Paragraph 6 of 6 Sentence 1 of 4 This sentence is packed with significance—and three claims: “What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call ‘potential life’ and what the law at […]
Paragraph 6 of 6 Sentence 2 of 3 Another sentence with one claim: “Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. See Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 85 F. 3d 1440, 1444 (CA9 1996) (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).” […]
Paragraph 6 of 6 Sentence 1 of 3 The last paragraph of this section starts with a sentence consisting of a single claim: “These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much. Casey, 505 U.S., at 851.” And I guess we’ll […]
Paragraph 5 of 6 Sentence 3 of 3 This sentence is a single claim that continues the train of thought of the previous sentence: “Respondents and the Solicitor General also rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 […]
Paragraph 5 of 6 Sentence 2 of 3 The second sentence in this paragraph is a cornucopia of citations: “Casey relied on cases involving the right to marry a person of a different race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); the right to marry while in prison, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); […]
Paragraph 5 of 6 Sentence 1 of 3 This paragraph opens with a single claim: “Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent.” It will be interesting to see how the Court supports this claim. Until then, this is undetermined:
Paragraph 4 of 6 Sentence 6 of 6 This paragraph concludes with a bold claim: “Our Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.” This requires support, and I don’t recall seeing any. This is undetermined:
Paragraph 4 of 6 Sentence 5 of 6 This sentence is essentially the same claim with opposite specifics: “Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’ Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191(4)(b).” One interesting element of this sentence, this claim, is that it references […]
Paragraph 4 of 6 Sentence 4 of 6 This sentence is another simple claim: “In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized.” Again, this claim is undoubtedly true, but my questions from the previous sentence remain: people will have different […]
Cynical Jason 