Idaho Deputy Solicitor General Answering SCOTUS Justices on Idaho’s Abortion Law
Listening to the back and forth between the justices and Idaho’s Solicitor General, there is tension on display here. The Idaho Solicitor General appears to take the stance the abortion is available if necessary. The justices are questioning how such could be if doctors will not treat the women if abortion is needed. That being, doctors believe they blocked by Idaho’s abortion law.
Alito takes the chicken or the egg approach with US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. He describes “situations where it is not clear which of two events should be considered the cause and which should be considered the effect, to express a scenario of infinite regress, or to express the difficulty of sequencing actions where each seems to depend on others being . . . ” US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is accepting none of this. Listen to her argument rather hear it from me.
Idaho Deputy Solicitor General Joshua N. Turner making an attempt to justify Idaho’s law on abortions.
The right-wing SCOTUS majority is clearly not pro-life, they are pro-forced birth. And if the GOP takes both houses of Congress and the White House, you can be certain there will be a national ban; all those fine words about leaving it up to the states will go down the memory hole.
Joel
I think we have already seen that leaving it up to the states will be quite bad enough.
The 14th Amendment should be enough to prevent this, together with any sane reading of the 4th.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
if a lawyer-client relation can be privileged, so can a doctor-patient. but by now all “the government” would have to do is make abortion a crime and therefore subject to search warrant.
we have only ouselves to blame for this. we approved when the government violated the privacy of “criminals.” now we are all criminals in the eyes of the law.
as far as i got it was leaving it up to “prosecutorial discretion.” i have a pretty good idea how that goes.