Stay updated with breaking news from Reaffirming roe. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
With care. and that s why i said that. if you have anything to add to my plea to read it, please do. i agree completely and read the pages and reread them many times and it is another key distinction from the cases justice kavanaugh was referring to. that is as i understand the passages in casey the court carefully walked through each and every stare decisis factor this court focuses on. workability of the viability rule. legal and factual development and critical reliance interest and down the line found the case for reaffirming roe was overwhelming. in that situation when every factor the court consults to determine whether to retain precedent counsel is in favor of retaining it, i think casey properly perceived that a decision to overrule nevertheless based on the conclusion the justices thought the case was wrongly decided in the first instance would run counter to the ability of stare decisis to function as a cornerstone of the rule of law in this context. ....
Justice harry blackman, the author of roe, came up with as a measure that he sort of pulled out of the air in order to accommodate the competing interests and then flashing forward to casey, in casey what hadn t even been argued in roe suddenly became the central feature of roe. and i think what roberts was underscoring here is that this whole thing has been built on really a very, very shaky, almost non-existent foundation, which does on one hand you would say maybe that means you should toss the whole thing. but i agree with john that where roberts seemed to be heading was to say look, we have a very narrow question before us here. much more narrow than the parties seem to be arguing. is 15 weeks an okay regulation? harris: or is any an okay ....
Certainly the case that not every woman in america has needed to exercise this right or wanted to but one in four american women have had an abortion. for thoefs women the rights secured by roe and casey are critical in insuring they can control their bodies and lives. i have think there is a second dimension to it that casey also properly recognized and that s the societal dimension. that s the understanding of our society even thoef though this has been a controversial decision. every person in america knows what this court held and know how the court defined this concept of liberty for women and what control they ll have in the situation of a unplanned pregnancy. for the court to reverse course now i think would run counter to that societal reliance and the very concept we have of what equality is guaranteed to women in this country. it is certainly true that ....
That as far as her liberty and whether or not the liberty interests that we re talking about extends to her? well, justice thomas, i have to confess that i haven t read the specific case you re referring to. if i understand the question you re posing, it sounds as though the state is seeking to regulate for a child that s been born that was injured while it was inside the womb. and i think that we are not denying that a state has an interest there. we re not denying that a state has an interest here either. roe recognized the states have interests that exist from the outset of pregnancy. with respect to this specific right to abortion, there are also profound liberty interests of the woman on the other side of the scale, and not being forced to continue with the pregnancy, not being forced to ensure childbirth and to have a child in the world. the state s arguments seem to ask this court to look only at its interests and ignore entirely the incredibly weighty interests of the woman o ....