DiabloWags said:

---

Collins and Murkowski had introduced a narrower bill to protect abortion rights, but they oppose weakening the 60 vote threshold and were extremely unlikely to flip while Democrats control the chamber.

Not sure why some people continue to ignore this most salient fact.


Democrats Plan a Bid to Codify Roe, but Lack the Votes to Succeed - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

white President and white senators would rather have abortion right as a fund raising and mid-terms vote puling devise for the masses of women who will die traveling to a nearby state. It's on you white buddy., and you're four your old thought concepts of blame

---

What a crock. Show me the 50 votes to terminate the filibuster. You can't and so you are just plain full of it.

---

I claim you can't read. Did you even open the link to the Politico article? I didn't come up with 2 GOP senators, they did.

---

Who can't read? You are making a fool of yourself.

"The failed vote is the latest example of the constraints Democrats face in a 50-50 Senate. While the possible reversal of Roe has some senators calling for a workaround or end to the legislative filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation, there's zero chance of that happening this Congress given opposition from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). Further, even if they could kill or amend the filibuster, Democrats don't even have a simple majority that would vote to enact federal protections for abortion."

---

Let's do the math.

From the article: " Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who support abortion rights, opposed the Democratic bill. They see that legislation as too expansive and are instead pushing a narrower alternative that would codify the Roe and Casey decisions the Supreme Court is expected to overturn."

So Roe and Casey could have been codified because Collins and Murkowski were prepared to vote that way. Substitute Collins and Murkowski for Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in your prior sentence and your argument becomes BS.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Why do continue to be so illiterate on legal matters?

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Does your math get them to 60 votes to override the inevitable filibuster? Will Collins and Murkowski commit to that?

---

The Senate by a mere majority vote for a rule change can remove a matter from the 60 vote filibuster requirement, and both parties have done so; for example, when it comes to voting on judges. Collins and
Murkowski said they were prepared to vote with the Dems to do so.

---

Collins and Murkowski said they'd override the filibuster for an abortion bill? Source?

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

In Lafayette, Louisiana, where Catholic Churches rang bells the day Roe was repealed, a woman peacefully protesting near a church on the UL Lafayette campus bravely faces intimidation from church workers. Photo cred: Jacob Cavallaro @lighttheframe pic.twitter.com/dOYHXx7OZ7

— Caro Goude (@Carogoudela) June 28, 2022

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

Quote:

---

In the eyes of many Jewish leaders, anti-abortion laws are particularly distressing because they contradict Jewish halakha the laws drawn from the Torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud, the most sacred and authoritative texts in the tradition according to Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom synagogue in Los Angeles.

Feinstein cited several passages from Jewish scripture that have grounded the religion's position on reproductive rights in the modern era, such as a line from the Judaic oral tradition stating that the life of a "woman who is having difficulty in giving birth" must "take precedence."

He said the reasoning undergirding anti-abortion legislation in some conservative-skewing states typically comes out of conservative Christian theology ignoring the Jewish principle that a fetus in the womb has "potential" but not the status of full personhood.

"The idea that life begins at conception is a philosophical idea, and the source of that idea is a religious source: Catholic and evangelical interpretation of scripture," Feinstein said. "But our tradition has a different idea, that full life begins at birth, and there is a different moral standard.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

6 Catholic clerics, none of whom will ever need to consider terminating a pregnancy (and only one of whom has ever been in that position), just decided that their religious law is more important than allowing women to have access to the full set of reproductive healthcare services that modern medicine affords. We are not a Catholic country (~1/5 Americans identify as Catholic), yet more than 3/4 of SCOTUS is Catholic. This was a religious ruling, not one based on the constitution.

As I recall, you may be of the Jewish faith or have identified as Jewish in the past. Many Jewish leaders argue that this opinion permits states to contradict halakha by preventing pregnant Jewish women from exercising their historical right to access termination.

Quote:

---

In the eyes of many Jewish leaders, anti-abortion laws are particularly distressing because they contradict Jewish halakha the laws drawn from the Torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud, the most sacred and authoritative texts in the tradition according to Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom synagogue in Los Angeles.

Feinstein cited several passages from Jewish scripture that have grounded the religion's position on reproductive rights in the modern era, such as a line from the Judaic oral tradition stating that the life of a "woman who is having difficulty in giving birth" must "take precedence."

He said the reasoning undergirding anti-abortion legislation in some conservative-skewing states typically comes out of conservative Christian theology ignoring the Jewish principle that a fetus in the womb has "potential" but not the status of full personhood.

"The idea that life begins at conception is a philosophical idea, and the source of that idea is a religious source: Catholic and evangelical interpretation of scripture," Feinstein said. "But our tradition has a different idea, that full life begins at birth, and there is a different moral standard.

---

You can pretend that this historical practice is "radical" and that politicians are "extreme" on both sides, but the reality is that this opinion cherry-picked history and practices that the six deciding clerics favor for themselves. As is consistent with Jewish practices, I support a woman's right to choose. I don't believe any limits need to be placed on it by government theocrats based on a religious tradition that doesn't apply to all women. People who don't believe abortion is consistent with their religious practices are free to not terminate their own pregnancies. They don't have the right to tell other people what to do.

The extreme view here is applying Catholic norms (which not all Catholics choose to abide by) to American women based on the whims of the gerrymandered state legislature for the state they happen to live in.

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

6 Catholic clerics, none of whom will ever need to consider terminating a pregnancy (and only one of whom has ever been in that position), just decided that their religious law is more important than allowing women to have access to the full set of reproductive healthcare services that modern medicine affords. We are not a Catholic country (~1/5 Americans identify as Catholic), yet more than 3/4 of SCOTUS is Catholic. This was a religious ruling, not one based on the constitution.

As I recall, you may be of the Jewish faith or have identified as Jewish in the past. Many Jewish leaders argue that this opinion permits states to contradict halakha by preventing pregnant Jewish women from exercising their historical right to access termination.

Quote:

---

In the eyes of many Jewish leaders, anti-abortion laws are particularly distressing because they contradict Jewish halakha the laws drawn from the Torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud, the most sacred and authoritative texts in the tradition according to Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom synagogue in Los Angeles.

Feinstein cited several passages from Jewish scripture that have grounded the religion's position on reproductive rights in the modern era, such as a line from the Judaic oral tradition stating that the life of a "woman who is having difficulty in giving birth" must "take precedence."

He said the reasoning undergirding anti-abortion legislation in some conservative-skewing states typically comes out of conservative Christian theology ignoring the Jewish principle that a fetus in the womb has "potential" but not the status of full personhood.

"The idea that life begins at conception is a philosophical idea, and the source of that idea is a religious source: Catholic and evangelical interpretation of scripture," Feinstein said. "But our tradition has a different idea, that full life begins at birth, and there is a different moral standard.

---

You can pretend that this historical practice is "radical" and that politicians are "extreme" on both sides, but the reality is that this opinion cherry-picked history and practices that the six deciding clerics favor for themselves. As is consistent with Jewish practices, I support a woman's right to choose. I don't believe any limits need to be placed on it by government theocrats based on a religious tradition that doesn't apply to all women. People who don't believe abortion is consistent with their religious practices are free to not terminate their own pregnancies. They don't have the right to tell other people what to do.

The extreme view here is applying Catholic norms (which not all Catholics choose to abide by) to American women based on the whims of the gerrymandered state legislature for the state they happen to live in.

---

I wouldn't be so sure that Catholic clerics would never have need for an abortion. When my mother's cousin was raped by a priest (no punishment) she was pre-pubescent. But I don't think Catholic priests have only raped the pre-pubescent.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

The only woman in the majority is 50 years old. She is unlikely to ever become pregnant and have to face the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy. The five men averaging 65 years old may have been involved in a partner's decision decades ago (or more recently with a mistress, I suppose) but this isn't an acute issue for them.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed against the Rational Basis test themselves. That standard is very low so most restrictions will now be allowed that previously would have been disallowed. The standard necessarily involves judgement about what is Rational. Eventually one district will rule differently on a set of restrictions from another and eventually SCOTUS will take that case. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed against the Rational Basis test themselves. That standard is very low so most restrictions will now be allowed that previously would have been disallowed. The standard necessarily involves judgement about what is Rational. Eventually one district will rule differently on a set of restrictions from another and eventually SCOTUS will take that case. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Okay, I can see how that might work. And like you I don't understand why they chose to make it so messy, when Roberts' "clean" option was right there on the table.

That leads me to the conclusion that they're making a political statement more than laying out an actual workable legal standard. That also does not make me confident that they'll adhere to any kind of consistent standard for the cases that come later.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---