we get a Republican super-majority in the state legislature. After they pass sensible voting laws, I wouldn’t be surprised if they went on to a law like the one in Mississippi.
Rufus T. Firefly
Longer ago than 2020
According to CBS news (an untrusted source to be sure but I will use them for this)
June 20th, 2013
“The FDA announced on Thursday that it would allow all women with child-bearing potential to purchase the emergency contraceptive over-the-counter without any age or point-of-sale barriers.
Plan B-One Step (levonorgestrel) is a form of the “morning-after pill,” a type of emergency contraception that drastically reduces the chance of pregnancy after a woman has engaged in unprotected sex. There are currently three types of morning-after pills for sale in the U.S.: Plan B One-Step, Plan B, and ella. Plan B is currently available for women 17 and older over the counter, and requires a prescription for those under the age limit. Ella requires a prescription regardless of age.”
I am worried if the Supreme Court curtails in the slightest the present abortion law that Democrats will hold both houses next year and the presidency in 2024.
I do also worry about some girls and women who live in terrible situations and truly might resort to horrific measures to end their pregnancies if abortion is made illegal. One of my aunts died from such circumstances as a teenager growing up in poverty.
There is no easy answer on abortion. Democrats are salivating over the prospect of a muscular set of rulings from the Supreme Court. It would lock in their power for a long time, in my view.
Thanks for the clarification, Martin.
If we believe that [potential] human life begins at conception/fertilization, then a contraceptive method that prevents fertilization presumably has limited moral issues [except for the Catholic view that any attempt to thwart procreation is a sin?]
But my understanding is that the chemical contraceptives don’t do that, but instead are abortifacients [who comes up with these words!?] that act to prevent the now fertilized ovum from implanting on the urterine wall. Thus the continued potentiality of the potential human is reduced or voided. So by some viewpoints, this form of contraception is morally equivalent to a physical abortion of an older fetus. But if the woman is not actually aware that this (possibility) has in fact occurred, then I suppose the moral issue is reduced or also voided?
But even Nature seems to end up with 10 to 25% of pregnancies miscarrying [a figure much higher than I would have expected, given modern medicine, etc.] While there are presumably (usually) no moral issues when this happens (act of God, etc.) it also adds to the view that preserving even “merely” potential human life is precious.
Molly-Brown: “…almost everyone under 35 has seen a sonogram of their self.” A great observation, one where everyone “knows that”, or knows that it is possible, but it escapes being fully recognized until someone explicitly mentions it. Makes me wonder why the pro-life forces don’t taunt the pro-abortion people with comments similar to “aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you … for convenience?”
Yes, we definitely need a Constitutional amendment to decide which life is unworthy of life.
While we don’t publicly entertain ourselves watching people be torn apart by bears in the Colosseum, we don’t love life near as much as we think we do nor as much as we should.
Yes, courts make factual decisions, but do they do it in the required time frame?
No. The sixth amendment is dead, too.