#SCOTUS says it made a mistake with Roe and it is fixing its mistake.
If a court takes 50 years to correct a mistake, that court probably shouldn't exist.
🇳🇱
@Pat I dunno,changing things after 50 years or more and trying to fix the past is generally a good thing.
In this case however it is debatable if they fixed a mistake as opposed to making one. Personally I dont think the court ever had the right to make the ruling in the first place, but we should have had this codified in an amendment instead.
If the court makes a mistake, then they should correct it immediately. And if the mistake is a long-stand precident, then it should be corrected by the people via Congress enacting law or by constitutional amendment, not arbitrarilly by scotus.
@Pat
Prior to roe v wade the long standing precedence was that there were no legal protectiona for abortion. So by your logic you oppoaes roe v wade since scotus shouldnt be changing long standing precedence.
The Roe opinion was a total mess. Privacy? That’s just absurd. It should have been based purely on the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment without reference to privacy. Casey wasn’t much better. The overarching problem is Congress shirks its responsibility so they don’t have to face voter backlash and they just push everything onto the Court, which is unaccountable to the voters. Then SCOTUS ends up twisting and tweaking itself into a corner trying to legislate.
Also, as you have noted elsewhere, we a need a clear definition as to personhood, which would resolve the issue definitively.
Well, now the ball’s in Congress’ court (pun intended) so let’s see if they have the balls (pun intended) to fix it.
I probably shouldn’t have used the word “personhood” in my explanation because: 1) an individual doesn’t need to be a definite “person” to have their interests respected; 2) that particular term has been used by pro-life proponents for a specific purpose, which is not how I used it; and 3) the term personhood is often confused in ordinary speech to mean “human”, which is it not.
Also, determining an exact definition to describe an individual who has acquired rights doesn’t necessarily resolve the issue of competing rights between the individuals involved. That is, if an individual acquires rights while in the body of another individual, then each of them have rights which may be in conflict. (Not to say either way whether or not an individual actually acquires those rights at that time, only “if”.)
