The Abortion Case That Could Overturn Roe v. Wade Has A Lot Of Opponents

Jan 13, 2016

by Alex Zielinski

A looming Supreme Court case that could severely undermine the right to an abortion has attracted an unprecedented amount of opposition from across the country.

A slew of organizations and individuals filed 45 legal briefs in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, each brief examining the case through a unique lens and each coming to the same conclusion: State laws that restrict abortion access are unconstitutional.

The case will examine the validity of a Texas law, known as HB2, that places burdensome, unnecessary guidelines on the state’s dwindling abortion clinics. These regulations, while framed as improvements to safeguard “women’s health,” ultimately have nothing to do with patient safety — and were instead created by anti-abortion legislators to impose additional, costly red tape on clinic staff. So far, it’s been successful. HB2 has already forced half of the state’s clinics to close, thus cutting Texas’ abortion providers in half.

The Supreme Court case, Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, won’t only decide if Texas’ law is constitutional. Depending how the court rules, the decision could also give legal cover to all states seeking to enact laws that appear to function as health regulations, but that actually exist to restrict access to abortion. The oral arguments for the case begin in March.


Read more by clicking on the name of the source below.

 

25 comments on “The Abortion Case That Could Overturn Roe v. Wade Has A Lot Of Opponents

  • caelon
    Jan 13, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    Why should being a believer in science mean I have to believe in abortion too?

    That seems to be a very vague statement. Science does “undersdtanding” rather than “believing”!

    Most who support abortion support regulating it.

    Usually dismissing it out of hand, means zero research on the subject and following religious dogma.



    Report abuse

  • Being a believer in science doesn’t require anything any particular position on abortion. In the last analysis science can only address the issue of life in a limited way. Science can agree that a human fetus is alive in some limited way (not yet viable), but it has no way of saying whether a fetus is a life in the sense that deserves protection from abortion (because it has a soul or other spiritual attributes) because it cannot support the existence of a soul or other spiritual attributes. Science is NOT a Belief system, it is a method of investigation, intent on finding the truth in the physical world. Once found, the truth is available to you for any use you desire, but history has shown that if you refuse to accept the truth for what it is, to that extent you will eventually fail in your endeavor to a greater or lesser extent.



    Report abuse

  • vargaj
    Jan 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Science can agree that a human fetus is alive in some limited way (not yet viable), but it has no way of saying whether a fetus is a life in the sense that deserves protection from abortion

    Science can however, point out that nature (or for those of a theistic disposition, – god), is the greatest abortionist of all! – Probably with natural selection, acting in the interests of reducing wasted resources on not very viable embryos with limited prospects.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/01/prominent-scientists-urge-supreme-court-reject-pseudoscientific-testimony-for-texas-abortion-case/#li-comment-194599
    Of 100 fertilised eggs, fewer than 50 reach the blastocyst stage, 25 implant into the womb and only 13 develop beyond three months.

    Science is NOT a Belief system, it is a method of investigation, intent on finding the truth in the physical world.

    That is the key difference between those who take an objective view on which to base their judgements, and those who simply reiterate the preconceptions they have acquired through “faith”!



    Report abuse

  • One of the most unique aspects of the human brain is not its size but the magnitude and type of its neuron interconnections “in humans much of that development must occur after birth, because bipedalism limits birth-canal width”[1]. “The neuron interconnections and assemblies required for consciousness don’t develop until well after birth [2]. So there is no ethical reason to place limits on access to abortion.

    [1] https://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-benefits-of-a-long-childhood
    [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ZTNmkIiBc



    Report abuse

  • vargaj
    Jan 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    (because it has a soul or other spiritual attributes)

    Of course some Xtian dogmas insist that zygotes are “ensouled” and become “people” at conception, despite the fact that a single cell or a bunch of cells has no brain! – Hence the opposition to contraception!



    Report abuse

  • I think you’ll find the supporters of Reason and Science are more in favor of a reasoned and scientific approach to the issue of abortion, and it’s availability, while the opponents of abortion want to impose restrictions on others, especially vulnerable women for whom abortion may be the least harmful option, for no reason other than their particular religious belief.

    To be pro-reason and pro-science tends to mean one is likely to be pro-choice. Not the Orwellian-named “pro-life”, which is anything but.

    Also, badly phrased question. “believer” and “believe in”. This isn’t The Monkees. Or Justin Beaver.



    Report abuse

  • caelon, when you fall pregnant you can demonstrate the strength of your conviction.

    Believers love euphemisms. They help to make their more offensive beliefs appear palatable. For example they refer to assaulting their children as ‘spanking’ or ‘smacking’ but use a different word when bashing their neighbour. Similarly, Anti-abortionists prefer to gently call themselves Pro-lifers now.

    George Carlin explained how Pro-Life is Anti-Woman.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w15OS2PdCKo



    Report abuse

  • Funny that nobody is trying to regulate condoms or vasectomies or deny them to any man, or refusing to allow insurance to cover their cost; while they are doing all three with female birth control in addition to making abortion next to impossible to obtain. Bottom line – it’s not about ZEFs or when life starts or any of that at all; it’s about controlling women.



    Report abuse

  • Sue Blue
    Jan 17, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Funny that nobody is trying to regulate condoms

    Actually, some people (or should I say “religitards”) have been trying very hard!!

    http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/the-pope-and-aids/

    In May 2005, shortly after taking office, the pope made his first pronouncement on Aids, and he took the opportunity to come out against condoms. He was addressing bishops from: South Africa, where somebody dies of Aids every 2 minutes; Botswana, where 23.9% of adults between 15 and 49 are HIV positive; Swaziland, where 26.1% of adults have HIV; Namibia (a trifling 15%); and Lesotho, 23%.

    This is ongoing. In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy “that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.” In May 2009, the Congolese Bishops’ Conference made a joyful announcement: “in all truth, the pope’s message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/AIDS. We say no to condoms!”

    This is not a remote problem. The pope’s stance has been supported, in the past year alone, by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster. “It is quite ridiculous to go on about AIDS in Africa and condoms, and the Catholic Church,” says O’Connor. “I talk to priests who say, ‘My diocese is flooded with condoms and there is more AIDS because of them.’”

    Some have been more imaginative in their quest to spread the message against condoms. In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread AIDS in Africa. Out of every 8 people in Mozambique, one has HIV.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – The Abortion Case That Could Overturn Roe v. Wade Has A Lot Of Opponents.

    Fortunately they have eventually succeeded!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36641063

    The US Supreme Court has struck down a 2013 Texas abortion law that imposed restrictive regulations on the procedure.

    The law requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to maintain hospital-like conditions.

    Republicans contended the law protects women while advocates argued the measure restricts access to abortions.

    The key decision is the first major abortion ruling since 2007.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court’s liberals in the 5-3 decision, which marked the first time the High Court has limited state abortion legislation in more than 15 years.



    Report abuse

  • 16
    Pinball1970 says:

    @#1Why should being a believer in science mean I have to believe in abortion too?

    Firstly one does not “believe” in science, science is not Santa.

    Also this is not an all or nothing or either/ or question.

    One can be a scientist and pro life or pro choice.



    Report abuse

  • 1

    I don’t think it’s helpful to divide the abortion issue into two neat categories. If we must do that then we’re going to have greater difficulty in reaching a working agreement. This has the effect of pushing everyone to the extremes. If we all stay as close to the center as possible then we can work it out. We’re more likely to reach a compromise that way.

    For example, I can move away from the prochoice category and toward a realistic position just by saying that less abortions is a good thing and that third trimester abortions are unacceptable to me.

    Your turn.



    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #17
    Jun 27, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    I don’t think it’s helpful to divide the abortion issue into two neat categories.

    I think the false dichotomy of “two categories” is a a feature of the thinking of the anti-abortionists, who only see two views! – Theirs and “THE wrong one”!

    Anyone who has a proper knowledge of pregnancy and embryology (As linked @#6), knows that there is a whole range of options – including ways of avoiding the problem in the first place, the best times for when, and the best methods for how!



    Report abuse

  • Alan

    Yes, false dichotomy is always a tip off that there will be some slippery logic (or none at all) forthcoming. Do people who lead off with this understand that it’s like waving a red flag in my face?!



    Report abuse

  • Hooray for the US Supreme Court because today they gave Texas pro-lifers the ass kicking that they deserve. Christian fundamentalists everywhere can go cry themselves to sleep on their Jesus pillows.

    Gloating and I feel no guilt. GGrrrrrrrr. 🙂



    Report abuse

  • US Supreme Court

    Really! Let me turn on the news. I’m happy too. That’ll set a precedent.
    Btw, the term “pro-life” is highly manipulative. These people who say they are “pro-life” betray their essential paucity of intellectual substance, cannot back up their arguments; they betray their dishonesty, desperation, and in some cases their sinister-thug mentality, by framing the question that way.
    There are people who make it their business to come up with phrases like “pro-life.” They are intellectual bandits, agents of the far right and should be exposed.
    And we shouldn’t let these phrases creep into the language so easily.



    Report abuse

  • @LaurieB

    This is an important victory. I’m so relieved.

    And done without the benefit of a full, left tilting (as it certainly will be once HRC steps in) SCOTUS. As has happened often, Kennedy was the swing vote here. And no, my HRC confidence is not as strong as it seems, but it is very hopeful, and getting more so as the days pass recently…



    Report abuse

  • Dan #21
    Jun 27, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Btw, the term “pro-life” is highly manipulative. These people who say they are “pro-life” betray their essential paucity of intellectual substance, cannot back up their arguments; they betray their dishonesty, desperation, and in some cases their sinister-thug mentality, by framing the question that way.
    There are people who make it their business to come up with phrases like “pro-life.” They are intellectual bandits, agents of the far right and should be exposed.
    And we shouldn’t let these phrases creep into the language so easily.

    I commented on this on this other thread – where there are some good debunking posts:-

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/05/a-veto-for-oklahomas-quixotic-abortion-bill/#li-comment-204110



    Report abuse

  • Laurie,

    Yes. Although this infernal debate never seems to end, this is an historic victory. Yay!
    ….Uh, could you look at my latest comment on the burned-alive thread – when you have a moment?
    🙂



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.