So, in reading some of briefing in Dobbs, something strikes me. The Court will have to confront actual science this time that establishes human life already exists pre-viability. Court can lie, pretend it doesn't matter to "avoid question," or accept reality. 1/
2/ If Court does #3, challenge for Court will be to access (invent) constitutional principle re when state can allow or disallow destruction of human life. But that is a moral or philosophical question that justices neither can nor should answer.
3/ And if Court attempts to "punt," saying since different moral/philosophical beliefs on this question so we must defer to moms' view, the Court IS deciding what moral/philosophical position wins.
4/4 Keep that in mind when folks wrongly claim pro-lifers are attempting to force their moral/philosophical beliefs on others: The only one doing that would be the court if it trumps a legislature's assessment of right/wrong interests, etc.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
