So you're saying not only would the SC have to overule Roe, it would also have to overrule the use of stare decisis in Casey.

I'm not surprised it was defeated. As I understand it the bill was very strict in that it did not include exceptions for rape, incest or a mother's poor health.

 

I have never understood the logic of making exceptions for incest or rape. Either the fetus is a person or it is not. If it is a person then killing the fetus is murder. We don't kill the rapist or the child molester and they committed a grevious act. However, if person A was raped or the victim of incest, that makes it acceptable to kill innocent person B? I have compassion for the victim of rape and the victim incest but I don't comprehend how their status as a victim changes the status of the fetus.

So you're saying not only would the SC have to overule Roe, it would also have to overrule the use of stare decisis in Casey.

 

No. Roe would be overruled based upon the guidelines contained in Casey for revisiting prior decisions. Following Casey would be following stare decisis.

So you're saying not only would the SC have to overule Roe, it would also have to overrule the use of stare decisis in Casey.

That's not the way that I read Casey. In Casey, the door seems to have been left open to modifying the Roe decision if technology rendered the earlier decision obsolete. Although the SC did not find that the circumstances warranted overturning Roe 14 years ago, it did not seem to close the door shut. It looks like Roberts outflanked the pro-abortionists when he was questioned during his confirmation hearings. I guess they viewed the Casey decision as a "win" because husbnd notification was struck down and did not bother to read the fine print.

 

(Heresay beat me to the punch. I guess I need to read faster. Thanks, Heresay for your insight. I wonder how many Democrat staffers were punished for not doing the homework of the committee members.)

That's not the way that I read Casey. In Casey, the door seems to have been left open to modifying the Roe decision if technology rendered the earlier decision obsolete. Although the SC did not find that the circumstances warranted overturning Roe 14 years ago, it did not seem to close the door shut. It looks like Roberts outflanked the pro-abortionists when he was questioned during his confirmation hearings. I guess they viewed the Casey decision as a "win" because husbnd notification was struck down and did not bother to read the fine print.

 

That's a reasonable analysis. The Casey case was about revisiting precedent, and not about informed notification. That is the way the lawyers for Casey briefed it, and the way the lawyers for Casey controlled the oral argument and ultimately the Court's decision. Even though those lawyers "lost" the case in front of them, if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, the annals of legal jurisprudence history will credit those lawyers for opening the door.

No. Roe would be overruled based upon the guidelines contained in Casey for revisiting prior decisions. Following Casey would be following stare decisis.

But wasn't the Casey decision based upon following stare decisis in Roe?

But wasn't the Casey decision based upon following stare decisis in Roe?

 

No. Casey presented 2 questions 1) is parental notification and parental veto power constitutional as it relates to abortions involving a minor; 2) Under what circumstances can an earlier Supreme Court decision be re-visited.

 

Question #1 was not decided by Roe, so there was no stare decisis. Casey cited to Roe, as authority, regarding the personal bodily liberty holdings contained in Roe, and certainly Roe was one significant factor in holding that no parental notification was required. Griswold (the "penumbra") was also cited with authority.

 

However, on Question #2, the Court relied upon much older caselaw in determining and reiterating the specified conditions under which an older established decision may be revisited.

No. Casey presented 2 questions 1) is parental notification and parental veto power constitutional as it relates to abortions involving a minor; 2) Under what circumstances can an earlier Supreme Court decision be re-visited.

 

Question #1 was not decided by Roe, so there was no stare decisis. Casey cited to Roe, as authority, regarding the personal bodily liberty holdings contained in Roe, and certainly Roe was one significant factor in holding that no parental notification was required. Griswold (the "penumbra") was also cited with authority.

 

However, on Question #2, the Court relied upon much older caselaw in determining and reiterating the specified conditions under which an older established decision may be revisited.

For those legal ignorant like me, what are those specified conditions?