Page 2 - Yrd Question News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Could not renounce. the question then is not whether roe should be overturned, but whether casey was egregiously wrong to adhere to roe's central holding. second, casey and roe were correct. for a state to take control of a woman's body and demand that she go through pregnancy and childbirth with all the physical risks and life-altering consequences that brings is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty. preserving a woman's right to make this decision until viability protects her liberty while logically balancing the other interests at stake. third, eliminating or reducing the right to abort...

Allows access to abortion right up until viability. and it also doesn't have the same barriers in place. >> what do you mean even if they have nominal lines earlier? >> some countries have a nominal line of 12 weeks or 18 weeks, but they permit legal access to abortion after that point for broad social reasons. health reasons, socio-economic reasons so their regimes aren't comparable, and they also don't have the same types of barriers that we have here. so if the court were to move the line substantially backwards and 15 weeks is nine weeks before viability, your honor, it's quite a bit backw...

Question. so i would emphasize, your honor. the shift you go, the court granted one question. that question fairly includes what is the correct -- >> well, it fairly includes the broader arguments that you've raised. i'm not suggesting that. but on the other hand, presumably included the viability question, as well, because that's what you talked about in that one sentence. >> and we've addressed that, as well, your honor. what i would emphasize here is that the merits arguments of, you know, the validity of roe and casey is as an original matter, is there a viability rule based in the constit...

Question is never, is it bad to overrule period. you know, surely -- >> i'm asking you to think, in near terms, there were two they mentioned. and they don't want casey -- they don't want roe to be the third. and now in your opinion, you just answered justice barrett, hey, all of these are not rising to that level, okay. are there any that do rise to the level in your opinion? >> i think -- and i'm not sure that i necessarily agree with the watershed characterization, your honor. but what i would say, i can't think of another that hits the radar, but i would emphasize that the problem here is ...

To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason, to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question. and the last sentence after they quote potter stewart on the same point, they say overruling unnecessarily and under pressure would lead to condemnation, the court's loss of confidence in the judiciary, the ability of the court to exercise the judicial power and to function as the supreme court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law. that's the opinion of the court. and it's about stare decisis and how we approach it. i hope...