After Roe v. Wade, What Next?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
It's just the beginning. ⛑ Tab for a Cause just launched Tab for Reproductive Health that will raise money for reproductive rights legaleagle.link/tfac
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
The idea that birth control could be taken away is absolutely insane. I take it because I have extreme endometriosis that leaves me basically bedridden if I don't take it. If this happens, I'm telling my doctor to immediately perform a hysterectomy before they ban those too. I've spoken to other women with endo who also have said the same. This situation is off the wall bonkers.
That is if hysterectomies aren't out the window too
No pls don’t fall for fake news. Conservatives support birth control, at least the majority. Justice Thomas was just saying that it’s not the supremes court job to decide on things like that. It’s us the voters that decide.
The Supreme Court should just interpret the law not make it. This roe decision was basically them saying abortion is not a law they can enforce.
@@jmtz3149 mostly correct, but what this decision means is that the PROTECTION of abortion can not be legislated by the federal government. They could in fact ban abortion across the board at the federal level based on the idea of abortion being murder.
Also yes, we conservatives would love it if people would start deciding not to have kids before they have kids. More use of protection, less frivolous sex, less inconvenient pregnancy. It's like magic!👍
Who the hell doesn't support birth control?
Birth control is literally the biggest advancement in modern history and is an entirely bipartisan issue.
You say if but a hysterectomy is definitely already gone if birth control goes. Don't wait another day to make an appointment because laws like these won't be cleared up for decades again if ever in your lifetime.
"The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not 'deeply rooted in history'."
If historical precedent is the only thing we're gonna look at to determine what is ethical, then I got some bad news for you about our most 'deeply rooted history.'
While I agree with you in general, slavery is under no circumstances the "most" deeply rooted aspect of American history.
@@NegatingSilence slavery has existed in some form for the entirety of America's existence. Its literally more American than the actual bill of rights (which was only adopted like 15 years after our independence).
@@NegatingSilence The South literally seceded from the nation over slaves and the only reason that the Constitution was agreed upon was it was favorable to white land owning males. WTF are you talking about that it's not deeply rooted? The country was mostly built on slavery!
@@Karak971 Yup. North American slavery predates the American Revolution.
@@NegatingSilence yes it is.
I heard of a story in Texas, where a lone woman was pulled over for driving in the carpool lane. The officer pulled her over, and when he pointed out that she was driving in the carpool lane without another passenger in the car, she point out that she was pregnant and according to the law, a fetus in her belly was a person, therefore: it was legal for her to use the carpool lane.
Make the law work for you folks.
😂😂😂😂
Honestly it sounds like she was doing this to make a political statement. Personally I'd just let her drive in the carpool lane lmao.
legal foetal personhood is dangerous. If a foetus is a person, and their rights outweigh those of the mother (as in the case of anti-abortion laws), then women who are of childbearing age could be prohibited from drinking, smoking, driving (what if she got into an accident?), taking any medication that could potentially harm a pregnancy, or doing any activity (work?) that may put a foetus at risk.
I get what she was doing. Power to her. But holy heck is this not something to encourage broadly :/ If the US is headed for an ultra conservative, women can only stay at home and breed system, they need foetal personhood.
Deal, if we ban abortion than pregnant women can drive in the carpool lane 👍👍
@@ninawernick6501 I've heard about alot of women's insurance refusing to cover their medications because they can harm a fetus already
As a Registered Nurse in the ICU I'll say this: the presence of a heartbeat doesn't mean anything if the patient is brain dead and all the breathing of the patient is done by a ventilator.
Ssssshhh, don’t apply logic to the Cult of Yeshua. They’ll burn you as a “””heathen””” for it.
But who cares about silly things like “logic”
A persons value is not defined by whether or not their brain is working.
@@investigatinglegends They're not people. If the brain is dead or completely unformed, there is no person to begin with. They are an inanimate object.
@Watchers Guild If a person is brain dead, they have no value because they are DEAD! A dead brain means no conscience. The former inhabitant of that body has already started to change state from kinetic energy to potential energy.
There's a good point you've touched on here. If a fetus is a legal "person" then the census would be required to start counting them, since they have a duty to count "all persons within the United States".
So why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder after he murdered his pregnant wife? The second count was for his unborn child.
@@John-tr5hn California has a fetal homicide law that states any person who kills someone who is pregnant will be charged with homicide of that fetus. That's why. It has no legal bearing on anything unrelated to homicide cases.
Why would that be a problem... If they count newborns, count unborns too...
@@samuelthomas3029 because some women don't even know they're pregnant until 6 weeks in or even later, also what would the unborn fill on their census form on thing like date of birth, religion, ect?
Just think of the increased scrutiny of women who are of child-bearing age. Will these women be required to have routine ultrasounds or HCG blood tests in order to discover new unborn persons? And many medications are contraindicated for pregnancy. So will women of child-bearing age not be treated for these illnesses?
IVF clinics, with many frozen "persons," will be regulated so much as to render them financially unsound. Divorce and other couple separations will have many more legal issues to settle.
If fertilized eggs become persons, I have a feeling that we will be sorting out issues for decades. If pro-lifers want to open this can of worms, they will be sorry.
Without context, the fact that we have a “Texas Bounty Hunter Law” and that we have to think of how laws will be effected by it sounds like the most anarchy-dystopian thing ever
That's how Texas be. One of the most dystopian States in the US
It’s the equivalent to prosecuting a get away driver in the even of a bank robbery, not that dystopian.
It's bad with context.
The worst part about the Texas law is they immunized it from Judicial Review.
@@Lebronwski You must not understand what the word “equivalent” means.
That reading at the end, about other rights being in jeopardy, made me think: "Wow, it's almost as if linking acquired fundamental rights to simple judicial cases that can be rolled back by a sufficiently dedicated court is a BAD idea."
What do you propose?
@@baboon_92 Constitutional amendments guaranteeing bodily autonomy, which would include but not be limited to medical decisions like abortion and social ones like who you f*ck. It could even include recreational drug use. It wouldn't hurt to declare the unborn to be not people, but that probably won't fly.
Dred Scott was never overturned, so there's that. We can go right back to chattel Slavery if SCOTUS decides that forced labor is legitimate punishment for simple misdemeanors.
Are you suggesting that the Court should not be allowed to correct itself when it gets a case WRONG? Because that sounds far, far WORSE...
@@baboon_92 maybe having them enshrined in law.
"You can't know until you try." This about sums up our legal system right now.
Got a “what if” question: If a law/laws came to pass that grants personhood to a fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus, could that open up potential laws allowing mothers to open paternity suits compelling fathers to be tested and then be legally obligated to be financially responsible for prenatal care and preparations for the birth?
I'd think the congressional mistress clause would cause an automatic veto against any such law.
Yup, if life begins at conception then so should child support
Another thought would be if they were to grant personhood how coul they put a pregnant woman in prison ? I mean the fetus would then be innocent in prison
I thought that was already a law lul
The state would love this as they collect a fee as well for child support.
I’m probably projecting… but I love Devin’s ability to objectively lay out the facts and implications of this decision while still conveying disappointment in that decision without resorting to hyperbole.
I'm so livid right now that I know I could never do what he does.
@@FourtyParsecs hey you, I want to speak to you. Not being aggressive, just open to anything. Discussion, argument, whatever.
I'm split between having abortions being a federal issue vs. a states issue.
Maybe I can have a discussion with someone that feels strongly about this and not have it become a street fighter match.
@@ccshredder9506 I think it boils down to living in a red state v blue state. For the most part at least. Blue stated won't change much. Red states will go hard to ban or strongly limit it. it does set a bad precedent I think.
@@ccshredder9506 I come out strong on women have equal rights as a man over their own bodily autonomy. Full stop.
@@ccshredder9506 the issue is a political one. "the rights of the states" is not one any person with the expectation of right wing commentators like to bring up. i think its a fundamental right. in the same way I judge Saudi Arabia for their antiquated laws i judge this act since it will strip people of their fundamental rights.
same with slavery, i think its immoral thus it should be outlawed, i dont care about giving the power to states to enforce it, as long as they all inforce it
It's hilarious that people are even pretending to give credence to the lie about "this decision doesn't affect other rights" when they openly stated that they plan to go after same-sex marriage and birth control next. They told you the plan and people are still pretending that it's unclear what they're going to do.
Another lie that I'm tired of seeing is "this is just removing the decision about abortion from the federal government and placing it back in the hands of the states". Does anyone seriously doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold a federal abortion ban if the Republicans were able to take control of the federal government and pass one?
clarence thomas is the only one who has said that he wants to overturn those other rulings.
no they didnt lol
@@lemurwrench6344 The other right wing judges have the same politics as him. They absolutely will do it.
@@enriquesanchez9016 you're assuming that. Being conservative doesn't mean they'll all agree on everything.
A few years ago I had a miscarriage that, unfortunately, resulted in what is *technically* considered abortion. I very much wanted this baby, planned or not. The state I live in now has recently made that exact procedure illegal. If my miscarriage had happened today, I would have basically been left to die. Thankfully our bordering states has kept abortions legal so if worst came to worst, I could have rushed over there and they ideally would have saved my life.
Are you sure? Couldn't you are that your own life is being threatened, theoretically calling out whoever it may be they would be committing murder in some sense? I am not a lawyer, but wondering (also you sure about that, if it's a miscarriage, I can't believe they can argue it a living being, which is the argument of pro-life, is it's "alive")
@@Ange1ofD4rkness Yeah, they don't care. Whenever abortion is banned, things get really thorny and complicated: there needs to be tons of exceptions spelled out, and even if they ARE, Doctors can be very hesitant to perform them anyway out of fear of going to jail.
Can I ask what procedure you're talking about?
First of all, I am sorry for your loss. There really is no greater.
As to the rest, actually, it all depends on how abortion is defined in your state.
Abortion used to be defined in 2 ways, at least among the medical community:
Therapeutic, aka spontaneous, and elective. The procedure is basically the same for the removal of the “productions of conception” depending on the age of the pregnancy.
Example, a d&c (dilation and curettage) is the procedure used for young pregnancies. The cervix is dilated with progressive sized rods and the. A Curette is used to scrape the pregnancy from the uterus-this is often followed by suctioning the contents of the uterus.
Older pregnancies in which the above procedures are not possible are induced into labor as would be for normal birth.
The real difference between the two is the status of the fetus BEFORE the procedure begins.
In a spontaneous abortion, often called miscarriage, the fetus has passed away spontaneously without outside intentional “assistance”. I use the term assistance because there can be there can be outside causes of the fetal death that are not intentional, such as a car accident, etc. Often the fetus will also pass out of the uterus spontaneously. Sometimes it doesn’t and this is where the “therapeutic” part comes in and the d&c procedure or induction of labor is done in order to prevent harm or death to mother as retained pregnancies can cause deadly infection and hemorrhaging.
In the other type, “elective” the fetus is living and it’s death is intentionally caused inside the uterus at time of or prior to removal from the uterus using the same procedures as above.
I can’t imagine and certainly hope that a woman will ever be blocked from having a procedure to have her spontaneously deceased fetus removed from her uterus. That IS a necessary medical procedure and should never be outlawed. Unfortunately, there are many people out there, including legislators, who are uneducated and or lack understanding of the differences in the situations and circumstances. The understanding of these differences certainly doesn’t get conveyed to the public by the legislators, as the term “except to save the life of the mother” is a very vague term really. For example, does that mean the medical community cannot intervene with a “therapeutic abortion” until the mother is literally dying from septic shock and hemorrhage or can they intervene well before it gets to that point. Other discussions need to be had with more transparently as well. For example, do we really want an 8, 9, 10 year old (yes, that happens much more than you realize) victims of incest or rape to have to carry a pregnancy to term OR do we want to allow the biological/genetic evidence of a crime to be destroyed at the insistence of the perpetrator of the crime? I would have a hard time believing that there are not unscrupulous practitioners out there even today, performing forced abortions on young girls in order to hide evidence. Are there any laws requiring a medical practitioner to preserve this evidence for prosecution? There is a lot to consider re: this whole issue that never really gets covered.
What state? Should be pretty easy to confirm what you're saying if we know that.
With the "bounty" laws... would that theoretically allow someone to sue Delta Airlines for selling someone a ticket to travel for abortion?
Probably not. It would be pretty hard to prove they were aware of the woman's intentions. Doesn't mean someone won't try to do that to pressure them into prying into private affairs to prevent more suits, but it almost certaintly wouldn't work.
Maybe, but I think you would have to prove that they knew about the reason for the travel when they sold the ticket.
@@zephid11 how do you prove the Uber driver from a home to the DALLAS airport WAS for an abortion?
If the person went to Delta and said "I need to get an abortion in New Mexico so I'm flying there" then yes, though they may defer to making whatever agent helped them out. It was already made clear that an Uber driver could be sued for knowingly taking someone somewhere to get abortion, even if it was out of state.
Now proving either would be difficult.
yes, you can sue but you most likely won't win. If you do win, then every carrier would end up asking every woman traveling if they plan on an abortion.
"outcome-driven" is a terrifying euphemism for "bending the interpretation to fit the agenda".
You could say the same thing about Roe v Wade
@@dongquixote7138 wat?
@@dongquixote7138 A statement that dumb definitely needs some foundation
@@dongquixote7138 Agreed
Based.
Wait so if a fetus has "full personhood" wouldn't it be illegal to jail pregnant women? You would be illegally imprisoning that innocent "person"
OH yeah, this has opened a can of worms. For instance, the HOV argument (maybe that's why some places changed it to occupants ... I'm joking there)
Throws a wrench in a shit ton of immigration policy too. If an undocumented migrant gets pregnant here, would deporting her mean deportating a citizen? If someone in a detainment camp miscarries due to the awful conditions, aren't the authorities guilty of manslaughter at the very least?
yeah I'm not comfortable with imprisoning a mother, but if you don't, does that allow pregnant criminals to just carry on?
I understand the view here, but, seriously? The baby isn’t a prisoner in the womb. That’s their home, for a good nine months or so. You can’t evict the baby, so if mom has to live in jail, the baby’s address would be the same. The only difference is, at birth, because the baby is obviously innocent, they are possessed of a get out of jail immediately free card.
Firstly, law and human reasoning does not work just like one day's worth of programming classes. Pregnancy is a phenomenon more apparent to us than the thing known as jail. To reduce it down to "oh two humans in the same space, one is innocent, one is not, I can't jail them" is not how this has to work. Unless being strange to prove a point. That being said the baby deserves the absolute best conditions that mother can (legally) make for it so I for one would be fine with house arrest for pregnant women if they are in trouble until they give birth. Still horrible situation but that prevents a jail birth away from family or the father.
What I really do not get is how "deeply routed in history" is even an argument, regardless of which side you are on. I do not think that matters at all when you try to decide which rights a person should have. I mean, we all know civil right were better in the past, right?
And as Devin said, this reasoning could be applied to so many other recently granted rights or used to prevent new ones.
Why is this used and taken seriously for any legal reasoning?
It isn’t a valid argument. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has no actual limit on how they choose to interpret the Constitution so they can legally make things up like “deeply rooted in history” to justify anything. As they already erased the wall between church and state at schools I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw the practice of certain religions at this point given they quoted a ruling from an infamous witch burner in their abortion decision as a dog whistle to Evangelicals to ramp up support for November.
In the very broad sense of whether rights not explicitly granted in the constitution are implied, I can see it being generally applicable. In this narrow case, I think there's a good argument that the problem is that it was applied incorrectly (both by ignoring the early American history of abortion, and that the idea of constitutional rights applying to the unborn only came about in the late 20th century).
Because conservatives will use literally anything they can come up with to take away rights? Honestly, I don't think it is taken particularly seriously. It's just an excuse to obtain an outcome they were already dead-set on achieving. When the inevitable backlash to all of this comes (it always does, though it may take a while and the cost to get there will likely be depressingly high) I would not be surprised if the formal elimination of the "deeply rooted" argument is one of the legal reforms involved.
It's used because people will take it seriously and treat it as a serious argument, even though it isn't. They'll literally use whatever spurious reasoning they can invent to support what they want to do, and by pretending that they believe their own argument, you're falling into their trap.
"I do not think that matters at all when you try to decide which rights a person should have."
Don't most laws decide which rights are protected or restricted. For example, in respects to riparian rights, to protect the rights of other landowners of proceeding the parts of the river, one is not allowed to block off and is restricted in what they can do on their land.
would this possibly make taking someone in a coma out of life support or someone that has been declared brain dead illegal because they have a heartbeat?
I work in the ICU and the idea of a heartbeat bill is hilarious. The heart beating means jackshit if your brain doesn't function. We declare people dead through brain death studies not heart death.
Such a good question!
I also doubt it. It’s likely that the heartbeat argument was made for unborn fetuses because they’re eventually growing into a human with a functional brain, so it’s an argument hinging on that. With a coma, the livelihood is purely stipend on brain functionality.
We should just pray to Jesus for a sign that a body is NOT a legal person. If Jesus does not provide a tangible sign, then the body is still a person or is now a person. This can be gamed in any direction and should satisfy both sides as we can prove the existence of Jesus and still maintain basic healthcare at the same time when Jesus moves tables or whatever to say that it's okay to administer terminate a pregnancy.
No, once you're born you're a sinner and therefore deserve whatever happens.
You didn't think these heartbeat laws actually supported the post birth baby did you?
It not only forces the woman to not have an abortion, it forces them to PAY for the cost.
I had a pharmacist deny my script before on religious grounds because of a missed miscarriage. It was as infuriating as it was humiliating. I still can't go past that pharmacy without feeling like utter trash. No one should ever have to go through that, ever, and no pharmacist should have the right to be high and mighty on their morality because theu don't know someone's situation. Their job is to make sure our medications don't contradict each other.
Now we have doctors terrified in states, telling those of us capable of carrying children that we need to get off certain meds because it can cause fetal abnormalities or miscarriages. It's a terrifying situation, honestly.
One of my friends is a nurse, and told me about one of the first lectures she had at university.
The lecturer was talking about the responsibilities of those in the medical profession, and some girl in the audience asked 'but what about my religious beliefs? What do I do if someone wants to do something that I can't do because of my religion?'. Without missing a beat, the lecturer just said 'then get a different job'
@@cyber_rachel7427 that lecturer deserves a standing ovation
conscientious objectors should be protected. you can't force someone to do something simply because they can. most EU laws thankfully have codified that doctors can object to perform abortions and the patient will be passed on to someone who can.
@@cyber_rachel7427 The correct answer is refer to another physician, you don't have to do it but you shouldn't deny your patient autonomy. In general though a life spent in healthcare (at least to some degree at the sharpend and if you got into it for the right reasons leads to you being pragmatic and dismissive of most of the BS involved. (Of course you can sprecialise in doing lip fillers etc. instead). Obviously there are limits to what is practical - once had a med student say she refused to touch men's hands...
@@4x4r974 what about the saint daime Religion. Their practicioners use an alucionogenic tea to conect them with God. They would be able to be high as a kite in work...
Imagine if all these anti abortion activists spent all this time and energy- supposedly "compassion for fetuses and potential babies" trying to help ACTUAL children who were already born?
But that would be logical and make sense and these idiots are far from logical.
Haha everyone look at rob
@Tnkrhll I had a friend who went to a pro-choice rally, and they went across to talk to the counter protesters, asked them, in effect, this very question that I posed, and the person they spoke to, in effect, gave the exact same answer you just did.
To be fair, this is coming second hand, and I'm sure everyone was all riled up, so who knows what they'd say in private when everyone is calm and can talk rationally. Also, I know many (Catholics in particular, it's the descendants of the Puritan Protestants seem to have a tendency more towards the line of thinking you refer to- although I'm sure there are many Catholics who share it, and many Protestants who are compassionate) but there are many Christians who ARE compassionate towards the unwanted children and support many programs for them.
@Tnkrhll Yeah, agreed. There are tendencies in groups but people are not monolithic. Also, although you didn't say it in so many words, you kind of inferred it- I think it's an excellent point that certain POLICIES and govt. programs can prevent NEED for certain amounts/kinds of charities. This is a point many conservatives and libertarians either don't seem to get or don't like.
Also, I'd agree that most conservatives are not CONSCIOUSLY trying to take away rights. They're not sitting and twirling their mustaches or anything- but the net effect is basically that.
It's about punishing women for having sex and/or being physically defective as baby factories (which is why some people make exceptions for rape, a thing which has no bearing on if the fetus is a person). The reason we're seeing this in law now is because people are choosing to have fewer children, meaning the supply of both captive consumers and desperate laborers is no longer compatible with the infinite growth of stocks.
Children have never had anything to do with it.
As a Canadian, and avid armchair lawyer that sometimes doesn't understand the various laws in the US, I thank you for taking the time to explain these with concise refererences.
As a fellow Canadian, I suggest you seek other popular opinions on this matter if you’re interested in seeking legitimate unbiased opinions on this issue.
@@mrplow3874 then why are you here if you don't agree with this channel?
@@EcoWarriorNB I enjoy this channel most of the time, and when I disagree, I am not upset. The reason why I follow this UA-camr is because I like a variety of view points to not live in an echo chamber. Question for you; why so hostile? Are you against discussion?
@@mrplow3874 well your initial comment certainly didn't come across as someone who enjoyed this channel at all.
@@EcoWarriorNB 95% of media personalities have a very obvious bias. As independent thinkers we try to reduce our own personal biases as much as possible. I do not dislike this channel, or the creator him self because I perceive a bias in certain explanations. Your original comment, to me, seemed to mean your haven’t had a proper explanation until now, and that you’re an armchair legal expert and enjoy this type of thing. I understood that to mean you’re open minded and so I suggest you do more digging to get a fuller picture. If discussion is not something you’re comfortable with, law isn’t your topic.
"Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy or additional constitutional rights are under threat." Both can and almost certainly are the case.
How do you figure?
@@Sewblon Because the majority IS being hypocritical AND additional constitutional rights are under threat.
@@AdmiralKnight That is circular logic.
@@Sewblon I think suggesting that judges being hypocritical could lead to the erosion of other rights is pretty sound logic.
@@AdmiralKnight What I meant was, where is the hypocrisy in this case?
Waiting for the IRS clusterf*** since fetuses should count as full dependents.
A class action lawsuit for all newborn court ordered child support to tack on an extra 9 months would be fun too.
Pregnant women cannot be jailed as you would also send an innocent citizen to jail.
Your terms are acceptable
The census should also count them, which would likely skew political demographics since I would assume the unborn fetus would considered the same party member as the mother
Since a fetus is the ultimate in 'dependent', then claiming it on one's taxes should be a given with the overturning of Roe v Wade. If this weren't so horrible, it would be hilarious to watch.
@@johnlach2199 lmao imagine
So with fetal personhood, would it be plausible to then also require child support upon conception? And collecting on insurance policies if a miscarriage were to occur? Just thinking, if we go that far we best go all the way.
Even better, could a woman justify abortion under "stand your ground" legislation?
@@olenickel6013 I think in that case the abortion would have to take place in their home. Or is that castle defense laws? Whichever it is, I know you have to feel your life is in danger when at home to kill in self defense
I am against abortion and I believe in child support from the moment of conception
@@TAMAMO-VIRUS Threat to life isn't necessary for self-defense. You are allowed to use deathly force to defend yourself against crimes in many circumstances, including bodily harm, which a pregnancy by definition involves. Now, you have a duty to retreat, normally, meaning if you can reasonably flee the scene, it is not self-defense if you stay and fight instead. Stand your ground laws remove this duty, allowing you to use deathly force even if you could flee. This extends to all places where you are legally allowed to be, not just your home. Granted, this would be a moot point, because you can't flee from pregnancy and terminating it is the only way to avoid harm, voiding any duty to retreat.
Either way, a pregnancy unavoidably involves pain and bodily harm inflicted upon a woman, comes witha risk of death, loss of income etc. So, reasonably, if a fetus is a person, you would be allowed to use deadly force against it if we apply any kind of standard we apply to other instances of a person inflicting harm upon you.
@@juancristobalrojas9212 Well you're consistent at least! More than I can say for a lotta ppl lmao
From the Washington Post: "A pregnant Texas woman who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane suggested that being overturned by the Supreme Court means that her fetus counted as a passenger and that she should not have been cited" I saw that police responded that traffic enforement did not recognize a fetus as a person even if the penal code did. We're all wondering where that is going to go.
Why must people construe this kind of thing? An unborn child IS a person, there is no doubt about that. But they are not a passenger in the car, as they are not wearing their own seatbelt, and are not in a car seat.
@@DavidRay39 Um, so if I don't wear a seatbelt, then I am not a passenger?
@@DavidRay39 "Eliminating abortion is only to reduce the rights of women, never to increase their rights."
Roe V Wade was about privacy, not person hood or the right to life.
It's repeal doesn't legally mean a fetus is a person. Because the old verdict didn't support that, it just said the government has no right to regulate something it has no right to know about (a medical procedure).
Kind of curious how you watch this video but still didn't get that
@@KappaKiller108 Curious how you didn't understand that this applies to the Texas legal system that became active after the revocation, but it sounds like you just wanted to make angry comments that aren't adding anything.
The number of “adults” in this country that haven’t emotionally or mentally matured past the age of five seems to be growing. This country will never progress until that problem is rectified.
The speed at which most states seem to process rape convictions would make it irrelevant as an exception from what I’ve heard. Might need to work on fixing that
This is a critical, overlooked factor. Would a pregnant woman or girl have to just claim rape at a provider? Identify a perpetrator? Or would the abortion be delayed until an investigation concludes a rape occurs?
@@mobanstudio3695 I wouldn't be surprised if conviction by a court of law was required.
@@mobanstudio3695 the investigation would conclude close to the end of the pregnancy, at which point it would be WELL past the legal date to abort.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 It would have to be. I thought about this because I was wondering why some states would have that incest/rape stipulation. If it wasnt settled in court then anyone could claim rape/incest with no evidence.
Rape or bot, just put him/her up for adoption
Honestly, it just really infuriates me, especially since I’ve heard and seen a lot of the politicians advocating against abortions arguing that it’ll give more people that will help create a larger, unstable, and financially vulnerable population to exploit. Whether it’s just a bunch of people taking the piss, or they’re the same people saying “no one wants to work anymore”, it still terrifies me that so many human rights are being argued over or taken away, especially since they’re not really stopping abortions; they’re outlawing safe ones. If this stuff goes through, it won’t keep people from having abortions; it will most likely result in more unsafe ones, and will most likely be dangerous or even fatal for those getting unsafe or illegal ones. I’m just terrified, and saddened, because… a lot of politicians are applying religious reasoning for their beliefs, when there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state. It just makes me frustrated and sad, because they’re not saving anyone; they’re killing, or condemning. Even if it’s indirect, the blood is still on their hands, in my opinion.
It’s almost like they didn’t learn history, because this exact social behavior you have described is the same social behavior that occurred during the prohibition era, that ban on alcohol causes people to just not regulate it and continue to obtain whatever it is they’re looking for, even if it’s much more dangerous, and ultimately causes more harm than good.
This, and what has happened in Poland, has caused several swedish parties to want to add the right to abortion to the constitution. Though the right is hardly in danger as is. Even the two parties that have brought up changes to the law have been forced to either change their stance or keep quite on the issue. Any politician that expresses abortion negative views practically commits political suicide.
I can only hope that american, polish and many other women get the right to healthcare that they deserve.
America is a free country under the Constitution. If states decide that abortion is legal, then it is legal in that state.
Sweden isn't supposed to control abortion in Poland. Neither side of the Vasa family won the wars between Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
No one cares about Sweden
@@ronmaximilian6953 Great word "free", it's vague and the moment you try to define it, you immediately antagonize everyone at the connotations and consequences of what you're actually implying. Free to perform crime? Free to have the means to perform crime at any moment? Free to brainwash anyone or harm them in indirect ways? You contradict yourself, you're free, and yet the state can decide whether something you do is legal or illegal by manipulating the law? Where is the freedom there? Define the word first and see what happens next.
@@popopop984 I meant free in terms of having our sovereignty and rights as a nation and people. We're not under control of an extra national government like the European Union. But I also think that people having democratic rights to decide things also makes us free.
I'm actually a Swedish American and gave up Swedish citizenship because I couldn't stand Sweden, The oppressive government, and the Nordic cultural norms defined by the laws of Jante.
The state has the right to decide whether killing a person is a crime. Your fundamentally confusing freedom in a nation state with anarchy.
I'm glad other countries are seeing what is happening. Enshrine abortion rights!
We're already starting to see female patients refused prescriptions for drugs like anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, chemo-therapies, etc because they might get pregnant and would now have to carry the pregnancy to term. Hardly any drugs have been tested for their safety for fetuses (for good reason) and many drugs have legal requirements that a patient signs saying if she gets pregnant she'll abort because of risks of fetal abnormalities. Doctors are now worried about lawsuits from any fetal anomalies that arise while women are taking drugs they prescribed. Are women just going to go without lifesaving drugs between the ages of 15 and 50? It's a mess.
When my grandma was pregnant with my mom she took a prescription for her morning sickness that was "safe". It was for her, but my mom was born with a horse shoe kidney and needed surgery as a 5 year old and a 15 year old.
Lots of drugs are deemed "safe" until proven otherwise.
@@christinebenson518 Lots of correlations are deemed causation by people who are not medical professionals.
Maybe stop taking drugs? Drugs are the LAST resort, not the first. Women should take drugs with EXTREME caution, even aspirin could kill you under the right circumstances. "Anti-depressants", I mean common..have you ever heard of psycho therapy?
@@thomasbones7973 Some drugs are necessary and life saving. Notice how she mentions chemotherapy? No one takes chemo for the funsies.
@@thomasbones7973 There is this little thing called hormonal balance in the brain, no amount of therapy can cure it, it just is, you can be doing you regular day and suddenly you are depressed, you don't need to add the hormonal cycles of a woman also, this is common in men too, that is what pills do, they can't cure a depression that arise from other sources, I am not completely sure that i translate you correctly on the psycho therapy stuff, i will assume you meant psychological treatment from a psychologist and not some pseudo-science stuff, you should know that many of the people that have prescriptions were derived from a psychologist to a psychiatrist, also, you can't cure things like John Nash, that basically was aware that he was seeing things that were not there after a certain point in his life, he was a rare case, but he ignored his hallucinations, they still were there, I will suppose you want people to have psychotic breaks and blame them for it all the while you want to deny them the treatment
When the woman at the beginning said she thought a having a tragedy occur does not mean you should have another tragedy occur, I immediately assumed she was pro-abortion. Because why would you force a 12 year old girl who got abused by her father to go through the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth? That's just awful.
She's the governor of South Dakota, by the tragedy she meant nothing in relation to the mother, but like Mrs. Lovejoy, she's just "thinking about the children", meaning the tragedy would be 2 funerals. Take note that incestuous relations often lead to unviable babies, but you have it was god's plan answer for that.
That was South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R). Devin took that clip from an interview in which she was asked to comment on the Ohio case of a pregnant *10 year old* who was forced to travel to Indiana to obtain the abortion she needed and/or desired, thanks to Ohio's draconian trigger laws that would have made it a crime to end that pregnancy. Gov. Noem was being asked a "what if" question: "What if this happened here?" Her response was that it would be too bad for the *RAPED* 10 year old, but that aborting the fetus added a second tragedy onto an already existing one, that being the rape of a little girl. Noem is an extreme forced birther who does not care about the impact a pregnancy has on a person's body or mental well-being.
That's Kristi Noem, a literal demon
Can we PLEASE stop trotting out that straw-man argument when it comes to pregnancies that are resultant from rape and incest. Those tragic circumstances represent a tiny fraction of abortions in this country and, while there are any number of pro-life people out there who might consider a compromise where that exception was carved out, there's not a single pro-abortion activist who would agree to that compromise, so we should stop acting like it's any kind of legitimate sticking point.
@@Ellis_Hugh It obviously is. This isn't about a compromise, this is about situations where even many of the anti choice can see they are wrong. They don't become any less wrong because pro choice people won't go "if you do at least that I am alright with the rest." Doing the right things shouldn't require getting something in return. If anti choice places don't want them to be brought up they simply have to add sufficiently strong exceptions that it doesn't happen.
One of the best arguments I've heard in support of abortion access is from a doctor speaking from a medical ethics standpoint. She said if you block abortion you're granting a right to the fetus that no other person has, the right to use another person's body against their will to stay alive. If we set this precedent does this mean states will have the ability to pass laws to force blood donation or bone marrow donation? Can somebody who is sick gain the right to force me, or someone else, to surrender our bodies against our will so it can be used to keep another person alive? I very much support blood donation and such, but it should stay based on the condition of consent, never forced against someone's will.
@@jongtrogers pregnancy is based on the principle of continuous consent. Somebody may initially want to get pregnant, but later decide to change their mind. Maybe the pregnancy is affecting her health negatively, or maybe she just decides she doesn't want the pregnancy. A blood donation can take 10 to sometimes 15 minutes. If I consent to start a donation, but shortly after they stick me with a needle I decide to change my mind and stop, does the donation center have the right to restrain me to force me to complete my donation? Of course not. I'm continuously consenting to the process over the full length of time the process takes, but I could change my mind partway through the process and my decision must be respected. In the real world this probably rarely happens, but you do have to account for it and respect the change of consent for the rare case it does happen. Somebody's life may depend on that blood. Maybe it's a rare blood type and I'm the only known viable donor. Doesn't matter, I have to consent for the whole duration of the donation process. Nobody has the right to force me to complete the process against my will.
@@shellrie1 Not all hero’s wear capes and you’re a good example
@@jongtrogers So is getting behind a wheel where you're immensely more likely to create the need for a blood/organ donation, more so if you consented to driving an SUV/Truck
Don't have sex; you don't get pregnant. It's not complicated.
Agreed!
I'm curious over the legal ramifications for surrogacy and IVF.
In surrogacy especially. If unborn children are considered people with rights.
Then selling of said person pre birth would be akin to human trafficking?
"And it's entirely possible that this Court is so outcome-driven that it would allow commerce power for a ban on abortion, but would not allow commerce power for a nationwide right to abortion."
These are the strongest words I've ever heard on this channel, hidden in so much silk. Good job, Mr. Eagle.
"Outcome-driven" is a good term.
"Hypocritical" is another one
I've come to realize that conservatives don't want to conserve or perserve how things are, or even how they were however many years or centuries ago. They want control, end of story.
In my opinion, power is like money; it should be a means to an end, and not the end itself. Power for power's sake is... not a good recipe.
I think scotus would block either Bill as they seem very set on narrowing the scope of the commerce clause and giving power to the states.
Hypothetical: pro-lifers get their way first on a nationwide ban. SCOTUS upholds the ban. A couple years later democrats have enough control to flip the law 180 degrees and prohibit the states from banning. How could the SCOTUS possibly undo the pro-choice law at that point short of just outright saying “we’re Republicans?”
@@kinghashbrown6951 ,
Then why not just overturn Wickard v. Filburn itself?
Lol, yeah and it's ENTIRELY possibly that someone, somewhere, at some point, has choked to death on a chicken nugget.
The statement means absolutely nothing.
Their taking on Moore v Harper should terrify everyone.
(googles) Oh...Oh no...
They’re unhinged at this point 😔
This is going to be the end of representative democracy in America.
Can you explain this in simple terms please 😂 as a brit I am confused
@@Nicoladorablexo legalized gerrymandering. it would allow state legislatures to set election rules with zero court oversight. Want to gerrymander every Democrat into a single district? Go for it. Want to toss out precincts if you don't like the results? Sure thing. Want to appoint electors? Why not? Not like you can be taken to court over it anymore.
I find it hard to believe that the court would refrain from arguing that contraception and decisions about who to have intimate relationships "pertain to potential life". the whole point of contraception is to prevent the unintentional creation of "potential life", and having non-heterosexual intimate relations means you are doing nothing with your potential to contribute to "potential life". I don't buy that they will refrain from making such arguments if given the chance, and it terrifies me that they would prioritize the "life" of a "potential life" over the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" of an active, existing life.
Not so hard to believe. This is an easy cop-out for them. They know which states are against what and they're happy to let the decision-makers in those states be the scapegoats while they watch civil rights be removed one by one because of "lack of historical precedence".
Let’s not forget the heterosexual couples who are not doing the correct intimate relations to contribute to “potential life.”
The court wasn't arguing for protecting potential life at all, he is putting that in their mouths. The court specifically just talked about how there was no constitutional basis for the previous decision it had nothing to do with being pro life or pro choice anyways, legally speaking of course.
And a fetus is not a potential life, it is an individual human life. Now I'm not saying we can never kill other humans, I'm stating scientifically speaking what the fetus is. I was a fetus the EXACT same way I was a teenager.
I myself with my 46 chromosomes was never a sperm. Which is a 23 chromosome haploid. That's not me nor was it ever, it gave its 23 in order to substantiate my DNA code that I then use to actualize my features.
People need to get the science straight and maybe we'd have a chance here to not think everyone else is idiots
Just because one justice thinks or wants that, doesn’t mean all do.
@@DanielKolbin the majority of the supreme court justices do, because 3 were chosen by an ex president who committed a terrorist attack on his own country. WE KNOW the public doesn’t want this. they don’t care
When you hit the point where there's this much debate about what is and what is not a right guaranteed by the constitution, it's a pretty clear indicator that the whole thing needs to be torn up and rewritten to remove any and all remaining ambiguity. Something that should have been done at least ten times at this point.
Jefferson never intended for it to be in the original form for this long. He wanted it revised every 20 years which means that we are well overdue.
Excuse me “YamiOni” but do you understand the repercussions of “rewriting” the constitution let me explain something to you the way America works is a system of checks and balances so not one branch of government has too much power what this dose is it makes it so people with power don’t get drunk with power. Now why is this important? Well if the constitution was rewritten who is the one rewriting it? If it is the judicial branch they would make it so they have all the power. This same logic applies to all other branch’s of government. In the constitution never is there a right to abortion. And even if you rewrite the constitution to “remove ambiguity” which it doesn’t have, people will still try to make interpretations that they use to push what they want. I would suggest reading the constitution before saying “oh people argue what it means just rewrite it”
@@goldenpawn6194 countries rewrite their constitutions all the time. If we did it once, why exactly couldn’t we do it again? If one proposed version gives one branch too much power, we simply wouldn’t adopt it.
It’s an outdated, obsolete document at this point and rewriting it at this point is the only way this country can move forward
@@jennifertarin4707 Yep. Let's shred the Bill of Rights, and give States 100% power over their own laws, destroy the Federal government, and effectively dissolve the entire "United" States.
Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, I think you have a GREAT idea there... Hope you own a gun to defend your rights though...
What is a right and isn’t, is pretty clear. There’s even a Bill of Rights that specifically outline what the protected rights of the individual are. The only people who can’t figure it out are the people who feel entitled to some things, and take from others.
I just wanted to thank you for choosing to inform average people like me about the legal intricacies of cases like these. I really appreciate it.
funniest convo I've seen was about car pool lanes. People go with the idea that simply having more than one person counts for carpools... the reality is that many car pool lanes only count people old enough to drive. Thus children don't count under the carpool regulations anyways. Pre-birth, infant, toddler, grade school... it doesn't matter. Not old enough to drive.
This guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. I watched some of him during the Rittenhouse trial, he would straight up lie in the videos
@@PEJK6771 Could you provide a concrete example of something he said that was false?
The guy is definitely a partisan hack. He will in fact twist things to get the desired political outcome. This wasn’t education or information. This was little more than propaganda disguised as education and legit legal opinion.
@@RTTGunsGear I'll agree this video was extremely short on law specifics (much more speculation than usual, but given the topic, maybe it had to be?). But for the Rittenhouse case (which the other commenter mentioned), I remember him showing how the judge was quite reasonable and fair (e.g. not using term victims, not using term thief unless shown to be a thief, scolding prosecutor after jury left room, etc). Seeing as Rittenhouse is considered a 'right-wing win' AND the fact that he showed in detail how all the allegations about the Rittenhouse judge were false, I don't see him as being "a partisan hack". Though I agree it's obvious his politics are left-leaning. Which parts of this video did you find most egregious?
One thing I'm curious about that wasn't touched on here is international travel for the purposes of abortion. The Canadian Federal Government and most if not all of the Provinces have already said that we will welcome and do out best to accommodate any Americans who come to Canada seeking an abortion. Obviously certain US States wouldn't like that. Can a State pass any kind of law regarding international travel or actions conducted abroad? I would *think* that such authority would be limited to the Federal government, but US division of powers rules are so screwed up I'm really not sure.
They shouldn't be able to being that you can't enforce your laws in another country.
That's tricky, you don't really need to travel, they can mail you the pills you need and the abortion would be performed illegally. It's really stupid to cross the border to take a pill...
They CAN, however, enforce their laws on the individual citizen. If a state has criminalized the procedure, the "mother", the pregnant person, can be held liable for that crime, even if the institution who assisted doesn't end up being held in the same manner for whatever reason.
@@Turshin I'm thinking back to file sharing sites that were based in other countries, like New Zeland, where non-US citizens were brought to the US to be tried for crimes against US companies. Not a perfect example, but the US has done stuff to that extent before. I'm afraid the answer might not be as simple as we hope.
@@KatotsuSama file sharing (digital property exchanging) laws are different than medical procedures laws.
I'm an ER nurse. The idea that "pills must be taken in the presence of a licensed physician" would make my job absolutely impossible. There are simply too many patients, too few doctors, and not enough hours in a day! When I rule the world, I will attach all laws concerning abortions to medications for erectile dysfunction. I'd LOVE to see the law say that "all erectile dysfunction medications must be taken in the presence of a licensed physician", and of course, I'd fully support pharmacists in having a religious or moral objection to prescribing those medications. After all, if pregnancy is "God's will", then SURELY impotence is as well! 🤣 For the actual record, I have no problem with taking those medications, because it's none of my business, just as abortion is also none of my business. If we don't have privacy in our own lives, we have no rights at all. We need to make Orwell fiction again!
The ratio problem you mentioned is exactly the law-makers' intent. They used to have to be tricky about putting as many obstacles between a pregnant person and abortions as possible, but now they can openly force people into becoming parents.
They have forced mating laws?
@@blastphantomgames6369 No, but we have a new anti-choice law. Thats what he meant by force.
@@blastphantomgames6369
Forced mating is not quite within the legal reach of conservatives yet, but give it a few years and they'll be argueing that "Rape is an issue of states' rights" and the "traditions and benefits of rape have been ignored by liberals"
When abortion is illegal but ok to save the mother, would availability of the life saving procedure be affected because that procedure is only legal in specific circumstances? Will fewer doctor students learn how to do the procedure?
I would argue yes, fewer will learn it. I base it off the situation here in Germany, where some complicated legal compromise resulted in abortions being "illegap, but not prosecuted". So for all intents and purposes of having an abortion, they are legal, but formally it is still a crime. They aren't taught in med-school (we only have ethics classes that give you the impression something the vast majority of Germans by any statistic support is "very controversial") and they aren't required parts of an OB Gyn residency either and for the largest part aren't taught by the professional association of gynecologists, resulting in doctors travelling abroad to learn modern techniques, many still practicing outdated techniques like curretage which the WHO has been advising to replace for a while now, as well as abortion pills being used for a far smaller percentage of abortions than in neighbouring countries.
Mind you, this is all the consequence of a legal situation where abortion is decriminalized. I expect the US to face tougher challenges.
Yes. There are several New England journal of medicine articles on this.
this is currently in the case in many places in the world like Poland and in the past, Ireland, and the result tends to be that doctors will only start the life saving procedure once the patient is on the verge of death, because if they know something has a high chance of death but can't prove it would definitely have lead to the patient's death, they're now at extreme risk of being thrown in jail. this basically means that the majority of life-saving abortions that would've been performed will be replaced by doctors watching people die in front of them instead.
It's a different procedure, pretty sure, so it may still be taught.
Not sure it would depend on how broad or iron clad they made the laws around it if they specify that that is legal then it should be completely safe but if they don't it is a grey area
Moore v. Harper
This case genuinely has my heart afraid for the country and our democracy.
Agreed. This is not getting the attention it deserves. I was about to ask for a video detailing this case.
@@tubesteaknyouri Can you explain it to me as if I were a 4 yo please? I´ve tried looking it up but I don´t understand anything (english is not my 1st language, so technical vocabulary like the one on wikipedia is confusing).
@Nick Naylor Basically will allow states to gerrymander with no oversite at all.
@@QueenJneeuQ really? Your country is screwed
Lol what democracy?
0:15 - Can states criminalize abortion ?
4:30 - Can the court adopt "fetal personhood" ?
7:05 - Abortion pills through the mail ?
8:30 - Will women be able to travel to get an abortion ?
12:20 - What about abortion in DC ?
13:05 - Can congress take national action ?
15:35 - Are other privacy rights next ?
18:15 - End roll ads
+
if fetal personhood is a thing, is there an imminent apocalyptic lawsuit against industries (like coal power generation) associated with higher rates of miscarriage?
@@jacksonmarsten1791 Where'd you dig that BS from? A liberal tabloid?
@@DavidRay39 L
@@DavidRay39 no it’s logical. If we define foetuses as people, any external negligence that causes the termination of the foetus can be defined as murder. High pollution causing a miscarriage being one of them.
“If a fetus is a person at 6wks, is that when child support starts? Is that also when you can’t deport the mother because she’s carrying an American citizen? Can I insure a 6wk fetus and collect when I miscarry?” Carliss Chapman, legal professor. P.S. There’s NO WAY Thomas is including interracial marriage in this. Which is completely hypocritical.
Trust me, he would. He would just find away to protect his marriage.
No, you can't prove paternity of a fetus.
No, it's illegal to kill an illegal immigrant, just because you can't kill the fetus doesn't mean it's a citizen.
Maybe? That's the sort of service that could be offered, but I don't see the demand, or the security in the insurance.
@@merlintym1928 You absolutely CAN conduct paternity testing with a fetus. The procedures aren't even all that invasive, and can be conducted as early as 7-8 weeks.
If a fetus began their "life" within the borders of the country and has "lived" that entire time there since then, then by definition it's impossible for them to be an illegal immigrant as they never immigrated anywhere.
The citizenship question is a separate but somewhat overlapping one. Currently citizenship begins legally at birth, but with this judicial decision erasing the legal significance of birth as the important temporal boundary for certain rights, how is that same boundary not at least drawn into question for other rights? You seem to be arguing a fetus should be a stateless persok until birth when they are granted citizenship, but if legal personhood begins at conception what is the legal basis for that delay/discrepancy? Most of these anti-abortion bills contain some pretty vague language expounding about rights that at least opens the door for this sort of argument about fetal citizenship to be made.
@@siukong
Cool! Didn't know that. Maybe it should then. I think free healthcare for pregnancy/illness/injury would make more sense than "make the guy pay for it" but if the government is going to mandate an asymmetric cost be paid during reproduction, they should at *least* make it as economically viable as possible.
I didn't say they were an illegal immigrant, I said you can't kill illegal immigrants. Who are not citizens. Similarly, a fetus, which isn't a citizen, also wouldn't be able to be killed.
Citizenship is defined in the 14th amendment of the constitution as being afforded at birth, and the federal government has no position on when life begins. A state might grant protections and privileges to non citizens, like New York does with its immigrants, but they can't afford citizenship, and the supreme court, no matter how conservative, couldn't overturn a constitutional amendment. So in the context of citizenship, it's not in question.
@@merlintym1928 Actually, legally speaking the constitution grants citizenship to the person on the moment of birth because birth is the legal point where person-hood begins according to past Supreme Court rulings. While the amendment itself uses the language of birth, it also says any person "subject to its jurisdiction", and also says that States cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Many federal laws regarding citizenship are dependent on the definition of person-hood, and as a result, redefining person-hood redefines the legal processes by which persons become citizens. For example, the Immigration and Nationality act. A child of a US citizen overseas can apply to become a US citizen. You may argue that a fetus has not been born therefore the law cannot apply, right? However, the legal language takes into account the fact that not all children of US citizens are born to US citizens; adoption exists. That means the legal language is broad enough to include any "child of a US citizen", and a child does not necessarily have to be born, to them, which means the legal language excludes in crucial cases the language of "born" and "birth".
That means that the definition of what a child of a US citizen is depends on legal language; if a fetus is given legal person-hood, they would be classified as "unborn child". Considering that the criteria for someone to obtain citizenship is that "The person is a child of a U.S. citizen parent(s)" and the fact that the legal definition of child does not in fact require the child to be born explicitly (thanks to the ambiguity necessary to include adopted children), if an illegal or legal migrant is pregnant with the child of a US citizen, then the child could obtain immediate citizenship (since they are a child of a US citizen, and these laws do not recognise the difference between born and unborn children since unborn fetuses have not had person-hood until potentially now, the fetus now matches the criteria). The story is more complicated if both parents are migrants without citizenship, but considering that the child obtains legal person-hood in the US it could be considered to meet the criteria to be granted either immediate citizenship (upon conception or after 6 weeks, depending on the language used by the Supreme Court and Congress depending on how things turn out) or could gain the right to apply for citizenship and be put in one of several special categories that grant citizenship faster than others, making them a citizen before they are born.
This whole situation of the precedent overruling Roe has porentially set for other privacy laws makes me think of something the character of Ian Malcom says in Jurassic Park: "They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." I feel looking at other privacy laws solely from a technical point of view ignores the societal impact it will have if other privacy rights are overthrown. It will just serve to dial up the division already present in the US and increase civil unrest, not to mention the emotional impact it will have on so many people that will be affected if other privacy rights are overthrown. It's almost as if they want to feed the existing polarization and cause a second civil war. SCOTUS has got to be intelligent enough to see that this is much more than just a legal or constitutional matter, and can't be so ignorant as to shirk all responsibility in the outcome. I highly doubt Clarence Thomas would vote to overrule Loving, since it would make his own marriage illegal. I mean, he has called to overrule Obergefell, Griswold and Lawrence, but conventiently left out Loving, which also came about through substantive due process, something he wants to do away with. That would point to personal bias in a SCOTUS ruling. I wonder how that conversation will go in the Thomas residence. But what I wonder more is if this could illegitimize SCOTUS rulings, or if it could annul previously overruled privacy laws created through substantive due process.
That wouldn't make Thomas' own marriage illegal any more than overturning Roe made the last fifty years of abortions illegal. The constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, or retroactive laws, and if his marriage was legal when it occured, then no law can change that.
Overturning Loving could make future interracial marriages illegal, but only in states that choose to ban them. While abortion has been a highly controversial topic for decades, interracial marriage has not been. It helps that marriage occurs between two consenting adults while fetuses are incapable of consenting to an abortion, and the equal rights clause of the fourteenth amendment is a more clear foundation for interracial marriage than the due process clause is for abortion.
@@7slavok That makes sense. I hadn't considered that overturning Loving wouldn't invalidate all interracial marriages up to that point, but it's logical now that you've pointed it out. I used to ask my husband these questions since he was a lawyer, but he's not around anymore to explain them.
However, I still find it telling that he didn't mention Loving. I'm also wondering if the 14th Amendment will protect the rights of people from the LGBT community in all states if Obergefell and Lawrence will be overturned. In my opinion, these laws should have been codified as soon as possible.
What was the point of getting the White House and the Senate and Congress!?! With all this power there is no power and the minority who have no power are dictating how everyone should live.
What is the point? Why should people even vote if the fundamental rights of liberals are stolen from them every time.
I fear the future is written in blood. But then maybe so was the past...
First of all you have to show that substantive due process is a legitimate way to interpret the constitution. If you do think it is legitimate then to have to say Dredd Scott was correctly decided. That is the only way to get a right to privacy into the constitution.
Thomas is right. Any decision based on substantive due process is incorrect and must be overturned
Loving was correctly decided on an equal protection basis. It is unrelated to Roe, which was decided using substantive due process
"The concept of unborn personhood is not particularly developed."
Great line.
Unborn personhood has not fully gestated in US law.
Tennessee Bill 1257 is trying to define it I believe
Personhood is not essential to pro-life thought. I think that should be left to philosophers. My POV is the state has every right to protect precious forms of life including endangered species (and their eggs) as well as human fetuses as life itself is objectively precious, special, and belonging to our world and future, and worthy of statuary protection. (And of course with exceptions for abuse victims and when the procedure is deemed medically necessary) I would not claim though that fetuses should be considered persons in constitutional terms or that the constitutional requires protection.
That’s the most lawyer thing I’ve heard in a while
@@andreygromov3492 Thank you
I hear all your citations and examples and I just can't help but think "and the supreme court will just ignore or lie about all this if they feel like it.
Considering nearly half of them lied to get onto the Supreme Court, your argument is valid.
They have.
They will, we are dealing with a rogue court that needs to be abolished, co-equal branches means exactly that, co-equal, SCOTUS instead is ruling over congress and the executive branch, it has far over-reached its authority and needs to be reigned in.
Then we should apply more pressure on Democrats to reform the court. The Republicans went nuclear here twice and Democrats are too worried to overstep boundaries to correct this because they're worry they'll lose a campaign issue and then power.
@@CroneLife1 lol no they didnt
something that might make your day a little better:
i was watching your videos in class yesterday and my friend looked over shoulder and asked "is that ryan reynolds?!?" i said it was a lawyer dude i watch nd she just looked confused and asked "when did ryan reynolds become a lawyer?"
so there you have it, my friend thinks youre the spitting image of who people call the most attractive man in movies XD
I really don't want cases like Loving v. Virginia overturned, but I also want to see Clarence Thomas' rationale on that particular case.
I actually hope that loving vs Virginia is overturned because I want a mass overthrow of the government
Meh. There's plenty of black people who voted for Trump and hate their own people and culture. He probably rejects his skin color and heritage as much as possible.
These people are a lot more common than you think. There are anti-black black people, anti-asian asian people, anti-hispanic hispanic people, and all sort of people who hate themselves.
It’s easy. The law in question involved in Loving involved a racial classification, long recognized by Thomas and other originalists to violate the equal protection clause.
So do I. I've been picking at this since the Roe decision came down.
@@mjenningssmith Loving v. Virginia was decided using the due process clause, the exact same reasoning used in Roe, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Thomas himself wrote, "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Things in Texas are even more convoluted. In Texas children are considered property of their parents until they turn eighteen. The trigger law is covering property in this state. It’s strange just thinking about it. I’m waiting to see what’s next.
By that logic, is Texas not treating abortion being similar to having the ability to scrap a car?
@@daggern15 Well no, because while it's property, it's also a human life
Wait a minute...I've seen this before
@@tomc.5704 A slippery slope, isn't it? Sad to say, those of us with brains already see just how far this could be taken and I'd bet good money those making these "minute decisions" already have a final goal in mind and the terrifying part is they're proving they can get away with it so long as they only take rights away in small increments and we don't know just how far they're going to take it.
Remember when this was a channel for finding out how many legal errors were on Seinfeld and not a measured and accessible dissection of how our political divide is slowly destroying everything?
Not that I'm complaining. I feel like I get a better understanding of what's going on from here than from 99% of the news media. I just, you know, wish it was less necessary.
Me too :-(
If anything, he should do a shallow dive into the Constitution and let viewers know that the 1973 Supreme Court decision was unconstitutional and that this Supreme Court rightly gave power back to the state as outlined in the 10th amendment. Then he should end the video because that's all that matters.
@@dleblanc Do you think Red states should be able to punish women who go to blue states for an abortion?
Same
@@dleblanc This video literally talks about the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was used as the rationale for legalising abortion.
God...
Dobbs really does remind me of the Dred Scott decision.
The whole idea of allowing separate states to determine their rules SOUNDS good...until you go into the details of what that means with respect to impact to citizens who travel for the purpose of conducting legal / illegal procedures.
Uh. You are aware that Dred Scott was decided on the same substantive due process basis as Roe right? That is why both were incorrectly d3cided
I have a couple of questions. If a woman is forced to take a child to term by the state after incest/rape (or any scenario), can she just turn the child over to the state after birth? Also, if it is considered "life" at conception, can the parents file the unborn child as a dependent on their tax returns?
See 4:30 for your second question
Better yet keep a fertilized egg in the freezer and claim it as a dependent, claim as many as you want
A woman can give the baby up after birth in any condition. You hust say you cant look after ot and its done. I expect a LOT of foster babies in the near future, so much so that abortion bans will be lifted from lack of funds
@@hahahaaha7208 You are more optomistic than I am. I imagine there will be the passing of laws revoking the psuedo right to abandon a child to the state or imparting some form of penalty like child support. I do not ever expect a Conservative majority to do the kind and socially supportive thing.
@@hahahaaha7208 adoption agencies actually want this due to the "domestic supply shortage of babies" the United States currently has
I'm curious as to whether using Tab For A Cause could, in theory, be deemed as supporting reproductive health charities to perform (or support others to perform) abortions, and thus be the target of Texas anti-abortion laws?
Your logic is sound.
The logic is about as sound as the use of the commerce clause in 90% of all the contexts its used in, so yes. yes it could
Ofcourse it is.
Someone would very likely try. Though hopefully most people would be sane enough to recognize how much of a stretch that would be and wouldn't let it see the light of day, but I won't hold my breath.
Since it seems like everything is a target of Texas anti-abortion laws you are probably right about that. Tab for a Cause is going to court in Texas! And The Supremes are going to rule in Texas's favor, when it gets to them. Where does it end? Texas is about to get messed with. I bet you they're going to come out Democrat pretty soon. There's been a lot of migration out of California. Smug ass Texans. They need a lobotomy to get rid of some of their Republicans. LOL.
I'm glad you explained the hypocrisy with the "this definitely won't affect other important court cases". I went and read the decision myself when it came out and really noticed how much what they were saying didn't make sense there.
Let me break it down for you, then. The Court said, in layman's terms, "It is not the government's business deciding a case like this. Keep us out of it. Let the states decide."
@@DavidRay39 They made this decision based on reasoning that is strictly hypocritical and nonsense, and often just out and out lies.
@@DavidRay39 I'm not saying I didn't understand what they were saying, I'm saying what they were saying was contradictory, and thus didn't make sense.
@@DavidRay39 "it is not the governments business" "Let the states decide" Like the actual states are deciding? the land itself? or is there some form of governance to this land?
@@DavidRay39 news flash: "the states" are a form of government
I only see a big step toward the US tearing itself apart due to the behaviour of the current supreme court majority.
Well said. I never imagined we'd see this day. I wished the politicians & judges would have left this alone and focused on real problems facing this country. Instead, they've put a lot of people in crisis while doing nothing to solve the real problems of why people choose abortions in the 1st place. If they don't solve the 'why' people are going to continue to find ways to get abortions. Since there will be more babies born in bad situations, we need to plan and prepare to care for them.
@@nleem3361 I don't understand how you or anyone else for this matter didn't see this coming? The moment SCOTUS made corporations 'people', the democratic experiment that was the United States of America ended.
@@nleem3361 Also over 70% of people aborted for no reason.
@@emeraldstories3586 for "no reason". Are you saying that the women up and decide to walk into a hospital to get an abortion for "no reason". A procedure that they got for no reason even though it is still dangerous. A procedure they likely paid thousands for(America) for no reason. Dude I don't think you know what "no reason" means.
@@titandarknight2698 The stats say no reason was given for the abortion.
i'm no law talking guy but the idea of a "commerce clause" doing all of this seems not in the spirit of the constitution. but it does raise the concern that if it is so easy to "legally" justify these types of draconian policies, then perhaps the constitution isn't all that's cracked up to be
Fundamentally the problem is that the founders did not expect their constitution to be so enduring and entrenched as it turned out to be. But now we're stuck with it, so we have to make the best of it.
If the fetus is a whole person at the moment of inception, then women should be getting full child support, regardless if they are able to naturally carry the child to full term. If a woman has no right to privacy as to whether or not she's pregnant, then a man ought to have no right to privacy either and should pay up, even if you can't take a DNA test before birth. Of course, I don't believe either of these statements are true, but shouldn't the people who recklessly inseminate be just as accountable for an act that will strip a woman/teen/girl of her physical, financial, and now legal securities? How could the courts help distort this imbalance of power?
This person gets it. They can't have it both ways, but they sure are trying. And doing it one way or the other, forced pregnancy or forced child support, still takes away the people's ability to make decisions about themselves. And mostly women's at that.
Almost like the whole family court system needs some serious fixing (as well do our culture and morals) and simply aborting an unwanted child isn’t the answer.
Men already don't have the right to not pay. We been paying lol
I get the impression that creating an imbalance of power is the very intention of this ruling.
I was going to say this same thing but thought I'd read through first in case someone else already did. Thank you, Guadalupe. :)
I love the not-so-subtle shade being thrown at this decision for the utter lack of consistency and foresight for the inevitable problems it will cause.
Honestly? There are a lot of people claiming “this is how it should be, states decide!” But I think I would disagree. Something we as a country have been struggling with since the founding, is, how can we as a nation claim “all men are created equal” if we allow states to determine to what level of equality their people are treated? Slavery, segregation, etc. all issues that butt up against the idea of if one state is allowed to curtail certain rights then we are not all equal… and I think a lot of abortion legislation falls into that category….
@@MrSkeltal268 ... definitely need another civil war.
@@MrSkeltal268 thats a VERY bizarre argument. Are you suggesting that american people can only be legal if every law is the same in every state? What would be the point of states then?
When it comes to Constitutional rights, state laws should not supercede the Constitution. Back in my day patriotic Americans understood that. We fought an entire war about it.
@@Kraus- That war was as much (or more) about slavery than about states rights. The moral question being asked has relevance
A question that instantly popped into my head with the notion of a foetus having all the rights of a child, would a pregnant woman therefore be acting illegally by drinking alcohol, or smoking? They would be providing narcotics to a child, even outright forcing that child to take them. It's almost like these laws were built with the express purpose of banning abortion through legal loopholes, with no actual thought into what they meant.
There's no actual thought that goes into any anti-abortion law. It completely disregards all medical science and human rights in favor of backward religio-fascism and irrationality.
I'd be down for punishing women who give their children birth defects from their bad choices during pregnancy. Speaking as someone who has had a lifelong battle with asthma because my mother smoked when she was pregnant with me.
@@Skeloperch but if the exposure to such things were not done willingly? For example, what if the mother worked in an area with high levels of air pollution when she was pregnant, resulting in the baby having chronic breathing difficulties? Will she be accountable then?
@@Skeloperch What about women who don't know they are pregnant? Can women never drink or smoke because at any moment they could become pregnant and not know for several weeks or months?
Well, I'd agree with a law like that, FAS can have lifelong effects, and a lot more people than you think suffer from it.
The more interesting effect would be that, due to carding laws, the bartender supplying alcohol would also be on the hook. Basically, any given bartender would need to be able to prove they aren't serving to a pregnant woman; which is obviously more or less impossible for them to reasonably do, so would essentially become a law against women drinking.
If you're a medical provider that will not provide life-saving care to your patient due to "religious reasons," you need to find a new career...
Also, the current court is a good argument for how any member of the Federalist Society should be banned from legislative or judicial positions..
sometimes that provider is bound by the company they work for to refuse these things. They often do not have a choice when working for say a Catholic hospital of which there are many in this country.
@@jennifertarin4707 See, that's why the hospital providers themselves need to be held to account, too. If your religious beliefs cause your patients to suffer, you're in the wrong both ethically and spiritually, and there needs to be legal consequences.
As a product of an interracial marriage two years after Loving v. Virginia, the repeal of Roe has worried me for the exact reasons you articulated at the end. Every time I watch Trevor Noah, I am constantly reminded that I was a few years away from being “born a crime” under miscegenation laws.
Uncle Thom is only one Justice. His opinion on that doesn't matter if the majority disagrees.
At least one republican senator has already said that the "issue" of interracial marriage should be left up to the individual states, too 🤬
I wouldn't give into the fear mongering on that one, there's just no interest in that issue amongst the people or the parties outside of a very small handful of idiots. Abortion was always a polarizing topic that split the population, interracial marriage isn't something most of the population cares about any more (as in: it's just accepted).
@@TheDeconstructivist going to disagree with you as, as a person of color, I can verify through many experiences how much folks in charge wish the Loving act didn’t pass.
@@christianokami2220 Though I don't doubt your personal experience, it's anecdotal. The data I've seen on the issue shows that interracial marriage has the support of roughly 95% of the population. And, again, there isn't a conflict of rights as there was for Roe. Without public interest in the issue and no conflict of rights, there is no reason to believe the court would act against Loving. These are massive differences from Roe.
Banning abortion doesn't reduce the amount of abortions but rather raises the amount of ilegal and dangerous abortions performed. But we all know that the US laws always makes proper healthcare harder and more expensive than should be.
Why do I feel like there are some health companies lobbying to get it banned. You can charge more when it's rare afterall.
Yeah, all the people trying to point out how many abortions are going to still happen are missing the point--if you die from a backalley abortion, the rightwing thinks you deserved it. If you die from complications around a stillbirth, you deserved it. If you die because your partner beat you to death for getting pregnant, you deserved it. Your body doesn't belong to you and any choice you make is seen as an attack.
Guarantee that these politicians who are loving this court are also going to fight tooth and nail to decrease welfare assistance to single mothers.
So true. The only certain way to decrease the number of abortions is to decrease the reasons why women have abortions.
Laws against murder by themselves do little to decrease the numbers. Only by enabling police to de-escalate domestic violence and other inter-personal arguments, actively reducing gang activity, regulating addictive drugs, etc. are murders reduced.
What about the right not to be accused of being a witch and subsequently be burned at the stack to find out? It is deeply rooted in English and American law. By the way, Justice Alito turned me into a newt!
It’s really not fun to live in a world where lawyers have to practice medicine and doctors have to practice law.
I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer, but I do read through my state’s active and purposed legislation for fun (yeah, I know…). I live in Missouri, and combing through the mess of various on-the-books-but-overturned statutes, the trigger statutes, and the bolder recently activated statutes (all of which contain inaccurate medical information) is just a very tangled web.
So, innocent until proven guilty is no longer a thing because doctors charged with the class B felony of providing an abortion must assert an affirmative defense claiming that the life of the pregnant person was at stake…which could be hard to prove unless confidential medical records can be presented as evidence. It definitely doesn’t erase the trauma of an arrest and potential time in jail while awaiting trial. There’s an entirely separate process to have records expunged, even after an acquittal.
That’s an extremely powerful threat to hold over someone trying to make medical decisions in the best interest of the patient: can you prove it in court? Can you prove that you waited long enough for the patient to get sick enough to perform the termination? And would that open you up to a malpractice suit if the patient dies because you legally had to wait until they had one foot in the grave?
What a mess.
Most abortions have nothing to do with medical issues... Most are done for excuses of convenience like money or it simply not being the right time for a child. Do you at least agree that if a healthy woman tells her doctor "I don't want a child, I want an abortion" that the doctors should say something like "you're healthy, your unborn child is healthy, not wanting a child is a horrible excuse to kill a child, so I'm not going to kill your unborn son or daughter"?
@@mathildeyoung1823 Uhhhh nope. Pregnancy and birth are never 100% risk free. Sure, the odds of something bad happening are lower if the pregnant person and the unborn child are healthy, but that doesn’t eliminate the risks.
Nobody has the right to use my body to keep themselves alive without my express consent.
Also, are we asking the lawyers or the doctors who is “healthy enough” to be denied an abortion?
@@sally8708 There are lots of things innocent humans may not have a right to do - it doesn't mean they should be killed though. Our youngest human beings have a right to be cared for though - at least as long as it takes to be handed off to someone else SAFELY. If a toddler you've never met wanders into your house are you allowed to kill them because they DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to be in your house (oh no!)? Or... do you need to figure out how to SAFELY remove them (e.g. by calling the police, tracking down their parents etc - no matter how long that takes? hmmmm
A good doctor would consider a woman and her unborn child(ren) as patients. They would know when a woman's life is endangered and could deliver the baby if needed to save her life. And certainly a good doctor would be smart enough to know that if a woman says she wants an abortion because she "cannot afford a child" that in no way is that a risk to her life. Her happiness, maybe, but someone's happiness should NEVER mean they can kill an innocent human being - born or unborn.
Roe v Wade already dismissed the "ongoing consent" nonsense when they said that states could restrict abortion at some point in the pregnancy.... And that was when they saw the unborn child as a "potential". Now that we know they are actual human beings (duh) we need to be able to protect them from the moment they were created - i.e. at fertilization.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Pregnancy and birth aren’t risk free. There can be more than one reason to get an abortion. Your example is someone who can’t afford a child should be forced to carry the pregnancy and give birth, but the risk for blood clots are three times higher in a pregnant person than in someone who is not pregnant (just for ONE example of a physical medical risk, there are many others). Maternal/infant mortality rates in America are crazy higher than every other developed nation.
Also, a toddler wandering into my house is completely different than them wandering into my body. That’s not even close. The lost kid isn’t relying on my body and my organs to keep them alive. And nobody can use my body or organs to keep themselves alive unless I choose to let them. That decision to consenting to use your body to keep someone else alive is the difference between someone donating a kidney of their own free will and someone waking up in a bathtub full of ice. The difference is between taking and giving. I may decide to give someone the opportunity to live using my body, but they cannot just decide to use me to stay alive without my consent.
@@sally8708 Abortion is ALWAYS deadly to the unborn child. Way more dangerous to the unborn child than 99.99+% of pregnancies are to women. That is why abortion needs to be illegal.
Paranoia over a complication months down the road is a horrible an excuse to kill an unborn child is just like paranoia over being attacked while walking down the street is a horrible excuse to take out a gun and mow down everyone walking around you.
The lost kid in your house is relying on you to BE RESPONSIBLE (oh no!) and ensure their safety until they can be safely handed off to someone else - even if that means using your precious body against your precious will and possibly enduring the toddlers wailing (which could cause stress or high blood pressure! oh no! or cause you to be late for work and possibly be fired).... By pro-abort "logic" that has to be good enough excuses to k-ill the child, throw them in the garbage and go on about your day.
An unborn child doesn't consent to be killed. Since they cannot consent they need to be PROTECTED. Our children, born and unborn, don't need consent to be cared for - they are supposed to be cared for (at least as long as it takes to hand them off safely to someone else).
Segregation was ended in 1964. I wouldn't call ending segregation "deeply rooted." Which means that one's on the chopping block too. A lot of things that became recognized as rights, are not so "deeply rooted" that they cannot be threatened right now.
and lets not forget the black justice who decided roe wasn't 'deeply rooted' uh-oh
Wasn't segeration ended cuz equality and 14th ammendment ARE deeply rooted?
Segregation was ended by amendments to the constitution. SCOTUS can’t “cancel” a constitutional amendment. They just interpret existing laws, which is why they overturned Roe V Wade. The U.S. constitution doesn’t address abortion. It’s Congress’ job to pass a law that addresses that, one way or the other.
So no, anti-segregation laws can’t ever be on the chopping block unless 2/3 of Congress agrees on that. People are less and less racist every year. So no, that’s never going to happen. I’d be surprised if even 1% of the public would support that.
@@jcflores1774 yet it's _so strange_ how it still took near a century for non caucasian people to - at best legally, and even that's hella shaky - be treated equally under the law. "Deep rooted" my ass, the Right would overturn those protections if they had a chance of succeeding. And they'd 100% pull some BS, deep rooted or not, if it meant feeding blood to their base. Miss me with that shit.
People jump to segregation, but it's worth considering the steps. Same sex marriage is almost certainly next on the block, if they can't rule on some other subset's basic humanity first. That'll almost certainly go if it ever gets that far, because... well. And states will absolutely jump to immediately criminalize some pretty benign behaviors as soon as that happens. Only after that will they try for interratial marriage, which might need to wait until one more justice dies and is replaced. That one is going to be more difficult, but that would absolutely need to be overturned before segregation becomes viable. If they do end up overturning that on it's Roe V Wade basis, it'll need to be re-connected to another right (i.e. the 14th) - and while it's off, states will absolutely play funny-buggers with it.
I'm not saying it won't happen, because I'm not an idiot. I'm just saying - the next step isn't going to be overtly racial, much like this step wasn't overtly racial.
Fantastic summary and analysis! Thank you for making this video.
I really do love your channel giving The actual legal understanding of what the law means and what that could potentially mean. You don't speak in actualities you speak in terms of what is actually said with the decision or the law. And what challenges could come up from that.
To call this a slippery slope is an understatement, it is more like a sheer cliff. For instance, what is stopping another opinion piece stating women's right to vote isn't "deeply rooted in history". More time has passed between the ratification of the bill of rights and women's right to vote than women's right to vote and the present. If 50 years does not constitute as rooted history, then what about 100 years or 102 in this case. This may seem like a strawman to some, but if the lifetime of a right is the defining characteristic of said right _any arbitrary date can be chosen_ . What about the separation of church and state? Everson v. Board of Education was "only" 75 years ago, is that "deeply rooted in history"?
That's the best part. Nothing is deeply rooted enough. They will uproot everything that isn't on the constitution, and then try to break that too. Keep in mind abortions were legal and commonplace when the constitution was written. I don't know how much more deeply rooted they want to get.
Nothing is stopping it, thankfully. We can only hope such an outcome comes to pass.
@@artemisgaming7625 Well now it's a fun game for me to look for your ridiculous arguments in these comments. If you truly believe that half the population should not be allowed to vote, then *you* should not be allowed to vote because clearly your ability to make rational decisions is severely impaired. See you in the next silly point you're going to try and make ;)
The 19th amendment.
don't forget slavery, it was also not "deeply rooted in history" that people should be free, or, more accurately, that black people are people, so, that is the message the US is sending to the world right now.
I appreciate that you're keeping us up to date with this topic- it certainly needs the attention.
as an european woman who has been a rape victim, this is soo scary , americans have no idea how many problems this is going to cause , my mother is a judge here in Europe and we already have a lot of cases women killing their babaies after birth, throwing them in garbage or woods I can only imagine how many of these cases are going to happen now in US , also women will start to think of suicides , I would kill myself 100% rather than giving birth to my RAPISTS child , child ithat I HATE, many women go to black market doctors and risk their lives to get this thing out of thir bodies....very tragic
I would also commit suicide, regardless of how I got pregnant. I would not allow anyone to force me to be pregnant for any length of time.
@Yahweh Ben el Be quiet foreigner.
Well said, the harm this is going to do is going to be tragic.
@@azazel166 How can the King of kings be a foreigner?
@@yahwehbenel1027 Because I'm not talking to Him, but you.
I would love to see your legal analysis of the bodily autonomy argument for right to abortion. That banning abortion is granting the fetus rights that no one else has which is to use another’s body for survival or health without consent.
Probably because as a lawyer he knows a fallacious argument when he sees one
Fun Fact: The due process clause is in the 14th amendment. Women didn’t get the right to vote until the 19th, so the amendments that passed before the 19th didn’t consider women’s rights as much. This is part of their argument. When the 14th amendment was ratified, no voter thought it protected abortion. Voter. Tysm for your time reader.
That is the interesting thing about the US Constitution. The Founding Father's intended for it to be flexible, to evolve with the Nation's beliefs, but hopefully not flexible enough that some would-be Tyrant can come and rip it to shreds
Then there needs to be some new clauses that protect women's rights on the matter. Women being underrepresented in US history is not an excuse to continue being sexist and ignore women's rights. That only perpetuates sexism.
Okay, if a fetus is a person with the rights and privileges of a citizen of their state, then they qualify for welfare, correct? They have no income and technically are disabled, as they require assistance for any form of locomotion or communication. That means since the mother is sole provider of care for a person completely unable to communicate, and has a vested interest in keeping them alive (as the state governments says), then she is legally permitted to control the bank account under the control of the person in their care until such time they are able to make their own declarations. It's convoluted, but I feel like women should do this for prenatal care.
What would be interesting is, if another women attempt this and are told that you cannot get welfare for the unborn, and citizens can, then effectively the state is saying that the unborn are not citizens. This could get them very caught in a definition. One is the smug control of women, and the other is going to cost them a great deal of money. It would be fun to watch their heads explode when they have to choose which one is more important.
Or.... the possible hundreds of professionals who I'm sure have been designing laws for many many years, can be just a 'littleeeeee' competent and design a law that states that 'being a baby' is not a disability.
Oh, but I'm sure that would be wayyyy too hard for them to do that and they'll only invalidate their previous reasoning if they tried, yup.
I mean, not really. There are two issues here, legally speaking:
1. Certain rights begin at a specific age (the big one being voting, which generally starts at 18). The various laws could be interpreted to mean that eligibility for benefits start at birth or whatever.
2. The bigger issue of what qualifies as “disabled” - the current social security guideline requires that such a condition “has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
There probably is an argument to be made for dependent status on tax filings though.
I might be mistaken, nur personhood and citizenship are seperate constructs. A foreign diplomat would be a person, but not citizen.
But sure there are likely some laws that could be exploited until the right declares that they still dont care about consistency.
@@gachivalantine3792
I get and agree to your point, but
a) fetus =/= baby,
b) a healthy baby does have (limited) means of communication and transportation.
There is a difference and that likely will have to be accounted for in future laws.
No
As a woman hearing this and thinking about the implications, I have chills, I wanna cry. I see the needless death and suffering this has already caused. And I am so glad I am not a resident of the "land of the free". For from where I am standing, it looks like hell on earth.
Literally less than 5 percent are abortions are over medical complications (sourced from planned Parenthood) sooooo, no?
It's only the "land of the free" if you're part of the right groups: white, male, cis, Christian. Otherwise, it's the "land of the free _to do what we tell them to do or else!_ ".
Applying personhood to unborn fetuses means that if the mother endangers the life of that fetus, it must be removed from her care, like any other child. What do they call it when you remove an unborn fetus before viability? I think it's called an abortion?
I imagine the women would probably be put in some kind of intensive care room to be monitored until the child is borne then eventually moved to jail cell and placed under criminal charges of "child endangerment."
Murder, if done for convenience. Pro choicers call it termination of pregnancy and removal of the contents of the womb but it is murder
If unborn children have all the rights and autonomy as born persons then couldnt a mother sign away the parenthood of her unborn child and then "evict" the fetus to survive on its own (which is clearly impossible). Women have no legal obligation to allow another "Person" to physically feed off of them unless they are their legal guardian, which can be waived.
LOL. Maybe you should get the Legal Eagle to do 30 minutes on squatter's rights, renter's rights, eviction law, and property in general. Spoiler: you're not going to like it given this laughable take.
If the law is very very poorly written than yes.
I think the mother should say she felt threatened and stood her ground.
@@angusmcculloch6653
Squatters take more than 9 months to gain rights over the domicile, and only apply if the owner is not also using the property. Renters have more protections, but fetuses don't pay rent.
@@angusmcculloch6653 Your defenses to their logical argument are the real laughable take. They have no legal basis, as some described further in the comment chain.
This is bound to happen when you allow life-long terms for the heads of the justice system. It's like a system without brakes. Shit will happen.
Good point. Having life long terms means every time a justice dies or retires both liberals and conservatives are heavily encouraged to use every dirty trick in the book to ensure their guy gets on the court. Though I have heard that elected judges tend to skew more "tough on crime" when said elections are around, since people associate incarceration as contributing to society.
"Politicians are like Diapers. They need to be changed often, and for the same reasons"
- Isaac Arthur
We have short terms for both Congress and the Presidency, why can't we have short terms for the Supreme Court? The longer a Politician stays in charge, the more of their own personal beliefs they can start enforcing on the masses
Robin Williams
This is what happens when a political minority can delay an appointment until the next election cycle.
Also, while I agree life terms are far too long (the average lifespan when the constitution was implemented was much lower), we must keep in mind that RGB served until she died. She was a liberal rock that kept the court from falling apart for years.
@@Robynhoodlum So life terms would be theoretically allowable, if we could guarantee good liberal judges. Also I've heard that averages for deaths are weighed down by infant mortality. Once you got out of toddlerhood you could easily reach 70s or 80.
I used to have a "live and let live" relationship with religion and religious people. Now it is evident to me that for us to have a free society, religion needs to be purged from government.
There is a thing called separation of church and state but conservatives seem all too happy to ignore that.
but it's protected under the law of "freedom of religion"
I hope you mean live and let live figuratively and not literally. Religion says thou shalt not steal. Does that mean we can’t have laws against theft?
Hi, I'm currently living in an apartment complex that has a mold problem, the managers don't seem to care all that much and refuse to actually test for mold (telling us it's the tenants responsibility to hire somebody to test) and it is keeping my grandmother (with an auto immune disease) sick and my cat sick as well (have racked up a ton of vet bills over it now) and more residents/buildings have this problem at the complex, is there a case here? Civil, class action, or whatever?
This is one reason why Federal laws sometimes make a LOT of sense. And now you have Governor's who is going to criminalize going out of state - where their own party says they believe in "Freedom".
Or a governor saying "going out of state for an abortion is illegal" and the state next door, who may actually have a governor in the same party, saying "going in our state for an abortion is legal and privacy of who does it is protected". Which one State law will be upheld? The Supreme Court hasn't opened a can of worms, it released the entire factory of worm cans
Every Ideology claims Freedom, its not that special but it has never been fully realized. USA has for example, never been the freest country in the world, it just claims to be.
Let ppl vote on it
@@brodiekelly3026 you mean in gerrymandered states where it's basically impossible to vote meaningfully?
The Supreme Court has not - and will not - rule against a national law that codifies Roe v. Wade... they simply said, and correctly so, that it is not appropriate for their body to make laws or policy, merely to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws. Just as they don't think its their responsibility to ensure abortion for all, so, too, is it not the court's responsibility to ban abortion for all.
Just wait until we have to ask “should all miscarriages be treated as involuntary manslaughter because a mother who smokes or drink does so knowing that doing those acts can cause miscarriages” “what if a pregnant woman drives and gets into a car accident? She knows they can cause bodily harm to her unborn child thus it’s manslaughter”
Then wait until it's, "You might become pregnant, so we're going to deny you medication that might cause fetal abnormalities if you become pregnant".
@@Zorae42 yup, and it’s “oh your in a sexual relationship? No drinking, smoking, or driving. You could get be pregnant and not know it”
People have already been charged with homicide for miscarriages. This isn't a what if scenario, this is actual reality.
@Merula Amethyst Of course, because the point is to remove women's right to autonomy completely -- that means rights to jobs and votes, too. Finally, the right to say 'no' to spousal rape, too.
@@Zorae42 This is unfortunately already happening in some states 🥴
Yikes. If they're basically just scaling back rights chronologically, I wonder if they'll eventually go after womens right to vote...
Has already happened with various voter disenfranchisement laws and voter supression in particular. About 1,3 million women are not allowed to vote as per a conviction, with some 'typical women's crimes' such as child neglect being included in the disenfranchisement list for some reason, while if you beat the **** out of someone or mishandle a firearm you can still vote, somehow. Voting hours and blockades to absentee voting are set up specifically to disenfranchise people who are caregivers or single breadwinners, so for most red states, single mothers are effectively banned from voting.
The only thing we've succeeded in basically, is outright killing bills that say explicitly "Women can't vote because X/Y/Z"
right to abortion is not protected in the Constitution...
@@zacharytabelin3687 It should be.
@@zacharytabelin3687 To be fair I don't think the founding fathers were thinking about abortion when writing the constitution. The constitution was made this way since a government needs to change a long with its people.
@@zacharytabelin3687 slavery WAS a constitutional right… almost as if the constitution can be changed 😱😱😱😱😱
Could ‘Blue’ states enact a law similar to the Texas Bounty Hunter Law targeting those that that followed that law? Like allow a third party to sue the Bounty Hunter?
It sounds to me like a pregnant woman could begin eviction proceedings against the embryo, remain in her domicile, and a police medic would have to administer an abortifacient in order to complete the eviction process.
No, no, no. That procedure isn't deeply rooted in history. We can't have new things here.
In some states eviction is illegal in the winter months.
Or is it a tresspasser? If the embryo have not made acontract with her.
Just say the fetus tried to kill you and so removing it is self defense
15:04 "it's entirely possible that this court is so outcome driven that they would" allow a Fed ban on abortion, but not a Fed protection of it. Yes. They would do exactly that. Clearly so.
They had 50 years to code protection of Abortion into federal law, but they never thought they would need to do so while states coded trigger laws for the instance of overturning of Roe vs Wade.
I mean this is obviously conjecture
@@ryancreevy418 Probably because abortion was recognized as a right based on the constitution. In most of those 50 years we didn't have to deal with Trumptards, social media, and QAnon.
Love your channel! Thank you for explaining all this!
America: Pff, The Handmaid's Tale is so unrealistic. There's no way Gilead would ever actually happen.
Also America:
I wonder how they would view a pregnant immigrant, since if the child is born on American soil, it has a right to citizenship. So, if a fetus is counted as a life, and a pregnant immigrant is on American soil, would the child have a right to American citizenship? What if the child was conceived on American soil?
It's pretty easy to predict this court. Imagine the most horrible decision you can. That's how they would view it.
Citizenship occurs at birth, even if personhood was at conception.
HOWEVER:
That is a lot of illegal immigrants that will now need to be deported from America!
What happens to the legal mother, seeing it is only the fetus that lacks legal residency, visa or citizenship...?
Anyone born on US soil is an American, always has been how it works
They call em anchor babies.
@@makaniwebb9358 the whole thing of "born on US soil" is a pretty old one. It's not anything new. BUT... it as it stands does not apply BEFORE birth.. Also if the mother is a citizen it doesn't really matter. It only matters if the mother ISN'T.
Wait, I’m not too familiar with this, but it is my case, I think? My parents are immigrants and they don’t have a US citizenship yet, but I was conceived and born in the Us. I believe I have a US citizenship, so I think that counts, hopefully that’s an answer
One curious thing that I've yet to see people discuss is what happens when you then examine the rights of a citizen to have medical procedures performed upon them without their consent.
If a fetus has all legal rights of a born human, do they need to consent to being born?
In the same way that a two year old does not consent to medical procedures, a fetus would not have to consent to delivery, it does not violate their rights.
@@kirstenadams5191 Right, it would be the parent's job to con- well, shit.
@@insertcreativenamehere7970 and you got the prize for also giving a medical reasoning for abortion
@@alenasenie6928 huh? I don't think you meant to reply to me specifically. So here's your award for not having any idea how to navigate UA-cam comments 🏆
@@insertcreativenamehere7970 no i think they just mean you gave another reason why abortion should be allowed, from a medical law standpoint
A while ago, a German satire show made a skit where a woman in the US was arrested for refusing to sleep with a man (the charge: preventing the formation of new life). It was clearly exaggerated, but the more I listen to the sh*tstorm in the US the more I feel like it might just become terrifying reality
We are living in scary times. Love your channel. Thank you for giving us clear objective facts and explaining a lot of the most confusing legal language surrounding a lot of these topics. Hope you are well.
If an unborn child is considered person could the mother sue the unborn child for damages like missing work time or something?
You would put yourself in debt tho
If the child is put up for adoption?
Do mom’s sue their two year olds when they get sick and she has to stay home with them?
This makes me legit angry.
nature is like: yea, misscariage is, depending on how you measure from 15% (embryo loss till week 24) to even 50% (fertilized egg loss).
conservatives are like: this is some magic shit that never goes wrong and we have to protect from second 0. like nuanced thinking is forbidden.
Could be from day negative 6 in the case of states banning emergency contraception.
the thing about this too is that if we are to consider a fertilized egg a full human, naturally occurring abortion (or miscarriage) would be by far the deadliest epidemic in human history yet that doesn't seem to bother anti-abortionists at all.
shouldn't someone who cares about all these "children" be outraged that, in their mind, children a dying in droves?
Actually that might help people who get abortions, particularly the medication kind. A miscarriage is an accident, whereas an abortion is a deliberate act. Remember, in order to convict someone for murder, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their conscious actions killed the victim. Accidental deaths out of their control do not count. I.e, women could defend themselves by sowing reasonable doubt that it was an accident.
It would be really hard for the state to prove that their "miscarriage" was not an accident, I would imagine. Even expressing public support for the pro-choice cause is not proof.
In a word, juries can vote not guilty and have plausible cover that they only looked at the facts.
Which is what I plan on doing, if I ever get summoned for an abortion trial.
Absolutely nuanced thinking is forbidden. because if they were allowed to have nuanced thought they wouldnt be doing this. that's why conservative media focuses on anger and outrage because that shuts down the rational centers of the brain, making people easier to control.
Thank you for going into this much depth and putting this all out there.
does this mean that an unwilling pregant mother who is unable to get an abortion in a state like arizona now has the right to sue the fetus for making a mess of her body and ruining her plans for the future? because one of the rights that comes with personhood is the right to be sued
Other what if question: Given that some states want criminalise aiding in obtaining abortion, while others pass laws to protect their citizens from extradiction to another state, could this in effect create a cast of people (anyone who could be called "aiding in obtaining abortion") that would in essecnce be soft-banned to travel to certain states - as they would risk being arrested and prosecuted there?
At this point red states will try anything and everything just to get cases before the court to sort all this out. So my advice is don't end being a test case.
Yes.
*caste
Wouldn't it break your country into pieces effectively?
It seems so. Like, imagine being a woman living in Missouri, on the border with Illinois. Any trip across that border could be fraught with legal danger in Missouri because Illinois allows abortions while Missouri criminalises them. It would only take a bitter ex to claim that the woman travelled across state lines to procure an abortion - especially if there was a miscarriage.
That’s before the obvious fact that people will travel across state lines to get abortions, and in order to enforce their laws anti-abortion states will need to either rely on the cooperation of authorities in pro-choice states (many of whom have already said they won’t cooperate) or outright cross their jurisdictions to investigate and arrest.
I hope I’m being over-dramatic here, but the way this polarises states and primes them to act in hostile ways to eachother seems to mirror slavery, with things like the Fugitive Slaves Act requiring abolitionist states to send escaped slaves back to the slave states. That ended in civil war before too long, and I could see this doing so as well.
EDIT: My US geography sucks. Changed Ohio to Missouri, as Ohio doesn’t border Illinois.
This whole situation seems very similar to the conditions that existed under the Fugitive Slave Law (and that ended badly, if I recall correctly).
It's almost like they're trying to follow up the failed insurrection with a full blown civil war.
If these laws stand, I imagine a ton of women will move from red to blue states (if they can afford to), and if necessary leave the US entirely. There will be a huge shortage of women in red states very soon if this nonsense continues.
@@xzonia1 Nah, they‘ll lock them up before they can leave, like in Afghanistan.
@@slyasleep Sadly, that is likely. No sane woman would want to go back to living that way of their own free will.
@@mroselli7482 Not unless Congress starts enforcing Anti-Abortion on all states. Because that's what Republicans do, they take away people's Rights
Any precedent for protection has been proven to be moot by this current surpreme court considering how much they like to cherry pick what's 'too old' or 'not old enough' for precedent. I'm also very curious how the case will turn out where a woman is challenging an HOV ticket because she was pregnant.
Could a person who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter then? If a fetus is a person, and the fetus-person dies due to uterine neglect, is that manslaughter?
"Could a person who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter then?"
It's not going to be a general policy, no. No government is going to make it an explicit policy to charge people who miscarry with manslaughter. The more likely scenario is that certain people who miscarry will be investigated for murder under the guise of the state suspecting the individual performed a self-abortion. (And this will likely happen more frequently to BIPOC and LGBTQ+ people.)
This sort of thing has already been happening, even before the _Dobbs_ decision was handed down. But we will likely see it increase in the years to come.
Another pandoras box is that being "unborn" isn't that different from being dead. So what happens to the people in a vegetative state? Are they now full blown people and hospitals have to keep them alive forever?
We already saw that with the Terri Chiavo debate. The conservatives wanted to keep her alive and the left was in favor of ending a life they didn't want to keep.
The pandoras box is that once you legalize murder where does it end?
As a matter of fact, this very topic has been another battleground of the religious right, too. But you have it backwards. Cases like Terry Schiavo were meant to be stepping stones toward an abortion ban. Now that a nationwide ban appears imminent, the Christo-fascists have little need to concern themselves with people in a persistent vegetative state. This was and will always be about controlling women.
If the family decides to pull the plug, is it now murder?
Vegitative adults are not consumers of laborers waiting to happen, so nobody will lobby anyone to pass laws making sure those vegetative adults are around to exploit in 20 years. It would also be harder to convince half the country that this is what they want, because basically anyone can become brain damaged, so there's no hierarchy to enforce like there is with abortion bans targeting women.
@@generatoralignmentdevalue vegetative patients provide an immediate need for healthcare workers. Then there is expensive equipment needed to help them.