The Death of abortion Rights In America W/Ben Bayer, Onkar Ghate & Yaron Brook

In Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned the 50 year precedent, Roe v Wade, allowing for immediate state level bans on abortion.

What philosophical ideas led the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade? Why were defenders of abortion rights unable to succeed in their defense? What political options are available now for those who still want to safeguard abortion rights, and individual freedom, in America?

Join Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, and Ben Bayer this week for a special joint episode of New Ideal Live and the Yaron Brook Show. They will examine the reasoning behind both the Dobbs decision and the dissent, and discuss the path forward for individual freedom in America.






#Twitter #Facebook #Polarization #Objectivism​ #AynRand #politics

[TeaParty]

Im surprised that Tara Smith participated in these various Objectivist abortion discusssions only once. Her _Legal Review_ had an excellent discussion on objective concepts and legal methodology. Just on the basis or her book, it seems that she''s the leading Objectivist expert on the SC. And HM Holzer should have been included. His 1980s, _Sweet Land_, predicted the current attack on abortion and provided a history of the very early SC rejection of individualism. Still, Ghate, Bayer and Brook have provided an unpleasant eye-opener on the SC's ignorance and dishonesty. I formertly thought that those justices were intellectually competent even when attacking rights. Now I know that they are excellent memorizers of a chaos of non-essential concretes that rationalizes principles they evade identifying. Re that, Objectivists should prioritize an attack on their hidden, anti-Constitutional Christianity and then call for impeachment. Every single YouTube discussion attacking abortion that Ive read was implicitly Christian. And when I press the point to the posters, they become hysterical and leave. Also, these Objectivist discussions make the ones on TV seem virtually irrelevant.

[kennethobrien]

Is there a history of charging the murder of a pregnant woman as two homicides? Also, is it worth asking whether a fetus is entitled to protection, at all? Thanks.

[scarletpimpernel]

You've given lots of standard links to making donations to you in your show notes, but not one on the actual previous Roe v Wade commentary you claimed you all talked about (not the previous Yaron livestream) when the leak first came out.

[kennethobrien]

Abortion rights up until the time of birth? At 9 months? Is that the position of the Libertarian Party, either historically or presently? Thanks

[netanelsabag]

Its so funny to me that the people who make the argument that human life is the basis of thier morality and no one has the right to impose thier will on others by force even if its to thier benefit are willing to give that all up in a second

[achaiaha]

The biggest issue I think you guys are missing is this: Does the law, as written and enforced, produce the desired outcome? After 50 years of Roe vs. Wade and 63+M abortions I would strongly contend that while correct in spirit, the practical application of the law has negatively impacted the nation in a major way. 63M people is equivalent to a large nation such as France, the UK, Italy, Argentina etc. Surely there is room to consider the observed outcome and not just the philosophy here. Laws shouldn't be written in a vacuum or only argue a philosophical point. If a law doesn't work after a while, it ought to be revised.

[Instigatin]

Did there need to be a legitimate reason for the court to choose to hear the Mississippi law which has led to Roe being struck down?
Shouldn't the state law have simply been struck down instead since Roe is established precedent? Doesn't something "new" have to be presented? Isn't the entire SCOTUS approach here corrupt?
I'm not familiar with the process.