Search Results: opinions on abortion

https://news.yahoo.com/samuel-alito-used-dissent-abortion-020941934.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=0_00
Samuel Alito used his dissent in the abortion pill ruling to call out 3 justices in an act of judiciary 'theater,' SCOTUS expert says

A Supreme Court ruling on Friday ensured the abortion pill mifepristone can still be purchased and used in the US, freezing a lower court ruling that would've effectively banned access to the pill.

Two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, publicly dissented, with the latter writing an opinion in which he called out three female justices by name — including fellow conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett — in an apparent act of judiciary "theater," Scott Lemieux, a professor of political science at the University of Washington and an expert on the Supreme Court and constitutional law, told Insider.

The case came to the court after a judge in Texas ruled to suspend the Food and Drug Administration's more-than-20-year-old approval of mifepristone. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to grant an emergency request that would protect the FDA approval while the case is still being litigated.

Because it was an emergency request, the case was reviewed under what is known as the court's "shadow docket," where they rule on procedural matters. Cases that are considered on the shadow docket do not get the same level of review as other cases, meaning "the decisions are accompanied by little to no explanation and often lack clarity on which justices are in the majority or minority," according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Indeed, while the Court said they were granting the Biden administration's request, no explanation was provided by the majority as to why. The ruling did not specify how most of the justices voted, or even how many justices voted in favor. Both Thomas and Alito elected to note their dissents, with only one of them explaining why.

Liberals in the United States are constantly saying that we should be more like Europe. Well when it comes to abortion laws, in most of the countries in Europe, the choice cutoff is between 12 weeks and 20 weeks. In Australia and Japan, the choice cutoff is 22 weeks, 6 days (basically 23 weeks). In all of these mentioned locations, there are the obvious exceptions baked into the law (rape, incest, mother's health, fetus viability, medical emergency, etcetera) if an abortion is medically and/or legally needed beyond the legal deadlines.

Since Dobbs Versus Jackson overturned Roe Verses Wade, I propose that the House and Senate pass a national law allowing each state to set their own abortion choice laws similar to most of Europe, Australia, and Japan, between 12 weeks and 23 weeks. This way, we avoid having states like Texas that are trying to completely eliminate abortions, and also avoid having states like New Jersey and Oregon where abortions are possible into the 39th week of pregnancy. No states would be less than 12 weeks, and no states would be more than 23 weeks (except in cases of rape, incest, mother's health, fetus viability, medical emergency, etcetera). Abortion medication would remain available and legal in all 50 states, up to each state's specified choice deadline.

For full transparency and disclosure, I'm personally morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term (3rd trimester) abortion. Basically I would hope that life is chosen in most normal and reasonable circumstances, but fully understand the need for everyone's legal right to choose one or the other, up to a reasonable point. In normal and reasonable circumstances, no normal reasonable logical person needs more than 23 weeks to make a decision.

I believe that this is a fair and reasonable resolution to the reproduction rights debate in the United States. What do all of you think and believe? Vote and post your opinions below!