• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
MENUMENU
MENUMENU
  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • FlaglerLive Board of Directors
    • Comment Policy
    • Mission Statement
    • Our Values
  • Live Calendar
  • Submit Obituary
  • Submit an Event
  • Support FlaglerLive
  • Advertise on FlaglerLive (386) 503-3808
  • Search Results

FlaglerLive

No Bull, no Fluff, No Smudges

MENUMENU
  • Flagler
    • Flagler County Commission
    • Beverly Beach
    • Economic Development Council
    • Flagler History
    • Mondex/Daytona North
    • The Hammock
    • Tourist Development Council
  • Palm Coast
    • Palm Coast City Council
    • Palm Coast Crime
  • Bunnell
    • Bunnell City Commission
    • Bunnell Crime
  • Flagler Beach
    • Flagler Beach City Commission
    • Flagler Beach Crime
  • Cops/Courts
    • Circuit & County Court
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • Federal Courts
    • Flagler 911
    • Fire House
    • Flagler County Sheriff
    • Flagler Jail Bookings
    • Traffic Accidents
  • Rights & Liberties
    • Fourth Amendment
    • First Amendment
    • Privacy
    • Second Amendment
    • Seventh Amendment
    • Sixth Amendment
    • Sunshine Law
    • Third Amendment
    • Religion & Beliefs
    • Human Rights
    • Immigration
    • Labor Rights
    • 14th Amendment
    • Civil Rights
  • Schools
    • Adult Education
    • Belle Terre Elementary
    • Buddy Taylor Middle
    • Bunnell Elementary
    • Charter Schools
    • Daytona State College
    • Flagler County School Board
    • Flagler Palm Coast High School
    • Higher Education
    • Imagine School
    • Indian Trails Middle
    • Matanzas High School
    • Old Kings Elementary
    • Rymfire Elementary
    • Stetson University
    • Wadsworth Elementary
    • University of Florida/Florida State
  • Economy
    • Jobs & Unemployment
    • Business & Economy
    • Development & Sprawl
    • Leisure & Tourism
    • Local Business
    • Local Media
    • Real Estate & Development
    • Taxes
  • Commentary
    • The Conversation
    • Pierre Tristam
    • Diane Roberts
    • Guest Columns
    • Byblos
    • Editor's Blog
  • Culture
    • African American Cultural Society
    • Arts in Palm Coast & Flagler
    • Books
    • City Repertory Theatre
    • Flagler Auditorium
    • Flagler Playhouse
    • Flagler Youth Orchestra
    • Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra
    • Palm Coast Arts Foundation
    • Special Events
  • Elections 2022
    • Amendments and Referendums
    • Presidential Election
    • Campaign Finance
    • City Elections
    • Congressional
    • Constitutionals
    • Courts
    • Governor
    • Polls
    • Voting Rights
  • Florida
    • Federal Politics
    • Florida History
    • Florida Legislature
    • Florida Legislature
    • Ron DeSantis
  • Health & Society
    • Flagler County Health Department
    • Ask the Doctor Column
    • Health Care
    • Health Care Business
    • Covid-19
    • Children and Families
    • Medicaid and Medicare
    • Mental Health
    • Poverty
    • Violence
  • All Else
    • Daily Briefing
    • Americana
    • Obituaries
    • News Briefs
    • Weather and Climate
    • Wildlife

Supreme Court Will Eviscerate Roe v. Wade But Signals Split on What Comes Next

December 1, 2021 | FlaglerLive | 7 Comments

abortion rights roe v. wade
Well, soon. (Maria Oswalt on Unsplash)

By Morgan Marietta

The Supreme Court justices signaled a potential major shift on abortion law on Dec. 1, 2021. Hearing arguments in a case that could fundamentally alter abortion rights and regulations throughout the nation, the six conservative justices who hold the majority in the highest court seemed divided: Would they overturn the core right to abortion entirely or would they allow abortion to be limited by the states to the early stages of pregnancy?




In either approach, the court seemed to be moving toward the position that some decisions may be left to individual states rather than established by the Supreme Court. And although Supreme Court decisions cannot always be predicted by oral arguments alone, either outcome would represent a historic move away from the landmark precedent of Roe v. Wade, which has set out Americans’ constitutional right to abortion for almost 50 years.

Since that 1973 decision, a powerful legal movement has sought to overturn Roe v. Wade, while abortion rights advocates have fought to protect it.

The arguments at the court on Dec. 1 suggest that there is a third path the justices could – and might – take. The court could focus its ruling on a narrower and more neglected aspect of the ruling in Roe: the court’s understanding of the facts of fetal personhood.

Roe not a monolith

There were two separate rulings in Roe:

1) The Constitution protects a right to privacy, which encompasses the abortion decision.

2) A fetus is not a person in the early stages of pregnancy. Personhood emerges around the time of viability at approximately six months, which justifies a compelling state interest at that point.




This is why individual states are forbidden under current rulings from outlawing abortions in the first or second trimester of pregnancy, but can make the procedure illegal during the third trimester after the viability of the fetus.

The ongoing debate at the Supreme Court is less about the existence of the abortion right and more about the second ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973 – that the right is limited by the emerging personhood of a fetus.

The state of Mississippi has redefined the emergence of personhood to be at 15 weeks, not 24, and outlawed abortions before that point.

Everything hinges on the judgment of personhood.

Determining the facts

When the Supreme Court considers how constitutional rights apply to the facts of our society, they are often forced to rule on what those broad prevailing facts are. The justices could cite experts, employ their own perceptions or exercise a third option: allow diverse democratic decisions through state legislatures, an approach that could be called the federalism of facts.

In Roe, the core factual question was whether a fetus is a person – a human who holds rights and hence cannot be killed lawfully by another person.

The court, ruling in 1973, recognized the problem: “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”




But the justices were nonetheless compelled to do so. The court ruled that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Therefore, “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

However, the court saw the personhood of a fetus as developing during the course of a pregnancy. Therefore, “it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.”

The court concluded that “with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.”

This means that in the early stages of pregnancy, abortion cannot be outlawed, but “if the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Why viability?

There is a long-standing myth that the author of Roe – Justice Harry Blackmun, who had served for many years as chief counsel for the Mayo Clinic – had done copious medical research and come to the conclusion of viability as the emergence of personhood.

Linda Greenhouse, a longtime Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, wrote the definitive biography of Blackmun, which clearly demonstrates that this was not the case. Blackmun preferred the point of quickening – when the fetus first begins to move, at around the end of the first trimester – as the emergence of personhood.

In a memo to the justices in November 1972, he wrote that the end of the first trimester “is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.”

He later wrote, “I could go along with viability if it could command a court,” but would “like to leave the states free to draw their own medical conclusions with respect to the period after three months and until viability.” In Greenhouse’s telling, it was Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall who urged viability as the court’s standard, to which Blackmun eventually agreed.

During the arguments to the Supreme Court on Dec. 1, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito both referenced Blackmun’s view that viability was an arbitrary line, suggesting that it could be reconsidered by the court.



The court’s options

As a close observer of the court, I believe the justices have three options rather than two:

• Maintain Roe fully, solidifying abortion rights.

• Overturn Roe entirely, ending all abortion rights.

• Focus only on the specific factual question of the Mississippi law – when does personhood emerge? – allowing individual states to determine that line for themselves.

Based on the justices’ questions and commentary during the oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts appears to favor the third approach. Roberts’ first question to the solicitor general of Mississippi was about the arbitrariness of viability, citing the revelations of Blackmun’s original views. Roberts returned several times to viability as the core issue, asking the lawyer for the Mississippi abortion provider, “Why is 15 weeks not enough time?” to obtain an abortion, emphasizing that “the thing that is before us today is 15 weeks.”

The question as the court deliberates is whether the more conservative justices – especially the newest member of the court, Amy Coney Barrett – will join Roberts’ limited focus, or instead rule on the constitutionality of the right to abortion.

Fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, the second newest justice, asked each speaker to respond to his position that when it comes to abortion – either the right to one or the degree to which that right is regulated – the Constitution “leaves the issue to the people of the states to resolve in a democratic process.”

In Kavanaugh’s view, seemingly shared by several other members of the court, this suggests that the decisions “should be left to the people,” which means that there could be “different answers in Mississippi and New York.”

If Justice Barrett joins Kavanaugh’s view, it will likely prevail and the full range of decisions about abortions will be returned to the states. If she joins with Chief Justice Roberts and focuses on viability alone, it could shift the narrower question of who decides when personhood occurs – and therefore what regulations can be put in place – to the states, rather than the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – focused their questions squarely on maintaining precedent and the potential harm to the court’s reputation in appearing to be partisan.

But Roberts countered that the court “should not base decisions on whether they are popular or not.”

Morgan Marietta is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.

The Conversation


The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.

Previous Conversations:

  • Understanding the Heat Dome: Why America Is Baking
  • Endorsements Aren’t As Influential as You Think
  • Wiccan Celebrations and the Permanence of Change
  • Privacy Isn’t In the Constitution. But It’s Everywhere in Constitutional Law.
  • Anti-Trans Legislation and Lawsuits Are Pushing back Against Chosen Pronouns
  • How Mike Pence’s Unremarkable Actions on Jan. 6 Saved the Nation
  • Blaspheming Human Rights: The Hypocrisy at the Core of Authoritarian Muslim Nations
  • There Is No One ‘Religious View’ on Abortion
  • Inflation Is Spiking. Can the Fed Raise Interest Rates Without Spiking Unemployment, Too?
  • Blaming ‘Evil’ Is Not Enough
  • Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Diminish Mass Shootings? Yes.
  • Crowded Primaries Are Good for Extremists, Bad for Voters
  • To Get Safe Schools, Mental Health Resources Are Critical
  • Antarctica’s Riskiest Glacier Is Losing Its Grip
  • The Legal Age to Buy Assault Weapons Doesn’t Make Sense

See the Full Conversation Archives

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
You and your neighbors collectively read our articles about 25,000 times each day (that's not a typo) with up to 65,000 daily reads during emergencies like hurricanes. Flagler County residents rely on FlaglerLive for essential, bold and analytical journalism that cannot be found anywhere else. But we depend on your support. Please join our December fund drive! If you donate the cost of a scoop of ice cream, you will be helping us continue to provide comprehensive local news and honest, serious journalism for our community. If you can donate more or become a monthly donor, even better. Donations are tax deductible since FlaglerLive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donate by clicking anywhere in this box. Think of it as buying a scoop, in every sense of the term!  
All donors' identities are kept confidential and anonymous.
   

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Greg says

    December 2, 2021 at 5:31 am

    OK ladies, dig out the machine gun and start the attack. No one deserves to have an abortion after say 15 weeks. Justice John Roberts asked that is 15 weeks enough to decide on an abortion. Only animals want an abortion in the third trimester. Read on how they pull the baby out IN PARTS during an abortion that late in the process. I hope and pray they put a strict time limit on your availability to kill another human being

    Reply
    • Heathen Lady says

      December 2, 2021 at 3:51 pm

      Greg, just who are you to decide who “deserves” an abortion? Do you even have a uterus? I don’t think so. MYOB, sir.

      Reply
  2. beachcomberT says

    December 2, 2021 at 6:21 am

    A side issue I didn’t hear in the Supreme Court arguments Wednesday: If personhood of a fetus doesn’t exist, or doesn’t matter, why are murderers of pregnant women often charged with two counts instead of one. For example, the Scott Peterson case in California: “Scott Peterson was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of his unborn son.” (from History.com.)

    Reply
    • KC says

      December 3, 2021 at 9:56 am

      The decision to charge a person for the murder of a fetus often depends on the gestational age. In the Scott Peterson case you sited Laci was 7 and a half months which is well past the point of viability. Currently the age of viability is around 22-24 weeks. After that the fetus is determined to have personhood.

      Reply
  3. Deborah Coffey says

    December 2, 2021 at 2:33 pm

    Remember when LBJ said “We have lost the south for a generation” when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964? Who will say to Republicans that “YOU have lost the country for a generation because hell has no fury like a woman scorned?”

    Reply
  4. Don't Cull Me says

    December 3, 2021 at 4:07 pm

    As stated in another post about abortion – vasectomies are the way to prevent the need for abortion! Tie those vas deferens off and reverse the procedure when you are in a relationship where both partners want a baby. Don’t worry guys, a vasectomy doesn’t interfere with your ability to have and enjoy sex. And we all know, that’s a man’s biggest worry.

    Additionally, how many of the “right to lifers” have actually reached out to adopt and nurture the children born by rape, incest and faulty birth control. Looking at the number of children in the foster care system, I’d say not many.

    Reply
  5. A.j says

    December 6, 2021 at 5:13 am

    Vote Repubs you get people trying to dictate our personal lives.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Advertisers

  • grand living realty
  • politis matovina attorneys for justice personal injury law auto truck accidents
  • WNZF Creekside Festival

Recent Comments

  • Another Concerned Taxpayer !!! on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • Bloop on Fractured Leadership: Few Questions Asked, Fewer Concerns Raised Ahead of Segregated Assemblies, Investigation Reveals
  • Concerned Citizen on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • James on At Root of Palm Coast’s Affordable Housing Crisis: We Got Our Own. Screw the Rest. 
  • Embarressed on ‘Faith’ Bridge Over SR100 Goes from Maligned to Acclaimed as It Opens, But in the Absence of Its Champion
  • Robjr on How Local Law Enforcement Could Help Prevent Another Jan. 6-Style Insurrection
  • Andrea on At Root of Palm Coast’s Affordable Housing Crisis: We Got Our Own. Screw the Rest. 
  • James on Covid Deaths in Florida Near 91,000
  • John on Covid Deaths in Florida Near 91,000
  • Alex on Covid Deaths in Florida Near 91,000
  • Skibum on At Root of Palm Coast’s Affordable Housing Crisis: We Got Our Own. Screw the Rest. 
  • Sally on Rupert Murdoch’s Legacy of Lies and Little Accountability: A Round-Up
  • JimBob on School Board Trio Will Hire an Attorney to Help Them Fire Board’s Attorney of 17 Years
  • Endless Dark money on At Root of Palm Coast’s Affordable Housing Crisis: We Got Our Own. Screw the Rest. 
  • Dennis C Rathsam on Up to 210 Homes Approved on Old Kings Road South of SR100 But Polo Club West Neighbors Have Worries
  • Ray W. on At Root of Palm Coast’s Affordable Housing Crisis: We Got Our Own. Screw the Rest. 

Log in