Roe v. Wade v. Alabama et al

[bizerta]

According to Wikipedia (which may be wrong),

the Court (SCOTUS) ruled that during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all

Is that correct? If I read the news correctly, the Alabama and Georgia laws specifically prohibit most abortions in the first trimester.

With that said, the Alabama law (IIRC) would not punish the pregnant woman; they would only punish the doctor. Is this a back-door way of circumventing the SCOTUS decision?

I wonder what would happen if the woman self-aborts. (with the guidance of an attending physician)

[Miller]

@bizerta

According to Wikipedia (which may be wrong), Is that correct? If I read the news correctly, the Alabama and Georgia laws specifically prohibit most abortions in the first trimester.

With that said, the Alabama law (IIRC) would not punish the pregnant woman; they would only punish the doctor. Is this a back-door way of circumventing the SCOTUS decision?

I wonder what would happen if the woman self-aborts. (with the guidance of an attending physician)

The recent abortion bans are illegal, under current legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade. The purpose of the new bans is to get a new case in front of a newly conservative-dominated court, in the hopes that they’ll overturn Roe v. Wade.

[ElvisL1ves]

Right, but they’ve overreached so far, especially in Alabama but not only there, that it might backfire - SCOTUS could be forced to reaffirm Roe rather than allow the rape/incest bans to stand. Or they could let the lower-court injunctions stand and wait for something politically feasible.

[iamthewalrus_3]

Note that although we talk a lot about Roe v. Wade as a landmark case, looking at the decision in it will not lead you to a correct understanding of current precedent. You want to look at the most recent precedent-setting case on the subject: Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

@Wikipedia

The Court’s plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the “undue burden” standard for abortion restrictions. Planned Parenthood v. Casey differs from Roe, however, because under Roe the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under Planned Parenthood v. Casey the state can regulate abortions at any point from fetal viability (when a fetus is able to live outside of the mother’s womb) and beyond. Before viability at 23-24 weeks or earlier, regulations are allowed as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on the woman.

[UltraVires]

@iamthewalrus_3

Note that although we talk a lot about Roe v. Wade as a landmark case, looking at the decision in it will not lead you to a correct understanding of current precedent. You want to look at the most recent precedent-setting case on the subject: Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Correct. The point that is trying to be challenged by the “heartbeat” bans are that it is not an “undue burden” because a sexually active woman simply has to take steps to ensure that she is not more than 6-8 weeks pregnant. I have no interest in arguing this again in this thread; I put it out there because these are test cases to see how far the Court is willing to go.

The Alabama ban is directly in the teeth of Roe/Casey and is meant to be a direct assault on it.

To the OP’s point about the supposed backdoor by only banning doctors from performing, but not the woman from having, that is a non-starter and will not be argued by anyone. There are a ton of cases that state that a constitutional right requires the allowance of prerequisites to exercise the right. You cannot get around the 2nd amendment by banning bullets and you cannot get around the 1st amendment by banning ink.

[Bryan_Ekers]

It’s more like 21st Century vs Alabama et al.