It’s Not Just Roe

Slate on the Mississippi abortion case: “The right to abortion is not the only fundamental right at risk. The arguments being advanced by Mississippi, if accepted, would destabilize a central part of the court’s jurisprudence protecting fundamental constitutional rights. As a result, Dobbs case also threatens the fundamental rights to use birth control, marry a loved one, and make decisions about sexual intimacy.”


Author: craigcrawford

Trail Mix Host

18 thoughts on “It’s Not Just Roe”

  1. Just spent 5 days in a house with a tRUMpence sticker on the fridge.   Unvaccinated, of course, and thinks the 600k+ deaths are highly inflated. A medical professional who is unsure what to do once their clinic mandates vax in order to get federal money (they are not federal employees).

    So far, my Moderna seems to have held, but I am glad to be back in Texas…which I never thought I’d say.
    Masks were optional; I wore mine, including in the car. I only saw one business with a sign requesting the unvaccinated wear their masks. Again, I wore mine because nobody was checking for vax cards.

    Far fewer folks last week, but NYC felt safer.

  2. you ain’t seen nothing yet.  if roe goes, “personhood” at conception in some states (missouri at the instant of the overturn) rules.  at least that’s what the personhood org group thinks:




    By David Bjornstrom— The U.S. Supreme Court’s viability standard in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey will be tested this fall in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.The Dobbs case involves a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks. While the case does not go far enough, in that it still allows abortions at all, it highlights the absurdity of the Court’s viability standard.

    [same guy wrote in april]

    We concede too much in assuming that, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the individual states should decide whether or not to outlaw abortion. If unborn babies are “persons,” as modern science shows, the 14th Amendment outlaws abortion, since abortion deprives a class of persons of their life without due process of law and without equal protection. It is time to reclaim the 14th Amendment for the unborn.


    so if that group (including a law like missouri’s) has their way, look what they proclaim about vaccinations:

    The Personhood Alliance affirms the inalienable right to life of pre-born human beings, regardless of the manner of conception, and thus, their right not to be trafficked, commodified, and/or experimented upon. The Personhood Alliance also affirms the rights of all people to refuse medical treatment and to reject violations of their and their family members’ bodily integrity, moral conscience, and Constitutional protections through forced or coerced vaccines.

  3. +here’s what rationalwiki says about personhood laws:

    Personhood laws are laws designed to extend the legal concept of “personhood” to pre-born humans. Specifically, these laws give legal status as a person to any fertilized human egg, from conception until birth. This includes the zygote before it has implanted, and according to medical scienceimplantation is the beginning of a pregnancy. This conflicts with the traditional legal position that the unborn child is part of the mother, and its interests are the same as the mother’s. These laws constitute one of the newest trends of attack in a long list of ways to make life really hard for American women who actually want to participate in their world by controlling their own reproduction. The attempt to pass such laws is largely restricted to the United States, though Ireland formally maintained a fetus’ “right to life equal to that of the mother” until 2018.


    Roe v. Wade is primarily founded upon a doctrine of privacy between a woman and her doctor, a relationship the state has no right to intrude upon. It also addressed the Court’s need to balance a mother’s rights to make private medical decisions with the state’s right to protect the living child in utero. The balance was placed strongly in favor of a woman throughout the first 5-6 months of pregnancy, at which point the State’s right to protect the child enters. Specific notation in the majority opinion was the rejection of an “inherent right-to-life” for a fetus. The court ruled that a fetus was not a person in the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, and hence had no right to life.

    Personhood amendments seek to change that, by directly legislating a fetal “right-to-life”, pushing that tenuous balance between privacy and the State’s interest in protecting the life of a child far to the side of the growing fetus. Since the argument was privacy vs. potential, non-specified rights, legislating specific legal rights onto a fetus means privacy has no compelling grounds. Roe v. Wade would be circumvented by cutting at its core: it is not about a woman’s rights, but the child’s. And clearly, killing a child takes away its single most fundamental right to life.

    However, despite the intention of the laws, the concept of personhood is a fuzzy one not defined in the Constitution and varying according to interpretation of individual laws: by comparison, corporate personhood does not confer the same rights as being a natural person, and fetal personhood may not convey full constitutional rights. Hence it’s not clear that fetal personhood would even prohibit abortion. After all, corporate personhood doesn’t prohibit winding up corporations.


  4. WaPo has an article that does a decent job of examining the problems and potential avenues to challenge the Texas abortion law. 

    Biden administration: Texas abortion ban, in place despite constitutional questions, offers road map for other states
    […]The firsthand accounts from abortion providers and desperate patients come in court filings this week in support of the Biden administration’s effort to block the law, which was intentionally designed to avoid legal scrutiny.…

    Because the ban is enforced by citizens filing lawsuits, rather than by state officials, both the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court have refused requests to immediately suspend it pending further review. Those actions did not directly address whether the law violates Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the right to abortion before viability, typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    The state of Texas has argued that the only way to challenge the constitutionality of the law is to wait until a doctor is sued under its provisions in state court.

    Justice Department lawyers and constitutional law scholars countered in their court filings that state officials should not be permitted to do an end run around the judicial system by outsourcing enforcement of the law to private citizens. Allowing the ban to stand, they said, provides a road map for state legislatures to craft laws that infringe on other constitutional rights. States could ban the sale of firearms, the expression of particular views or worship by certain faiths.

    “If Texas’s scheme is permissible, no constitutional right is safe from state-sanctioned sabotage of this kind,” the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. “Partisans of one stripe or another might cheer these outcomes, but they should horrify anyone committed to the principle that this diverse nation is bound by one Constitution.”…

    The Justice Department case is separate, but procedural hurdles also remain, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor and author of “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present.” The department must show it is suing the proper defendants and has legal grounds — or skin in the game and enough of an injury — to challenge the ban.

    A more likely path to halting the law, Ziegler said, would come from an abortion provider defending herself in a lawsuit filed by a member of the public. That would allow the provider to raise as a defense that it is unconstitutional to prohibit abortion before viability. At least three individuals have sued San Antonio physician Alan Braid, who announced in a Washington Post column that he had performed an abortion after the six-week mark. But no state court hearings have been held in those lawsuits.…

    The design of the Texas law and the deliberate effort to avoid judicial review has led to an “exceptional circumstance,” the department said, that gives the federal government the authority to step in.

    Ziegler noted that the Justice Department’s claims are distinct from the initial case filed by abortion providers against state judges and court clerks, which the 5th Circuit rejected last month, saying it was not clear that federal courts have a role in reviewing the state law.

    The fact that the Justice Department has taken this step on behalf of the entire federal government, she said, might give the court more pause than in the first round.

    “It’s not impossible to imagine the court viewing this differently,” Ziegler said. “What hasn’t changed on the court is who is on the court and their presumed views on abortion.”

    And so it goes…


  5. for all the lizzie fans out there, she was back with seth last night with an update on what’s up with the BBB bills:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren talks about Biden’s infrastructure agenda, Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and why the Democratic Party needs to show how they can help the American people.

  6. I’m just hanging by a thread now with my Republican friends.  It takes all my strength now not to call them morons when they bring up stupid stuff like being anti vax.  I know that shaming people only makes them dig in deeper.  So I keep on resisting….
    but…. DAMN…  they sure are morons!

  7. Again why do people’s faith based beliefs somehow become public policy
    Churches should be taxed.  They are corporate blights.
    if your belief says don’t do it. Then you shouldn’t do it but it is not your business to tell me what to do.   Especially coming from big fat hypocrites 
    We should attack Senator there is no such thing as the truth McConnell more.  He’s a joke not the ha ha kind  There should be something everyday that makes Yertle a laughing stock.
    I was pleased to hear the Dems have adopted a return to the 50 state strategy
    And are doing more to involve local people in getting media attention


    “The ramifications for businesses could begin as soon as Friday, when companies that enter into contract work with the federal government will be required to have all employees vaccinated under orders from the White House.”

    “This conflicts with Abbott’s ban on vaccine mandates, putting the many Texas businesses that receive federal contracts in a tough position: Comply with federal law and violate Abbott’s ban, or comply with Abbott and turn down business from the federal government.“

    “For Texas nursing homes, which have struggled during a pandemic that has ravaged their residents and decimated their workforce, a federal rule announced in August requires all nursing home employees to be vaccinated in order for their facilities to continue participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. If nursing homes instead comply with Abbott’s new rule, they could lose critical federal money.“

    On top of prohibiting any entity in Texas from requiring vaccinations, Abbott’s order also lists several expanded exemptions… people may opt out of a vaccine requirement for medical reasons, including if they prove they have had COVID-19 in the past, despite scientists widely agreeing that this does not protect people against contracting the virus.”

    “The executive order’s medical reason language is a bit strange because usually you exempt people for medical reasons if they have a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine,”…. “Abbott’s order is “meant to cover people who don’t want to get the vaccine because they believe, quite wrongly, that they’re completely protected by already having COVID.”“

  9. Pogo
    Thanks for the WAPO piece on the Texas Abortion law.

    Yep, Renee, morons. Ashley still hasn’t gotten vaccinated and I tell her she’s acting dumb as a rock. That’s ok. Her new Note 20 Ultra sets in my closet till I see the vaccine card. Oh, but as I told her, you vaccinate your dogs. Oh so crazy!

Comments are closed.