https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4

Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4
>
> Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

"In Roe, the core factual question was whether a fetus is a person – a human who holds rights and hence cannot be killed lawfully by another person.

The court, ruling in 1973, recognized the problem: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

But the justices were nonetheless compelled to do so. The court ruled that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Therefore, “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

However, the court saw the personhood of a fetus as developing during the course of a pregnancy. Therefore, “it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.”

The court concluded that “with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.”

This means that in the early stages of pregnancy, abortion cannot be outlawed, but “if the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Why viability?

There is a long-standing myth that the author of Roe – Justice Harry Blackmun, who had served for many years as chief counsel for the Mayo Clinic – had done copious medical research and come to the conclusion of viability as the emergence of personhood.

Linda Greenhouse, a longtime Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, wrote the definitive biography of Blackmun, which clearly demonstrates that this was not the case. Blackmun preferred the point of quickening – when the fetus first begins to move, at around the end of the first trimester – as the emergence of personhood.

In a memo to the justices in November 1972, he wrote that the end of the first trimester “is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.”"

https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/will-the-supreme-court-strike-down-roe-or-let-states-to-decide-when-personhood-occurs-opinion/

On 3/12/2021 3:53 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4
>
> Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.
>

The fetus is in the body of the woman, and hence the body belongs to the
woman, too.

Therefore, a woman has the right to decide if she wants to abort her
baby or not.

As the body belongs to her, even to sex or not demanded by her partner
is solely decided by her sole decision, too.

As the body belongs to the woman, the woman has the right to choose her
decision of it.

Hence, the Mississippi ban on abortion will be thrown out.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:17:29 PM UTC, boro wrote:
> On 3/12/2021 3:53 am, ltlee1 wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4
> >
> > Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.
> >
> The fetus is in the body of the woman, and hence the body belongs to the
> woman, too.
>
> Therefore, a woman has the right to decide if she wants to abort her
> baby or not.
>
> As the body belongs to her, even to sex or not demanded by her partner
> is solely decided by her sole decision, too.
>
> As the body belongs to the woman, the woman has the right to choose her
> decision of it.
>
> Hence, the Mississippi ban on abortion will be thrown out.

Not unreasonable. Yet I am not sure that is on the mind of the Supreme Court
Justices.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4
>
> Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

The first consideration:
"What the Supreme Court Would Gain If It Reverses Roe v. Wade"
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/supreme-court-would-gain-legitimacy-in-reversing-roe-v-wade

"The high court’s legitimacy is also a main subject of debate in the highest-profile case before it this term: the case about Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court based much of its argument for reaffirming Roe v. Wade on the theory that reversing itself “under fire” would compromise the public’s perception of its legitimacy and there.
....
The new Supreme Court declared itself “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”
....
Overruling Roe would be a blow to this grand version of the court’s identity. It would strip away the pretension to political and moral leadership that it has built up over the years. It would amount to an admission that its attempt to impose its will on the public had failed."

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4
>
> Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.

Legally speaking, the case is about State right, Undue burden before "viable", and
Stare Decisis. Politically speaking, the case is whether the Surpreme court Justice
would allow abortion continue as a polarizing issue.

Another consideration, the Court did not take up the Texas ban which restricts
abortion after 9 weeks. Mississippi had similar 9 week ban which was overturned
by the Appellate court. Hence it reverts to the 16 week ban passed two years ago.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 7:21:50 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:53:24 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4
> >
> > Supreme Court hearing started at about the 1 hour mark.
> The first consideration:
> "What the Supreme Court Would Gain If It Reverses Roe v. Wade"
> https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/supreme-court-would-gain-legitimacy-in-reversing-roe-v-wade
>
> "The high court’s legitimacy is also a main subject of debate in the highest-profile case before it this term: the case about Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court based much of its argument for reaffirming Roe v. Wade on the theory that reversing itself “under fire” would compromise the public’s perception of its legitimacy and there.
> ...
> The new Supreme Court declared itself “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.”
> ...
> Overruling Roe would be a blow to this grand version of the court’s identity. It would strip away the pretension to political and moral leadership that it has built up over the years. It would amount to an admission that its attempt to impose its will on the public had failed."

Most commentators said the court signaled its willingness to overturn Roe V Wade
following the direction American bipartisan politics. I have more faith on the Justices
as a whole. I think their major concern is not on the right side of partisan politics but
on the right side of history. And in this sense, the Judiciary could be a unifying force.

To be on the right side of history, the court will have to strike down the Mississipi ban.
Basically, the issue is really not about legalization of abortion. But how a government
can legally restrict women's right in get rid of unwelcome entities. Women had tried and
would continue to get out unwanted pregnancy. It would be difficult for any court to
pursuit such cases.

Since the Mississipi Appellate Court had overturned the 9 week ban, the SCOTUS had
little no reason to touch a similar Texas case. The Mississipi case presented a perfect
entree point. It could strike down the 16 weeks ban and at the same time signal its
decision is limited. Well some state are likely to try 20 weeks or 21 weeks as the cut off
point. And the court would then affirm such ban.