SCOTUS to consider taking up MS 15-week abortion ban

This makes me sick to my stomach.

Roe v Wade is going to be a thing of the past. They'll never be able to make abortion illegal nationwide, but it is going to be something you can't get in certain states. It's sad too because the people this is going to affect are the same ones the GOP talk about being lazy and expecting a handout. FUCK ALL OF THEM

What is the point of the supreme court making a decision only to have it turned around later?

The reality is that's the 15 week ban in Mississippi is irrelevant to the women in Mississippi. There is already effectively a ban as there is ONE clinic in the entire state and it does not perform abortions after 16 weeks. 90% of abortions in Mississippi were prior to 14 weeks and 2/3 are not surgical. This ban changes nothing in Mississippi if passed, it's just an attempt to challenge Roe v Wade



mississippitoday.org/2020/08/24/mississippis-only-abortion-clinic-asks-supreme-court-to-decline-15-week-ban-case/

The thing is it should not be legal OR illegal. It is medical decision, the same as a mammogram or prostate exam or removal!!

Your periodic reminder that god (if you believe in that) is the biggest abortionist of all time w/something like approximately 50% of fertilized eggs (e.g., "full humans") dying, most before they even implant or the woman knows that she's pregnant: at a rate of approximately 10% of known pregnancies and between 40-60% of fertilizations (most before a woman even knows she's pregnant).

Kline J, Stein Z, Susser M: Conception and Reproductive Loss: Probabilities. Conception to Birth. Epidemiology of Prenatal Development.New York: OUP;1989;43–68. [Google Scholar]

Rai R, Regan L: Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet. 2006;368(9535):601–11. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Brosens JJ, Salker MS, Teklenberg G, et al. : Uterine selection of human embryos at implantation. Sci Reports. 2014;4: 3894. 10.1038/srep03894 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Silver RM, Branch DW: Sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss. In: Reece EA, Hobbins JC, editors. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus and Mother.3rd ed: Blackwell Publishing;2007;143–60. 10.1002/9780470753323.ch9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Nishimura H: Fate of human fertilized eggs during prenatal life: present status of knowledge. Okajimas Folia Anat Jpn. 1970;46(6):297–305. 10.2535/ofaj1936.46.6_297 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Short RV: When a conception fails to become a pregnancy. Ciba Found Symp. 1978; (64):377–94. 10.1002/9780470720479.ch16 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

For a guy who's not into abortion, he sure makes a lot of them.


(Sincerest condolences to peas who have experienced loss of a wanted pregnancy. This is not about wanted pregnancies. It is about the hypocrisy of deriding the "1 million "babies" "murdered" each year while ignoring that 10x that many number who are dying cuz....??.

If we're really worried about losing all these "full persons" we should be moving heaven and earth to study and fix this 10x greater loss of life than is lost through CHOSEN abortion).

I think she meant that she doesn’t know if the Supreme Court will actually formally review the case/ban. Currently, they are just considering it and haven’t committed to review it. 

I guess I don’t know if that is actually the Supreme Court’s end game. Even the most conservative of SC justices have foci beyond Roe v Wade.  And I am as liberal as they come, especially about choice, so this isn’t just a knee-jerk defensive reaction on my part. They may very well take it up and pave the way, or they may not. They may wait for a case that is more compelling per SC standards. 

I think that overturning Roe v Wade is many people’s end game, especially special interest groups that have pushed these laws & bans through. I don’t know if that is the main reason that any justices, except maybe Amy Coney Barrett, wanted to sit on the SC. 

I think that lizacreates, with her legal expertise, was simply stating that they haven’t taken it up yet, let alone supported the abortion ban, paving the way as you stated. 

Sorry, I was blabbing on the phone and couldn’t reply earlier.  elaine is right…that’s really all I meant and she’s also right that this is not really a compelling case because it’s an outright ban. But since I'm already here, I may as well talk about it.

The SC usually takes cases that have conflicting rulings in lower courts (what’s called a “circuit split”). There is no circuit split here because this was struck down by two federal courts already. The MS Atty Gen, however, is saying there is a split because the legal standards used in the rulings between the two courts varied, and so the SC must determine which standards should be used. I don't think that’s a sound and robust enough argument for asking two compatible rulings to be reversed.

MS is also asserting that the state law is intended to protect women’s health (insert eyeroll). IMO, the Atty Gen’s arguments are clearly pretextual because the ultimate goal, of course, is for the SC to uphold MS’s ban.  And it is not merely a restriction; it’s an outright abortion ban.

Whether the two courts were using standards set by Roe, or Casey, or Hellerstedt, it doesn’t change the fact the state law is unconstitutional because no state can ban an abortion prior to viability which is anywhere from 23 to 24 weeks. A state can regulate at pre-viability but it cannot ban. Darcy Collins raised the present situation in MS upthread. There is an important distinction, though. Although there is only one clinic and the clinic doesn’t perform abortions past 16 weeks, the woman can go to a hospital for the procedure. So there is no ban in that regard. (Of course, in practice, it greatly poses a burden to the woman because the closest hospital that provides abortion is in Tuscaloosa.)

If I assume that a 6-3 court *might* want to undo Roe,or pave the way as you say, IMO this is not the suitable case for it. The kinds of cases that I presume they will use are those that pertain to regulations, not outright bans. As they give more and more leeway to states to regulate pre-viability, Roe, Casey, etc become more and more diluted until they’re rendered toothless. Once it gets to that point, they *might* invalidate Roe because the substance has been nullified.

Those are just my thoughts, and I also hope the SC does not take this up.