Legal expert weighs in on arguments in Supreme Court over Mississippi abortion law

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments over a law in Mississippi than bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case is putting the future of Roe v. Wade in doubt. CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford reports on the latest. Then, CBS News legal contributor and Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson joins CBSN's Lana Zak to discuss.

[peterinmiami]

That's like saying overturning slavery has been part of the American Fabric for to many years to overturn it.

[Patrick.Edgar.Regini]

A woman's right and responsibility regarding pregnancy and "her body" STARTS WHEN SHE HAS SEX WITH A MALE, because abortion is not about her alone EVER. Abortion equally involves the right of the human being being formed and the father of that child.
The critical logic behind abortion today is erroneously based on a liberal individualist and entirely selfish premise. It simply does not pan out and thus why it is completely unstable, countries cultures and societies are always in a state of "should we change our minds about this?". The reason is because the logic the United States and Britain pushed onto the West regarding abortion is inherently flawed because of these aforementioned miss applied ideologies.

[frankzappa]

I have a question, if 11 states ignore federal law on immigration because they feel immigration laws are morally wrong and 46 states ignore federal law on marijuana because they also feel marijuana laws are morally wrong, why can't states ignore other federal laws they also feel are morally wrong?

[kaialexander]

Pray! Preborn babies deserve protection!

[levanmikadze]

I came for legal expertise, I got 7 minutes of one sided opinions....
Another L for MSM.

[oldfordman]

Its a simple concept a woman choosing to get a abortion is none of your business it is between her and her doctor. If abortion is a sin your not the one getting it so your not the one who has to answer to God for it.
Your not the one performing the abortion so your not the one who has to answer for it.
Focus on your life and your actions before you judge somebody else's

[mikehall]

Take note fathers rights never even enter the conversation.

[williamfranz]

You have no examples of the Court recognising a fundemental right and then unrecognising that right 50 years later.
Stare Decisis has folded into partisan political opportunity, and rights can now be declared unrecognised.

[cheriberryman]

I have lost all my respect for the Supreme Court, since the seating of two justices who lied to be able to take thier seats.

[DemocratsrPDFfiles]

Wow, alot of serial killer Karen's and Kyle's in this thread 🙄

[lacedariusmcknightenberg]

Here’s the MSM experts again to tell you how you feel

[joeshmoe]

I'd be curious to know how the question was framed to arrive at that '64% of Americans do not support overturning Roe v Wade' figure. Overturn? Not necessarily, but I feel like there is room for adjustment.

[ChristopherJones_terptime_]

These people aren't pro-life they're pro-birth. If they were pro-life they would want a whole lot of support for these parents.

[kirk]

Again...this just started the end of this country...

[MrTee-deto]

Where does a woman’s right to choose end and the unborn child’s rights to life start? In my opinion, that’s the question that must be decided. It’s a sliding scale that as each day and month passes moves from the mother towards the unborn child. I don’t believe that just because the female is the one carrying the baby that it gives her absolute rights over the life of the unborn child from conception to birth. In my opinion, after looking at medical information, that after the first trimester the child has its own right to life. Now, this could and should be debated, but somewhere in the time between conception and before birth the child’s right to life takes precedence over the woman’s right to choose. The physical health of the mother and possibly rape or incest are exceptions that should be debated.

[Patrick.Edgar.Regini]

If you ask me to define myself as either "pro-life" or "pro-abortion", I would have to answer I am "pro all three lives".
I am pro life, with reservation for extreme and rare exceptions handled appropriately, such as malformation, or the shared reluctance of both parents in accordance and in accountability before the law. We cannot and should not obligate women to bear children, but we can make a society and a culture that results in very rarely occurring undesired cases warranting abortion, and when we do it it should be not involving dismembering, but through much more compassionate passive methods.
-
The key in my understanding of this subject matter, is equalizing the male's participation in every instance and at ever level according to his gender role before the question of a possible abortion. If the male does not want an abortion then the baby should be born, just as today we honor the women's wish regardless of the male's disposition. If a male forced himself or attempts to disappear, the law should bring him to accountability at the time of that abortion, and not treat the two matters separately. What this means is that if a woman presents herself independently before a doctor to have an abortion, it should be illegal to hide it from the father, and it should be the woman's and the state's responsibility to present that father before the medical institution and the law before the abortion in those cases where he is not present or cannot be immediately located in order to obtain his recognition and acknowledgment of the situation, as well as his wishes. Extremely dishonoring circumstances such as rape would at this point offer the women the option of aborting, but only after the transgression was made evident.
The point of this different way of reasoning abortion is that by installing these new or rather revised principals and values through the law, our future generations will have a different much more responsible and mature attitude as part of their cultural personality towards sex, honing our future youth to know how to burden properly the responsibility of sex rather than already start early on thinking of delegating it to the medical institution or the area of civil rights law, which today are thought of as being there to clean up our mistakes and neglects.
-
Pregnancy and the unfortunate event of an abortion should be about how human we are, and what caliber character of a society we build for our country. It should not be a matter of pseudo-logical ideologies focused on directing people's behaviour or their thinking. It should be a matter of shoring up the natural social form evolution gave us including its natural psychology by being sensitive and responsive to its unchangeable design. Needless to say we should also make an effort at the cultural level and stop teaching our youth and children that sex is just a passtime or adventure, or a question of category choices and social groupings. We need to become a more responsible and mature society about our true physiological form and about ourselves by being more observant and mindful of our naturally evolved form, rather than think we can instruct our social form through conceptual structurally artificial ideas based on creative life philosophies.This is how we will come to have tomorrow a tiny fraction of the number of abortions we have today. We will achieve it by addressing the rights and responsibilities of all three lives, not just two lives, not just only the will of one of the three beings who are concerned in the matter, finally solving the problem through a natural conscientious balance that should work itself out with our proper support in the right places. A problem we ourselves created the day medicine made available this lamentable self deprecating procedure.

We trust women in our lives to decide what's best for themselves in freedom and privacy. Who on earth disagrees with this??

[JohnWick-czhf]

I think it's is a woman choice why would bring up a child in a abusive house hold because they will never get over that abusive

[khai]

i feel as if 15 weeks is a enough time to decide if you want to keep it or not

[everettwatson]

Abortion are not in the constitution! True. Abortion is not made made procedure. Abortion is a act which can occur naturally inside the woman. The court is wrong to state that assisting a women to abort is against the law. A women can decide to have sex without conception. It happens to the justices when the have sex with their wives. Sex is not a guarantee that the women will conceive. Many have couples have tried to conceive and have not. if abortion is illegal then adoption should be illegal. The court can not implement half measures to deal with an area that is not their concern. If the women is forced to have the child she should be forced to keep it as a matter of law. Adoption is not a band aid for a bad judicial decision.