(05-19-2019 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have to agree with you on this. I have been having a nice discussion with Hambone on another thread on the 'rights' basis for each side.

With that discussion, it is interesting to see where the 'natural rights' school and the 'living Constitution' school actually have significant overlap. Both having a lot of tension with the 'textualist' basis.

And, even if Roe were overturned (my call is that it will not be, because even though the Court is more 'right' than the RvW or the Casey court, that 'right' faction is also very aware and very observant of stare decisis), my best guess is that the vast majority of states would enact or change their current laws to reflect pretty much the framework of Casey or Roe, if not adopting an even more liberal stance on abortion issues. At that point the issue would be precisely where it always has belonged --- as a purely political question with each State's legislature and Governor.

Part of my purpose there was to do exactly what we talk about here... that Rice people do so well... Debate, even vehemently.... not argue. Tanq is far more versed in the legalities of such issues and I am merely a student/observer... and yet still, we can disagree without devolving.

I think the right (on the issue... I'm generally right but fairly left/libertarian on this issue) is trying to force an issue on 'rights of the unborn', hence leaving off the common exceptions... so that the court can't fall back on them.

RvW certainly recognizes the right of a woman to an abortion, and also the 'obligation?' of the state to protect potential life... neither of which actually appear anywhere else... The religious right want the first part of RvW overturned, and the left (whether they realize it or not) want the second half overturned. So EVERYONE seems to want it overturned.... even a lot who think it ONLY says a woman has a right to an abortion.

The Alabama law seems to challenge that on its face. Laws allowing late term abortions seem to challenge the other part of Rowe... although Rowe doesn't say the state HAS to regulate abortions, merely that it CAN... so exceptions by state seem totally reasonable under Rowe.

For disclosure, I am 100% pro choice... I merely want the choice to be made as soon as humanly possible after the event. I think it 'cruel' (not a perfect word but close enough)to be allowed to 'think about it' for months while the fetus develops. I think sex education shouldn't be as much about biology and reproduction (that's another class) but instead about the implications of sex on relationships and 'being a teenager'... basically preparing people well in advance of such a decision to make an informed decision.... including the decision to have sex or not... the risks of sex, including but not limited to pregnancy and potentially being tied to two other people for 18 years.