Because there is no political way that this is right. It’s only when religion is brought up that people have any argument. Religion is not real and should in no way represent anything in a free country. These people want to make America be like the Middle East. 1776ers, Alt Right, Sovereigns. All those people care about are the rights they like. They have absolutely no love for this country. It’s all fake 4th of July hoopla

@Not Convinced A Florida judge just ruled he will sign a temporary statewide injunction stating it is "unconstitutional". So even though it does not say in the constitution directly "The right to abortion". It takes away a women's right to her body. It does not need to be an amendment written with a feather in 1776 to be unconstitutional to restrict it.

@@Buffalosabskis But we restrict what people can do with their bodies all the time. What you can put in. What you can take out. What you can lop off, or graft on. When and how and where you can rent it out. When and how you're allowed to destroy your body. If your body does something bad, we'll confiscate it for a while, so we can keep it from hurting other bodies. Maybe give it a chance to think about what it did. Sometimes we deliberately send someone's body to be destroyed. "You dun' effed up son, so you're gonna sit in the comfy chair with the leather straps and the sponge helmet that boils your brain." Sometimes this hasn't even been in response to some specific action by that individual, but just to fulfil a policy objective: "Your country needs warm bodies son, and yours will do."

@Not Convinced Hone up on the commandments. Misspelling the Holy name of Jesus AND using it as your curse word is despicable as well as it shows that you never developed a vocabulary worth listening to.

@@Buffalosabskis When men choose to obey God there will never be unwanted pregnancies. When women choose to obey God they will not develop a desire to murder children. Killing children is evil, a despicable, Satanic practice...& God never gave man 'choice' to kill & will not allow murderers to enter Heaven.

Because people want the constitution to be whatever fits their own personal agenda.

I'm confused by your question. Regarding the specific amendment in question, the right to not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law" in the 14th, after rereading it, appears to be reiterating the protections of the 5th, stating "no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", the only difference being that it limits this right to US citizens, born or naturalized. There is no due process of law when it comes to abortion, which is why it doesn't seem coherent to apply it to abortion. Respectfully, what other amendments are being interpreted broadly, in your opinion?

Because they're bossy and oppressive?

@@pbrio0016070884 this is a good response. Daniels question is earnest and fair, as is your response. The different approaches illustrate the problem with the discussions about this matter. Responding to your question would require Daniel to cite his sources so to speak, so it is infinitely easier to just ignore your response despite this decision impacting his ability to understand the situation, and ours. Many reactions to this are on an emotional level, which is natural, it’s an emotive subject. But when it comes to this sort of widely impactful decision, it is vital to cite our sources and gather the facts to be able to observe it objectively. So many people, with so many interpretations of the bible, sorry I mean the constitution, it descends into bickering children unless we can point to clear benchmarks where common ground is found.

@@pbrio0016070884 The problem with this interpretation though is that the woman doesn't have to go through court to get an abortion, the court doesn't get to make individual discretions on whether or not the woman gets right to her bodily autonomy or not. Essentially her as it is right now states that are against abortion will functionally deprive these women of their bodily autonomy once they enter an arbitrary point in pregnancy without individually assessing whether or not each woman need to abortion or not. Not saying this is entirely necessary, although it is unethical, and due to the vague wording of the constitution in general especially considering the fact that much more liberal interpretation of the constitution have been made (like for example in the second amendment) it wouldn't be hard to make a legitimate case and argument for constitutionally protected abortion

Few comedians do that twice a year, it's appalling

This is true, sadly.

Your right. Idiots think your right to have weapons is not protected even though the second amendment protects that right while abortion is protected even though it is mentioned nowhere and the court made it up. Conservative judges don't like unenumerated rights period they go against originalism which is how they rule on cases

Truly a failure of the mis-education system and a lack of teaching civics.

Most Americans don't even know how the government works.

in what way?

@@dddle13 It's not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the SC shouldn't rule on it. Each state should decide for themselves.

I mean, if we're talking constitutional rights. Money should not have "in God we trust" on it. There are plenty of unconstitutional things happening in the US that are still the way they are. As for abortion being a constitutional right, maybe not directly, but indirectly it definitely is. Right to privacy, right to medical automomy, let alone that "person" always refers to someone who has been born. So "person of life" is someone who has been born. Any person in the US has a right of obtaining a social security number. Do fetusses have a right of a social security number? No, you can't get one untill after one is born. This makes abortion constitutionally supported, and laws banning abortion unconstitutional.

@@dddle13 they got it a bit right in this video but they missed a lot. Fundamental rights stem almost entirely from the 14th amendment and to establish a fundamental right you need to prove two things. First, that that right was deeply rooted in this nations history, and that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In roe, the court really didn’t identify how the right to an abortion is deeply rooted. In fact, as this court cited, before roe, no states recognized the right to an abortion, there is nothing in our common law history about legal abortion, and there was even only one law review article about the right to an abortion written only two years before roe. So since it’s not deeply rooted in the nation’s history, it is not a fundamental right

Personal freedom is, or should be, a constitutional right. It's called Liberty. Self- determination.

Article 1 Section 8 limits the power of federal legislature, though a lot of people think Congress has free reign. Do you mean the state legislature?

it would be the stare legislature

Republicans think that government should decide about whether a woman gets to have an abortion or not, and not the woman herself.

@@guidototh6091 hate to break it to you but even Roe V. Wade allowed the government to regulate pregnancy. They just weren't allowed to regulate it in early pregnancy. At no point has a pregnancy been completely free of government regulations. Maybe at some point in the future for states like California.

@@DailyThoughtswithKyle I'm very familiar with Roe, you aren't "breaking" anything to me. The Court recognized that prior to viability the individual's right was far more important than a state's rights. Republicans now think that the state's right is completely dominant, so much so that they can criminalize abortion from the very moment of conception forward.

He was wrong then and the Republican appointees to the Court are wrong now. The Roe court got it right. A decision whether or not to have an abortion is up to the individual, not government.

@@guidototh6091 Interesting that the court got it right when they agreed with you, but wrong when they didn't.

@@guidototh6091 The court decision merely said there was no constitutional right. This is a hot button issue and if you think the government was not going to weigh in at some level you are delusional.

Alito believes he is right, above all other judges. Think about how many judges over the last fifty years that means. Who gets to decide? One guy? Keg boy has proven himself unfit. Thomas is compromised beyond belief. Little God girl is out of her lane as well. That leaves Gorsuch. So two guys from over fifty years of judges are the only ones right, because they said so? No

@@jaimeosbourn3616 It's not just that I agree with it, or that the majority of Americans agree with it, or that a majority of all justices serving on the Supreme Court from 1973 to 2022 agree with it, but it is sound Constitutional law.

Because they can “examine” all they want. They can’t issue any new rulings and opinions on those until someone files a lawsuit alleging those were in error.

@@Ryan_Christopher Ken Paxton in Texas is already on it. The GOP wants to take rights AWAY from citizens. Let that sink in.

Why didn’t you mention that transitioning back to the states is perfectly rational and based on sound legal reasoning? Oh, I know….because you lost!

It's based on emotional, religious motivation.

Those cases were ruled on under a different constitutional right.

This guy gets it ☝

In a nutshell. Smh

Um, then why has the Court, in many many many many decisions, discussed interracial marriage as being directly predicated on the right to privacy?

@@bartwilson2513 Which decisions?

@@bartwilson2513 They haven't.

Without the 9th amendment the 14th wouldn't be able to work.

@@johnlime9065 The 9th amendment covers unwritten rights. The 14th amendment would still be able to work on its own, but it would only protect written rights (like the right to be protected against racial discrimination)

Know what else doesn't appear in the Constitution? 'WOMEN". All you brand new 'legal experts' parading yer google skills are cracking me up. * so are all the random 'likes' of these ridiculous 'Expert' comments.

@@turkeyman1967ify "PackRat"? Wow you're awesome.

@@turkeyman1967ify That's good. You can stay in the back. Where you belong.

States with auto abortion ban have the lowest birth rates!

B.S. the 9th amendment is the shortest amendment in the constitution- its not an instruction on interpretation. Furthermore, the bill of rights is pretty explicit. The 9th amendment acknowledges: 1. All the rights that people have couldn’t possibly named in a document. 2. Some rights that people have are beyond the purview of government I.e. inalienable rights.

Yeah...USreally is the best country in the world arent you guys huh? Soo proud of yourselef I can imagine....its cool to know that women are going to go and see black market doctors now, many many women are going to commit suicide...I ghave been raped and didnt know anything about SOS pills cause I was 13 ... thankfully tghis guy didnt make me pregnant but I cant even imagine if I would have gotten pregnant and abrtion wouldnt be possible inmy country, thank god it is ....at least for now but yeah...I would have killed myself 100%, I would have never want to see that disgusting face , then you guys are also going to have a lot of children that nobody wants...more children that suffer...dontyou gusy have alreasy enough children without parents? ?? Yes you do but you want even more...more suffering to the world! YAYY !! Long live United states the LAND OF THE FREE!

Say that about right to own AR15 and I'll take you seriously.

@@zxbc1 Owning a rifle is more evil to you than literally killing human life? Yikes.

@@wittmoneyman I mean both do wind up taking lives. I'd be on the anti gun boat too

Define ECTOPIC PREGNANCY. Go ahead.

Copium is in high demand ever since mothers are no longer allowed to kill their offspring.

Yeah I think the same

Examples? Having a hard time figuring out where you're going with this ...

Seriously, what's your point? I'm also asking the 51 people who agreed with you. What people and what precedents?

what is this?

Exactly.

Even Ruth bader Ginsburg said that roe v wade was a weak case to use for this case and never should’ve been passed. She said they should’ve used a case that spoke more on equality’s to make it fit better.

Funny. Obergefell overturned just that very legislation you speak of.

While their at it can they change the language of the 14th to say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, of which one parent is a Citizen, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

True. But the Supreme Court took the right decision here : let Congress be responsible.

Yup, instead of crying about SCOTUS or Republicans, why not do SOMETHING and pass federal legislation. Let's not wait for the midterms so Dems could use it as a campaign promise, do it NOW!

The roe v wade and others decided that around conciousness is the start of life. So 15 weeks is the end point

@@blizz2748 That doesn't relate to my question.

@@paulkossik it does. There is no outweigh if life doesn't isnt a part of the question

@@blizz2748 I'm not asking about when life starts. I'm asking what the court has ruled about rights conflicting with each other and enumerated vs nonenumerated rights conflicting with each other. You're talking about whether the question applies to this case, I want to know the answer whether or not it applies to the scenario you are presenting. My question can be answered without any discussion of abortion.

@@paulkossik oh ok I see now. It kinda varies. Usually though written the unwritten then assumed. Apologies under abortion video so assumed connected

You have a poor understanding of what just happened. Why do you hate having democratically elected legislators?

If they aren't mentioned in the Constitution then they aren't rights. Learn your history son.

True, we do enjoy those rights. However, those rights are rooted in common law or have a long history within the USA. Abortion on the other hand had no history within the common law or in USA history. It was pulled out of thin air.

@@rs232killer Why do you trust politicians more than individuals when it comes to such a personal decision ?

@@Mayamax3 That simply isn't true. Read the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

They are imbeciles bro led by emotions alone… I’m just glad black people are waking up

What? The 9th means that just because the constitution doesn't directly address a right that can't be used to remove that right

@@blizz2748 and guess who “creates” those rights?

@@ChroniclerOfJudah creates? You mean who looks at disputes and decides if they should be a right. The supreme court. Like they did with several case laws and amendments 50 years ago

@@blizz2748 but who creates the law that they interpret? The STATES, that’s why the 9th amendment is there because if it wasn’t the only rights would be the enumerated ones.

...it did summarize and explain the reasoning the court used. It also explained the basis of the reasoning and its place in other court rulings, and discussed the possible outcomes of the reasoning. k?

3:20 bud. It wasn't so much an argument that you were seeking but a technicality that they had to follow.

@@abrampost5363 No, no it did not. If you want an actual explanation from an actual lawyer go check Nate the Lawyer's video on it. You might learn something about law while there too!

@@golfer435 FYI, I'm a lawyer too.

@@emersonviudez2284 Oh cool. I have thought about law school through my interest is purely academic, don't know that I would want to dedicate a ton of time to learning it as a job

C'mon man....

"Abortion is not something the Republican Party should call for the abolition of, by legal means or by any other means." - Barry Goldwater, 1992

"The backdoor was open and the Indians saw my underpants but the candle went out anyway" - also Joe Biden probably yesterday.

Right … because everyone cares what that child sniffing weirdo thinks 🙄

Post the link to your claim.

What does the 10th amendment say?

​@@rustyshackleford1877, the 10th amendment is not problem, the problem is that the law enacted from Supreme Court is determined by members of justices who were instead nominated by President or former Presidents, their views are standing on the interests of Democratic or Publican, if both parties reach to have "consensus", this is OK, but if two parties do not agree with each other on some points, the law is somehow opt to be manipulated. The problem can be treated as the bug inside US constitutional system, which results in some kinds of protesting, particularly, Rep. Judy Chu, who last year introduced a bill to codify Roe v. Wade into law, was among more than 180 people arrested during a pro-abortion rights rally near the Supreme Court, it manifests that there is yet no correction or even no intention to fix this constitutional bug for American people so far.

@@simonfoster1881 I think you ought to reconsider your primary argument. Please remember that the only reason Roe was determined initially is the same appointed (unelected) process by POTUS - You are arguing against yourself and it's rather circular. You can't be for POTUS nominating folks to SCOTUS and then after you get the decision you want, pull the ladder up behind you.

@@danielmanly4793 I have no strong idea of whether Roe is valid or not, understanding your logic that it is legitimate for SCOTUS to either enact or overturn Roe. However, my point is that there must be something wrong inside US constitutional system, otherwise why POTUS once had the view to suspect the result of the election? and why Rep. Judy Chu preferred to protest near SCOTUS instead of going through some constitutional process? let alone the odd response from government to arrest Rep. Judy Chu due to peaceful rally. I don't think these are just occasionally individual behaviors, it must be systematic issue existing somewhere.

@@simonfoster1881 SCOTUS is simply righting an historical wrong, they're acknowledging that SCOTUS didn't have it right the first time around. The first time around they afforded themselves something that didn't exist - This time they're depriving themselves of the authority. So they're contracting the authority of *unelected* officials, which by extension, helps the democratic process.

Uh, NO. The WSJ is presenting the corrupt corporate view. Obama and Biden promised to codify RvW into law and they DID NOTHING. But, by all means, keep voting for corporate crooks.

The court wrote over 200 objective pages that the WSJ paid staff and pundits to reduce down to a 6 min video.

Look up legal eagle roe v wade. Is a larger synaspsis

As a man woman need to stop thinking about abortion

Please READ the original Roe decision (EVERYBODY!) The opinion is fascinating, and addresses much more than simple constitutional issues. Contrary to the current fascist justices who are holding this country hostage, the Constitution was intended to molt and grow as American society evolves. The framers knew that they could not possibly foresee all future issues and - more importantly - did not have the hubris to pretend to know what would be best for people 50, 100, 200, 500 years in the future. Thomas Jefferson actually proposed that The People write a new one every 20 years (!)

@@davidlarue39 But then, how can an eight week old embryo that has not yet developed a fully functioning brain and therefore has no brain activity and isn't sentient be considered a life?

@@davidlarue39 By taking away a woman's right to decide and handing it to the states the Supreme Court has determined that government has more power than the individual.

The right to kill a fetus. That sounds so wonderful doesn't it?

@@guidototh6091 Her decision should be made before the rabbit dies not after.

Roe wasn't "easily overturned." Thousands upon thousands of people worked for DECADES to make this happen. Anyone who is concerned should get involved in their STATE legislature and communicate with their representative. That person is now your voice in this matter.

The commentary was clearly biased and with that fear mongering “ if they did this, they’ll probably do that” talk

Totally bias indeed. He never mentions Abortion is legal and that Roe v. Wade doesn't overrule the woman's right to an Abortion.

LOL, right before I thought about big sales of condoms...

Those "experts " are the ones trying to divide the US even more.

How is birth control a right?

Bring personal responsibility back, love it

@@strategygalactic are you willing to lose that option to utilize birth control in time of need? It was illegal at the turn of the 20th century up until the time of Roe.

Ugh. Please watch legal eagle roe v wade for full analysis but to summarize. The 9th and 14th amendments basically made the idea of the right to privacy even if not specifically stated in the constitution is still a right. And court had previously decided that around conciousness is when life started so around 15 weeks

American Republic*

This is what happens when courts, as they did in Roe v Wade, read into things in the constitution that don't exist.

So what are they crying about if stacking is all that it is about. Before it was stacked liberal and now it is conservative. Same as with Presidents. You get orange orangutang that gives you fuel $1.30 and you get rid of him. You get the walking cadaver and he gives you fuel $5+. But you're happier now because your cadaver is ruling. Same with the court for people who reason like that.

It took fifty years of praying, but Trump made it happen.

And all those thousands of unwanted/unaffordable babies are lucky that your care does not stop there! They will need more than prayers now. Specifically 21 years of food, housing, toys, cell phones, and college tuition each. And there will be a new batch coming every year. Thank you for your continued support! #prolifebucks4roebabies

@@c.rutherford can't we say the same about your kids if they grow up as drug addicts or poor? Shall we kill them?

Yes.. that's how you play the game. Thank you Sherlock Holmes.

And WHAT would you underline?

@@donaldmarusak6501 I can't answer that because I don't know what those papers are. The point is that that it not real journalism, they should cite their papers and ask people to educate themselves instead of highlighting parts of the papers they agree with.

@@gilberttorres8 LOL those are the court cases... you can literally read them, the titles and dates... they cited it many times

@@fionamorris2578 yeah it's not like words can be presented out of context right, woman logic

Conservatives and Leftists both are pro-big government. Only the Populists are truly pro-small, non-intrusive government.

Hi

Demos gracias a Yahveh Dios.

Are you saying women have to take accountability for their actions? You must hate women. Who hurt you?

Absolutely agree if it's not under voluntary binding contract those should be optional.

well, it isn’t anymore. and now women can’t back out of pregnancies, so neither should a man. both should be obligated to stay together, have the child and be miserable.

so basically murder , how sophisticated

italy don't . don't assume EU nations are liberals they ain't

@@playoffl36ron8 Basically murder and NYC applauded and celebrated allowing abortion up to birth. Most provinces in China have more restrictions than we do now. Go figure how we got to this point that we would even dare calling this health care.

@@PHlophe I guess a good part of the world is as barbaric as the U.S. Many Asian countries like S. Korea, Japan, and even many providences in China has more restrictions over our liberal states. Go figure how we became so insensitive to human life.

@@playoffl36ron8 usa likes the medieval times i suppose makes sense as to why ppl think americans are dumb. calling that murder? reader a book maybe

Adoption, court-ordered child support, tax deductions, welfare assistance…

The broken foster care system raiment with abuse... you know, that system everyone says is exceptional... a nice healthy upbringing

hose mad

They will replace all the children dying of gun violence and coronavirus

Right.. because children who are in the system and so happy and cared for properly

Exactly !

I've read the Constitution and I cannot find where there is a right to dismember a baby.

and according to them, basic human rights arent constitutional

News Flash: Abortion ends life. There is no unwritten Constitutional right murder unborn children. The left brought this on themselves. New science has proven life at 6 to 7 weeks when the fetus has a heartbeat. But the party of science didn't like that science so they just denied it. They kept pushing for Abortion on demand up to 9 months. Any time prior to birth. That is why the court kicked it back to the states.

You are right. Even before the addition of the Bil of Rights, the instrument was designed to grow and change, to be formed by the people in real time. "A Democracy. If you can keep it ..."

@@j.p.copperthwaite9921 Exactly, and there are mechanisms built into the document for that purpose. It's called an Amendment. It's very time consuming and a lot if hard work. Democracy is not 9 unelected judges doing all the work for you by legislating from the bench. If you want to change the Constitution, amend it. If you want to impact the law lobby for it. Don't try to rely on the courts.

@@eronthomas6829 Sorry that you can't see the VITAL role of the courts in INTERPRETING said laws.

@NewSolo777 Bro shut up 💀💀Stop trying to impose your religious beliefs on others.

@NewSolo777 No worries, someone would have slayed your god or lord by then.

Common sense isn't all that common that's why we live in a world that thinks killing your own baby is a right! It's just honestly sickens me!

I thought the same thing

@@lukemurray4950 Common sense is nice when things are very simple but not everything in life is simple. Abortion is one of them. I don't think when most people that chose abortion they are only thinking about their life (but there are those sadly) and they don't care about the possible new life that might come if they chose so. No, many think if they are ready for this task in multiple ways. Are they mentaly prepared for this, do they have the money to raise the child, maybe the child will inherit disease that will effect the child life. People think a lot of things and some come to the conclusion that no I don't what to give birth if they are not ready, they don't want the child and/or them to go through such misery if they can prevent it. And giving own child for adoption is hard choise as well. I not saying that that abortion is totaly fine and it is moraly right, if I could would want every child to come to this world and live. But I don't think it is right to undermine the struggle that the mothers and fathers go through with their or mother's choise and reality that not all life will be happiness and rainbows.

@@andy8516 I'm not reading what you said passed abortion is one of them because it is very simple! It has a heartbeat, you are stopping that heartbeat, you a murderer who just murdered someone! It's that simple!!!!

@@lukemurray4950 At some point there is life. You think it's when there is heathbeat. I think when they are starting to become an embryo. Before that is when abortion should be done by own choise after that only because of medical reasons in my opinion. And again it is not simple. The fact peoples don't see the begining of life the same way makes it not simple. Let say in five weeks of pregnansy the parents learn that their baby will only live few year because of ilness, some parents don't want to experience it and want to prevent it before it happens. Are they murderes because they didn't want to watch their born child to die? And rather "murder it" when the baby can not experience it. Some parents can face it some not. I wound't call them murderes and those that do are just the worst. It is not simple.

They also shouldn’t determine that murder is legal as long as it’s your own kid

They were showing the justices that voted to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The other justices voted to uphold .

Is Fing Barry Goldwater the standard now? Barry Goldwater?

That Republican party is long dead. It is now an unholy union of Christian theocrats, MAGA populism, and the military-industrial complex. They are moving ever closer to the ideology of Spanish Nationalists and Italian black shirts. No wonder people are calling them fascists.

@NewSolo777 One for the Trumpers for sure.

I always thought abortion was great at thinning the liberal herd.

@@wildsmooth9201 Incel.

@Sacrvm Imperivm Britannicvm Interesting how you’re only blaming the women for having sex.

@@MrElmofamily because they're the ones getting pregnant

@@iamkoushik920 they’re not the only ones having unprotected sex.

​@Sacrvm Imperivm Britannicvm right so, women who engage in sex should be ready to accept the consequence of pregnancy. Even those who are raped, those who use contraception perfectly and it fails? Those that do not have access and are in environments where sex and health education are poor? What about underage girls whos rational decision making faculties are not well developed, what about women who grow up in abusive homes, that dont have good examples? Should these be exceptions or, should these women be forced to lose their lives based on circumstances for which they had no control? This is a genuine question I really want to know your response to. Simplifying things to Personal responsibility does not quite cut it in these issues

One thing is certain. 100% of successful abortions result in the death of at least one human person. Indeed women CAN decide if they want to give birth to a child. The time for making such a decision is before you've conceived a child.

and Biden?

term limits for everything. we have enough talented people out there that we shouldn't see the same faces in power for 15+ years regardless of position

@@biellaspointofview2054 applies to all equally

Okay Quincy...

Defund politicians

Except most countries have banned it completely

We have ownership of our bodies. That isn't granted by a law, as it exists as a right. A law would suggest that we are government property, and government is then granting us a freedom to use with their property. The criminal supreme court now refuses to recognize our ownership of our own bodies in exchange for bribes from the adoption industry who bribed them to grow more domestic product. They make more money off of white infants than the Latino infants they steal from refugees. You know the human trafficking the government does in exchange for kickbacks? The court ruling cited the limited supply of domestic infants for the adoption industry to sell, as the reason for removing our rights.

Abortion is seen as murder by a lot of Americans. It can't pass the Senate.

in 50 years, the Dems never got around to it. They were too busy.

@@abram730 All the Supreme Court did was say that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore it isn't Constitutionally protected. They didn't ban it.

I take CC to be constitutionally protected, not for any reason having to do with 9A, but just because of 2A itself. As a piece of language, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" really is very clear and final, leaving no scope for the government to decide who and how and where and why.

It's the third branch of government. They are as powerful as Joe biden and the congress.

@@jordansims9162 So it should take more than a 1 person majority to make major decisions then!

There is no justice, only politics.

The kind of justice that is disallowing racial discrimination.

It took how many judges to decide that a whole population of unborn children should be murdered.

When courts overturn their previous rulings, they generally do so only when they are faced with an issue/law that implicates that prior ruling itself. Here, Mississippi passed a law criminalizing abortion after 15 weeks -- Roe set the line for constitutional protection at viability, or about 23/24 weeks. In Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe (although it narrowed it too with the undue burden standard). Thus, Mississippi's law is in direct conflict with the aforementioned precedents, requiring a decision from the Court. The Court here didn't necessarily have to overturn Roe and Casey, either -- Chief Justice Roberts addresses this in his concurrence, where he argues in favor of upholding the Mississippi law but against overruling Roe and Casey in their entirety. He says that, within fifteen weeks, women still have a reasonable amount of time to choose whether to keep the fetus or abort it, and that a woman's constitutionally protected right to abortion should not necessarily extend all the way until the point of viability. Beyond then, he argues that states at least should have the right to choose. In either case, both the majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts' concurrence chip away at the line that Roe sets out. Hope this helps.

Lower courts and states were bound by SC opinion and precedent in Casey and Roe. Those opinions were the basis for the suit against MS which passed more restrictive laws than allowed by the interpretation of Roe or Casey. This court looked at the arguments and determined that Roe and Casey should be overturned since they had to in order to rule in favor of the MS law.

what about it,

​​@@mya.xoxo_ if we're talking about "birthing persons" bodies, can it not also be HIS body? Got dang hermaphobe...

Agreed. Reminds me of that horrible current phrase about speaking one's "truth." A total denial that there is capital T truth out there, not just the wishes and projections by an individual to circumvent and rationalize away reality...in this case that there is a viable human being who is renting space for a time in your womb.

@@DemonDog444 no? no biological male, carries or births a child.

My body my choice... from the looks of those bodies, it appears they need to be making better choices 🤣

I hope you're just uninformed rather than lying.

If you look at it. It makes people irresponsible. Looking at it morally, then it's a YES.

Antonin Scalia was talking about how Roe v Wade was a mistake decades ago because it never had any good constitutional basis. I don't know why you need to turn to conspiracy when tens of millions of Americans, men and women, are against the right to abortion...

NO! this is obviously about separating people into political parties. When a red state bans abortions, the liberals in that state move to blue states which makes the red voters in that state the majority. This was a plot to make sure a certain party doesn't lose its hold on power.

You can’t pass a law to guarantee those rights. You would need to make an amendment like what they did for the civil rights and suffrage movement which is very very difficult, and especially so in today’s dividing world.

Clearly written laws that fit on a single sheet of paper (each law), none of this two-story BS that requires million dollar a week attorney offices to interpret.

@@potatomo9609 Leaders are supposed to galvanize people and bring them together. Right now the feckless folks we have try to divide people. If our leaders actually lead people the right way we should be able to move closer and closer to compromise and codifying these rights the correct way. Just because our current leaders are defective is not a reason to blame the justices. They are mostly a stop gap and a temporary one at that given there rulings can and do get overturned.

Perhaps the only solution to bring people together is a solution that no one likes the sound of. Such as reversible sterilization of the entire population. When an individual is ready and indeed wants a child they can fill out the paperwork to get their fertility restored. This eliminates the need for abortion (except in the rare case to save a mother), eliminates unwanted children being born and thus reducing the strain on the foster system, and overall reduces global population allowing for better sustainability of our planet, cause let’s face it a great number of people will never choose to have their sterilization reversed.

Both abortion and gay marriage kill the family, (abortion, they kill babies and gay marriage are not producing babies), it's all the destruction of the family

Just move back to California. Problem solved.

Take accountability for your actions for once. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you don't take responsibility for your actions, this is whats going to happen. I seriously hope it sets a good precedent for you folks to make rational choices.

Birth control ranges from $0-50 there isn't any excuse

What sex education? The kind put out by Priests? We know what Priests do. Let's get real. I'll take Betty Dodson's work any day.

I had my 1st child when I was 17, she's 21 now. I managed to not get pregnant again for 8 years (when I was ready for another kid) by using protection. It can and does work the vast majority of the time.

You are aware the world population can fit in Texas. Also subscribing to overpopulation alarmism doesn’t give you the right to take someone else’s life.

@RobbieBayon ...honestly though, what's your opinion on Padel vs Ruder ?

@@A2ATemp My opinion? This won't matter. If women today will want to get one, they'll get it one way or another.

*rim shot*

Time, when it comes to human rights, I’m not sure that’s best handled at the state level… this is how slavery came into play… should women a right to vote be a state choice? To give public education be a state choice??? I just think we have to be careful, as this can be a slippery slope…

''If you want abortion, and you live in a conservative state, you have to use the resources of democracy to change: protests, debate, persuade people, etc" we know that only works to annoy. for every possible persuadee on 1 side there's another on the other. So...basically majority rules.

@@thetrib1 not true in the sense of the lgbta+ movement. The small majority being vocal is what drove change on the larger scale I.e. legislation, corporations, etc

@@bman6502 abortion is not a human right. You can use protection to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is not a contraceptive.

@@bman6502 IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT TO KILL YOUR CHILD!!!! THIS IS WHY YOU DONT GET IT BECAUSE ALL YOU DO IS EAT UP PROPAGANDA!!! No matter how you feel abortion is not a human right!

The Supreme Court having the final word in Constitutional interpretation is itself not enumerated in the Constitution. Nor is the right to marry, have children, send children to private schools, buy birth control etc.

Hey Josh - - Here's your definition: "something you will clearly never know. In the 'Biblical Sense for sure'",

G-d made a man and a woman. A woman has a womb. A man does not have a womb. That is why a woman is called a woman because she was created with a womb.

Who are you talking to?

Randy sava.. er um.. I mean strong woman.

Exactly. If people can’t answer that question this there is NO issue here and we can move on.

Roe v Wade did address this. They cut off the right to have an abortion at the point that life could be viable outside the host (ie: woman's body). Pro-life people are busy scaring people with inaccurate or half truths to build up public disapproval of abortion. Their sole aim is to control women, based on their religious beliefs, which the constitution does not allow.

@@katelangworthy8698 I think though that this country took the original notion of abortion that was to be safe, legal and rare to a place where abortion is used, abused and even celebrated. There will still be abortions and even in some places, like California, up to birth probably but individuals around the country will get a say in what is morally acceptable in their chosen area to live. Abortion to protect the life of the mother will still happen and issues will of course have to be worked out but rare became on demand and this is much of the country's answer to that flippant attitude.

@@katelangworthy8698 Also, I would say many people make it about the women and their autonomy which I am one but for many its more about the baby they are to protect inside them and when that life has rights.

It depends on the definition of "life" and when exactly "life" started and entitled to the sets of right guaranteed by the constitution. I get the conflicting right issue, while i ackowledge that the state interest to keep the fetus alive is legitimate (since after all they're a future human being and to think otherwise is absurd), when this right conflict with the mother's right to privacy; bodily autonomy and ultimately her right to pursue her happiness, it becomes a tricky issue to balance. But, my personal opinion was and still is roe term based solution was the most sound solution we had to balance the mother's inherent right and the state interest to keep the fetus alive.

@@sandhikaalvi8788 By making it a constitutional right it changed the mindset of the people which led to the abuse of the precedent and while I understand the need for the balance of autonomy and privacy, this country showed they don't know how to honor it and need to see the weight of the decision to end life whatever the stage. Local elections will become paramount for people to set the limits they feel are morally and ethically correct.

Gay marriage is also similar. The only case listed that's similar to Roe is Griswold and I won't be surprised if that's overturned in the future (even if it is I don't think states will move to ban contraception like they have with abortion)

You do not have an intrinsic right to abortion, so there is no right that’s being negated if you don’t have it.

You are forgetting that it also said that no rights should be denied to the people, so essentially if a fetus is a person then no other person has the right to infringe its rights and kill it

Why do you find this so hard to get. It's not a right, it's not in the constitution and all that has happened is the states now get to decide which means the people you vote for will decide. It's not hard to get.

Your summary of Alito's argument only addresses the first part of what he said. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion," -- it's not enumerated -- "and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." -- it doesn't meet the historical standard for identifying 'un-enumerated' rights. The second half is about addressing the standard for identifying rights that are implied (aka implicit).

@@kroolini3678 there is also nothing prohibiting its legality either so it's basically a schrodingers cat scenario. It's neither legal nor illegal.

No they cannot, because judges don't make laws. You don't even understand how the court works of the function of the justices. The reason it was overturned is because it was decided to be given back to the law makers (not judges) of the states to decide. Now you can vote for those people and hope they change laws in your state. But the Supreme Court didn't make or take away a law, they undid the previous court who actually did legislate from the bench, which they do not have the authority to do.

@@jennh2096 brilliant and succinct. Divided government only works when the division remains crisp and unblurred.

Unfortunately, the Equal Rights Amendment hasn't been renewed since the 80s. So yeah, technically women in the USA essentially have no rights at all. I don't plan on staying in this country much longer. Our future is looking bleak in America.

I'm for the babies rights

Its so tragic children get to experience life and grow up. How horrible.

A brilliant, insightful encapsulation of the ramifications.

@@AntiGenZandY nice reductive argument, note that the caveat “in many cases” was used. though some may indeed argue that being alive is tragic, the point was more regarding how broken foster care can be. im not suggesting you’re part of this group, but it is ironic how people can be so concerned about a life up to the moment of birth, and if those lives become a “burden on society” they just look the other way and pretend like those lives don’t exist.

Well said.

States mandate liquor purchasing age, smoking age, speed limit, driver's license exemptions, fuel tax percentages, mining rights, sales taxes....etc. You can add a few hundred more restrictions on "rights" They should be able to handle if they want abortion rights for its citizens.

@@1793912 Few of these regulations impinge on a person's right to privacy. Prohibition tried to enforce a rule saying that no one had a right to buy and consume most alcohol products. That did not work out too well.

@@brachiator1 The people elect the state legislature. The people set the standards of the laws they want enforced. You are projecting you value system on the decisions of the electorate. If they want alcohol consumed by 12 years olds or require background checks for citizenship to receive a state issued license. Its their call. They decide. It's called representative Democracy. You want abortion laws changed? Go to the state legislature and sell it. Unfortunately, those interpersonal skill necessary to have the grace to accomplish that task is not developed on the woke left. Sad but true.

@@1793912 Again, each state should not be a mini tyranny. Do you accept that your state legislature can outlaw gun ownership? Do you accept that your state legislature can legalize pedophilia because, representative democracy? Also, I am neither particularly woke nor left. Usually you need a few comments before someone resorts to ad hominem attacks. You got there in one.

The only reason the law deals with miscarriages is tied to the idea that women were breeders for their husband's line. So if you killed another man's slave that was a grave crime. Or killed HIS child same thing. But if you were a woman you had no rights, to your child, to your own life. So lets go back to that. I'm liking this original intent stuff.

OBEY GOD. Read the ten commandments.

Roe v Wade was overturned because it was a weak argument. That’s why you hear people saying that RBG had an issue with it. Unlike many other cases that cited amendments to support them like Stanley v Georgia or Katz v US, Roe v Wade only pointed to the right to privacy. It really should have been under equal protection.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gtWbrZZhmrOlfJc.html

Watch this video. It explains everything.

It was overturned because the Supreme Court majority believes that abortion is not a constitutional right. It's explained in the video. Watch it again if needed.

Good point and that is what many pro-life proponents say. Most of the stated amendments are about giving consenting citizens the right to behave in a manner that is relevant to them. They extend those rights to the unborn child as well. The woman does not have the right to impede life and liberty to the child. Which is indeed considered a child, not a fetus or cell cluster to the pro-life proponents. While i am pro-choice within the first trimester, and disagree when the concept of personhood is applied, i understand the argument of holding life as precious.

The US is no longer a Republic, or even a Democracy, thanks to Conservatives! The US is a Plutocracy, on its way to becoming an Oligarchy or Theo-fascist Regime.

A Republic is a democracy.

We're actually both a Republic and a Democracy, specifically we're a Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy. As a non-partisan looking at both parties from the outside, I find your "fear" a bit hypocritical, considering the Conservative Right attacked our Capitol only a year ago, whereas the Left has only reacted in peaceful protests to the Supreme Court decision. Sooo yeah, I'm not sure you're the most perceptive bulb of the bunch.

So the way I see it the rights we have are really just suggestions until they decide to step on them

It's an overwhelmingly conservative supreme court, roe v wade is one of the most famous cases in america thatvis still ongoing

KZfaq algorithm recommended this to me, today. It sheds some light on Roe v Wade. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r6-Zh6p3ybqYeYE.html

@@baizawai thanks

Here is a link for those who don't know kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gbWgh7OkrdeVlXk.html

U should be againts hunting tho

If you don’t see the different between hunting deer and murdering babies, i strongly recommend you reevaluate your morals.

People who forbid slavery should be forced to pay for costs of unwanted slaves from their own pockets! If you don't like slaves, don't get one. But don't tell others what to do with their slaves! I don't go hunting slaves for fun, but I'd never deny others the privilege. Anti-slavers should mind their own business! I would never dream of forcing them to have slaves!

Get b u tt hurt brah

@@v2919 I watched an hour long video by Nate the Lawyer that explained why Roe v Wade was overturned and why RBG had an issue with it. Rather than citing an amendment and the right to privacy like Stanley v Georgia (1st Amendment) or Katz v US (4th Amendment), Roe v Wade was argued as just a right to privacy. It should have been argued as equal protection. There are written rights and unwritten rights in the constitution. The 9th Amendment allows the court to decide on those unwritten rights that our founders may have forgotten. Marbury v Madison gave the Supreme Court its power to decide this. Palko v Connecticut established the test of whether a right was fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The court decided that it didn’t pass this test as written. What’s crazy to me is when someone says, “the power went back to the states where it belongs.” It doesn’t belong there. Bodily autonomy should be protected at the federal level. Did you know that we have these protections at the federal level? Kent v Dulles-right to travel Pierce v Society of Sisters-right to home school Maynard v Hill-right to marry Meyer v Nebraska-right to teach your children another language Moore v City of East Cleveland-right for extended family members to share a home The right to teach our children another language or share a home with extended family members is protected by the constitution but not control of our bodies. How crazy is that?!

@@michelleg7360 So, can I have my career back for not getting Fauci's shots? I mean, my body, my choice, right?

Autonomy is full rights with full responsibilities. No one is more against women's autonomy than feminists, because they always want equal or superior rights to men without equal or superior responsibilities.

@@v2919 LOL. No one was forced to take any vaccines. But, they can be now. You have no right to bodily autonomy.

@@roywilkowski2326 Nope. The republicans has decided no bodily autonomy. The government can use your body as they see fit. In fact, you longer have the right to refuse a vaccine. The government can strap you down and give you the jab.

If you don't believe in murder great, don't murder... but don't stop me from murdering

@@Andrew1680 not murder. removal of a clump of cells

@Andrew Ain’t a human being, human fetuses are the exact same as dolphin fetuses early into pregnancies. Are humans equal to dolphins now? Animals we use for entertainment at aquariums? Did you even know that you were a fetus until you learned it in your biology class? At least we can keep some memories of being a baby, but you wouldn’t even know fetuses existed if scientists didn’t research it.

@@Andrew1680 What are you talking about? I am posting about giving a person a right to choose what's best for their own body and what one's personal situation might be. You're ranting about Murder.

@@juliefreid9982 I'm the one ranting 🤣🤣 funny. But I'm saying other believe differently then you about when life begins, if you believe that was a person in the womb it would be murder... hence its a debate with sides having different perspectives

Every single state still allows medical abortions to save the mothers life. This has never been a valid argument, it might be if there were at least one person thought that entopic pregnancies shouldn't be addressed. Alas, there is no one making that point.

@@youreaquickone what's wrong with you? When did I ever say any of that?

Regardless this will spur debate within the states and lead to a better definition on when a child has rights and when it is legal to have an abortion. My personal opinion is that abortion after the first trimester is murder. If a woman is so drugged out or unaware of her body that she can't determine after 3 months that she is pregnant, maybe she needs to seek mental health as well as an abortion.

@@john_doe_not_found 26 states have or are poised to criminalize abortion in the first trimester, which is when 91% of all abortions take place. That is the result of the Republican party thinking that government should make such decisions, not individuals.

@@guidototh6091 murder should never be a choice bud

@@kingorange7739 If it is murder, and it isn't, then how would you punish the women who induce abortion by taking medication? That is the way most abortions are performed in the US these days.

@@guidototh6091 what kind of medicine are you speaking of? Also that depends on the precedent. Some think a woman shouldn’t be punished and it should only be focused on doctors aiding in it, others think women could serve jail time for it. Something I would agree with if she was fully conscious and aware of her actions and was not being influenced by someone else. However I am not arrogant to recognize that how someone can and should be punished on this matter is a complex issue.

How bout when they invaded everyone's bedroom and redefined what qualified our relationships as "Marriages." Should we revisit that as well?

@@itneeds2bsaid528 Yes, anything that doesn't fall under an explicit constitutional right should be revisited.