Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

I see it as a different route than either of you seem to: I see the ‘guardrails’ so to speak as the willingness of medical professionals to refuse to perform any procedure that violates AMA guidelines, hospital policy or personal ethics.

AMA guidelines are not binding, and given that medical professionals *have* provided late term abortions in cases where both the mother and the child are healthy, I don't think relying on the personal feelings of a doctor is sufficient.

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

That's not a disagreement with my view, Toni. I specifically and explicitly addressed that:

And while I will 100% support termination late in the pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk in any fashion whatsoever, or if the infant is nonviable or has a severe defect, or otherwise is expected to not thrive. Thus, if there's any medically sound reason for termination, I don't think there should be any barriers at all.

Sadly birth accidents do happen. There are still births and maternal deaths despite all best efforts. These are not necessarily medical malpractice and they are not murder. Tragedy can only be the word to describe such events.

Why do you feel this is relevant? I agree that it's tragic, and I agree that it's not murder. What part of my position gives you the impression that I feel otherwise?

 

[lostone]

At what stage of development *exactly* does sentience occur?

Gee Emily, I don’t know. Do you remember being a fetus? I remember being in a crib - just a few fleeting images - when I was less than 2 yrs old. But not being a fetus. You?

I don't think sentience is the word you're looking for in your argument then. Sentience doesn't imply memory. Hell, I don't think I have any fleeting memories until probably about 3 or 4? And even those, I'm not sure they're real memories or if they're constructed from having heard the stories many times.

Sentience has to do with perception, awareness, and emotional response. I would argue that there's pretty decent support for late-stage fetuses being sentient, given that they respond to music, they react to their parents' strong emotions, etc.

That comment has some weight, but is the fetus more important than the already existing mother? Is its survival more important than that of the Mother, and her well-being? Can we not trust doctors and the mothers to make that choice, in most cases? Bear in mind that this choices has few absolutes, and all choices are likely questionable, or would be, by some.

 

[Elixir]

Genuinely, what kind of NON-LEGAL restraints or limitations do you think could exist when you frame abortion at any time for any reason as a protected right?

Moral ethical and professional restraints. The kinds of things that even the tightest Nanny State cannot enforce.
If that doesn’t have any influence whatsoever, keeping the government out of the abortion regulation business is still the most humane option.

 

[Elixir]

AMA guidelines are not binding

DUH.
Legislating morality is stupid.

Sentience doesn't imply memory. Hell, I don't think I have any fleeting memories until probably about 3 or 4? And even those, I'm not sure they're real memories or if they're constructed from having heard the stories many times.

Interesting. I have read that a fetus is thought to remain in a sedated, unconscious state in utero.
This would be due to neurosteroids and low oxygen levels.
I guess that at its base, sentience is a just an ability to respond to the environment, which would qualify a pretty early fetus.
But it would also qualify planarians, and lots of other organisms we don’t mind killing, so that doesn’t make a good determinant IMO. Plus it’s impossible to ascertain reliably, to differentiate response from reaction.
Let’s just draw a hard and fast line at birth.

 

[Jarhyn]

AMA guidelines are not binding

DUH.
Legislating morality is stupid.

Like, the whole fucking point is to make sure that bureaucracy can't get a foothold. Adding in something "binding" is the foothold.

The AMA might consider these events in license reviews and in malpractice proceedings, and in AMA membership in review after the fact, but nobody deserves leeway to slow or halt the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because, for like the fiftieth time now... The vast majority of americans, including the vast majority of women, support having some reasonable constraints on late-term abortions.

There were reasonable constraints to late term abortions before politicians got involved.

Please be more specific. At what point are you considering politicians to have gotten involved? Pre RvW? Or before RvW was overturned?

Pre RvW yes, somewhat. Post RvW yes, very much so.

 

[Elixir]

Pre RvW yes, somewhat. Post RvW yes, very much so.

Gee, I’m beginning to think there might be something like a progression there.


In a wider view, there was never any legal regulation of abortion in Europe prior to 1810. CT, which illegalized chemical abortion in 1821, was the first state to legislate abortion. But the fad caught on fast …
Afaik (I’m not well studied but somebody I believed musta said) The Church (popes) deemed abortion a mortal sin in the first or second century CE, and that’s the first record of abortion bans in Europe.
Also probably why I associate bans with religious superstition. Laws against abortion reek of Church-State nightmares.

 

[Toni]

I see it as a different route than either of you seem to: I see the ‘guardrails’ so to speak as the willingness of medical professionals to refuse to perform any procedure that violates AMA guidelines, hospital policy or personal ethics.

AMA guidelines are not binding, and given that medical professionals *have* provided late term abortions in cases where both the mother and the child are healthy, I don't think relying on the personal feelings of a doctor is sufficient.

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

That's not a disagreement with my view, Toni. I specifically and explicitly addressed that:

And while I will 100% support termination late in the pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk in any fashion whatsoever, or if the infant is nonviable or has a severe defect, or otherwise is expected to not thrive. Thus, if there's any medically sound reason for termination, I don't think there should be any barriers at all.

Sadly birth accidents do happen. There are still births and maternal deaths despite all best efforts. These are not necessarily medical malpractice and they are not murder. Tragedy can only be the word to describe such events.

Why do you feel this is relevant? I agree that it's tragic, and I agree that it's not murder. What part of my position gives you the impression that I feel otherwise?

Yes, doctors sometimes DO violate AMA guidelines. It’s far more rare for them to violate the guidelines of the hospital where they provide care. In other words doctors don’t do it ‘just because.’ In fact obstetricians are extremely cognizant of the lives at stake.

AFAIK, doctors do not provide abortions at or near term just because the mother wishes it. AFAIK, no such abortions ARE performed. Yes, there is a small number of late term abortions which are provided.

 

[Bomb#20]

... So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it,...

Had the Democrats passed that legislation in 2009 and Obama signed it... it would not be the law of the land today because of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision. SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government. Dobbs already overrules the legislation you think the Dems should pass. It'd have to go back to the Supreme Court to be over-over-ruled.

Right now it would take a Constitutional Amendment to put it back in the Federal sphere.

You really need to stop getting your image of legal rulings from the left-wing echo chamber -- you guys collectively appear to have profound misunderstandings not just of the Dobbs decision but of what it is the Supreme Court does. It shows up over and over in case after case.

So Federal Government passes law. State passes contrary law. Go to SCOTUS. SCOTUS finds that "We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The Abortion Act must be overruled." 10th Amendment for the win and abortion is out in Texas, and like 25 or 30 other states.

That's not how this goes down. SCOTUS finds that abortion has some vaguely arguable impact on interstate commerce so the feds can do anything to the states they bloody please. (Thomas dissents, just like he did when his pal Scalia upheld the feds' authority, on "interstate commerce" grounds, to prosecute a patient, in a state that had legalized medical marijuana, for doctor-prescribed weed she grew herself that had never been bought or sold or taken across state lines.) Ever since FDR and "A switch in time saves nine", states' authority to get in the way of the feds has almost always been a losing argument at the SCOTUS. They're federal judges, so they're almost always partisans of federal power. People who go into government with a plan to reduce their own power, well, as Mike Tyson said, everybody has a plan until he gets hit in the face. They're seduced by power; they decide they need more of it. The 10th Amendment has actually been enforced in maybe two decisions, ever.

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Except if a state says otherwise. What is the basis for Federal over State supremacy... if the Constitution doesn't say it?

It's called the "Supremacy Clause". Article VI, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Except if a state says otherwise. What is the basis for Federal over State supremacy... if the Constitution doesn't say it?

It's called the "Supremacy Clause". Article VI, Clause 2:

Supremacy doesn't exist if there is nothing to bind the Federal interest in the right. The Bill of Rights wasn't a thing states had to worry about until the late 19th Century, when SCOTUS started using the 14th Amendment and pushing Federal interest in state born rights.

Dobbs explicitly rejects that argument for abortion!

Not only are respondents and their amici unable to show that a constitutional right to abortion was established when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but they have found no support for the existence of an abortion right that predates the latter part of the 20th century—no state constitutional provision, no statute, no judicial decision, no learned treatise. The earliest sources called to our attention are a few district court and state court decisions decided shortly before Roe and a small number of law review articles from the same time period.

Without the 14th Amendment, there is no anchor for Federal Supremacy.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's called the "Supremacy Clause". Article VI, Clause 2:

Supremacy doesn't exist if there is nothing to bind the Federal interest in the right.

Sure; but if the feds enact a federal right to abortion then the Commerce Clause will bind the federal interest in it.

The Bill of Rights wasn't a thing states had to worry about until the late 19th Century, when SCOTUS started using the 14th Amendment and pushing Federal interest in state born rights.

Dobbs explicitly rejects that argument for abortion!
...
Without the 14th Amendment, there is no anchor for Federal Supremacy.

Why do you believe that? Do you think if Texas passes a law saying Texas businesses don't have to provide handicapped parking spaces, it will be upheld? There isn't a word in the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment about parking, or handicapped people, or businesses. Do you think that means the justices won't find an anchor for federal supremacy? If you take that argument to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's office will send some underling to mutter something about the ADA being constitutional because handicapped people contribute to interstate commerce, and the SCOTUS will rule against you 8 to 1.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's called the "Supremacy Clause". Article VI, Clause 2:

Supremacy doesn't exist if there is nothing to bind the Federal interest in the right.

Sure; but if the feds enact a federal right to abortion then the Commerce Clause will bind the federal interest in it.

That isn't going to fly with this SCOTUS. In the 1950s, I think SCOTUS and DC were doing backflips to enforce decency. Those days are over.

The Bill of Rights wasn't a thing states had to worry about until the late 19th Century, when SCOTUS started using the 14th Amendment and pushing Federal interest in state born rights.

Dobbs explicitly rejects that argument for abortion!
...
Without the 14th Amendment, there is no anchor for Federal Supremacy.

Why do you believe that? Do you think if Texas passes a law saying Texas businesses don't have to provide handicapped parking spaces, it will be upheld?

Maybe. If it does, it is because this SCOTUS doesn't want to change it.

You make it sound like this SCOTUS bench was beside themselves, in tears over how they had no choice but to do away with a Federal protection of abortion. The sought to kill it, like Justice Thomas suggesting killing gay marriage and birth control along the same lines. This SCOTUS is legislating from the bench like no other SOCTUS bench has (if one wants to exclude the entire Marbury v Madison result). From Dobbs to Roper, this bench has been reversing course across the board. You think a piece of legislation would stop them?

 

[Bomb#20]

Sure; but if the feds enact a federal right to abortion then the Commerce Clause will bind the federal interest in it.

That isn't going to fly with this SCOTUS. In the 1950s, I think SCOTUS and DC were doing backflips to enforce decency. Those days are over.

Do you think if Texas passes a law saying Texas businesses don't have to provide handicapped parking spaces, it will be upheld?

Maybe. If it does, it is because this SCOTUS doesn't want to change it.

You make it sound like this SCOTUS bench was beside themselves, in tears over how they had no choice but to do away with a Federal protection of abortion. The sought to kill it, like Justice Thomas suggesting killing gay marriage and birth control along the same lines. This SCOTUS is legislating from the bench like no other SOCTUS bench has (if one wants to exclude the entire Marbury v Madison result). From Dobbs to Roper, this bench has been reversing course across the board. You think a piece of legislation would stop them?

A piece of legislation stopped them from ruling you can fire people for being in gay relationships. You think they did that because they liked gays, or cared about decency? "Legislating from the bench" is what people believe about rulings they disagree with. This bench has been reversing course across the board because the justices thought the decisions they were reversing were legislated from the bench.

The SCOTUS conservatives aren't cartoon villains; they're six individuals who all bring their own priorities and worldviews to each case and often disagree with one another. But what they all have in common, as well as with the three on the other side, is that they're at the end state of their careers. They're in lifetime appointments and no higher office is a realistic prospect; they don't have to please anyone but themselves. So being the hero of their own narrative is what they prioritize. And the way they do that is by convincing themselves they're consistent and principled and just applying The Law As It Is(TM). Have you seen the tortured logic Alito came up with to convince himself he wasn't just dissenting in favor of the side he liked? They have to have a story they're able to believe for why they're doing what they're doing. Simply ignoring a federal law because they don't like it would be a bridge too far for them. Each of them would need a reason that's consistent with his or her own worldview and prior opinions. Thomas could no doubt tell himself it was about States' Rights and believe it; but who else hasn't been a supporter of federal authority? They did away with a federal protection of abortion and didn't cry about it, but told themselves they were doing away with not federal but judicial protection, because RvW hadn't been decided correctly based on existing law. They did away with Chevron* and didn't cry about it, but told themselves Chevron hadn't been decided correctly based on existing law. The cases they've been reversing weren't about States' Rights. Federal judges who give a toss about States' Rights are few and far between.

(* By the way, Roper was twenty years ago; I assume you meant Loper.)

 

[Elixir]

This bench has been reversing course across the board because the justices thought the decisions they were reversing were legislated from the bench.

It's called ignoring precedents because you disagreee with them. But that's what they mouth, anyhow. As evidence, you bring up:

A piece of legislation stopped them from ruling you can fire people for being in gay relationships.

Yet, they were able to get rid of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to abortion, by simply saying a bunch of mumbo jumbo like
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." saying this EVEN AS THEY TOOK AWAY THAT RIGHT BY CONTORTED INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THEY DENY HAVING EXISTED!

Prior to the Dobbs decision in 2022, the U.S. Constitution was interpreted to include a right to abortion. This right was established by two landmark Supreme Court cases, and those precedents which these so-called "justices" swore to protect, were casually dismissed with a lofty sounding "nuh-uh!"
The constitution does say that if it doesn't deny a right, that right falls to the citizens. So they carried on:
"a right must be "deeply rooted" in the nation's history", which the Constitution does NOT say afaik. They then capriciously reject the idea that abortion rights were part of a broader right to privacy protected by the Constitution. DESPITE PROMISING TO HONOR PRECEDENTS.

As further excuse they came up with this classic piece of lamebrainery:
"Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrongly decided and that relying too heavily on precedent in this case would be a mistake"
So, "not rooted deeply" enough, apparently, as if to say "We promised to honor precedents, but we were only kidding."

Then they appoint themselves arbiters of rationality, without actually indulging in any such thing:
"abortion regulations should be evaluated under the less stringent "rational basis" standard, rather than the "strict scrutiny" standard previously applied"

Such weasleldom... "should be evaluated" - By SCOTUS, of course. Because they are the embodiment of a rationality standard that cannot be iterated in this context without contradicting themselves.
They lied in their confirmation hearings, and almost killed themselves trying to make "rational" their utter disregard for precedent.

"Rational basis review" is generally deferential to legislative decisions, such as the LAW they OVERTURNED on this specious excuse. Note that laws reviewed under so-called "rational basis" are almost always upheld as constitutional, as the standard presents a very low bar for lawmakers to clear.

IANAL so the above is a reflects a layperson's dismay with what appears to be a clearly partisan decision that was awkwardly cobbled together to please their orange client. If B#20 has constitutional law under his belt as well as he seems to know physics, I'd love for him to make actual sense of that SCOTUS decision so it doesn't appear that they are lying bastards who will casually shred the Constitution to please the grifter who protects their grifting.

 

[Bomb#20]

That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Certainly does mean that, federally.

That's ridiculous. People get all sorts of non-constitutional legal rights from vanilla federal laws; examples are given upthread.

Why do you think RvW is dead?

The SCOTUS giveth, the SCOTUS taketh away. RvW was an interpretation, not a law.

On paper blue states have autonomy.

Only in matters not delegated by the states to the feds. In modern practice that means, roughly, no they don't. Only once in a blue moon will the SCOTUS uphold state autonomy.

counties get their authority from state law

They are still subject to the FAA prohibiting your neighbor’s tower if they deem it a hazard. It’s an irrelevant case. Leaving it to States leaves women (PEOPLE) suffering and dying.

Of course it's relevant; it's an example of a non-constitutional legal right from a vanilla federal law, just like abortion will become if Congress ever enacts RvW and the Pres signs it. And they're still subject to the FAA prohibiting my neighbor’s tower if they deem it a hazard because the FAA is federal. That's what the F is for. The federal law says a state can't block broadband access in places that don't have it; it doesn't say the feds can't block it. (Funny story about that. My neighbor never built his tower. He only had his federal right to it because of the local internet monopoly's years-long refusal to extend fiber to our neighborhood. So two weeks after his lawyer waves the federal law in the county's face the internet company shows up and starts laying fiber. Who'd a thunk?)

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Oh? The Constitution provides that rights not proscribed Constitutionally shall be retained be the people.

No it doesn't. Where did you get such a preposterous notion? The 9th Amendment? It says rights not being listed in the Constitution isn't proof they aren't retained by the people. That's not the same thing at all -- you still have to do the work of justifying each right you want recognized, one at a time. That typically means finding it implied somewhere in pre-Revolution British case-law.

So SCOTUS proscribed any Constitutional right to abortion with a contorted interpretation of the privacy provision. How are going to phrase your vanilla law such that
A) it will pass and

During the first trimester, a state government may not place any restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians. From the second trimester on, the states may enact medical regulations on abortion procedures only if they're reasonable and narrowly tailored to protecting mothers' health. From the beginning of the third trimester on a state may not prohibit abortions necessary to protect the mother's life or health but may prohibit other abortions*.

(* Cribbed from the RvW Wikipedia article)

B) SCOTUS won’t strike it down if enacted?

You can't force the SCOTUS not to strike down a federal law, but the decision's author will be expected to explain his reasoning. What grounds could he offer to justify striking it down?

 

[Bomb#20]

what the bejesus was this?

your position that a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection

Is an invention of your less-than-honest mind.
... If you can’t make your case without imputing ridiculousness, your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare.

Why are you unable to understand that "not a person" doesn't mean "devoid of value"? I'd call that "speciesism". Are you unable to see yourself doing that?
My horse is "not a person" either. And if I had to sacrifice him to save "person X", I would hesitate, but not for long. This, despite the fact that that horse has more people who like him or love him, than any 28 week fetus that ever was, prior to the internet. He is tremendously valuable, to a lot of people.

Please quit imputing beliefs to me in order to provide a veneer of rationality to your own blatantly irrational opinion.

In the first place, if that was the substantive distinction in your mind, why the devil didn't you say that, instead of launching your fusillade of personal abuse that just left her and your other ESP-challenged readers baffled?

And in the second place, you've only given half an answer. A horse, like any multicellular organism or portion thereof, is a lump of cells. To explain your distinction, the question you still need to address is: what sort of protection do you consider a 38-week undelivered fetus to be worthy of? The same sort as your horse, or something else?

 

[Elixir]

The SCOTUS giveth, the SCOTUS taketh away. RvW was an interpretation, not a law.

It was an interpretation that was confirmed not once but in two landmark decisions, as I listed above. Two landmark decisions about which these Supreme Court nominees were asked, and they lied.

In the first place, if that was the substantive distinction in your mind, why the devil didn't you say that,

How many times and in how many ways do you wish I had said it? Are you arguing the point or just attacking my delivery or lack of it?

To explain your distinction, the question you still need to address is: what sort of protection do you consider a 38-week undelivered fetus to be worthy of?

I don’t feel like I owe anyone an explanation for the obvious. It deserves maternal protection. Probably.
These matters do not lend to humane or just summary judgments.

Let me ask you - do you consider a fetus to be a “person”? At conception? Viability? Or birth (no longer a fetus)
What protection does it “deserve”, from what, and why? Is it “worth” more, less, or same as the mother?
I have answered all those questions for you, and I get no argument on those answers, just attacks for untimely clarification (upon demand, no less) and contorted “what if” garbage.
Your turn. Is a fetus a person?

PS the U.S. Constitution assumes that rights not explicitly reserved by it are held by the people. This principle is articulated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

States can outlaw whatever they want unless those rights are granted federally. Until that happens, like it did with the overturning of two precedent cases and the flurry of ensuing State bans, the Constitution says in plain language that such rights are held by the people.

You are obviously MUCH better at physics. This is a foundational principle of this democracy, as I learned in grade school and have heard repeated from on high innumerable times since.
If you disagree please cite where the Constitution denies the people rights not reserved by it.

 

[Bomb#20]

The SCOTUS giveth, the SCOTUS taketh away. RvW was an interpretation, not a law.

It was an interpretation that was confirmed not once but in two landmark decisions, as I listed above.

Certainly. That doesn't make it a law. It's still just a precedent. Nobody thinks the SC should never revisit confirmed precedent. "Don't change it because stare decisis" is an argument people never make about precedents they hate. There are SC precedents saying segregation is legal, saying states can ban interracial marriage and sex, saying they can ban same-sex marriage and sex, saying criticizing the draft was like falsely shouting fire in a theater. The SC revisited all those questions and decided the earlier court had gotten it wrong. Do you think SC nominees should have promised the Senate they wouldn't reverse those precedents?

Two landmark decisions about which these Supreme Court nominees were asked, and they lied.

I'm not clear on why you think whether they lied is relevant to any legal issue, but in any case, Factcheck.org doesn't support your claim.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

They appear to have evaded, not lied. That's normal. If any senators got the impression that they had commitments from the nominees not to overturn Roe, they were idiots. SC nominees don't do that sort of thing. As long as I've been alive, senators have always tried to get nominees to say how they'll judge specific issues and nominees have always refused to bite. It's called the "Ginsburg Rule", not because RBG started it but because her explanation of the practice was especially eloquent.

"You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process."​

 

[Elixir]

"Don't change it because stare decisis"

Funny. The Jesus freak chick seemed to like that line when she was in the confirmation process.

They appear to have evaded, not lied.

Yeah I ll give you that. Nuthin’ like a good old fashioned smarmy evasion from a Supreme Court Nominee.
One side of the mouth requires legacy, the other side tears it up. I’m not sure how long you’ve been alive, but I’ve never seen that sort of blatant deception from a nominee other than Thomas. Certainly not business as usual IME. I didn’t see anything remotely like that from the black chick that Biden nominated, for a recent example.

The Constitution is clear that rights not reserved by the Constitution are held by the people and may be retracted by the States to whatever extent doing so does not countermand Constitutional guarantees. Now that we understand that, maybe you’ll respond:

do you consider a fetus to be a “person”? At conception? Viability? Or birth (no longer a fetus)
What protection does it “deserve”, from what, and why? Is it “worth” more, less, or same as the mother?
I have answered all those questions for you, and I get no argument on those answers, just attacks for untimely clarification (upon demand, no less) and contorted “what if” garbage.
Your turn. Is a fetus a person?

 

[Elixir]

Do you consider a fetus to be a “person”? At conception? Viability? Or birth (no longer a fetus)
What protection does it “deserve”, from what, and why? Is it “worth” more, less, or same as the mother?
I have answered all those questions for you, and I get no argument on those answers, just attacks for untimely clarification (upon demand, no less) and contorted “what if” garbage.
Your turn. Is a fetus a person?

B#20 doesn't appear to be interested in answering the very questions he asks.
Maybe I'm wrong about that and he's just a really busy guy.
Perhaps some other people would like to weigh in on these questions.