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.
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!👍
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.
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".
@@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.
@@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.
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?
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
"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.'
@@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!
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.
@@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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@@DavidRay_40 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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."
@@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.
"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.
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'
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...
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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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 ;)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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).
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.
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
@@DavidRay_40 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.
@@DavidRay_40 "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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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'm invariably under the rock on things when it comes to politics. Your serious explanations helped facilitate those topics for me, throughout the time. Thank you, Legal Eagle!
@@joshuaa7266 Finding an unbiased news source is impossible. Nobody is truly unbiased. One can, however, draw conclusions about the unbiased truth by looking at the overlap between diversely biased sources.
@@agorillawithaplan1996 it’s boring and complicated on purpose: when people stop paying attention, politicians can do whatever they want without interference
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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".
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
@@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
"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.
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?”
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
A pregnant woman in Dallas was ticketed for driving by "herself" in the High Occupancy Vehicle lane. So legal challenges to what constitutes personhood have already started. I guess its time to tie up the courts into a giant clusterf-k and make it hurt for everyone involved. Anything that requires, or forbids, based on the number of people involved should be shoved in their faces. Food stamps, census totals, dependents in tax forms, etc. I look forward to seeing how creative people get in gaming our deeply stupid systems of laws and regulations. Aside from all of that, the fact that making abortion illegal will result in a population boom in the exact parts of our population that these racist 'religious' fascists hate so much, I find absolutely hilarious. In 5-10 years we'll be swimming in non-white poor to low-wealth people (since everyone else can afford to make unwanted pregnancies "go away"), who will have NO reason to support republicans, or any other politician that didn't act in these times to support all of our rights and freedoms.
Republicans thrive on the poor & uneducated. Despite this upcoming population boom being so, the GOP will find a way to fool this unfortunate population into thinking their interests are mutual. But as we know, they are more often not.
Honestly, allowing pregnant women to drive in HOV lanes sounds like pretty good policy anyway. If there is anyone who needs a break from sitting in traffic for hours, it's probably women who are 8 months pregnant.
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.
@@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"
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 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.
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?
We all have the right to life, When your pregnant the child is forming. So when you abort the baby you just violated the babys right to live. It is a basic human right. It may not be alive but it is still human. when you die your still a human. just deceased.
@@Andy-rews Corpses have more rights than women. A corpse who is not an organ donor, cannot be harvested. Period. Even if it would save a life, or several. And yet, fetuses have the right to support themselves off of a living human? It's disgusting. You DO NOT have the right to save yourself by parasitizing another person, whether they be dead or living. There'd be some logic in this ruling if they made it so that everyone was an organ donor, without exception. But logic and internal consistency is not the point of overturning Roe v. Wade. Cruelty against and subjugation of women, is the point. Many states don't even have exceptions for rape/incest, and will force RAPED TEN YEAR OLDS to carry their rapists children to term! The barbarity of it horrifies me. Is this the country you want to live in? Where women are forced to die from ectopic pregnancies? Where rapists are allowed to choose the mother of their children?
@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 pretty sure theres court precedent that murdering a pregnant woman is double homicide. Why aborting viable babies is not considerd homicide is beyond me tho. Although wanting to have the power to deem something human or non human on arbitrary grounds has been a democrat staple ever since the slaves werent entitled to the same constitutional rights as eveeybody else, since they were simply deemed non human.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
@@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 🏆
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.
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”
@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.
“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.
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.
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?
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...?
@@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
2:01It's also important to assess what "save life of mother" means. How much risk must there be? Every pregnancy has some risk to be dangerous to the mother. How much danger must be at stake? Maybe the mother's life isn't in danger, but is at risk for bodily/reproductive injury if forced to sustain a pregnancy (presumably even of a nonviable fetus/embryo).
because of exactly this grey area, women are going to die because of these abortion bans. It happened in Ireland, it is happening in Poland, it will happen in the US
That's going to be a judgement call on the part of the physician, and in order to prevent prosecution, the physician will need to make a reasonable judgement call that they can support. This is very similar to laws related to negligence. Where exactly is the line between something being a normal way to go about business and negligence? That's not easily answered, and it depends greatly on the circumstances. I suspect that the reason laws started specifying "save life of mother" so specifically is because Doe v Bolton said abortions could be performed to protect the health of the mother, and then went on to define "health", so broadly that there could be no legal challenge to any abortion performed by a physician, regardless of how weak the reasoning. As a result, I think legislatures are very cautious about leaving language in laws that could be creatively interpreted to be far less restrictive than they intended.
@@JZ909 Problem is some doctors, out of fear of prosecution, have delayed care for the mother until they could confirm the non-viability of the fetus. There have been cases were they waited too long because of that and the mother ended up dying. Regardless of the language of the exceptions for the mothers health, a ban on abortions kills women.
@@AlmondFisk That sounds like medical malpractice, and I would think doctors would be eager to avoid situations like this to avoid getting sued. Also, is this common? The argument that something should be legal/illegal because in rare circumstances it can cause harm, is a poor way to write policy. People have been killed by air bags, but we require them in vehicles because far more people have been saved by them. Personally, I think "life of the mother" is too restrictive, and would like to see some broader terms, or more terms. However, like I explained before, overly broad definitions got us here, and it's going to be hard to go back.
@@JZ909 for the doctor, allowing the mother to die is malpractice, usually covered by malpractice insurance. Committing an abortion in some states now is murder and is punishable by years or decades in prison without the ability to care for your own family and children. Which side would you err on? If I were a doctor I’d leave the state.
You're probably one of the few people I watch that can explain a hot topic without getting emotional and skewing the information with your own opinions. Sometimes all I wanna know is what is actually occurring. I don't wanna hear anything else. Thanks for that.
@@kennysorel giving illegals money and other stuff is illegal and then he tried giving them voting rights? That's also illegal...the shmuck should be convicted of treason and impeached
Lol His fake news hitpiece on the Lafayette Square riots was nothing but hysterics and anti-Trump propaganda. He lied that Trump ordered an attack on “peaceful protestors” just for a photo op, when actually he had nothing to do with the action officers took that day on a rowdy crowd that have been violent in the prior days. LegalEagle is a DNC shill and a corporatist hack.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I lost count of the times he mentioned "potential life". This recalls the argument made in Legally Blonde about considering the spilt seed during masterbation as potentially being a form of child abandonment. It didn't discuss menstruation as another form of endangering a potential life. In mathematics, there's a proof process called reducto ad absurdum. You take an idea like "potential life should be treated as a person" and map out where that logically leads. If this results in absurd consequences, then your base premises were wrong. If birth isn't the rule for personhood and viability isn't the rule for personhood, then why should we draw the line at conception? Discuss potential life, determine if it makes sense. When we realize that it doesn't, then stop referring to "potential life" as people.
@@scimaniac I'd say there are some pretty clear cut absurdities that can happen when calling fetuses humans. For instance, the fact that any potential human life is a person means that if a woman is negligent in caring for the fetus and something happens to the baby then that could be counted as manslaughter and that's pretty insane. After all, if a person trips and accidentally kills the fetus then in theory that would be counted as manslaughter. Or if a woman smokes or drinks during pregnancy then that would end up being illegal since that's technically damaging a "human life". Alternatively, since fetuses are extremely fragile and can die very easily, what's stopping a state from mandating that pregnant women must be admitted to a facility where they are monitored 24/7 to make sure that nothing happens to the fetus? Or maybe we could go full handmaids tale because an unfertilized egg (or sperm) is "potential life" so maybe the states have the right to enforce the rights of eggs and sperm as well.
I don't see a problem with the Arizona law, as it should guarantee a woman to have an abortion. Namely, if a fetus at conception is legally equivalent to a person, then the fetus at conception is a threat of great bodily harm (which is all pregnancies) to the mother, and the mother has a right to self defense under arizona law.
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.
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.
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.
These actions may be symptomatic of a wider issue with our Constitution. By modern standards the Constitution is imprecise, broad often to the point of meaninglessness, and worst of all, open to significant interpretation. The truly scary thing is that by literal interpretation the court is 'correct' in this decision. All they did was chip away at one of the many 'patch jobs' that were made by previous governments to modernize our interpretation of the constitution without going through the politically complicated process of modernizing its text. A lot of rights and powers of the government that we take for granted are products of these 'patch jobs.' And if the court is adopting a textualist approach in this instance, there is nothing stopping them from tearing down those as well. We may have finally reached a point where the limitations of our Constitution are too significant to look past. It may be time for a complete rewrite.
But isn't that what they're supposed to be doing? We don't want pur court deciding what our laws should be. Everyone is afraid of letting unelected judges decide people's right but that's exactly what they are doing if they want the court add whatever rights they think fit modern culture. If we really think our constitution really is outdated and lacking then we have to acctually get together and ammend it.
Jefferson asserted that the constitution should expire in 19 years so that previous generation won’t force rule on subsequent generations. That certainly casts a pall over the whole concept of originalism.
The US Constitution contains some really good _ideas,_ but it's a terrible starting point for ruling a country of 330 million with a cultural diversity the Founders could never have imagined being in one place. When it was ratified, the only people who mattered were White, male land owners. Others were, at best, simply not oppressed.
The Constitution is actually quite precise; we just don't follow it. The original idea of the Constitution was that most issues should be addressed by states and communities, and that the federal government should only be involved when there is massive support for it. When there is that much support, Congress can amend the Constitution. We're just so unaccustomed to using the amendment process that we hardly remember it even exists. For example, there is overwhelming support for Interracial marriage (94%). Why are people worried about that right going away? Why not just pass an amendment to the Constitution? It would easily fly through both houses of Congress. Similarly, support for contraceptives is at ~85%, with barely any difference in support between Democrats and Republicans. With such broad, bipartisan support, why not just pass an amendment to make pre-fertilization birth control a right? Same-sex marriage probably isn't there yet, but it's getting close. The Constitution is well-equipped to deal with a court going back to an originalist interpretation of the document. On the other hand, I don't think WE are well equipped to use the Constitution to craft the government we want. We're so used to everything being broken that we don't know what to do when things start getting fixed.
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.
@@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."
What I'm curious about. Do lawyers and judges expect judicial fragmentation as a result of the polarization at the top. Will lower courts start to act more independantly from the supreme court and become polarised themselves?
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.
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.
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.
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
Dang, it looks like this last year really has aged LegalEagle. He's still handsome af (distinguished I guess) and presents himself well, and I really appreciate the somberness he conveys in these videos. So much of the future is uncertain and frankly terrifying. Sometimes I feel like our legal system is all just made up crap that is as random as the weather. :/
This has nothing to do with woman's rights, the people in charge, both parties, will allow a period of no rights to take place for one reason only. The birthrate must be raised to allow the ponzi scheme that is this country to continue. It's simple math. New taxpayers must be born. The end. Only difference is democrats won't admit it
“Outcome driven” - very polite turn of phrase. We know that this court is completely willing to use contradictory reasoning to reach its predetermined conclusions. The court literally did that in the NY guns regulation case vs. their reasoning that lead to overturning Roe.
You speak as though only republicans have the market on using contradictory information cornered, both sides of used it to their advantage to get what they want pushed through on multiple occasions.
@@mattwhite399 sure, to me roe was purely looking to reason its predetermined conclusion by explaining abortion is a privacy issue thus protected by the 14th amendment but only in the early stages. But why? How is this a privacy issue until week 20, seems pretty arbitrary to me
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.
I have a feeling this is going to end up in another nullification crisis, where some states simply refuse to enforce or cooperate with federal enforcement of abortion laws. This could cut in either or both directions of the abortion debate.
As someone outside the US, i am preparing the popcorns for the future civil war that seems to be almost here, probably it will be about religious extremists and their role in the branches of government by extension and with some inciting incident, we already have the abortion, when someone tries to prosecute someone from another state, is only a matter of time, there is already the ultra religious 70M that voted for Trump, there was already a near beginning in January 6th 2020, we already have the sides and the will of one of those sides to go to a civil war, so, i will repeat, at this point it seems only a matter of time.
@@80mbeats Federal enforcement means states passing laws that they expect the federal government to enforce regarding other states. Like when the South passed the fugitive slave act and the government was expected to enforce it in the northern states. Back when they were sure abortion would always remain illegal and colored people were gods gift to slave owners.
@@80mbeats the federal government enforcing extradition between states as you know that is something that legally can be done. The feds enforcing interstate extraditions for felonies. Imaging a Republican presidency. Then imagine the Republicans getting enough of Congress AND the presidency to pass a federal ban (and you know they will try to do this states rights be damned)
@@80mbeats Yes, I realize that. Do you realize that the phrase "end up" means where we will be in the future, not where we are now? I'm talking about what will happen if and when congress tries to ban or legalize abortion nationwide, or the court adopts the fetal personhood idea. I'm extrapolating future consequences of the Dobbs decision... You know, what this video was about.
Hey Legal Eagle, as a young woman in America whose been so terrified about this whole ordeal, I really appreciate you being so objective and factual. The idea that I don’t have full rights over my body still scares and infuriates me, but having knowledge about how this works from a legal standpoint at least helps me gain a better understanding of the situation. Thanks for doing what you do.
Clarence Thomas is the only man I can think of who I truly believe would be willing to make rulings that would result in him only being considered 3/5th of a person if it meant his party would benefit.
The 3/5 was the anti-slavery compromise. The slave owners wanted slaves to be counted as full person so their states get more resources, while the anti-slavery position was to not count at all the slaves in the census. The anti-slavery came up with the 3/5 compromise in the hope that the southern states would ban slavery to receive more resources from the federal government.
@@ghyslainabel I'm aware of what it was. I was speaking in hyperbole to make the point that Clarence Thomas will do literally anything and everything to help his party.
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?
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.
Shouldn't 17 year olds be allowed to vote, since they were legally citizens at conception? And what about babies born through frozen embryos? Shouldn't they be able to vote based on the date of conception, not birth? If a kid was born from a 6 year old fertilized egg be able to get a driver's license at age 10?
You know what your saying is complete bull. Of course not. When they’re born they become legal citizens, beforehand they’re not legal citizens but they’re still “technically” people. Are the unborn fetuses of migrants who just came into the US classified as legal US citizens?
@@sharpie3811 Nothing I said is BS, all of it comes from the terribly written Supreme Court decision. Try reading it, full of stupid and incorrect Historical findings. Most Churches in the US, including the Catholic Church, allowed for abortions when the Constitution was signed. And no, the Constitution says babies BORN in the US are Citizens, kinda like that is where their rights begin.
🟣 As I understand it: You can't be compelled to give bone, blood, or other tissue to living children with acknowledged rights. Even if it is required to save their lives. Shouldn't this be treated the same way? Especially wth a sentence of 9 months to life! 🙂 I'd really appreciate an educated opinion on this.
This is more an ethical question than a legal argument that's being presented in favour of abortions being ethical. You can't be forced to give up your bodily autonomy to save another human being, even if it means death for the dying person. If a person can't be forced to give up their body for another, why should a pregnant woman be forced to give up her bodily autonomy for an embryo/fetus?
@@vincenthanff7026 if that were true the same ethical obligations would apply to children outside the womb. I don't think it does. I think it's unethical to force pregnancy and delivery on a person unwilling to oblige.
To contradict the pro-abortion circle jerk here, I will just remark that your hypothetical situation dishonestly leave out the fact that those children got sick for reasons unrelated to you, whereas in most cases of abortion the baby's entire existence is due to the choices/negligence of the mother and/or the father. Rape is an unfortunate but necessary exception, and that's is why it's one of the very few reasons abortion is justified and must be a choice. Rape represents anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of reasons for abortion though, less than or equal 1 in 200. So in 199 out of every 200 of abortion cases, you got a woman who knowingly did actions that she knows will lead to a child forming inside her, then turned around and wanted that child removed, to their certain death. Is it moral to go around Drunk-Driving, and when you hit a child and their family needs blood donations you say "Not my responsibility"? I would say that anybody even thinking that this is okay is a complete piece of shit and a waste of breathable oxygen.
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 you think of conservativism as the philosophy that “nobody gets to tell me what to do and I get to tell other people what to do” everything makes sense all of a sudden
Reminds me of when texas was demanding aid from the federal government during the great texas freeze, only to be reminded that they werent connected to the national grid which made transferring energy to them difficult. Thats the texan spirit for ya
@@cooldude6269 I guess everyone should have the right to murder anyone they want right? And conservatives have no right to say anything, what a dumb argument.
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.
it’s weird how in the case of incest someone would say aborting the fetus would be another tragedy… it should have never existed in the first place that should have NEVER happened it doesn’t have a right to exist because it was non consensually created
i agree with exceptions for rape and incest but some peoples view is that while yes, rape and incest are HORRIBLE it doesnt give you the right to kill an innocent
@@texx07 A fetus doesn't have the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another human. its not the mothers fault that the fetus has to rely on her blood and womb to live. There are lots of people who die from a lack of kidney donors, but you cant force someone to donate a kidney.
@Canucklehead the woman(in most cases) chose to have sex. Sex is basically the only intentional way to have a child. A womans body was literally designed to have children. Outta of here with your lack of a real arguement
@@texx07 get outta here with your misogyny. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Your arguments and your prose are weak, so split before start looking more ignorant than you already do.
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
Would you be willing to make a video of how you prep and ready yourself? I’m studying law myself (contract law - either sports or business) so it would be very beneficial and just fascinating itself to see what you do and how you go about it.
Look through his playlists. He does have videos with advice on things like studying for the LSAT and going through law school. I found them beyond helpful and would recommend them to anyone who is, or is thinking of, attending law school.
If you follow the "a fetus is a person with rights" argument to it's logical conclusion, would that mean they get US Citizenship at conception? I'd LOVE to see the conservative reaction to that idea 🤣
Conservative here. I'll answer relative to someone else who doesn't have US citizenship. Just because my friend Jose doesn't have citizenship and isn't counted in the census doesn't mean he shouldn't have rights. So too with unborn children.
@@MB-dk6hk I never said he shouldn't either, I'm far left on most issues including immigration, I just think conservatives would go nuts if people tried to argue that their anti-abortion laws could be interpreted as giving citizenship at conception. Edit: I started typing this reply before you edited yours to say you're a conservative, clearly I misinterpreted your original wording but I'll leave this here anyway.
@@evilmark443 I'll completely clarify my view in as short a paragraph as possible. I'm a conservative on the subject mainly because I believe abortion supports a hedonistic and selfish behaviour. I do not want to teach anyone that they can dodge the consequences of sex - or anything else for that matter. People who gamble foolishly must pay their dues. This principle does not change when women are reckless with their body. That and the religious aspect, as I am a happy Catholic... I don't really get the citizenship thing. Maybe I'm missing the point - I'm a bit of a meathead after all. It seems like it would be a waste of paper for all the miscarriages that could happen. More bureaucracy. And the idea that anyone conceived on US soil is now a US citizen. But if this is the process that is necessary for lefties to stop trying to dodge their duties, I'd rather my taxes go to this than aborting infants.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"You can't know until you try." This about sums up our legal system right now.
"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’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
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.
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
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
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?
@@DavidRay_40 L
@@DavidRay_40 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.
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?
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
"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?
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 appreciate that you're keeping us up to date with this topic- it certainly needs the attention.
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
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.
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."
@@DavidRay_40 They made this decision based on reasoning that is strictly hypocritical and nonsense, and often just out and out lies.
@@DavidRay_40 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.
@@DavidRay_40 "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?
@@DavidRay_40 news flash: "the states" are a form of government
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.
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.
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!
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
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'm invariably under the rock on things when it comes to politics. Your serious explanations helped facilitate those topics for me, throughout the time. Thank you, Legal Eagle!
I hope you are pulling yourself out of that rock. We need you to dive in. I know how stressful it is out here but we need everyone to stand up.
@@Whateverhasbeenmynameforyears It's not particularly easy to find reliable news sources, let alone one that is unbiased.
Same I hate politics cuz it’s boring and no one just shoots straight with the facts. Legal eagle is great at summarizing this malarkey
@@joshuaa7266 Finding an unbiased news source is impossible. Nobody is truly unbiased. One can, however, draw conclusions about the unbiased truth by looking at the overlap between diversely biased sources.
@@agorillawithaplan1996 it’s boring and complicated on purpose: when people stop paying attention, politicians can do whatever they want without interference
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.
@@DavidRay_40 Um, so if I don't wear a seatbelt, then I am not a passenger?
@@DavidRay_40 "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.
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.
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.
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.
@@eeveebrosstudiosthey made the wrong decision then you could say that about any law what good is it if everybody doesn't follow it
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
"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.
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
A pregnant woman in Dallas was ticketed for driving by "herself" in the High Occupancy Vehicle lane. So legal challenges to what constitutes personhood have already started. I guess its time to tie up the courts into a giant clusterf-k and make it hurt for everyone involved. Anything that requires, or forbids, based on the number of people involved should be shoved in their faces. Food stamps, census totals, dependents in tax forms, etc. I look forward to seeing how creative people get in gaming our deeply stupid systems of laws and regulations.
Aside from all of that, the fact that making abortion illegal will result in a population boom in the exact parts of our population that these racist 'religious' fascists hate so much, I find absolutely hilarious. In 5-10 years we'll be swimming in non-white poor to low-wealth people (since everyone else can afford to make unwanted pregnancies "go away"), who will have NO reason to support republicans, or any other politician that didn't act in these times to support all of our rights and freedoms.
wow, that really did happen. good for her! also BAHAHAHAHAHA!
Republicans thrive on the poor & uneducated. Despite this upcoming population boom being so, the GOP will find a way to fool this unfortunate population into thinking their interests are mutual. But as we know, they are more often not.
@@notjackschannel5380 no need to be defeatest now.
Honestly, allowing pregnant women to drive in HOV lanes sounds like pretty good policy anyway. If there is anyone who needs a break from sitting in traffic for hours, it's probably women who are 8 months pregnant.
They’ll just redline them and make it impossible for most to vote. 🤷🏻♀️
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"
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
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?
The 14th Amendment literally says citizenship begins at birth, so I'm not sure where they're pulling their "literalist" interpretation from.
Their asses/cherry picking what they want instead of what is there.
We all have the right to life, When your pregnant the child is forming. So when you abort the baby you just violated the babys right to live. It is a basic human right. It may not be alive but it is still human. when you die your still a human. just deceased.
@@Andy-rews Too bad the 14th defined them as not being human.
So no they don't have a right to live.
@@Andy-rews Corpses have more rights than women. A corpse who is not an organ donor, cannot be harvested. Period. Even if it would save a life, or several. And yet, fetuses have the right to support themselves off of a living human? It's disgusting. You DO NOT have the right to save yourself by parasitizing another person, whether they be dead or living. There'd be some logic in this ruling if they made it so that everyone was an organ donor, without exception. But logic and internal consistency is not the point of overturning Roe v. Wade. Cruelty against and subjugation of women, is the point. Many states don't even have exceptions for rape/incest, and will force RAPED TEN YEAR OLDS to carry their rapists children to term! The barbarity of it horrifies me.
Is this the country you want to live in? Where women are forced to die from ectopic pregnancies? Where rapists are allowed to choose the mother of their children?
@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 pretty sure theres court precedent that murdering a pregnant woman is double homicide. Why aborting viable babies is not considerd homicide is beyond me tho. Although wanting to have the power to deem something human or non human on arbitrary grounds has been a democrat staple ever since the slaves werent entitled to the same constitutional rights as eveeybody else, since they were simply deemed non human.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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 🥴
“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.
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
2:01It's also important to assess what "save life of mother" means. How much risk must there be? Every pregnancy has some risk to be dangerous to the mother. How much danger must be at stake? Maybe the mother's life isn't in danger, but is at risk for bodily/reproductive injury if forced to sustain a pregnancy (presumably even of a nonviable fetus/embryo).
because of exactly this grey area, women are going to die because of these abortion bans. It happened in Ireland, it is happening in Poland, it will happen in the US
That's going to be a judgement call on the part of the physician, and in order to prevent prosecution, the physician will need to make a reasonable judgement call that they can support. This is very similar to laws related to negligence. Where exactly is the line between something being a normal way to go about business and negligence? That's not easily answered, and it depends greatly on the circumstances.
I suspect that the reason laws started specifying "save life of mother" so specifically is because Doe v Bolton said abortions could be performed to protect the health of the mother, and then went on to define "health", so broadly that there could be no legal challenge to any abortion performed by a physician, regardless of how weak the reasoning. As a result, I think legislatures are very cautious about leaving language in laws that could be creatively interpreted to be far less restrictive than they intended.
@@JZ909 Problem is some doctors, out of fear of prosecution, have delayed care for the mother until they could confirm the non-viability of the fetus. There have been cases were they waited too long because of that and the mother ended up dying. Regardless of the language of the exceptions for the mothers health, a ban on abortions kills women.
@@AlmondFisk That sounds like medical malpractice, and I would think doctors would be eager to avoid situations like this to avoid getting sued.
Also, is this common? The argument that something should be legal/illegal because in rare circumstances it can cause harm, is a poor way to write policy. People have been killed by air bags, but we require them in vehicles because far more people have been saved by them.
Personally, I think "life of the mother" is too restrictive, and would like to see some broader terms, or more terms. However, like I explained before, overly broad definitions got us here, and it's going to be hard to go back.
@@JZ909 for the doctor, allowing the mother to die is malpractice, usually covered by malpractice insurance. Committing an abortion in some states now is murder and is punishable by years or decades in prison without the ability to care for your own family and children. Which side would you err on? If I were a doctor I’d leave the state.
You're probably one of the few people I watch that can explain a hot topic without getting emotional and skewing the information with your own opinions.
Sometimes all I wanna know is what is actually occurring. I don't wanna hear anything else.
Thanks for that.
Umm..he does skew info with his own opinions...why do you think he never covered any of the illegal crap biden has done
@@jjtt1890 ok.
ok
@@kennysorel giving illegals money and other stuff is illegal and then he tried giving them voting rights? That's also illegal...the shmuck should be convicted of treason and impeached
Lol His fake news hitpiece on the Lafayette Square riots was nothing but hysterics and anti-Trump propaganda. He lied that Trump ordered an attack on “peaceful protestors” just for a photo op, when actually he had nothing to do with the action officers took that day on a rowdy crowd that have been violent in the prior days. LegalEagle is a DNC shill and a corporatist hack.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
I lost count of the times he mentioned "potential life". This recalls the argument made in Legally Blonde about considering the spilt seed during masterbation as potentially being a form of child abandonment. It didn't discuss menstruation as another form of endangering a potential life.
In mathematics, there's a proof process called reducto ad absurdum. You take an idea like "potential life should be treated as a person" and map out where that logically leads. If this results in absurd consequences, then your base premises were wrong.
If birth isn't the rule for personhood and viability isn't the rule for personhood, then why should we draw the line at conception? Discuss potential life, determine if it makes sense. When we realize that it doesn't, then stop referring to "potential life" as people.
Unlike mathematics, what is absurd to you is not clearcut to all.
Same way we can say - pregnancy is a potential to worsening medical conditions or potential sickness/loss of ability to work/death.
@@scimaniac I'd say there are some pretty clear cut absurdities that can happen when calling fetuses humans. For instance, the fact that any potential human life is a person means that if a woman is negligent in caring for the fetus and something happens to the baby then that could be counted as manslaughter and that's pretty insane. After all, if a person trips and accidentally kills the fetus then in theory that would be counted as manslaughter. Or if a woman smokes or drinks during pregnancy then that would end up being illegal since that's technically damaging a "human life".
Alternatively, since fetuses are extremely fragile and can die very easily, what's stopping a state from mandating that pregnant women must be admitted to a facility where they are monitored 24/7 to make sure that nothing happens to the fetus? Or maybe we could go full handmaids tale because an unfertilized egg (or sperm) is "potential life" so maybe the states have the right to enforce the rights of eggs and sperm as well.
I don't see a problem with the Arizona law, as it should guarantee a woman to have an abortion.
Namely, if a fetus at conception is legally equivalent to a person, then the fetus at conception is a threat of great bodily harm (which is all pregnancies) to the mother, and the mother has a right to self defense under arizona law.
@@triopsate3 “so what are you in here for?”
“Grand larceny. You?”
“I had a miscarriage as a result of falling down some stairs”
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.
These actions may be symptomatic of a wider issue with our Constitution. By modern standards the Constitution is imprecise, broad often to the point of meaninglessness, and worst of all, open to significant interpretation. The truly scary thing is that by literal interpretation the court is 'correct' in this decision. All they did was chip away at one of the many 'patch jobs' that were made by previous governments to modernize our interpretation of the constitution without going through the politically complicated process of modernizing its text.
A lot of rights and powers of the government that we take for granted are products of these 'patch jobs.' And if the court is adopting a textualist approach in this instance, there is nothing stopping them from tearing down those as well. We may have finally reached a point where the limitations of our Constitution are too significant to look past. It may be time for a complete rewrite.
But isn't that what they're supposed to be doing? We don't want pur court deciding what our laws should be. Everyone is afraid of letting unelected judges decide people's right but that's exactly what they are doing if they want the court add whatever rights they think fit modern culture. If we really think our constitution really is outdated and lacking then we have to acctually get together and ammend it.
Jefferson asserted that the constitution should expire in 19 years so that previous generation won’t force rule on subsequent generations. That certainly casts a pall over the whole concept of originalism.
The US Constitution contains some really good _ideas,_ but it's a terrible starting point for ruling a country of 330 million with a cultural diversity the Founders could never have imagined being in one place.
When it was ratified, the only people who mattered were White, male land owners. Others were, at best, simply not oppressed.
The Constitution is actually quite precise; we just don't follow it. The original idea of the Constitution was that most issues should be addressed by states and communities, and that the federal government should only be involved when there is massive support for it. When there is that much support, Congress can amend the Constitution. We're just so unaccustomed to using the amendment process that we hardly remember it even exists. For example, there is overwhelming support for Interracial marriage (94%). Why are people worried about that right going away? Why not just pass an amendment to the Constitution? It would easily fly through both houses of Congress. Similarly, support for contraceptives is at ~85%, with barely any difference in support between Democrats and Republicans. With such broad, bipartisan support, why not just pass an amendment to make pre-fertilization birth control a right? Same-sex marriage probably isn't there yet, but it's getting close.
The Constitution is well-equipped to deal with a court going back to an originalist interpretation of the document. On the other hand, I don't think WE are well equipped to use the Constitution to craft the government we want. We're so used to everything being broken that we don't know what to do when things start getting fixed.
@@JZ909
There's no guarantee that 75% of states would ratify any of those amendments. Lots of red states looking to roll back those rights.
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."
What I'm curious about. Do lawyers and judges expect judicial fragmentation as a result of the polarization at the top. Will lower courts start to act more independantly from the supreme court and become polarised themselves?
Depends on the Republican appointees. Do they have genuine respect for the law or are they just social activists?
@@akeleven you misspelled democrats
@@cybertrk you're both right. and you're both wrong
@@cybertrk Nobody cares, troll.
@@cybertrk And you misspelled "everyone"
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.
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
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
Thank you for the comprehensive explanation of the actual and potential effects of Roe and Casey.
Dang, it looks like this last year really has aged LegalEagle. He's still handsome af (distinguished I guess) and presents himself well, and I really appreciate the somberness he conveys in these videos. So much of the future is uncertain and frankly terrifying. Sometimes I feel like our legal system is all just made up crap that is as random as the weather. :/
All legal systems are made up crap. We made them, and while some are decent, most are horrible
He still looks like Ryan Reynolds’s older, more distinguished brother.
This has nothing to do with woman's rights, the people in charge, both parties, will allow a period of no rights to take place for one reason only. The birthrate must be raised to allow the ponzi scheme that is this country to continue. It's simple math. New taxpayers must be born. The end. Only difference is democrats won't admit it
For my part, for about the past 6.5 years I have been aging in dog years. I doubt I am alone in that.
The last 2 years have aged all of us a decade, at least. I feel like I gained I went from like 20 to 40. For the record I'm turning 35 next month.
“Outcome driven” - very polite turn of phrase. We know that this court is completely willing to use contradictory reasoning to reach its predetermined conclusions. The court literally did that in the NY guns regulation case vs. their reasoning that lead to overturning Roe.
You speak as though only republicans have the market on using contradictory information cornered, both sides of used it to their advantage to get what they want pushed through on multiple occasions.
Just like the roe court did…
Lol
@@jakeconrad2130 that may be right. What’s the single best example of this that you can share?
@@mattwhite399 sure, to me roe was purely looking to reason its predetermined conclusion by explaining abortion is a privacy issue thus protected by the 14th amendment but only in the early stages. But why? How is this a privacy issue until week 20, seems pretty arbitrary to me
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 feeling this is going to end up in another nullification crisis, where some states simply refuse to enforce or cooperate with federal enforcement of abortion laws. This could cut in either or both directions of the abortion debate.
As someone outside the US, i am preparing the popcorns for the future civil war that seems to be almost here, probably it will be about religious extremists and their role in the branches of government by extension and with some inciting incident, we already have the abortion, when someone tries to prosecute someone from another state, is only a matter of time, there is already the ultra religious 70M that voted for Trump, there was already a near beginning in January 6th 2020, we already have the sides and the will of one of those sides to go to a civil war, so, i will repeat, at this point it seems only a matter of time.
you realize there's no federal enforcement of abortion laws... that's the point of the decision
@@80mbeats Federal enforcement means states passing laws that they expect the federal government to enforce regarding other states. Like when the South passed the fugitive slave act and the government was expected to enforce it in the northern states. Back when they were sure abortion would always remain illegal and colored people were gods gift to slave owners.
@@80mbeats the federal government enforcing extradition between states as you know that is something that legally can be done. The feds enforcing interstate extraditions for felonies. Imaging a Republican presidency.
Then imagine the Republicans getting enough of Congress AND the presidency to pass a federal ban (and you know they will try to do this states rights be damned)
@@80mbeats Yes, I realize that. Do you realize that the phrase "end up" means where we will be in the future, not where we are now? I'm talking about what will happen if and when congress tries to ban or legalize abortion nationwide, or the court adopts the fetal personhood idea. I'm extrapolating future consequences of the Dobbs decision... You know, what this video was about.
Hey Legal Eagle, as a young woman in America whose been so terrified about this whole ordeal, I really appreciate you being so objective and factual.
The idea that I don’t have full rights over my body still scares and infuriates me, but having knowledge about how this works from a legal standpoint at least helps me gain a better understanding of the situation.
Thanks for doing what you do.
Just move to California. They won’t outlaw it.
@@bennynortheast1328 I don't think moving out of state is as easy as you think it is.
you have full rights over YOUR body. you dont have the right to kill another though.
@@texx07 but women are being forced to use their bodies to incubate and raise the fetus without their consent. That is the issue.
@@texx07 I know what kind of argumentation will ensue if I say this but: foetuses aren't people.
Clarence Thomas is the only man I can think of who I truly believe would be willing to make rulings that would result in him only being considered 3/5th of a person if it meant his party would benefit.
Silver lining, though -- he wouldn't have to deal with Ginni's crap anymore!
(/s)
The 3/5 was the anti-slavery compromise. The slave owners wanted slaves to be counted as full person so their states get more resources, while the anti-slavery position was to not count at all the slaves in the census. The anti-slavery came up with the 3/5 compromise in the hope that the southern states would ban slavery to receive more resources from the federal government.
@@ghyslainabel I'm aware of what it was. I was speaking in hyperbole to make the point that Clarence Thomas will do literally anything and everything to help his party.
@@dr.veronica6155 OK, I get it.
If he could legally get himself declared "white", he'd do it and then outlaw interracial marriage for everybody else.
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
Shouldn't 17 year olds be allowed to vote, since they were legally citizens at conception? And what about babies born through frozen embryos? Shouldn't they be able to vote based on the date of conception, not birth? If a kid was born from a 6 year old fertilized egg be able to get a driver's license at age 10?
You know what your saying is complete bull. Of course not. When they’re born they become legal citizens, beforehand they’re not legal citizens but they’re still “technically” people. Are the unborn fetuses of migrants who just came into the US classified as legal US citizens?
@@sharpie3811 Nothing I said is BS, all of it comes from the terribly written Supreme Court decision. Try reading it, full of stupid and incorrect Historical findings. Most Churches in the US, including the Catholic Church, allowed for abortions when the Constitution was signed. And no, the Constitution says babies BORN in the US are Citizens, kinda like that is where their rights begin.
🟣 As I understand it:
You can't be compelled to give bone, blood, or other tissue to living children with acknowledged rights.
Even if it is required to save their lives. Shouldn't this be treated the same way? Especially wth a sentence of 9 months to life!
🙂 I'd really appreciate an educated opinion on this.
This is more an ethical question than a legal argument that's being presented in favour of abortions being ethical. You can't be forced to give up your bodily autonomy to save another human being, even if it means death for the dying person. If a person can't be forced to give up their body for another, why should a pregnant woman be forced to give up her bodily autonomy for an embryo/fetus?
It really should be that simple. It should stop there.
@@vincenthanff7026 if that were true the same ethical obligations would apply to children outside the womb. I don't think it does. I think it's unethical to force pregnancy and delivery on a person unwilling to oblige.
To contradict the pro-abortion circle jerk here, I will just remark that your hypothetical situation dishonestly leave out the fact that those children got sick for reasons unrelated to you, whereas in most cases of abortion the baby's entire existence is due to the choices/negligence of the mother and/or the father. Rape is an unfortunate but necessary exception, and that's is why it's one of the very few reasons abortion is justified and must be a choice. Rape represents anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of reasons for abortion though, less than or equal 1 in 200.
So in 199 out of every 200 of abortion cases, you got a woman who knowingly did actions that she knows will lead to a child forming inside her, then turned around and wanted that child removed, to their certain death. Is it moral to go around Drunk-Driving, and when you hit a child and their family needs blood donations you say "Not my responsibility"? I would say that anybody even thinking that this is okay is a complete piece of shit and a waste of breathable oxygen.
Pro-life philosophy in broad strokes treats abortion as murder thus avoiding this delineation.
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?
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.
Texas: I don't want no dagun politician in DC affectin' me
Also Texas: We will implement a law meant to control other states' abortion choices
If you think of conservativism as the philosophy that “nobody gets to tell me what to do and I get to tell other people what to do” everything makes sense all of a sudden
Reminds me of when texas was demanding aid from the federal government during the great texas freeze, only to be reminded that they werent connected to the national grid which made transferring energy to them difficult. Thats the texan spirit for ya
@@cooldude6269 I guess everyone should have the right to murder anyone they want right? And conservatives have no right to say anything, what a dumb argument.
@@cooldude6269 ok you don’t know what conservatism is
@@superserpent4889 pro-corporate theocratic authoritarianism
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
it’s weird how in the case of incest someone would say aborting the fetus would be another tragedy… it should have never existed in the first place that should have NEVER happened it doesn’t have a right to exist because it was non consensually created
i agree with exceptions for rape and incest but some peoples view is that while yes, rape and incest are HORRIBLE it doesnt give you the right to kill an innocent
@@texx07 A fetus doesn't have the right to violate the bodily autonomy of another human. its not the mothers fault that the fetus has to rely on her blood and womb to live. There are lots of people who die from a lack of kidney donors, but you cant force someone to donate a kidney.
@Canucklehead the woman(in most cases) chose to have sex. Sex is basically the only intentional way to have a child. A womans body was literally designed to have children. Outta of here with your lack of a real arguement
@@texx07 get outta here with your misogyny.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Your arguments and your prose are weak, so split before start looking more ignorant than you already do.
@@texx07 What about women who are at high risk of death if they get pregnant? How is their body designed to have children?
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.
Would you be willing to make a video of how you prep and ready yourself? I’m studying law myself (contract law - either sports or business) so it would be very beneficial and just fascinating itself to see what you do and how you go about it.
Look through his playlists. He does have videos with advice on things like studying for the LSAT and going through law school. I found them beyond helpful and would recommend them to anyone who is, or is thinking of, attending law school.
If you follow the "a fetus is a person with rights" argument to it's logical conclusion, would that mean they get US Citizenship at conception? I'd LOVE to see the conservative reaction to that idea 🤣
Conservative here. I'll answer relative to someone else who doesn't have US citizenship. Just because my friend Jose doesn't have citizenship and isn't counted in the census doesn't mean he shouldn't have rights. So too with unborn children.
@@MB-dk6hk I never said he shouldn't either, I'm far left on most issues including immigration, I just think conservatives would go nuts if people tried to argue that their anti-abortion laws could be interpreted as giving citizenship at conception.
Edit: I started typing this reply before you edited yours to say you're a conservative, clearly I misinterpreted your original wording but I'll leave this here anyway.
@@evilmark443 I'll completely clarify my view in as short a paragraph as possible. I'm a conservative on the subject mainly because I believe abortion supports a hedonistic and selfish behaviour. I do not want to teach anyone that they can dodge the consequences of sex - or anything else for that matter. People who gamble foolishly must pay their dues. This principle does not change when women are reckless with their body. That and the religious aspect, as I am a happy Catholic...
I don't really get the citizenship thing. Maybe I'm missing the point - I'm a bit of a meathead after all. It seems like it would be a waste of paper for all the miscarriages that could happen. More bureaucracy. And the idea that anyone conceived on US soil is now a US citizen. But if this is the process that is necessary for lefties to stop trying to dodge their duties, I'd rather my taxes go to this than aborting infants.
@@evilmark443 Ah. No worries by the way. I am a bit tired, so I did edit stuff a bit late. You have my apologies.
@@MB-dk6hk Then you're a more old-school breed of conservative. A modern conservative would be outraged by this idea.
Got Tab for a cause a few days ago...Love the videos, and I even shared them in my criminal justice classes...thank you for what you do!
Does Tab For A Cause also support pro-life organizations? I noticed he only mentioned pro choice, thought maybe he made a mistake there.
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!