{"id":1074541,"date":"2021-12-01T21:44:30","date_gmt":"2021-12-02T02:44:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1074541"},"modified":"2021-12-01T21:44:36","modified_gmt":"2021-12-02T02:44:36","slug":"supreme-court-hears-mississippi-abortion-case-arguments-what-to-know","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-hears-mississippi-abortion-case-arguments-what-to-know\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Hears Mississippi Abortion Case Arguments: What To Know"},"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\">20<\/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%2Fsupreme-court-hears-mississippi-abortion-case-arguments-what-to-know%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=1074541&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\">On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a case regarding a Mississippi abortion law that could have massive implications for pro-life laws around the country.<\/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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">If Mississippi is successful, and the law is upheld, it would directly go against precedent already set by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and it would also cut against Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1992.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Mississippi said in its original petition that the questions presented to the Court do not require them to overturn&nbsp;Roe&nbsp;or&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\">Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart was the first to present on Wednesday, outlining the state\u2019s points for upholding its law. The state\u2019s argument is that each state should be able to decide its own abortion laws. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the question of whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">A main topic of discussion during the arguments was the doctrine of \u201cstare decisis.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The New York Times <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/12\/01\/us\/politics\/what-is-stare-decisis.html\">reported<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The phrase, which roughly translates as \u201cto stand by things already decided,\u201d refers to a doctrine under which the court should stand by its previous decisions and hesitate to overturn precedents.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">While it\u2019s not overwhelmingly clear how the justices will rule, some of them were interested in knowing what a different standard might look like rather than the ones set by Roe and Casey.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Clarence Thomas has been extremely outspoken about his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned in the past.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">On Wednesday, he <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_transcripts\/2021\/19-1392_gfbi.pdf\">asked<\/a> Stewart, \u201cIf we don\u2019t overrule Casey or Roe, do you have a standard that you propose other than the viability standard?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">After a few comments, Stewart responded, \u201cI would say, if the Court were not inclined to \u2014 to overrule Casey, the \u2014 the choice would be undue burden standard, untethered from any bright-line viability rule.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The pro-abortion lawyers challenging Mississippi didn\u2019t appear to want to go down the road of considering alternative options. They kept to the notion of viability and discussed how that standard has been upheld in the past.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Julie Rikelman, the senior director for the Center for Reproductive Rights, and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, both opposed Mississippi, and hammered on the Casey precedent; Prelogar also pointed to the fact that&nbsp;<em>Casey&nbsp;<\/em>had \u201capplied the stare decisis factors\u201d and reaffirmed the <em>Roe&nbsp;<\/em>decision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">They also discussed how the alleged right to an abortion has to do with a woman\u2019s liberty, and Rikelman argued that pregnancy shouldn\u2019t be supposedly forced on a mother by the state.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/justice-amy-coney-barrett-brings-up-adoption-safe-haven-laws-during-mississippi-abortion-case-arguments\">discussed<\/a> adoption and the ability to surrender a child safely under safe haven laws across the country, which can provide women with options other than becoming a parent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Samuel Alito <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/justice-alito-questions-viability-standard-in-monumental-supreme-court-abortion-case\">asked<\/a> about viability and pointed out how people on both sides of this debate have said it\u2019s a line that doesn\u2019t make sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The pro-abortion side said that the viability line works because of the separation between the fetus and the woman, saying the philosophical arguments are kept out of the discussion.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">A back-and-forth took place between Alito and Rikelman regarding the standard.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Alito said, \u201cWill you agree with me at least on that point, that a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed?\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Rikelman responded, \u201cYes, your honor. But the court balanced the interests \u2026 and in ordering the interests at stake \u2013\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Alito said, \u201c\u2013 look at the interests on \u2014 on the other side. The \u2014 the&nbsp;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 answered, \u201cIn some people\u2019s view, it doesn\u2019t, Your Honor, but what the Court said is that those philosophical differences couldn\u2019t be resolved \u2013\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/justice-kavanaugh-at-abortion-case-arguments-why-should-this-court-be-the-arbiter-rather-than-congress-states-the-people\">pointed<\/a> to the concerns regarding state\u2019s rights and the difficult topic of abortion itself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Kavanaugh said to Prelogar, \u201cThe other side says, though, that there are two interests at stake, that there\u2019s also the interest in \u2014 in fetal life at stake as well. And in your brief, you say that the existing framework accommodates \u2014 that\u2019s your word \u2014 both the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests of the fetus.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cAnd the problem, I think the other side would say, and the reason this issue is hard, is that you can\u2019t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That\u2019s the fundamental<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a case regarding a Mississippi abortion law that could have massive implications for pro-life laws around the country.The 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.If Mississippi is successful, and the law is upheld, it would directly go against precedent already set by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and it would also cut against Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1992.Mississippi said in its original petition that the questions presented to the Court do not require them to overturn\u00a0Roe\u00a0or\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.Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart was the first to present on Wednesday, outlining the state\u2019s points for upholding its law. The state\u2019s argument is that each state should be able to decide its own abortion laws. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the question of whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional.A main topic of discussion during the arguments was the doctrine of \u201cstare decisis.\u201dThe New York Times reported:The phrase, which roughly translates as \u201cto stand by things already decided,\u201d refers to a doctrine under which the court should stand by its previous decisions and hesitate to overturn precedents.While it\u2019s not overwhelmingly clear how the justices will rule, some of them were interested in knowing what a different standard might look like rather than the ones set by Roe and Casey.Justice Clarence Thomas has been extremely outspoken about his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned in the past.On Wednesday, he asked Stewart, \u201cIf we don\u2019t overrule Casey or Roe, do you have a standard that you propose other than the viability standard?\u201dAfter a few comments, Stewart responded, \u201cI would say, if the Court were not inclined to \u2014 to overrule Casey, the \u2014 the choice would be undue burden standard, untethered from any bright-line viability rule.\u201dThe pro-abortion lawyers challenging Mississippi didn\u2019t appear to want to go down the road of considering alternative options. They kept to the notion of viability and discussed how that standard has been upheld in the past.Julie Rikelman, the senior director for the Center for Reproductive Rights, and U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, both opposed Mississippi, and hammered on the Casey precedent; Prelogar also pointed to the fact that\u00a0Casey\u00a0had \u201capplied the stare decisis factors\u201d and reaffirmed the Roe\u00a0decision.They also discussed how the alleged right to an abortion has to do with a woman\u2019s liberty, and Rikelman argued that pregnancy shouldn\u2019t be supposedly forced on a mother by the state.Justice Amy Coney Barrett discussed adoption and the ability to surrender a child safely under safe haven laws across the country, which can provide women with options other than becoming a parent.Justice Samuel Alito asked about viability and pointed out how people on both sides of this debate have said it\u2019s a line that doesn\u2019t make sense.The pro-abortion side said that the viability line works because of the separation between the fetus and the woman, saying the philosophical arguments are kept out of the discussion.A back-and-forth took place between Alito and Rikelman regarding the standard.Alito said, \u201cWill you agree with me at least on that point, that a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed?\u201dRikelman responded, \u201cYes, your honor. But the court balanced the interests \u2026 and in ordering the interests at stake \u2013\u201dAlito said, \u201c\u2013 look at the interests on \u2014 on the other side. The \u2014 the\u00a0fetus 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 answered, \u201cIn some people\u2019s view, it doesn\u2019t, Your Honor, but what the Court said is that those philosophical differences couldn\u2019t be resolved \u2013\u201dJustice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the concerns regarding state\u2019s rights and the difficult topic of abortion itself.Kavanaugh said to Prelogar, \u201cThe other side says, though, that there are two interests at stake, that there\u2019s also the interest in \u2014 in fetal life at stake as well. And in your brief, you say that the existing framework accommodates \u2014 that\u2019s your word \u2014 both the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests of the fetus.\u201d\u201cAnd the problem, I think the other side would say, and the reason this issue is hard, is that you can\u2019t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That\u2019s the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time, and that\u2019s why this is so challenging, I think.\u201dHe added, \u201cWhen you have those two interests at stake and both are important, as you acknowledge, why not \u2014 why should this Court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?\u201dThe Daily Wire spoke with Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Tom Jipping, who commented on the role of the federal government\u2019s involvement in the case as the U.S. Solicitor General made arguments against Mississippi.Jipping said it\u2019s rare that a party not directly involved in the case is allowed to argue before the court, but the federal government \u201cargued quite strongly that Roe vs. Wade should be upheld.\u201d He noted that overruling Roe vs. Wade would allow state legislators to do what they think is best on the issue of abortion.\u201cAny number of states will likely, and some already have passed laws guaranteeing that abortion will be almost unrestricted. Other states will pass laws that protect unborn children,\u201d he added.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-1074541","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\/1074541","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=1074541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1074541\/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=1074541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1074541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1074541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}