{"id":1072574,"date":"2021-12-01T12:45:27","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T17:45:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1072574"},"modified":"2021-12-01T12:45:30","modified_gmt":"2021-12-01T17:45:30","slug":"justice-alito-questions-viability-standard-in-monumental-supreme-court-abortion-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/justice-alito-questions-viability-standard-in-monumental-supreme-court-abortion-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Justice Alito Questions Viability Standard In Monumental Supreme Court Abortion Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fjustice-alito-questions-viability-standard-in-monumental-supreme-court-abortion-case%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1072574&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p class=\"p1\">In a round of questioning with Julie Rikelman, the senior director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about the topic of viability.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/live\/2021\/12\/01\/us\/abortion-mississippi-supreme-court\">reported<\/a> by The New York Times:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Alito is asking a series of questions about why viability should be the line. He notes a woman who doesn\u2019t want to have a baby has that same interest before and after viability. From the perspective of fetal life, he notes, viability is dependent on technology and medical practices, which changes over time.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Alito <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cpr.org\/2021\/12\/01\/watch-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-major-abortion-case\/\">asked<\/a> Rikelman, \u201cI\u2019m sure you know the arguments about the viability line as well as I do, probably better than I do. What would you say in defense of that line?<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cWhat would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life that the line really doesn\u2019t make any sense\u2026?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">He added, \u201cIf a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isn\u2019t that right?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Rikelman responded no but said the state views viability as arbitrary because it discounts the woman\u2019s interests.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Alito interjected, noting, \u201cUpon reaching the point of viability does not the woman have the same interest that she had before viability in being free of this pregnancy that she no longer wants to continue?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Rikelman said viability is a principled line, and Alito said he was trying to see whether it was.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cAgree with me at least on that point \u2014 that a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed?\u201d Alito said.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cYes, your honor,\u201d she said. \u201cBut the court balanced the interests in \u2014 \u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Alito stated, \u201cThen, look at this on the other side, the fetus has an interest in having a life and that doesn\u2019t change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Rikelman said that in some people\u2019s view it doesn\u2019t, and brought up how the court said there were philosophical differences that couldn\u2019t be resolved.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Alito went on to ask what the philosophical, secular argument is for saying viability is the appropriate line.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/why-the-mississippi-abortion-case-is-such-a-big-deal\">reported<\/a> by The Daily Wire, today, the Supreme Court hears arguments on a case out of Mississippi that could dramatically change the landscape of abortion in the country.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The case,&nbsp;Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization,&nbsp;concerns a 2018 law in Mississippi that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. As the law stands now,&nbsp;Roe v. Wade&nbsp;and the decisions that came after it hold that states have to allow a woman to be able to get an abortion up to the point of viability, or when the baby can survive on its own outside the womb. Most states hold this mark at around 20 to 24 weeks, so the Mississippi law is a direct violation.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Originally, Mississippi said in its petition that the questions presented to the Court do not require them to overturn&nbsp;Roe&nbsp;or&nbsp;Planned Parenthood v.&nbsp;Casey.&nbsp;In its brief in July, however, the state&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/19\/19-1392\/184703\/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf\">wrote<\/a>, \u201cRoe and Casey are egregiously wrong\u201d and said the court should overrule those decisions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Many are asking why this case, in particular, is so important and being watched so closely. It has to do with the Supreme Court and the question they plan to consider.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Mississippi case, it said it would consider the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/qp\/19-01392qp.pdf\">question<\/a>&nbsp;of \u201cWhether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,\u201d meaning that with this decision, they could rule that states can make their own laws regarding abortion again \u2014 even possibly banning it up to the point of conception. The high court could give power back to the states to restrict abortion like they were able to do prior to the 1973&nbsp;Roe v. Wade&nbsp;ruling.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">There are currently at least 21&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.guttmacher.org\/article\/2021\/10\/26-states-are-certain-or-likely-ban-abortion-without-roe-heres-which-ones-and-why\">states<\/a>&nbsp;that have pro-life laws or constitutional amendments that would make almost all abortions in their states illegal if&nbsp;Roe&nbsp;is overturned.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">There are an additional five states that would probably prohibit abortion as soon as they could. According to the Guttmacher Institute, these states include Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">This is considered to be the most conservative Supreme Court in decades and their decision will likely be announced next summer.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Clarence Thomas is probably the most open about his opinions on&nbsp;Roe, as he has been very forthright about his stance against the decision in the past.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">In a 2020 dissenting opinion, he&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/19pdf\/18-1323_c07d.pdf\">wrote<\/a>, \u201cOur abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">He went on to write: \u201cThe Constitution does not constrain the States\u2019 ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As the longest-serving member of the court, Justice Thomas has long expressed his desire for&nbsp;Roe&nbsp;to be overturned. After arguments take place Wednesday, Justice Thomas might just witness the overturning of&nbsp;Roe v. Wade.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The Daily Wire is one of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a round of questioning with Julie Rikelman, the senior director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about the topic of viability.\u00a0As reported by The New York Times:Justice Alito is asking a series of questions about why viability should be the line. He notes a woman who doesn\u2019t want to have a baby has that same interest before and after viability. From the perspective of fetal life, he notes, viability is dependent on technology and medical practices, which changes over time.Justice Alito asked Rikelman, \u201cI\u2019m sure you know the arguments about the viability line as well as I do, probably better than I do. What would you say in defense of that line?\u201cWhat would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life that the line really doesn\u2019t make any sense\u2026?\u201dHe added, \u201cIf a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed, isn\u2019t that right?\u201dRikelman responded no but said the state views viability as arbitrary because it discounts the woman\u2019s interests.\u00a0Alito interjected, noting, \u201cUpon reaching the point of viability does not the woman have the same interest that she had before viability in being free of this pregnancy that she no longer wants to continue?\u201dRikelman said viability is a principled line, and Alito said he was trying to see whether it was.\u00a0\u201cAgree with me at least on that point \u2014 that a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed?\u201d Alito said.\u201cYes, your honor,\u201d she said. \u201cBut the court balanced the interests in \u2014 \u201dAlito stated, \u201cThen, look at this on the other side, the fetus has an interest in having a life and that doesn\u2019t change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability?\u201dRikelman said that in some people\u2019s view it doesn\u2019t, and brought up how the court said there were philosophical differences that couldn\u2019t be resolved.\u00a0Alito went on to ask what the philosophical, secular argument is for saying viability is the appropriate line.As reported by The Daily Wire, today, the Supreme Court hears arguments on a case out of Mississippi that could dramatically change the landscape of abortion in the country.\u00a0The case,\u00a0Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization,\u00a0concerns a 2018 law in Mississippi that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. As the law stands now,\u00a0Roe v. Wade\u00a0and the decisions that came after it hold that states have to allow a woman to be able to get an abortion up to the point of viability, or when the baby can survive on its own outside the womb. Most states hold this mark at around 20 to 24 weeks, so the Mississippi law is a direct violation.\u00a0Originally, Mississippi said in its petition that the questions presented to the Court do not require them to overturn\u00a0Roe\u00a0or\u00a0Planned Parenthood v.\u00a0Casey.\u00a0In its brief in July, however, the state\u00a0wrote, \u201cRoe and Casey are egregiously wrong\u201d and said the court should overrule those decisions.Many are asking why this case, in particular, is so important and being watched so closely. It has to do with the Supreme Court and the question they plan to consider.\u00a0When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Mississippi case, it said it would consider the\u00a0question\u00a0of \u201cWhether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,\u201d meaning that with this decision, they could rule that states can make their own laws regarding abortion again \u2014 even possibly banning it up to the point of conception. The high court could give power back to the states to restrict abortion like they were able to do prior to the 1973\u00a0Roe v. Wade\u00a0ruling.There are currently at least 21\u00a0states\u00a0that have pro-life laws or constitutional amendments that would make almost all abortions in their states illegal if\u00a0Roe\u00a0is overturned.\u00a0There are an additional five states that would probably prohibit abortion as soon as they could. According to the Guttmacher Institute, these states include Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming.\u00a0This is considered to be the most conservative Supreme Court in decades and their decision will likely be announced next summer.\u00a0Justice Clarence Thomas is probably the most open about his opinions on\u00a0Roe, as he has been very forthright about his stance against the decision in the past.\u00a0In a 2020 dissenting opinion, he\u00a0wrote, \u201cOur abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.\u201dHe went on to write: \u201cThe Constitution does not constrain the States\u2019 ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy\u2026\u201dAs the longest-serving member of the court, Justice Thomas has long expressed his desire for\u00a0Roe\u00a0to be overturned. After arguments take place Wednesday, Justice Thomas might just witness the overturning of\u00a0Roe v. Wade.The Daily Wire is one of America\u2019s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":95,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1072574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1072574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1072574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1072574\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1072574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1072574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1072574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}