Demystifying Dobbs
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2022
- UVA Law professor Anne Coughlin and UVA professor Bonnie Gordon discuss the legal principles, case history and cultural history behind the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. (University of Virginia School of Law, June 29, 2022)
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D2 | Summer | ร่วมส่งแรงใจ เชียร์ไทยไปพร้อมกัน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dN2gLsCJ0T0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
Text of the relevant section of the 14th amendment
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Liberty in this context only means not imprisoned. The language says the state can’t execute, imprison, or fine someone without due process of law
To load the the word liberty with a bunch of rights puts a construction on this amendment that it cannot bear. It is indeed dangerous to do so since the amendment allows to take your liberty after due process of law. For example a state could take away your right to free speech simply by passing a law
Thank you for the closed captioning.
Very interesting analysis! Thank you
They could have quoted Hamilton on construing words!
I've been working towards law school for a few years now, and I'm feeling very discouraged by the quality of these recent SCOTUS decisions.
If the reasoning which supports these big shifts were strong, I could wrap my mind around that.
If reason isn't enough to prevent this kind of doctrine, how on earth will narrative help?
You caring and your incredulity are precisely what help prevent these sorts of indoctrinations, my man
Fantastic lecture. Need more scholars like Professors Coughlin and Gordon.
Her statement at 0:00:17 is wrong. It is lacking in integrity and historical context. She fails to realize that there is no constitutional right to conduct abortions. A majority of the current justices agree. It is thus settled as a constitutional matter. It is obvious that a majority of the 115 justices that have ever served would, as well as the Framers that wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the legislature that wrote and voted in the 14th amendment, agree with these two things: 1) Rights do not come from men and their constructs, but instead from their Creator and 2) Redundant to the first point, nowhere in the 14th amendment or elsewhere in the constitution is there any legitimate creation of an abortion right.
Excellent presentation. Time will tell about other fundamental rights and whether these fundamental rights are in danger as was fundamental right to abortion and a woman's bodily integrity.
Supreme Court said abortion is not a constitutional right
No one has a fundamental right to kill a human being just because he or she is inconvenient
And what is a fundamental right anyway. How do I distinguish them from non fundamental rights? The constitution doesn’t make such a distinction.
Is a right to polygamous marriage fundamental? How would I find out?
My religion -- Cathar -- forbids procreation. (There are other religions that forbid followers to reproduce as well such as Shakers.) Cathars are highly discouraged from marriage and sex but it's specifically procreation that is absolutely forbidden. (We don't believe it's ethical to create more souls to suffer in this existence. We believe it's evil to entrap a divine soul in a body in this world full of evils. We also believe it delays the return of Christ.) Can I sue for religious discrimination if my state bans abortion?
I guarantee ensoulment or personhood doesn't happen at conception. How do I know? Identical twins can form around day 10 and they don't share a soul. What occurs after that time that gives a developing pregnancy moral consideration? I think the answer is the development of sentience which happens around week 17. Although a zygote or embryo is alive, it doesn't makes sense to give rights to a life that has never had any self-interest whatsoever. Life only cares about itself once it becomes sentient so I would argue that until it has developed the ability to have thoughts and feelings (i.e. a functional nervous system with brain waves) it can't be considered an individual person separate from the one carrying it.
Our country was largely founded on the right to religious freedom. Judeo-Christian ethics have influenced our laws to a huge extent but we the people believe in protecting other religious beliefs. You mentioned Judaism in this presentation. Muslims believe ensoulment happens at 120 days which is about 17 weeks. Buddhism believes a soul doesn't become permanently attached to the developing pregnancy for awhile but doesn't give a specific time frame. Catholicism admits it doesn't know exactly when ensoulment happens so to error on the side of caution they believe in protecting potential life even before it has personhood. Islam is one of the rare religions that actually names the time ensoulment occurs. Muslims believe ensoulment happens at 120 days which is approximately 17 week. Interestingly that was chosen before scientists knew exactly how a pregnancy developed but whether by divine revelation or amazing coincidence, that aligns with the approximate time the developing life becomes sentient.
SCOTUS was actually wrong about abortion not being a part of our tradition. Medical abortion has been common since before our country was even founded but it was more hush hush. There weren't laws made about it until later. So traditionally abortion was legal.
Thank you!
Thomas is absolutely right. Any case decided using substantive due process is illegitimate and should be overturned. Doing this would not only have the good effect of ridding us of decisions repugnant to the constitution, it would also inhibit further depredations. For example polygamy will come before the court in the future. Polygamists will claim the liberty of marrying 3 people is protected by the 14 th amendment. They will cite Obergefell. Only a proper understanding of the word liberty as used in the fourteenth amendment, and an understanding that this amendment concerns procedure and not substance will prevent polygamy from becoming the law of the land
The fifth and fourteenth amendments are not a blank slates into which unscrupulous justices can write in left wing policy preferences
What harm is done by allowing consenting adults to have polygamous marriages?
Remember Dred Scott was decided using substantive due process.
Ok, now do one about mandating vaccines and bodily autonomy
Seems like highly qualified individuals to be educating people on the Supreme Court and its decisions. Nothing like learning constitutional law from a gender studies and music professor
Hello
O'Connor flip-flopped her reasoning from a previous abortion case to justify Casey's reach. Kennedy was not pleased. Thanks to Roe, even the Washington Post, that bastion of conservatism (note sarcasm), concluded that the US had one of the most liberal sets of abortion laws on the planet.
The part of the fourteenth amendment she is talking about is a procedural one, not a substantive one. Her entire analysis is wrongheaded from the start and actually poses a danger to actual rights enumerated in the constitution
This is the trash being produced by these law schools now
Due process is what should protect someone from capital punishment at the hand of mommy dearest who is acting selfishly to kill a person (their own child) just to get financially ahead. It’s disgusting.
Wow, you're clearly unbiased 🤣🤣🤣
Court did the right thing with Dobbs. A step towards integrity, upholding the ACTUAL LAW.
I hope Gideon is next!
Can professors at least pretend to be neutral?
When people talk about ivory tower bias, this is what they are talking about.
"well settled"
Leaving Roe in place left us with tougher questions than the overruling of Roe does.
"Dobbs is a brutal example..."
Why are the questions you are asking during this Dobbs review about ignoring your generalization on what you think are homogeneous opinions of women, POC (cringe), LGBTQ? Maybe ask about something substantive. This analysis is poisoned by politics, despite the lack of politics stated in the opinion.
So she thinks that Dobbs legal reasoning was based on perspectives and narratives that exclude women. Totally baseless straw man attack. Logical fallacy coming in hot! Citation please, professor! Please cite specifically where this occurs with detail so we can see this isn't your biased tenured opinion.
Both sides agreed that Roe/Casey should be either be upheld or overturned unlike what this professor is claiming. On page 13: They contend that “no half-measures” are available and that we must either reaffirm or overrule Roe and Casey. The takeaway is if you're claiming something as a right, that's not enumerated in the Constitution, it needs to be deeply rooted in our history and traditions of our nation AND your self-proclaimed right is limited based on the need of order in our society. I love this standard!!!
Why is a music/feminist/ underwater basket weaving instructor included in such a serious conversation this is laughable.
How in the world can someone pretend to be a law professor and talk about a constitutional right to abortion. No one who wrote or voted for the 14th amendment intended it to in anyway grant a right to abortion. If you want to erode separation of powers and legislate from the bench, fine. If you want to vote and have the legislative branch create a new law that does create a right to abortion, fine. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't pretend the 14th amendment was in anyway intended to even remotely implicitly grant anything like a right to abortion.
Introduction is blatantly opposite what the decision was. Professor Propaganda
The right to free expression is a liberty guaranteed by the first amendment. If we were to take substantive due process seriously we would have to say you can be deprived of the liberty of free expression if due process of law is followed. This absurd conclusion is reached because of this law professor’s inability to take the use of the word liberty in the 14th amendment in context. From the context deprivation of liberty just refers to incarceration. It is not meant to encompass all of the liberties we enjoy. Otherwise a legislature could pass a law nullifying freedom of the press just by passing a law and claiming due process was followed.
There is no constitutional right to kill another human being without due process unless they are in the process of depriving you of your right to life. That’s called self defense. If you’re a lawyer then you already know due process is required even to kill a mass murderer and even then it’s a lengthy appellate process. You can’t even evict someone from a house you own without due process. That’s all this case is or should be about. Infants in utero are still humans and they have distinct DNA separate from every other human making them an individual.
A "lady" once said to me... "you shouldn't dictate what others do with their bodies". This was my reply. I assume you mean that the baby within her womb is her body and that she should have complete autonomy over the baby? This belief of yours, if it is in fact your belief, is bizarre. Consider the following application of your belief. A woman has a fetish for piercing. In fact her fetish leans heavily on the gothic grotesque side of the spectrum. So at 12 weeks pregnant she chooses to have laproscopic surgery to have the baby within her womb given a piercing through the frontal lobe of the baby's brain. She has it done expertly such that the baby is only maimed and not killed. She wants to give birth to a baby with a hideous looking Gothic piercing through the temporal lobe that would cause a lifelong cognitive disfunction. She is also fascinated with death, so she creates a life ending machine that will end her own life a couple weeks after she gives birth. Her plan is to give birth to the baby and then she plans on ensuring the father is identified and legally liable for the cost of the birth and the cost of the raising the child for the next 18 years. She then kills herself.
From your point of view, everything that she did was to her own body. Remember she has complete bodily autonomy right?
did you watch the video?