Sharpe
1723
Just so this is crystal clear, here is an actual quote from the holding of Roe v. Wade:
- A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
For reference, (a), (b) and (c) above basically correspond to the three trimesters of pregnancy.
So the Roe standard has ALWAYS been a compromise allowing restrictions on late term abortions and even allowing restrictions “reasonably related to maternal health” during the 2nd trimester.
Some blue states do have standards allowing more abortion rights than that but if a true compromise along the lines of Roe were possible, as a true and final settlement, then I believe the vast majority of US liberals and US centrists would be in favor of that. The hold up, as it has been for decades, are the conservatives.
Matt_W
1724
Casey did overturn the semester framework in favor of a viability standard. Emphasis added below:
(a) To protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time accommodating the State’s profound interest in potential life, see id., at 162, the undue burden standard should be employed. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.
(b) Roe’s rigid trimester framework is rejected. To promote the State’s interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, the State may take measures to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed. Measures designed to advance this interest should not be invalidated if their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.
(c) As with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, but may not impose unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.
(d) Adoption of the undue burden standard does not disturb Roe’s holding that regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.
(e) Roe’s holding that “subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” is also reaffirmed.
Sharpe
1725
Roe is the better framework IMO but heck, I’d be willing to negotiate on some Casey-type terms if it were a true and final resolution of the issue. Basically the framework that the right has railed against for decades has always been the reasonable framework and the fact that is not well known at this point demonstrates two things:
1)The media has done a poor job of explaining the truth and of rebutting the right wing propaganda and,
2)The right wing has been pursuing an extremist position all along, rejecting a compromise framework, and their attacks on Dems for “extremist” positions has been projection all along.
The harsh reality is (and this is the kind of thing @Enidigm is talking about) that the religious/doctrinal approach that “life is divinely created at conception”, without regard to biological realities, real world impacts, the rights of women to equal protection, and the rights of people generally to make their own choices is an extremist position, incapable of compromise on a deep moral/theological level, and has driven this conflict for decades.
I remain willing to engage in good faith negotiations on a compromise along the lines of Roe or Casey that acknowledges the potential for human life at later stages of pregnancy while protecting the rights of personal autonomy and equal protection. However, I also remain skeptical there is any willingness on the right to actually engage in a true compromise. The pattern has been that every “compromise” or partial measure by the right for the last 50 years has been a tactic in a long drive to eliminate abortion entirely based on the extremist “fetal life” religious doctrine
As you say, the premise of their argument precludes compromise. How can you compromise on how early it is okay to kill a baby?
Matt_W
1727
Yeah I completely agree. Roe/Casey was the compromise position, and it was a pretty good compromise. Now the religious extremists are ascendant.
What pundits on the right have often said about Roe/Casey is that the exception in the third trimester for the health of the mother is a giant loophole that makes abortion available in effectively every case (or, as they like to spin it “on demand”). It’s easy for a woman (and she can be coached) to say that giving birth would be traumatic, detrimental to her mental health, or exacerbate some chronic condition she has (as pregnancy and birth often do), and easy for a doctor to sign off on that. I’m not endorsing this view, because I have no idea if it’s even remotely true–we long ago stopped having any honest discussion of abortion in favor of cant on all sides. How many women under Roe were denied abortions in the later stages? I’ve never seen numbers for this (and I can’t seem to get an answer from Google post-Dobbs). What standards were used by medical professionals assessing detrimental effects on the health of the mother?
And I think it’s fair to say advocates on the left want there to be no scrutiny of that last question, because in their spin that’s a violation of a sacrosanct private determination between a woman and her doctor. Now, that position is both a basically legitimate appeal to medical privacy and a convenient way to evade the supposed compromise actually being a compromise. Is the ultimate effect of Roe/Casey that a woman who wants an abortion for any reason can get one? If it were the positive law of the land, would the left accept the establishment, oversight, and enforcement of health determination standards? For those advocating it here as the best possible compromise, should something like that be part of the enforcement of the law? And if not, is there a reason for those on the right to consider a Roe enshrined in law an actually effective compromise?
But going back to my original point–if anyone here knows more than I do (which is very little) about how abortion restrictions actually played out under Roe, I’d be curious to understand it better.
Yeah, but the premise on the left that there is literally nothing there to protect–a premise that I don’t think was always part of the argument from the left, but that has advanced as the debate has gotten more intense–seems equally radical and uncompromising to me. Put another way, if there is no recognition that abortion, at some stage and under some circumstances, is at best a necessary tragedy, then I think there’s far too little common ground for any compromise, and it’s not the fault of just one side.
Lots of states enacted broad restrictions for third-trimester and post-viability abortions. The idea that such abortions were common seems like the sort of claim that demands extraordinary evidence, given the actual legal environment.
They do like to do this, but it’s just a lie.
Honestly, where does this nonsense come from? I imagine that almost everyone who has a late-stage pregnancy abortion thinks it is, at best, a necessary tragedy. The idea that nobody thinks that is, well, crazy.
Thrag
1731
She really does have a point.
Her publisher should look into releasing a boxed set of books to capture the American experience from founding to present day. The first being Benjamin Franklin’s “Fart Proudly” and the last this recent entry “Ejaculate Responsibly”.
Matt_W
1732
There’s no “forced abortion” faction. The whole point of choice is that abortion is, in some circumstances, a necessary tragedy.
ShivaX
1733
One side is absolutist and say they will never compromise and are drafting laws to that effect.
The other side wants to go back to the previous compromise.
Pretty sure when there is no common ground for compromise, the fault is with the group that says you should kill or imprison anyone considering compromise. Compromise is dead, has been dead for decades and the Right killed it on national television and pissed on the corpse. There was much cheering and celebration, that continues to this day. And that was before it was even about this issue.
That’s sarcasm right? Because I’m pretty certain there’s more to women’s part of the pregnancy process than just releasing an egg.
Aleck
1735
Clearly a quote from someone who was never a teenage boy.
Canuck
1737
Lol! Oh man, if only it was a choice. But I think I get what she’s trying to say.
No? Pretty much by definition the only thing that distinguishes a pregnant rape victim from a non-pregnant one is unfortunate ovulation timing.
Federal judge overturns GA abortion ban. Haven’t read the order yet, but this footnote is something.
The ruling is here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23307351-fulton-county-abortion-ruling
Gist of the reasoning is that the law, which was passed in 2019, was facially unconstitutional at the time it was passed. This means that it was never in fact a law, and the Supreme Court changing their mind about the right to abortion doesn’t change that, at the time, the Court had agreed and reaffirmed for 5 decades that there was such a right. Unconstitutional laws are not laws, says the argument; they do not lie dormant and wait for Courts to change their mind and then spring to life. The portions of the law passed in 2019 which were facially unconstitutional in 2019 at the time of passage are struck down. If Georgia wants to enact them in law, they’ll have to do it again.
Will be interesting to see how this argument fares on appeal. I’m really not sure the question has ever been addressed, since it is hardly routine for the Court to roll back rights which have been broadly agreed for decades.
Matt_W
1740
I’m curious about this too. Ex post facto laws are clearly right out, but this isn’t that.
The thing about this case that really irritates me, though, is that both sides seem to admit something called a fetal heartbeat at six weeks. I’m no expert, but I think that’s a myth — it’s an electrical impulse — and that 6-week fetuses don’t even have hearts to beat.
RichVR
1742
This is what I have read several times as well.
