Who leaked the Roe opinion?

[cpwill]

1. This MIGHT be problematic because an abortifacient may be a drug.

‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following
16 definitions apply:
17 ‘‘(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means
18 the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine,
19 drug, or any other substance or device—
20 ‘‘(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child
21 of a woman known to be pregnant; or
22 ‘‘(B) to intentionally terminate the preg23 nancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with
24 an intention other than—

If such a drug does not result in the birth of a still-living child who can receive medical care, then it does not trigger anything else in the bill, so, it's hard to see how that would be a hold-up. The Bill requires merely that doctors give “the same degree” of care to newborns who survive abortion that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.

2. A child "born alive" is way too vague.
It is, because if I were allowed to cite and display images of some of the types of "children" born alive in a late term procedure, you'd lose your lunch or your heart would break, or you'd have nightmares.
What am I getting at? I'm getting at the fact that few late term procedures are done on a perfectly healthy and viable fetus, because a perfectly healthy and viable fetus IS a child who would otherwise live and grow with proper care into a healthy human adult with quality of life and a future. Out of the possible millions of procedures performed annually it IS POSSIBLE that a handful of these are done and I would object to that as strenuously as you are without hesitation.

But in truth, it's simply NOT the case in the overwhelming majority of abortions done at such a late stage.
I think it is safe to say, as indicated several posts back, that well over 99 percent of abortions done at such a late stage are almost certainly done BECAUSE the life of the mother is in jeopardy OR BECAUSE the child is cursed with the kinds of defects or diseases or other issues that guarantee that regardless of heroics done to save them, their lives will be a matter of hours or days of sheer excruciating agony which is indescribable.

1. It is not vague - it is direct.

2. A child born with such defects will often pass even with normal medical care provided. In the meantime, respectfully, an argument that we need to protect the ability of doctors to kill born children who are deemed "defective" or disabled is.... well, it is exactly the sort of argument that I guess I am saying Democrats occasionally make

3. I believe you may be wrong about those being the overwhelming majority of post-viability abortions The "Defect" that costs many children their life is having a test come back that says they have Down Syndrome, or, that they are a girl when someone wanted a boy.

If an otherwise healthy child is aborted unsuccessfully at such a late stage and IS just left to die, I'd agree it's a crime

I agree. Tragically, Senate Democrats do not.

I cannot confidently bet my life savings on whether riders that get attached to bills are made part of a bill's text, because they are RIDERS, .....

Perhaps if a better bill is written, enough Democrats WOULD vote for it, because contrary to your overarching assertion, most Democrats, like most sane traditional Republicans, (such as yourself) are not monsters.

Democrats in Congress have - generally - adopted an extreme position on abortion, so, no, I don't think they would.

That may be changing in the near future, however, as now they will be subject to political pressures, and face greater backlash when they do this sort of thing.

As for the Rider - no Democrats complained about them at the time. If there had been such a poison pill, they would have rushed to trumpet it as their excuse for not voting. Instead they complained that they didn't want to attach legal consequences to what you describe above as a crime.

The bill is a foul piece of crap and no doctor worth their medical degree would sign off on it and if they did their insurance company would drop them like a hot potato anyway.

You have not demonstrated so.

 

[Top Cat]

Who the **** cares? Only MAGAts

 

[The flaming lib]

 

[reflechissez]

citation was provided for you.

Respectfully, this does look very much like you just not wanting to deal with the reality of their position, especially given your previous description of it.

You provided a couple of links without EVER identifying the parts of those links that supposedly proved your assertion. Respectfully, this does look very much like you just not wanting to deal with the reality of their position.

 

[Eriech]

If the clerk was a liberal ideologue it would.

Abortion rights are a sacred cow to the left just like 2A rights are a sacred cow to the right.

The rights of the unborn are sacred. Those of those choosing to kill, the cow.

 

[cpwill]

You provided a couple of links without EVER identifying the parts of those links that supposedly proved your assertion. Respectfully, this does look very much like you just not wanting to deal with the reality of their position.

I provided you multiple citations.

You came into this discussion in Post 352, when you didn't want to believe that Democrats voted against protections for infants who had been born alive as a result of a botched abortion.

For the third year in a row, Senate Democrats have blocked a bill that would require doctors to care for newborn infants who survive an attempted abortion procedure.

You additionally claimed:

No democrats on-demand abortions after viability. And by on-demand, I mean not necessitated by health of the mother or a severe congenital defect.

This is also incorrect, as Demonstrated by (among other things) the Democratic Party Platform (which includes no exceptions, but, rather, abortion on demand through all nine months) and the bill that Democrats tried to push in the Senate.

 

[cpwill]

Reports from WaPo over the weekend pretty much smash the hypothesis that it was a right-leaning clerk seeking to shore up a wavering Justice. (for those who get held up by the paywall)

...The leaked draft opinion is dated in February and is almost surely obsolete now, as justices have had time to offer dissents and revisions. But as of last week, the majority of five justices to strike Roe remains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. ​

​

A person close to the most conservative members of the court said Roberts told his fellow jurists in a private conference in early December that he planned to uphold the state law and write an opinion that left Roe and Casey in place for now. But the other conservatives were more interested in an opinion that overturned the precedents, the person said. A spokeswoman for the court declined to comment, and messages extended to justices were unreturned.....​

This getting out is (probably former) conservative clerks seeking to protect their justices, and retaliatory; and, it is worth noting that that spiral downward is exactly what was predicted. Once one clerk (or Justice!) starts leaking in order to influence a decision, the other side will retaliate, and so on, and so forth, down we go, straight to a Supreme Court that functions less like it has, and more like Congress. F'ing Hooray.

In the meantime, however, the Justices and Clerks don't know who specifically leaked (with at least one obvious exception), but, they probably do know which side leaked, because they would know if the original vote was holding (incentivizing a left wing clerk) or not (incentivizing a right wing clerk).

It looks like the former was the case. I have to say, I thought that the right wing clerk seeking to shore up a Kavanaugh or Comey-Barret was the (barely) most probable answer, but, seems I was off.

 

[Indydave]

Clarence Thomas or his wife.......easy peasy.......he's in trouble and he's trying to draw attention to something else besides him and his wife

 

[jpevans]

Clarence Thomas or his wife.......easy peasy.......he's in trouble and he's trying to draw attention to something else besides him and his wife

Your guess is as good as any.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The only party this benefits are the Democrats. A leftist leaked it, in order to create more riots that will keep going through the year, and which the mainstream media can seize upon to give the Democrats something to mobilize their base since they've ****ed up the economy so bad. The media is barely reporting on that. Stock market crashed, real estate bubble about to burst, inflation at ridiculous levels, GDP actually went down last quarter. Insane.

 

[jpevans]

The only party this benefits are the Democrats. A leftist leaked it, in order to create more riots that will keep going through the year, and which the mainstream media can seize upon to give the Democrats something to mobilize their base since they've ****ed up the economy so bad. The media is barely reporting on that. Stock market crashed, real estate bubble about to burst, inflation at ridiculous levels, GDP actually went down last quarter. Insane.

How the **** do you think the D’s benefit from having women’s rights Overturned?
Whack Justices appointed by popular vote Losers. The EC was a rich man’s grift on the United States of America.
Where states with the population of a medium size city get two Senators, same as a state people want to live in, like Calif. or New York.