GoBucks007
Gold Member
- Aug 30, 2021
- 372
- 214
- 158
Well when you read the actual decision rendered by SCOTUS.. it more or less indicated that it wasn't necessarily a decision based on its constitutionality.Another odd thing to think about, here:
This law may not pass muster in the SCOTUS, if someone tries to use it. They would essentially have to reverse Roe v Wade. It is unclear that could happen.
What IS clear is that the clinics in Texas have already said they would comply. So that much IS clear.
So they are the dog who finally caught the car. Possibly, as long as the law does not get used in any court, they get what they wanted: a virtually complete abortion ban. Such an odd situation. A cold war detente.
But that didn't keep the liberal side of the bench from slamming the "shadow docket" ruling.
Roe V. Wade really tried to strike a balance between a woman's right and the state's interest in the unborn. And it came down to viability.
With the TEX-ASS law... at 6 weeks the fetus is not viable.... it can't live without the use of the mother's body.
And it can't live in a hospital either... there's no technology available to keep a fetus alive at that stage.... and even if there were the technology... would it be in the fetus's interest to do so?
It's like keeping a born person alive... the question comes up of quantity of life versus quality of life.
The Terry Schiavo case was an example of that... bible thumping, whackadoodle Christian conservative parents arguing that she should be kept alive... versus her husband who said that his wife didn't want to be hooked up to machines for years and years.
![en.wikipedia.org](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Schiavo.jpg)