How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade

  • Am Vor Monat

    LegalEagleLegalEagle

    This is a sea change at the Supreme Court. ⛑ Tab for a Cause just launched Tab for Reproductive Health that will raise money for reproductive rights legaleagle.link/tfac

    Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
    🚀 Extended & ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream! legaleagle.link/extras
    👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino

    GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
    Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show

    MY COURSES
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
    Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
    Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse

    SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
    Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
    Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
    Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
    Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
    Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
    Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
    OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
    Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon

    BUSINESS INQUIRIES
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
    Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv

    LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
    Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

    Special thanks:
    Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
    Music provided by Epidemic Sound
    Short links by pixelme.me ( pxle.me/eagle )
    Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

ryan
ryan

For anyone just finding LegalEagle I have to say, this is him being very serious/somber. Can definitely feel this video.

Vor Monat
OriginalPiMan
OriginalPiMan

@Rodney Daut It's not explicit, but it is strongly implicit because the inverse is ridiculous. The Constitution requires the counting of all people in America, every 10 years. If fetuses are deemed to be people, then they must be counted. To count such people would require that every woman know whether they are pregnant on census day. And if they know they are pregnant, then they must also determine whether they are pregnant with just one child on the way or multiple.

Vor Tag
Rodney Daut
Rodney Daut

@OriginalPiMan The Constitution does not say when life begins.

Vor Tag
Rodney Daut
Rodney Daut

@Sweets_YT do do bioethicists not eat?

Vor Tag
sigma male
sigma male

@Matt Burgess naahh bro got the lofi pfp and expects to be taken seriously 😭😭

Vor 3 Tage
theshadow21
theshadow21

I greatly appreciate this channel, not just for the more lighthearted videos like Lawyer Reacts to.. videos but also the more significant rulings. Thank you for the time you take to guide us through the complex legalese and helping us see the process.

Vor Monat
Imperium Magistrate
Imperium Magistrate

and this guy is completely wrong

Vor 16 Tage
Cool Kid
Cool Kid

Ok

Vor 18 Tage
Samuel Souza
Samuel Souza

A lawyer that doesn't know that abortion is not a constitutional right.

Vor 21 Tag
Tom Chorak
Tom Chorak

@Derek H. did you find clarence thomas' conclusions legally accurate?

Vor Monat
Tom Chorak
Tom Chorak

@Derek H. Even the justices who disagreed with the decision didn't make a constitutional argument for abortion, because it's not there.

Vor Monat
David Neely
David Neely

I'm happy I watched this. I haven't found anywhere else that went into the legal reasons behind this ruling in a sober well thought out manner. Thank you for this

Vor Monat
No Sender
No Sender

@Dimitrios Kantakouzinos The constitution also does not mention your individual right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia. Nor does it mention your right to self defense against other citizens- only against a tyrannical government. SCOTUS established both of those in the Heller case in 2002. The right to abortion, access to contraception, marriage to the partner of your choosing, obtaining IVF procedures, and many more decisions made, were established under substantive due process of the 14th ammendment- which includes the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy. Also the 9th ammendment protects unenummerated rights, not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Not to mention, the 4th ammendment, which would be violated in trying to enforce a ban against any of the things protected by substantive due process. The Supreme Court exists as part of the system of checks and balances to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Fundamental rights are not subject to the democratic process or the states' rights. They are fundamental, which means afforded to everyone in the country. Considering that 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage before the point of viability, and the baby cant survive outside of the womb before that, the states have no compelling interest in regulating abortion before that point in time. And any person has the right of bodily autonomy- thanks to the 14th ammendment- to decide whether they will donate any part of their body to save the life of another. Even if you are the cause of a person needing a donation, and you are the only viable donor for them, you cant be forced to donate any part of your body. Why would pregnancy be any different? Why would an unborn baby have more rights than any other person in the country, to use someone else's body against their will? At this point in time, a dead person has more rights to bodily autonomy that a pregnant woman. These things have zero legal rationale.

Vor 3 Stunden
Dimitrios Kantakouzinos
Dimitrios Kantakouzinos

@Zelorp Nope, there is zero mention of abortion anywhere in the 'amendments'. You apparently have not even read them. As for your 'legal arguments', you can make a specious legal argument for anything. But it of course makes no sense.

Vor 21 Tag
Zelorp
Zelorp

The amendments absolutely do. And don’t take my word for it, there are plenty of legal arguments that make that case.

Vor 21 Tag
Robert Gardiner
Robert Gardiner

Since finding this channel I've only grown to appreciate it more and more. Hearing about all the crazy events that made news the past few years from the objective perspective of a lawyer has been strangely comforting, Having it all explained in a way I can understand often gives me the courage to confront it. Thank you, You have saved me many a break down sir.

Vor Monat
QvsTheWorld
QvsTheWorld

@Nyet Zdyec It warms my heart to see that we are making progress when it come to making you acknowledge basic fact about what you actually said even thought you slipped back a bit in the second half of your first sentence. I hope that with a little bit of luck and handwork we'll see even more progress in other area. Oh the horror! The rest of the comment is just getting worst! Before I start pointing out all the things you are doing wrong, and there are many, let me just remind you that you can make all of this go away by simply recognizing that you were the one who brought up slavery first for no good reason. Here is a template you you can use: "Although I still stand by my pro-life belief, I admit that my comparison between slavery and right to an abortion was unnecessarily inflammatory and poorly thought out. Same applies to the infantile use of words written in all caps. I recognize the importance of choosing my words wisely and will apply myself more in the future." And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. Saying Tech Freak mentioned slavery first is simply an outright lie that you expose yourself by quoting them directly. Saying "forcing people to give birth against their will" is the most neutral factual way to describe denying pregnant people access to abortion. No hyperbole or unrelated analogy here. I'm going to give you another advice, I guess I must be taking a liking to you and wish to see you growth, in the same way it's never a good idea to talk about your ex on a date it's equally bad form to bring up unrelated people in what I will charitably call a debate. Once you mentioned slavery you essentially invited to the whole word to come and correct you. You might be surprise to learn that slavery is not really part of my list of preferred topic, even when it come to abortion rights. My argument for the preservation of body autonomy of pregnant people stand very well on its own without any appeal to slavery to stir emotions. I'm much more found of reminding people that we do not use the law to force people to give blood, donate organs or put themselves at risk to save another person's life. I also find it somewhat beside the point to observe that it singularly affect people who can give birth, but it does not go unnoticed. "Clump of cells / Parasite" Even more deflection to unrelated people outside the conversation saying thing that I have no memory ever endorsing in the course of our debate. If you want to debate these people you are more than welcome to do so without bothering me about it. Sorry but I have a hard imagining slavery as anything but a moral issue. I love how one moment you can equivocate pro-choice and pro-slavery supporters and then go on to compare unwanted pregnancies from consensual sex with the triviality of loosing lottery ticket. Doubling down on a loosing argument again, this is becoming tedious, law and society at large generally accept casual sex between consenting adult. Given that no contraception method is 100% effective, the presence of a fetus does not prove that no adequate measure were taken. Just like one can get into an car accident while driving safely. Unless your intention is to criminalize sex for non-reproductive purpose. In any cases, this would not invalidate the right to body autonomy, because even if we can all agree that unprotected sex is irresponsible we can not justify forcing someone to give birth as a punishment. I think you might be suffering from tunnel vision when it comes to fetuses if you think I can not hold sympathy for both mother and fetus. Let's remove those blinds for a moment and consider this scenario a person is trapped within a burning building and there is somebody else walking by in the street who know about the trapped person. In this scenario it would be quite heroic from the outsider to risk their life to save that person, but they would not be legally forced to do so even if the loss of life remain quite tragic. Again you should heed my advice about the value of steelmaning your opponents position, latching on the matter of convenience here makes your argumentative unconvincing, lazy and sloppy. My full quote was that donating blood is both safer and more convenient than giving birth. I would also like to point out that even with all snarky remarks I only call you out on things you actually expressed. As for the right of the fetus, we recognize many type of rights, but we also recognize that some take precedence over others. You yourself mentioned that the right to privacy does not invalidate another person's right to life. As for me I do recognize the right to life of the unborn and it would be a much simpler matter if humans where simply laying eggs like bird. In this word I would totally support the criminalization of the destruction of fertilized eggs. As for our current reality, we do socially and legally recognized that the right to body autonomy should not be infringed on the basis of right to life. No one, whatever the reason or relationship, is ever force to give blood, organs or put themselves in danger to sustain/protect the life of somebody else. Because I do not care to prolong this conversation, that has already taken much more of my time that I would have liked, I will not answer your question about my age and instead ask you a question that you can feel free to not answer back "Were you born after 2010?"

Vor 19 Tage
Nyet Zdyec
Nyet Zdyec

@ETJ I seem to have left out the "s" on the end of my statement about Websters definitionS... I'll go back and edit it to clarify that.

Vor 19 Tage
ETJ
ETJ

@Nyet Zdyec  now you have a better argument by using the definitions of human and person then arguing from that. Much better. The mistake you did in the beginning was claiming Webster defines a fetus as a person. It doesn't can easily be checked. Someone reading that could take that as you being insincere and dismiss all you say based on that. By changing it to the definitions of human and person and from that connect to fetus you are this time making the same point but from a much more solid standpoint. I was unclear myself. I failed to explain that I didn't argue your point, just the way you argued it. I spotted a mistake and tried to inform you about it.

Vor 20 Tage
Nyet Zdyec
Nyet Zdyec

@QvsTheWorld I'm the first to use the WORD "slavery" in the context of this thread... but NOT the first to bring up the CONCEPT... Tech Freak mentioned it first in his(?) comment about "forcing people to give birth against their will". It's also quite commonly used, including the specific word, in the context of the wider public discourse, if not in this specific subset/thread. Furthermore... YOUR use of the term "willful employment" (and calling it "bait") is just an attempt to equate slavery with pregnancy, simply using other words, just like Tech Freak. Likewise, there is a significant portion of the pro-choice crowd who call fetuses "a clump of cells", and others who call them "parasites". DO they recognize that the fetus has any right to life? Their words and actions strongly suggest otherwise. The parallels that I drew between slavery and pro-choice were primarily SOCIETAL and legal... effects on society, etc., not morality, as such... I was drawing parallels between the EFFECTS ON SOCIETY caused by the LEGALITY of slavery and legality of abortion... and how the issues were divisive... and as I explicitly said, the lack of legal status as persons NOT "enjoyed" by Blacks/fetuses. There are also parallels between people "accepting established facts/"rights""... and parallels between LOSING those "established facts/"rights". You find my argument that "they didn't take adequate preventative steps" to be weak? Really? I would suggest that the existence of a fetus is PROOF that they did not, in fact, take ADEQUATE measures. As for YOUR comment about the only thing that matters is if she wants to give birth or not"... and being sympathetic for the FETUS in the case of a miscarriage... Sounds like some cognitive dissonance or a double standard, or hypocrisy going on. I don't doubt that you have sympathy for the mother... For the fetus? When you obviously consider it disposable, even when it's simply for the sake of convenience, which IS part of your argument? YOU said it yourself... the only thing that matters to you is whether or not she's willing to give birth. Your exact words: "To me the only thing that ever mattered was if the person who were to give birth wanted to or not." Now, if you will, let me ask you a question... Being vague, in order to help preserve your anonymity... Were you born some time AFTER 1973?

Vor 20 Tage
QvsTheWorld
QvsTheWorld

@Nyet Zdyec So your first reaction to me pointing out that you were the first person to bring up the subject of slavery is to deflect to other people outside the context of the current comment thread? So much for personal responsibility. I was so caught off guard by your reply that I had to go double check to make sure I wasn't replying to the wrong person and was ready to issue an apology (that's the thing you do when you mess up). The parallels you drew with your comparison was that the pro-choice crowd by not recognizing the humanity and right to life of fetuses now, would not recognized the humanity and right to life of fully grown black men and women. This is a purely unsubstantiated conjuncture that does nothing but cast pro-choice advocate as equally morally reprehensible as slavery supporters. You would be hard press to find a pro-choice advocate who would not feel pity for both mother and future child when hearing about a miscarriage. Because, as previously pointed, the issue is about the right to body autonomy and not the brutalization of fetuses for fun and profit. This is why I thought your ill-conceive analogy was deserving of scorn and ridicule. Thank you for taking the bait about "willful employment" and generously expose your desire to punish women who partake in sex for non reproductive purposes under the pretense of personal responsibility (coming from the person who can't even take responsibility for what he said on a YouTube comment). People do a number of activity with varying degrees of risk, driving, skateboarding, existing while black near a police officer, etc. Yet you would not find any hospital withholding medical care based on how much the patient is responsible for their conditions. Even in the case where we want to punish people for crimes and misdemeanors, we do it with fines, community service and prison time, not forcing them into unwanted life threatening medical procedures with long lasting physical and mental repercussions. Also the lottery ticket is laughably inept and weak. The extreme sport analogy is also pretty deficient, you are making the mistake of strawmaning people who get abortion by implying that are not taking adequate safety measure, which make your argumentation lazy and unconvincing. I personally find all the talk about "grape", whether fetuses have right to life, early age mothers and ectopic pregnancy to be distractions. To me the only thing that ever mattered was if the person who were to give birth wanted to or not. I've personally given blood over 30 times, signed the form to donate my organs after my death and I'm seriously thinking about donating a kidney since I found out that you can live a normal life with only one. Yet I would oppose any attempt to force anyone into doing any of those things under any pretexts. Even donating blood which is by far safer and convenient than giving birth. Bonus content: About alimony and child support. They are imperfect solutions for an imperfect system. If everyone had their basic needs met with something like a universal basic income, guaranteed housing and a robust social safety net, there would be no need to garnish the income of any of the parents. Children would be looked after and stay at home spouse wouldn't end up homeless. Couple would stay together for love rather than fear of economic precarity. Wouldn't that be nice?

Vor 20 Tage
Ryguy987
Ryguy987

Finally, a good explanation. Too often people attempt to oversimplify complex issues, and doing so usually results in a lot of detail and nuance getting lost in translation.

Vor Monat
Matt
Matt

And by reasonable I mean I can at least see why he opined as he did. Whereas the majority essentially destroyed substantive due process to eliminate one, while saying the others should remain.

Vor 26 Tage
Matt
Matt

He strikes a good balance. It’s tough to take something like this, which is hundreds of pages and nuance reasoning, but bring it to a level a non-lawyer can comprehend. Because their reasoning in this is wonky, even for lawyers. Roberts at least had a reasonable take.

Vor 26 Tage
thi kim
thi kim

ok

Vor Monat
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①

⤴️⬆️ᴛᴇxᴛ ᴍᴀx ғᴏʀ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴜᴘᴅᴀᴛᴇ ᴏɴ xʀᴘ, ɴғᴛ, ʙᴛᴄ👆•💛

Vor Monat
The Horrorist
The Horrorist

“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.” George Carlin.

Vor Monat
DFMRCV
DFMRCV

@Puppy King ...that's still a highly limited percentage of the human population and not the entire human race, let alone men. Even in instances an intersex individual can get pregnant its only those that have a uterus (even then it van be highly difficult due to the testosterone the body produces). It would only be a right if, generally, men could also get pregnant.

Vor 2 Tage
Puppy King
Puppy King

@DFMRCV small corection cause it can effect intersex trans men and nb people

Vor 2 Tage
SiriusBigbadda
SiriusBigbadda

@homeland11 You know the constitution can be changed, right?

Vor 5 Tage
Nathan Emslie
Nathan Emslie

@Captain Matticus yeah, the constitution was changed with an amendment not reinterpreted, that’s totally different than reading an inviolable right to abortion into the due process clause

Vor Monat
marygoround1292
marygoround1292

"The dissent accuses the majority of picking and choosing the history that supports the outcome that they want." That was a very interesting quote.

Vor 11 Tage
No Sender
No Sender

@JaydoffThe quote is "deeply rooted in American history"....Their assertion that this standard does not apply to abortion is not only arbitrary, it's patently false. Abortion is an ancient practice. While the right to abortion wasnt codified, neither were any laws against it until the late 19th century. We'd been here 100 years before the first abortion ban was on the books. The practice of abortion is in fact deeply rooted in american history. Early Americans often sought abortions. It was not taboo and often times encouraged, especially for unmarried and poor women.

Vor 3 Stunden
CRazY?
CRazY?

@Jeremy Schulthess Uh, yeah. I know. I was just pondering how slippery this slope could get.

Vor 12 Stunden
Jeremy Schulthess
Jeremy Schulthess

Deeply rooted in the founding of the country

Vor 2 Tage
Jeremy Schulthess
Jeremy Schulthess

@Drew Ferguson that doesn't matter. To them it has only been legal here since the 60s so it isn't "deeply rooted in

Vor 2 Tage
Nick Tenore
Nick Tenore

Thanks for just giving out facts and showing the linear path that led to Roe being overturned. I’ve been searching for this type of breakdown

Vor Monat
Paul Ngo
Paul Ngo

@yowayyo ask your parents to explain it to you if you still don’t understand.

Vor 13 Tage
Vynjira
Vynjira

@yowayyo "Nice strawman." It's not. YOU compared Pregnancy to a bunch of choices, all of them btw.. have conflicts with the General Public.. which makes the comparison to Pregnancy a False Equivalent. 'Why do you think pregnancy is a punishment.' You brought up legal ramifications for pregnancy. Forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to term, as a punishment for the act of becoming pregnant... The forcing a person to carry a pregnancy btw, includes carrying a dead fetus.. and includes risks the the health, safety of the person forced to do so.. which is why there is a fundamental right to ending a pregnancy.. because the idea that you're forcing someone by law to risk their lives.. or go to jail for seeking medical treatment.. is beyond absurd. 'I agree pregnancy is not a choice. I believe, rape notwithstanding, it is a consequence of a choice. I believe sex is a powerful thing and should be treated with respect.' Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. We're talking about the government enacting laws that punish you for seeking medical treatment. If you had a drug overdose even if it was the consequence of a choice. The government would not ban the hospital from treating you. In addition it would violate constitutional protections against enacting laws that target a specific group of people.. based on organs they have.. to try to reinforce your specific beliefs in regards to sex.. 'And if you say pregnancy is worse than child support because of how it mentally and physically affect the woman, I'll ask you how much mental and physical anguish a man has to deal with having to work 2 sometimes 3 jobs just to make ends meet for 18+ years.' he says.. as if the same isn't actually true for the Woman who on top of all of that.. and btw.. raising the kid, and the 9 months of pregnancy ontop of that... shows that you have a bias that blinds you from the fact that the Man is not the sole income provider for that child. In fact in most cases.. it's less than half of what the Woman in the situation has to put in... but this is moot.. and also.. ACCESS TO ABORTION WOULD PREVENT THIS.. In any case, at no point is the other parent's body to be used as an incubator. These arguments are null... and that's coming for someone who WOULD like to see a reform to how divorce courts are biased against Men... 'Most of pro-lifers are women.' FALSE. 47% of Men are 'pro-life' only 33% of Women are 'pro-life' In addition 61% of Women are Pro-Choice, and 48% of Men are Pro-Choice.. 'Policies like not letting transwomen into women's restrooms? I bet you know the stats on how predators use those policies to prey on children. ' That there are virtually no instances of predators using Anti-Discrimination laws to prey on Children? Also that in terms of laws, we would never approve of discrimination against one group of people to stop a completely different group of people from committing crimes.. That's complete nonsense. In fact Cis Men make up anywhere from 80-90% of the Sex Offenders. We don't ban them from public bathrooms, to protect children from them.. and we certainly wouldn't ban Black Women for crimes White Men were committing.. We don't ban Priests from Bathrooms or Conservatives.. despite the fact that predators are disproportionately conservative or religious leaders.. and they have a history of using their positions of power, privilege and influence to escape charges for their crimes.. 'Then refute what I said.' I did, you seemed to ignore it. 'How does streaking hurt you?' Public indecency and exposure.. are built off a social contract of codes of behavior that are considered minor and temporary infringements for the sake of social cohesion.. and the public good. Wearing clothes is part of it, along with not deliberately picking fights or causing a disturbance etc.. It's really interesting that you somehow think exposing yourself in public in front of children, is harmless.. while simultaneously advocating for more modesty in terms of private consenting adults with sex.. how are these positions compatible in your mind? Talk about prudish... Consenting adults, enjoying each other intimately.. vs someone exposing their genitalia to children.. don't tell me you are being serious here.. because I don't believe you are.

Vor 14 Tage
yowayyo
yowayyo

@Vynjira "If you want to save life, education and resources.. and policies that actually protect children from predators." Policies like not letting transwomen into women's restrooms? I bet you know the stats on how predators use those policies to prey on children. I'm sure you're all for ditching those policies, right?

Vor 14 Tage
yowayyo
yowayyo

@Vynjira Then refute what I said.

Vor 14 Tage
yowayyo
yowayyo

@Paul Ngo How does streaking hurt you? You know there is nothing inherently sexual about being naked, right? Don't be such a prude. My argument is bodily autonomy doesn't exist. There are countless things you can do that only affect yourself but are crimes. Bodily autonomy is the excuse that irresponsible people use when they are faced with the consequences of their own choices. In regards to the choice of sex that would be pregnancy.

Vor 14 Tage
Arky Beagle
Arky Beagle

While it may be fun to analyze this as a moral issue, I think analyzing it as an *operational* issue is clearer. We seem to desire to put doctors in handcuffs. That's a much more concise view of it. I'm an engineer who has done work for law firms so I get the blind spot here, both mine and that of the legal profession. We all truly live in separate worlds.

Vor Monat
chandy
chandy

@Kuhluh uh, what about someone that wanted their parent to choose abortion but can't because their are still a fetus? I even heard that there is someone that actually sue their parent because they have birthed them.

Vor 3 Tage
Just Some Dinosaur
Just Some Dinosaur

@Kuhluh There is no life of the fetus. They have not had a life. They are a blank slate that is uncomplicated and therefore requires no personal sacrifice to advocate for.

Vor 4 Tage
Kuhluh
Kuhluh

@Kenshkrix Well, I am for abortion, it's just that imo the other person just seemed to me like the consider people who do not share their opinion like non-humans.

Vor 4 Tage
Kenshkrix
Kenshkrix

@Kuhluh What I was getting at is that even in cases where the fetus is completely nonviable getting an abortion will still be banned, because lawmakers aren't doctors and frequently do not consult doctors when making laws. In these cases the only question is whether they care about the lives of women, and the answer in some states is apparently "no".

Vor 4 Tage
Kuhluh
Kuhluh

@Kenshkrix the question "are you okay with a significant number of women suffering lifelong health complications and/or dying every year through literally no fault of their own?" is part of the question "do you value the life of a fetus or the life of the parents more?"

Vor 5 Tage
WriterGirl719
WriterGirl719

Thank you so much for this. I knew that other rights were now up in the air, but I didn't know just how closely they were all tied together. I really appreciate you laying it all out for us.

Vor Monat
No Sender
No Sender

@MC Mark Markson I well understand your moral aversions. They are irrelevant. I'm addressing the legal foundations. My insane rant was a direct response to the incomparable analogies you tried to make instead of addressing what I said. I didnt want to be rude. You cant legally address anything I said. I know the reason we dont have compulsory organ donation. It's not what you said, but that's at least an analogous possible effect. An analogous possible effect of banning abortion is Unit 731 in Japan- up until the 90s I think. If the government says you cant, they can easily tell you, you must.

Vor Stunde
MC Mark Markson
MC Mark Markson

@No Sender Can you quote were you have full and limitless autonomy over someone else's body by law? Can you punch your pregnant belly lawfully? Can you use any drug you want because it's your body? Do you have laws that forbid police from taking blood from you for drug/alcohol tests? What about vaccines to keep your job and be allowed outside? What privacy rights do you have to forbid the court from ordering DNA samples in family disputes? Paternity fraud and so on? Crime investigations? Do you have a right to privacy unrestricted? Where? Show me.

Vor 2 Stunden
No Sender
No Sender

@MC Mark Markson The right is to privacy and bodily autonomy. That includes abortion. If a pregnant woman decides she doesnt want to donate her body to save the life of an unborn baby, that's her decision to make. Just like if your actions necessitated someone else's need for life saving organ or blood donation, and you were the only viable donor, you could not be forced to provide it. You could, and many people do every single day, decide to let them die. Why would pregnancy be any different? Even a dead persom's body cant be used against their will. That has no legal rationale.

Vor 2 Stunden
Solea
Solea

I deeply appreciate the work that you do to explain what's happening without sensationalism, regardless of how emotionally charged the topic is. There is a place for emotional reactions, but we also need facts, or else there can be no knowledge of how to effectively channel emotions into action, and the end result is just flailing and panicking which accomplishes nothing.

Vor Monat
Heywood Jablome
Heywood Jablome

@Cal D don’t change the subject

Vor 17 Stunden
Cal D
Cal D

@Heywood Jablome The Court follows the law not public opinion. This is not the relevant statistic you think it is lmao

Vor 17 Stunden
Heywood Jablome
Heywood Jablome

@Cal D the statistic is that less than 30% support overturning Roe. This is not the “gotcha” you seem to think it is

Vor 19 Stunden
Angus McCulloch
Angus McCulloch

You're not getting "facts". He's making a case to you, and he's giving you the "facts" that support his case. If you really want facts, you gotta go dig them up yourself. Hobbes has a great quote in Leviathan than I'm paraphrasing: "Anyone who adopts the views of an author without reading the support for themselves, does not know anything, but only believes." In short, taking this guy's word and not reading and researching the case law for yourself doesn't give you any knowledge. You've just chosen to place blind faith in someone.

Vor Monat
Alexander Craig
Alexander Craig

This is what has been missing from the MSM. The time and effort to explain the background to a complex situation. Kudos to The Legal Eagle!

Vor Monat
Rhona Fenwick
Rhona Fenwick

@Nyet Zdyec "if the fetus IS a person, the State has a DUTY to give it reasonable protections..." The State also has the duty to give the *mother* reasonable protections, such as the right to consent to invasions of bodily integrity - and the inextricably connected right to *revoke* consent. Remember, there used to be a time when the definition of rape didn't include forced intercourse with one's spouse, because the consent to marriage was deemed to be an irrevocable consent also to sex. But society has now accepted that the old definition was antiquated and misogynistic, and have changed the laws accordingly. The abortion situation is parallel to that: it's inappropriate to construe consent to one act to imply irrevocable consent to subsequent acts - *even if those subsequent related acts were a foreseeable risk.* And if a fetus is a person as you say, here's another analogy. If a woman gives consent for sex, is it okay for the man to subsequently bring in his buddy to have a turn without asking the woman first because she said she consented to sex? Because if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, that's functionally what happens if she's impregnated: her sexual partner essentially introduces a completely different person - the fetus - into her body without her consent. No; the woman has to have the right to revoke consent at any time. If the fetus has developed sufficiently to survive on its own, then fine, induce it and then adopt the kid out. If not, then that's unfortunate for the fetus, but outlawing abortion is an active denial of a woman's right to her own bodily integrity in a way that would never be tolerated if the issue affected men.

Vor 19 Tage
Angus McCulloch
Angus McCulloch

@santaclaws01 This is incorrect, but I thank you for your engagement.

Vor 29 Tage
santaclaws01
santaclaws01

@Angus McCulloch The problem academics had with Roe is that it was a protection that relied on judicial fiat, not that the argument behind it was bad. We have seen the outcome of that now that conservatives have a majority they can just make up whatever reasoning they want regardless of how internally or externally consistent it. Roe was overturned for one reason and one reason only, because the current majority didn't like it. Everything said in defense of overturning it was just an exercise in creating a post hoc legal justification.

Vor Monat
tritam tran
tritam tran

ok

Vor Monat
Laura
Laura

I appreciate this video and all the coverage on Roe. Would you be able to do a video covering some of their other rulings, too? I'm struggling to sort through what is real right now when looking this information up on my own. Normally, my test for trusting a source is how angry or scared it makes me. If I feel like an article is making me very angry, or very scared, I'm wary of it. I try to look for reporting that is focused on facts and not engagement via inflammation. But sometimes the actual facts are enough to get me angry and scared. So in this case I'm really struggling to figure out which rights (aside from Roe) have been taken away, to what extent, and what the future holds for us. It's also just hard to find any information on this, because the coverage of Roe V Wade is flooding the airways. I'm glad we have information about this coming out, because it's important, but I'd like to know what else they're doing, too.

Vor Monat
Ed Grimm
Ed Grimm

Well, if I read the parts of the decisions that were on the screen (not just the ones he read to us) correctly, George Carlin explained what rights they just said they're taking away from us. If they can just take them away like this, they were just privileges. Also, they're coming to take all of them.

Vor 9 Stunden
erog hau
erog hau

life". I think these are the evaluations that need to be made public so we can approach this more objectively.

Vor Monat
JD Jordan
JD Jordan

Thank you for this.... I LOVE your videos on serious matters. You do an amazing job of explaining things in a clear and intelligent way. I have watched this channel much less lately because you seem to have focused on less serious matters in a time when we are dealing with some massively serious matters that are deeply or completely rooted in the law. I hope you continue videos on issues like this, the January 6 investigations, the recent gun cases/laws and the like. Thanks again.

Vor Monat
HSMfanatic17
HSMfanatic17

He probably does periodic less serious matters to keep things light and interesting. There is typically a delay when the heavier stuff happens because he needs enough information to make a legal analysis.

Vor Monat
Paola Barrientos
Paola Barrientos

LegalEgal thank you for all your hard work in making this video so informative and easy to understand.

Vor Monat
Sheila Rough
Sheila Rough

When asked by his lawyers if he wanted them to say anything particular when arguing Loving V Virginia before the Supreme Court, Richard Loving told them to tell them that he loved his wife

Vor Monat
No-Skipperino Kripperino
No-Skipperino Kripperino

@Chris Dalessio Oh, also, based take here, but filicide is different from infanticide, and there's historical precedent for filicide, as well as religious grounds for it (if we consider ancient Greek a protected religion). And the phrase "I brought you into this world and by god I'll take you out of it" seems like decent law :P

Vor 5 Tage
No-Skipperino Kripperino
No-Skipperino Kripperino

@Chris Dalessio A fetus is categorically not yet born. Therefore the 14th doesn't yet apply. You would need to first naturalize the fetus which, well... Is going to be literally impossible considering the physical impossibility of an 18+ fetus. Which is required to naturalize anyone as a citizen of the US.

Vor 5 Tage
Idontknow WhoIam
Idontknow WhoIam

@Kyle Morgan having sex is a choice, but I'll tell you something mind blowing... women who want to have pregnancy... didn't choose to get pregnant. So difficult to think that with your brain right? That women who pay and suffer the effects of abortion didn't want to get pregnant... so difficult to make that conclusion

Vor 7 Tage
Idontknow WhoIam
Idontknow WhoIam

And she believed it

Vor 7 Tage
Ryan Buschmeyer
Ryan Buschmeyer

Thank you for this description. This is sorely needed. Would you also consider making a video describing the mechanics of how the Supreme Court works and how Roe/Casey were "tied-in" to this ruling?

Vor Monat
eternalnate
eternalnate

Thank you for providing a perspective that is simply based on legal interpretation.

Vor Monat
Juan Jose Rivera
Juan Jose Rivera

nice sarcasm!

Vor Monat
tou siuey
tou siuey

LegalEgal thank you for all your hard work in making this video so informative and easy to understand.

Vor Monat
Vulkhard Muller
Vulkhard Muller

Devin, I've never seen or heard you so burned out looking, I mean that as nicely as possible. Clearly this has been a rough one for you, I can't imagine pouring through all that legalese was easy. Thank you so much for all you do, this was what I have been waiting for, no hype, no pomp and circumstance, just facts. Thank you so much, stay safe out there and get some rest!

Vor Monat
A M
A M

@No-Skipperino Kripperino I’m not sure what you mean by this, I haven’t mentioned anything against Germany or the Germans, many of my closest friends are Germans, and I’ve been to Germany many many times.

Vor 4 Tage
No-Skipperino Kripperino
No-Skipperino Kripperino

@A M Genuinely, I'm going to need you to say what do you have against the Germans?

Vor 5 Tage
Debbie Aitchison
Debbie Aitchison

@A M would you be happy with legislation that forced you to donate your blood, bone marrow or a kidney to save someone else’s life? Or would you want to be allowed to withhold consent for that? You know why trials for male hormonal contraceptives get stopped because of side effects that women have to put up with in actual birth control pills? It’s because being pregnant is a bigger risk to health than taking the pills. Men can’t get pregnant so it’s unethical to expose them to those risks. But it’s actually an improvement for women who might become pregnant without them. I don’t like the idea of abortion, but legislating away a woman’s right to bodily autonomy will cause more death and may very well leave many men widowed and many children orphaned.

Vor 14 Tage
A M
A M

@dena81 look I understand it’s a complicated and contentious issue. The way I see it is like this: If we knew with absolute certainty that a fetus was indeed alive and a human being at age X weeks, then I think the rational thing would be to protect it, even though it might have been due to rape which is needless to say a horrific thing, but if that fetus was an innocent human being then it shouldn’t be killed, because people can not be held accountable for the sins of others. Now Ofcourse that is not a realistic scenario as we don’t know exactly when a fetus becomes a human, all we know is that they are born humans, and are most definitely humans past week 24 at least since they can survive outside the body (even as early as 21 weeks). So the real underlying issue from my perspective is really all about when does a fetus become a human being.

Vor Monat
dena81
dena81

@A M a ten year old girl was raped and impregnated... So as per YOUR religious beliefs and moral grounds on life, should she now suffer through 9 months of carrying a baby to term because you seem it moral? Or should the horrific act done to her be allowed to be removed in some capacity so she can at least have some aspect of a childhood back? Yes it's the extreme, and in this case very recent and real, case but it is a scenario. And the heart of it is that this should be the woman's choice to have right over THEIR body.... Not your moral ground on how they maintain it. If I get a cyst (which has living cells because guess what everything from a scientific point has cells) I do have the right to go to the doctor and remove it or keep it. The same is with a pregnancy and while yes there should be mandates as to how far is too far in to remove it, no one should take that right away from the woman carrying that fetus. No matter how well thought out your reasons are.

Vor Monat
Joshua Mitchell
Joshua Mitchell

Wow this video was amazing. Didn’t expect it to be so detailed yet so well structured and easy to follow.

Vor Monat
Kaley Gordon
Kaley Gordon

Thank you for this. I haven’t had the stomach to read through the full decision myself, but I wanted a rundown of the legal issues so I could know where we are with things. I’m actually not a huge fan of substantive due process as a legal doctrine—just the rights that it protects. We should be amending the constitution to enshrine fundamental rights as we mature and evolve as a nation, but I guess we don’t do that anymore. Instead, we premise vital human rights on convoluted legal thinking subject to the whim and caprice of nine unelected people vested with tremendous power. I’m so tired.

Vor Monat
Guyinaplaguemask
Guyinaplaguemask

@Michael Ironsights then it should be reformed. that said, do we not believe that all humans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (so long as that pursuit of happiness does not infringe on another's rights)?

Vor 26 Tage
Michael Ironsights
Michael Ironsights

@Guyinaplaguemask speaking from everything I've heard about it from people who've been personally through it.

Vor 26 Tage
Guyinaplaguemask
Guyinaplaguemask

@Michael Ironsights speaking through experience, or bullshitting?

Vor 26 Tage
Michael Ironsights
Michael Ironsights

@Guyinaplaguemask the adoption system sucks and is underfunded as hell. Every kid who lived through it lived a horror story of abuse and neglect.

Vor 26 Tage
Guyinaplaguemask
Guyinaplaguemask

@Michael Ironsights the parents can put their kids into the adoption system. there are 36 couples waiting for every newborn that goes into the system.

Vor 26 Tage
Jovan David Rebolledo
Jovan David Rebolledo

Thank you so much for the hard work. It is really appreciated. Is there any space where we could make questions building up in the reasoning and work you presented ? (as what can be done or what could be proactively done by citizens in the future)

Vor 19 Tage
Tisulan
Tisulan

I think this video speaks a lot to your credibility. You didn't open with "woman hating idiot Clarence Thomas owns abortion because he hates women." You pretty properly explained the actual legal analysis made by both parties without pretending to be neutral on the matter. I think it's important to be fair without pretending to have a view point that you don't. News agencies pretend to be unbiased, impartial, and the source of all truth, and that often leaves me disgusted with them.

Vor Monat
ZeroTRM
ZeroTRM

Every time something major like this happens I wait in anticipation for Legal Eagle's video about it. Thanks for what you do.

Vor Monat
bdonovable
bdonovable

This is the first LegalEagle video that I have watched in some time that is not overtly biased. Admittedly, I have not watched his entire catalog, nor do I tune in on a regular basis (since 2016). This channel, and many YouTubers I used to enjoy prior to 2016, sprinted to the left-side of the political spectrum during the Trump presidency. Commentary is all well and good, but I would be interested in more neutral fact-based videos by LegalEagle like this one, if you have any suggestions for me to check out.

Vor Monat
Lady Onikara
Lady Onikara

@issoctz The correct way to think and make decisions is: First learn all information that can be acquired, including some obviously biased sources which you read carefully between the lines, think about what you have learned and read, think very carefully and for a long time, come up with your own conclusion and not just parrot someone else's opinion. That's why people got to the station in the animal kingdom that they are today. They are supposed to think things out logically and have common sense. Well, that was the original idea anyway.

Vor Monat
issoctz
issoctz

@Ted Culbertson Look buddy i'm gonna give you some advice for life take it or leave it, never ever trust a lawyer there's a good reason why most politicians are lawyers so always take what they say with a pinch of salt that is valid for youtube and for life

Vor Monat
Lee Bulger
Lee Bulger

@Michael D I regularly watch the News so when something like this happens, I hope for a video from this channel so I know all the details available.

Vor Monat
Ted Culbertson
Ted Culbertson

@issoctz This is an incredibly stupid point of view. Expert opinions are worth more than uninformed opinions. And the people who say stuff like this never actually question anything. Questioning implies that you want an answer. This is more like denial. Moreover, LegalEagle went over the facts of the case and the decisions written by the justices. Why are you bringing up his opinion?

Vor Monat
Ellis Piper
Ellis Piper

The way the facts are revealed is so much better than any news station, bias article, or social media thread. It’s just a so objective and educational. I wish everyone watched this video

Vor 28 Tage
barb noren
barb noren

What I want to know is what laws/rights exist for someone to remove themselves from a relationship that they don't want to be in anymore. Like even if you could argue fetal personhood (and I don't think you can classify someone as a person if they are literally not an individual, ie they can't be divided from a specific person without harming that person or killing themselves) the mother should be able to remove themself from the relationship. People can get divorces, you can leave someone, put a child up for adoption, you can quit jobs, even kids can be removed from abusive situations. A pregnant woman should be able to remove herself from a situation that she doesn't want to be in with another living creature that is causing harm to her person (whether because she doesn't want the effects of pregnancy or because the pregnancy is medically dangerous).

Vor Monat
DebateBore
DebateBore

Being pregnant is not analogous to being engaged in a "reationship" with another human beng. except in extremely rare instances, the mother is pregnant through a specific consensual choice to have sex. There's a very simply alternative here...if you are not prepared to become pregnant and have a baby or contract a sexually transmitted disease, then you should control yourself and abstain from sexual intercourse/activity. Further, most states are preserving exceptions for legitimate risks to the mother's health (rather than the fake mental and emotional bases that abortionists would corrupt themselves to declare for a pregnant mother).

Vor Monat
Айтуар Абусеитов
Айтуар Абусеитов

I really like this channel, even though I come from a continental system of law. Namely, Kazakhstan (or Qazaqstan, as it is written now, transferring from Cyrillic into Latin alphabet). Our legal system is much less developed. However, this case would have been resolved differently. These comparisons are genuinely interesting.

Vor Monat
oldmangamer
oldmangamer

Another great video. One aspect you didn't touch upon and which I am curious about is the SC's ability to suddenly relitigate decades old cases. I've always been under the impression that legal precedent was extremely important in the functioning of the law, with Judges often referring to legal precedent when judging new cases. So I believed that legal precedent, whilst maybe not being completely "set in stone" was still a very powerful force within the legal system. But if now the SC can simply overturn decades old decisions, does that not erode the entire concept of legal precedent itself? Theoretically ANY previous court decision can now be overturned on a whim. Basically how common is what happened with RvW? Is this an extremely rare, or even one-off occurrence, or does it actually happen more often but most of us who aren't lawyers simply don't hear about it?

Vor Monat
Douglas Shouganai
Douglas Shouganai

@Matt I take issue with your last point. Despite being on the east coast at the time, the effort to uproot yourself and all your possessions and travel by wagon and horse to another state would not be any easy task even then. With the size of our nation being compensated for by the velocity of travel (car, train, plane), I do not think that our nation is appreciably larger than it would have seemed for people traveling or moving their home in the 1700s or 1800s. For an oxen driven wagon you are traveling around 14 miles per day. For horse drawn buggy you are traveling 10-30 miles per day. for horseback alone you are traveling 25-35 miles per day. and such travel is also physically taxing whereas our current travel is perhaps more mentally taxing. Lets average it out to 20 miles per day and give an example of Pennsylvania. It would take you 8 days to travel the length of the state. more to travel from the coast and all the way inland to Ohio or west virginia. In comparison, it takes only 6 days of driving 8 hours to travel across the entire USA.

Vor 16 Tage
Don Fronterhouse
Don Fronterhouse

@Matt no

Vor 24 Tage
Matt
Matt

Another issue in my opinion of the idea that we should allow a majority in states to reflect their values is that there needs to be some safeguard to protect rights if a states values infringe. We have various opinions and amendments in our constitution for that very purpose, recognizing that just because a majority views something one way does not mean that it is a correct view to codify into law. Hence why EPC, Due Process, substantive due process, etc exist in the first place. The issue in my opinion of the legal logic the majority uses is their reference to history to strike down one right brought forth via SDP while specifically leaving others that if one took a historical look we’re not well accepted in the history of the country.

Vor 26 Tage
David Anspach
David Anspach

You have a genuine gift in your ability to communicate these matters in such a way that even the most dense layman will understand what you're saying but in a way that no credibility is lost via oversimplification and/or oversights -- something which is exceedingly rare across all mediums. You're ability to breakdown extremely complex matters of jurisprudence in a succinct manner, while never failing to captivate your audience, is an exceedingly rare talent. Given this, I think you should create another channel for more longform content, if time permits that, and you should also consider writing books. It's not hard to imagine you becoming among the preeminent practitioners of law in the way that Dr. Mark Felton is for WW2, for example. You have cultivated more than enough of a following to make that happen.

Vor Monat
HSMfanatic17
HSMfanatic17

@Jacob Navarro this was likely the most streamlined version possible, as everything that went into the decision was arguably more complex than anything else he's covered.

Vor Monat
HSMfanatic17
HSMfanatic17

He does have a separate channel on Nebula. He creates longer videos on there.

Vor Monat
Jake Calder
Jake Calder

@Rainkit I share them on the ol’ Bacefook all the time. My family & friends who are “free thinkers” never respond. Funny how that works out.

Vor Monat
StormTAG
StormTAG

@Rainkit You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Vor Monat
Rainkit
Rainkit

As someone who has tried to share his videos in alt right Discord servers, the most dense laymen unfortunately still can't understand him.

Vor Monat
JaRW7
JaRW7

The team at LegalEagle do a great job

Vor Monat
Raja Williby
Raja Williby

Even when Justice Scalia was alive he made the argument that substantive due process had no constitutional basis but made room for its existence. Who could oppose a substantive due process amendment except those who believe in progressive taxation, affirmative action, civil forfeiture, imminent domain, the military draft, or any number of potential unenumerated rights. It’s obvious that the state can and does limit people’s individual rights in any number of cases, but Roe’s special use is and was a matter of scorn. An obvious solution is a substantive due process amendment that could be used as the basis of upholding all types of rights that nearly everyone could agree exist in an unenumerated way.

Vor Monat
Raja Williby
Raja Williby

@Ben Zeddicus Isn’t that generalization a bad faith argument? An amendment would be a state by state fight for its passing based upon the best arguments of the day. Further interpretations and applications of those amendments would occur after the initial debate has ended. Next, you have made my point for me with the poll tax example. Poll taxes have disappeared and no one challenges their extinction. No law, executive order, or judicial ruling can change that. The same thing would happen with a substantive due process amendment. They might not like to the result, but they cannot challenge the result.

Vor Monat
Rod Watkins
Rod Watkins

I would love to see a video about the legal implications of giving personhood rights to fetuses.

Vor 7 Tage
NewDay100
NewDay100

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this!

Vor 29 Tage
Aurora of Clan Boriealis
Aurora of Clan Boriealis

Fun fact: Connecticut law now protects people seeking abortion in our state from being sued under laws from out of state.

Vor Monat
r H
r H

Fun fact: You can’t get sued for seeking an abortion. If you do basic research you will find in the opinion of the majority that no one may be sued for going over state lines to seek services.

Vor Tag
Hermes Trismegistus
Hermes Trismegistus

@KingBobXIV The only objective point where a life begins is conception. Youre claiming the conservatives are being subjective about abortion while nothing could be more subjective of a claim that life supposedly begins at birth. When a birth is viable is vastly different according to available medical technology, thus making it a subjective point at which life begins. The point where 46 new chromosomes are combined, defining a new human being, is the only objective point where we can say a human life begins. If you want to have an honest debate, start fighting for your "right" to kill an unborn child. Abortion is a grotesque euphemism and is not "medical care" any more than euthanasia is, which is correctly called an aid-in-dying procedure in the the legal language. Of course, a woman does often require actual medical care after the beautiful natural process of birthing another human being has been so violently and abruptly ended inside of her.

Vor 5 Tage
Luna P
Luna P

@No longer my real name I have no idea what you're saying. What's a good reason for abortion? I'm not property. My body doesn't belong to anyone but me. I don't consent to mutilation. There's no such thing as a bad reason to have an abortion.

Vor 19 Tage
No longer my real name
No longer my real name

@Luna P Give me a good reason why its ok for you to whenever you want, to just hit the cancel button. So we take of all the bad reasons to have abortions why have abortions?

Vor 19 Tage
nagy gergely
nagy gergely

As a European it is fascinating to me how much of a debate there is on this subject in the US, I honestly don't remember the last time laws about abortions were even close to this wildly contested around here with the obvious exceptions being the whole thing in Poland about fetal defects and the Irish legalisation.

Vor Monat
Mike Vignola
Mike Vignola

@nagy gergely What we have in this country is something we deal with constantly, Christian conservatives trying to legislate thier religious beliefs on the population while disguising it as an ethical or moral issue.

Vor 27 Tage
Bill Williamson
Bill Williamson

@eatingketchupchips What you’re not understanding is that the debate is saying that it’s not all her body. That there is a another human developing in her. Like a Siamese twin, ones right to bodily autonomy ends where the other’s body begins.

Vor 27 Tage
Hans Svineklev
Hans Svineklev

@Kate S. “Unborn child” is an English phrase, not a scientific term. Nothing even remotely oxymoronic about it. Most people don’t speak of pregnancies in scientific terms. They don’t invite their friends to a gender reveal concerning their fetus. Nobody talks like that unless they’re trying to make an unborn life appear insignificant.

Vor Monat
Kate S
Kate S

@Miles Rout lies. Stop lying

Vor Monat
Kate S
Kate S

@El Bravo yeah, "circumstances" being mother's life in danger. That is the only circumstance of third trimester abortion bring allowed almost anywhere.

Vor Monat
Brian Camp
Brian Camp

Thank you for your video on this. I am curious what could have been different if congress had passed a law codifying Roe? The opinion puts this back to this back to the states to decide, would that not also had reversed a federal law as well? Or would the path to the Supreme Court been so different it might not have been able to reach the high court or would the scope of the opinion be limited since it was voted on by congress? I’m really curious since many have said that not codifying Roe was the problem, but I don’t know how or what would be different if that happened. Thanks.

Vor Monat
tbe0116
tbe0116

The SC opinion simply said there is no constitutional right to an abortion and legalizing it or banning it needs to be up to elected legislatures. Those could be state or federal legislatures. The ruling did NOT say only the states could regulate it. If congress had codified abortion this case never would have been taken up by the SC. If congress voted to make abortion legal nationwide tomorrow, abortion would be legal. End of discussion. Remember, the SC does not make laws. They just interpret existing laws and if they comply with the constitution.

Vor Monat
Adrian Thoroughgood
Adrian Thoroughgood

I would also be interested in a proper explaination on this. It is complicated. The constitution is sometimes about protecting rights of citizens from infringement by any level of government and sometimes about determininging which level of government gets to decide certain things, which you could term as protecting the rights of states against federal government overreach. States rights extremists like to think that anything not explicitly given to the federal government must be decided on a state level. But that would imply that Congress could not ever pass any new laws outside of those areas. I don't think that that is the case. I think that it's more about the executive branch not being able to do those things. I think when unspecified competences go to "the states or the people", "the people" gets interpreted as the people's representatives in Congress. So my understanding is that the SC would only stop a federal law passed by Congress if it infringed the rights of citizens as protected by the constitution. I don't think they could stop a federal law just because the constitution doesn't say the federal government has the right to pass that law. RvW banned any level of government from restricting abortion before a certain point. This decision removes that ban and means that in the absence of a federal law the states get to decide. They are not saying that a fetus has a right not to be aborted because if they were then they would be banning abortion nationwide which they are not. They are saying the constitution does not grant a citizen an inalienable right to an abortion. I do not think they are claiming that the states have an overriding right to decide the issue that Congress cannot overrule. Of course, if there had been a federal law guaranteeing access to abortion maybe they would have tried to overturn that. But that would be a hugely bigger reach than what they have done. I don't think they could have gotten away with that. But I might be wrong and I would really like Deven to go through it all properly.

Vor Monat
TheWarmotor
TheWarmotor

Thank you for the clarifications, everyone needs to watch this video.

Vor Monat
Benjamin McDonald
Benjamin McDonald

Appreciate the deep dive into the opinions and precedents relevant to the case.

Vor Monat
remixex369
remixex369

It takes a talented educator to cover a grim topic in such a fantastic way. Thank you for what you do.

Vor Monat
Puppy King
Puppy King

@KainaX122 this hasn’t aged well

Vor 2 Tage
jfayiii
jfayiii

@Zach J Funny how liberals want you to "follow the science" ... until it's not in their favor. Gee, that sounds almost hypocritical.

Vor 3 Tage
Entropy
Entropy

@Nali Tikva your argument is flawed, women did not invite a person, she invite a sperm cell inside. Unless, of course, you are arguing that sperm cell is a person.

Vor 12 Tage
Nali Tikva
Nali Tikva

​@KrispKiwi you can not remove someone from your body that is unable to leave by lethal force. Especially not if you placed the person there. What you're supporting Is like if you drag someone in your home and they have a heart attack you get to cut them in pieces and throw them out because it's your home.

Vor 12 Tage
L D
L D

Amazing channel ! Educational and great public service !

Vor Monat
Omar, PA-C:Urban Health Education Workshops
Omar, PA-C:Urban Health Education Workshops

Thanks for sharing this with us! FYI, Maryland and DC are two of the places where abortion is legal. PAs and NPs are able to perform them.

Vor Monat
G. F. S F55
G. F. S F55

I think this law should've been looked under health viability at least, many many problems can happen during pregnancy, not to mention how teens and tweens definitely physically aren't ready to birth a child, they should've at least protect those under 18

Vor Monat
Nali Tikva
Nali Tikva

but those under 0 are also definitely physically aren't ready to be teared from the womb. So we need laws that protect those under 18

Vor 12 Tage
G. F. S F55
G. F. S F55

@DebateBore yes! Ikr

Vor Monat
DebateBore
DebateBore

But, would you at least concede that the proper venue for determining what the protections youre appealing to here is in Congress (if you support the fed govt acting) or the State legislatures rather than determined by nine unelected and largely unaccountable supreme court justices?

Vor Monat
Dean J
Dean J

As an interpreter I used this video for shadow practice, it's informative and fast to follow

Vor Monat
Christopher Pope
Christopher Pope

Very interest ing and I appreciate the way you broke down everything and as I was listening I got the feeling that the same thing could happen to the voters act of 1965 that's went through similar situation it could be overturned one day.

Vor 4 Tage
Joshua Espinales
Joshua Espinales

@LegalEagle Thank you for the breakdown. I live in Texas. Something interesting is developing here that may, or may not, affect other laws. A pregnant woman, having been cited for a traffic violation, is arguing that her fetus counts as a person, and therefore she should not be cited for her use of an HOV lane on a Texas highway. What do you make of this? You should address this development in a video.

Vor Monat
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①

⤴️⬆️Text Max for more update on XRP, NFT', BTC 📊, And something new•

Vor Monat
Danny Shaw
Danny Shaw

I am from the UK, I wonder if someone could tell me if it is usual of the justices of the supreme court to chew such large chunks out of each other in their rulings like this? Some of the statements seem to contain a lot of invective. I always viewed the supreme court as a group of wise, considered older people who would think three hours before uttering a word. The case itself, I have to admit, I really don't like the people who argue either side of this issue - I realise it is emotive, but the debate is really toxic. I think this is why I like LegalEagle actually, his calm statement of the law really helps one give the issues some more thought. It is very tough when with issues like this where there is not a clear compromise

Vor 3 Tage
Geordin Soucie
Geordin Soucie

Thanks for the overview. I've been putting off looking up the actual decision.

Vor Monat
Bryce Daugherty
Bryce Daugherty

I'm so grateful for Devin and LegalEagle. Small digestible information presented for my tiny brain to understand. Thank you so much to everyone involved in the making of these videos.

Vor Monat
Bryce Daugherty
Bryce Daugherty

@issoctz well sure. I understood that. But there's a lot more to the story. Also my reply was more towards the general content of legal eagle. Which far surpasses the knowledge showcased in this one video.

Vor Monat
inferno
inferno

thank you for wanting to understand things like this, Bryce!

Vor Monat
Mikayla Francis
Mikayla Francis

That Nebula ad before the video was awesome! Learned some new legal words. Thanks Nebula and Legal Eagle, fun and educational

Vor Monat
william shafer
william shafer

Overturning personal rights (of women etc) has made MERCA even more of an absurdity to most Citizens of Earth; but it is very sad for poor people born there to have basic human rights eroded by wowsers who don't suffer personal consequences :(

Vor 6 Tage
Royal Ladybug
Royal Ladybug

It isn't the Supreme Court job to write laws, just interpret the Constitution. Protecting rights to abortion is up to Congress.

Vor Monat
Eee Pee
Eee Pee

i'm pretty sure it was the anti-federalists who didn't want a bill of rights and the federalists overruled them, but this is just going off my memory of my conlaw courses about 15 years ago as an undergrad

Vor Monat
John Perez
John Perez

After watching Hoeg Law's 1 hour 45min readthrough of the decision, I was eagerly waiting for LegalEagle's take. The fact that it took him 27 minutes to summarize this issue simply shows how complex this event is and how much nuance is required to understand it. Thank you very much.

Vor Monat
Starcraf SF
Starcraf SF

@Kathleen Bielecki no, I’m saying that those abnormalities do not affect the gender of the child, we know what gender they will still be. Further more, rouse genetic abnormalities render the person infertile. Having more than two sex chromosomes is a mutation of the zygote before fertilization, and it affects far less than 1% of the population. Medically they have their own health issues related to those abnormalities, but it’s not something that affects their gender. They will still be either male or female. Furthermore, this is getting completely off topic anyways. Thanks for being willfully obtuse. And good day.

Vor Monat
Kathleen Bielecki
Kathleen Bielecki

@Starcraf SF so intersex doesn't exist in your world?

Vor Monat
Starcraf SF
Starcraf SF

@Kathleen Bielecki those aren’t different genders…..nor does it change anything about what I said…..

Vor Monat
Kathleen Bielecki
Kathleen Bielecki

@Starcraf SF not always. There are multiple different sequences for gender, such as XXY, XXX, 0Y. And the physical expression for gender doesn't start until the first hormone wash.

Vor Monat
I Must Bust
I Must Bust

You should do a recap of all of the recent decisions this session. Some other crazy stuff is in there.

Vor Monat
kardentyrell
kardentyrell

Legal Eagle bringing law to the masses. Would have expected more views on this subject though.

Vor Monat
Kristian Campbell
Kristian Campbell

Thank you for explaining it so well.

Vor Monat
England Calling
England Calling

Thank you for a clear explanation. Equally, chilling is what this might mean, for pregnancy itself. For a State to block or prosecute abortion, it needs first to know a woman is, or was pregnant. So, might women be legally 'required' to notify their home state, if they fall pregnant?

Vor 28 Tage
Hannahbeanies
Hannahbeanies

Thank you Devin. You can hear the seriousness and heaviness of the topic in your tone and see it on your face. I can imagine this work takes a lot of mental and emotional energy. Your effort and work have not gone unnoticed and does make a huge difference. Thank you for breaking this down in a clear manner. It was quite a bit of info at once, but it gave a greater sense of the bigger picture. Thanks again

Vor Monat
Jack Turner
Jack Turner

@Cal D Respectfully, I disagree, but allow me to take your points as I think they are most relevant. First, I think the criticism that the Left has not been able to make an argument for abortion is facile; perhaps you mean that those who favor legal abortion have not been able to convince you? If so, well and fine, but the majority of the country supports access to abortion, even if with gestational restrictions, and has so since before Roe v. Wade was decided. Consequently, I don’t think your critique here is justified. Likewise, conservatives have spent the last 50 years attempting to outlaw abortion, partially or wholly, but have done little to attempt to changes hearts or minds. A more effective strategy would have been to pursue policies so as to make it unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases. In general, prohibitions don’t work, particularly when society is not convinced as to the wisdom of the prohibition (this is why there is no temperance movement in the United States any longer). Instead, the right has pursued a path of hardening political positions, with a similar reaction on the left; given the hardening of attitudes by the extremes of both parties, and given the decision did not settle anything but instead upped the stakes in the politics of the moment, this is why I regarded the decision as being so potentially destructive, because it will be! Second, it is my observation that those persons who are supportive of abortion access feel as though this is not returning the issue to the people, as a majority of the population, based on polling, supports at least some access to abortion (and always has historically), but the majority of states have already prohibited abortion or are sufficiently conservative as to expect that they will prohibit it in the near future. Likewise, given that most electoral districts are heavily gerrymandered towards one party, it makes it unlikely that, in the near term, abortion law in the states will adequately reflect the will of the majority; thus, the notion that the people are “deciding for themselves” is euphemistic, at best. Likewise, there is understandable concern that if the Republican Party is able to regain control of the other two branches of government that a national abortion ban may be on the table; though it is possible it may be struck down by the court, as we have seen from this session, this court is not above applying its reasoning selectively; a more cynical person might say it is not beneath them to arrive at the desired partisan outcome. Likewise, it is easy to set aside the “slim minority” of cases if one is interested in coming to a desired outcome, which I am inferring would be a total ban on abortion. However, a total ban can and will create specific harms, especially medical harms, with women receiving improper or incomplete care due to fear on the part of medical professionals of litigation (in places like Texas and Oklahoma) or criminal penalty. Even if the number of harms is small, is it not ethically more reasonable to reduce the number of potential harms rather than callously disregard them? That being said, the stated premise itself is unworkable, because there are no useful statistics from neutral sources on the rationale behind abortion decisions, and the studies that have been conducted demonstrate multivariate reasoning in decision making, meaning that any particular study would be subject to methodological deficiencies if it attempted to classify them into singular motivations. Let me take issue with further thing you mentioned on this topic: you stated that I should “set aside euphemism” designed for rhetorical impact and focus on what you presume to be the fact; in that vein, one could easily encourage you to set aside the more gruesome euphemisms that you employ to describe abortion, since the most abortions are pharmaceutically rather than surgical. While you are correct that there are multitude of choices, there is something disingenuous about asking someone to make a different choice while simultaneously removing the displeasing alternative. But, again, I don’t believe conservatives are really concerned about unborn life as much as they are the naked exercise of power in this instance. If they were so interested, as I suggested previously, there would be more support for those who find themselves in “crisis” pregnancies, and they would have pushed for greater social supports for unwed mothers; instead, the pro-life movement has primarily focused on pushing people away from abortions (sometimes stringing them along until they pass the legal gestational limits then cutting them off) while simultaneously cutting the social safety net in the name of getting rid of the freeloaders in the system. If all you really want is for people to choose giving birth when they have an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you should have spend your time making that a real choice, not the only choice under force of law; otherwise, your call to make a choice that is the only choice available is very hollow.

Vor Monat
Jack Turner
Jack Turner

@Cal D I don't think most of our society is looking at the issue of abortion with sufficient sobriety to really come to what might be called an equitable and morally justifiable conclusion; many of the thought leaders on the right are attempting to find justifications for their preferred outcomes and applying them selectively, while the more extreme element is pushing for even further restrictions, including eliminating the possibility of abortion when it is a medical necessity or very narrowly defining what constitutes a medical necessity, even in the absence of any evidence of what constitutes necessity from the medical profession. Likewise, the extremism is infecting the left, wherein the mantra of "safe, legal, and rare" is being discarded in favor of "anytime, on demand, no apologies." Regardless of what one thinks about the morality of abortion, it is one could easily assert that the Court in this case has performed the equivalent of throwing a live hand grenade into a fire.

Vor Monat
Cal D
Cal D

It is very serious. But we have a ray of hope now that Roe is overruled! Thanks to Dobbs.

Vor Monat
Marcos Torres
Marcos Torres

Incredibly off-topic but up until now I wasn’t aware that his name’s Devin

Vor Monat
Sargon Starblade
Sargon Starblade

I watched your most recent video, and liked in this one ant that one how you presented the facts with almost no bias, the bias could be ascertained by your delivery. As a conservative I can say that I can understand your reasoning and I am going to subscribe to your YouTube channel to follow your views more.

Vor Monat
Michigeo
Michigeo

As an EU citizen that uses completely different legal system , my takeaway is that common law sucks and politics of judges are trash ... at least the politics of judges and their belief are in theory irrelevant to reaching a decision....

Vor 2 Tage
Michael
Michael

Great video. Please do the SCOTUS decision regarding the EPA and the clean air act next!

Vor Monat
Brandon Thompson
Brandon Thompson

Fantastic breakdown. This is some of the best reporting on an issue I've seen in a while. I think you dislike this ruling, but I couldn't point to any pejorative phrasing or loaded wording that might show it. Really top notch. Personally I'm very conflicted with this case. While I believe in state's rights and our founding father's Great Experiment, I cannot help but wonder how people would feel if the Supreme Court decided that murder was not a situation the federal government should have power over. Note: I am not necessarily equivocating all abortions with murder here. On top of this, I am greatly concerned by how separate the two main sides of this issue have become. On the one side, I know someone who has said more than once that they think abortion should be legal "for as long as the fetus relies on the mother". On the other side we have people creating essentially bans on abortion. I think a 12 - 15 week law is a perfectly reasonable middle ground that it seems we will never arrive at. This, and other issues in which the distance between the two sides has increased, much like madmen and madwomen shouting at each other from the opposing banks of an ever widening river, concern me greatly.

Vor 21 Tag
Dann Dingus
Dann Dingus

@I Exist Well... Why wouldn't those who find abortion to be murder not worry about it? We aren't inhumane

Vor 13 Tage
I Exist
I Exist

I feel the main issue is that people (mostly on the anti abortion side) have made the issue a bigger and more emotionally loaded idea than it should be.

Vor 16 Tage
Stephen2462
Stephen2462

The problem is that when one sided is arguing from an extremist position, and the other is arguing from a moderate position, any middle ground they could hash out will still be moderately extremist, which will satisfy neither side.

Vor 21 Tag
Dawn Admin
Dawn Admin

I really have to wonder: do the justices who overruled Roe believe that women have the right to own property, either? State laws didn’t give them that in the mid-nineteenth century. That was the basis for the ruling that a right to abortion isn’t “deeply rooted” in the nation’s history or tradition.

Vor Monat
Isaac Brown
Isaac Brown

Is this the most Lawyer-y Lawyer ever? Yes. Yes he is.

Vor Monat
X-Munk
X-Munk

Do you think you'll have time to go into West Virginia vs. EPA? That decision also seems to be quite worrisome and may presage a ruling on the SEC's power at the SC's level aligning with the fifth circuit.

Vor Monat
Jason Mullins
Jason Mullins

LegalEagle - your video was very informative. I'm really glad you put this together for us. I have a better understanding of what's happened, is happening, and will happen. It's good to know there's some material on the net that tries to inform the population. Awesome!

Vor Monat
James Haack
James Haack

I'm very thankful for this in-depth discussion of the matter. Very, very, very informative. It filled me in on a number of details that I've been trying to research myself since the court ruling, and did it in one sitting.

Vor Monat
Ted Culbertson
Ted Culbertson

@African lip plate and bone nose Even by your logic that's not true because the issue was returned to the states. And that's not even getting into in vitro fertilization clinics.

Vor Monat
Rodney Warren
Rodney Warren

@African lip plate and bone nose Ignoring all the innocent women that will now pass due to it being illegal. As any country will tell you ABORTIONS HAPPEN WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL OR NOT! The only difference is how safe they are for the women involved.

Vor Monat
Nocturnal Rain
Nocturnal Rain

@African lip plate and bone nose YEA now we can dance on the graves of kids killed in shootings or those that are grossly neglected!! WOOT!!! PRAISE THE LORD!! 🎊 🎉 🥳

Vor Monat
cassiereroni
cassiereroni

As a new subscriber I've got to say...Wow! There's a lot to unpack here. Besides the fact that LegalEagle (sorry, his name hasn't cemented in my brain yet) is speaking at mach speed, which I understand has to be done to fit as much important information in as possible, there is one statement that caught me off guard the most, at the moment. To put this in the simplest and fastest terms I can think of. How can abortion _not_ be a sex based classification? Men can have vasectomies' to prevent unwanted pregnancies even if their partner disapproves. True, there's multiple types of contraceptives a woman can use to prevent an unwanted pregnancy between couples but even that is being threatened. Why are all the responsibilities and consequences the sole burden of a woman? Too many men when, planned, unplanned or forced pregnancy happen, walk away with little or no responsibility at all. Then they scream and holler about how unfair it is that they have to pay child support to make her life easier. Like she's getting undue enrichment at his expense. Then there are those men who force a woman to have an abortion. Whether legal or not. As far as rape goes. Imagine being tied to a man that has threatened, or beaten, abused and forced a sex act on you that resulted in a pregnancy you didn't ask for or want and living in fear that he might do it again. Then imagine being forced again to keep that baby. Imagine the fear of being dragged into court because the animal that tortured you wants access, or worse, custody of that baby? And you are, once again, forced to hand that baby over to your attacker. Don't say it'll never happen because it already has. Before anyone blows up. I'm not painting all men with one broad brush. There are plenty of men who take being a father a seriously responsibility and do, at least, the minimal or equal requirements but also goes above and beyond. Just like woman do. For the majority it is the woman and the children that have been abandoned by men/fathers, the legal system, the social welfare system and a prejudicial society, that suffers with no real protection If men don't want the baby they walk away. If women don't want it...who cares. You have to carry it around in your body until you suffer the ungodly pain of labor and delivery. Then after that you have to decide on what kind of strength you think you might have to suffer with whatever decision you make for the rest of your life. What a slippery slope.

Vor Monat
Zachary Tabelin
Zachary Tabelin

Like said in the Supreme court rulings, the right to abortion has little much support to be justified.

Vor 7 Tage
Gayathri Devi
Gayathri Devi

Good summary. It'd be greatly useful for law students if you can upload videos on jurisprudential concepts like legal positivism, realism etc.,

Vor Monat
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①

⤴️⬆️Text Max for more update on XRP, NFT', BTC 📊, And something new•

Vor Monat
FanFilmNetwork
FanFilmNetwork

I didn't realize the supreme court was limited to constitution and history only. Are they unable to reference modern medical science and statistics? It seems like that would be a very relevant piece of information.

Vor Monat
Nani Lawrence
Nani Lawrence

Conservatives/fascists have always relied heavily on tradition instead of the reality of the modern world.

Vor 11 Stunden
mobile_warrior
mobile_warrior

They can, but the job of the court is to interpret laws, even bad ones, and determine their constitutionality, not make laws. Referencing medicine and modern practice would fall in the domain of lawmakers when considering factors that should inform a law being written.

Vor Monat
kirby march barcena
kirby march barcena

This reminded me sometime in the '90s when a neighbor of mine died while giving birth to her daughter. I can't recall the details but the mother instructed the surgeons to do what they can to save her daughter...whom the japanese father took back to Japan a few months later.

Vor 24 Tage
Luc
Luc

Thank you for this video ! As a non American, I was very confused with this whole thing, and couldn’t understand what abortion had to do with privacy, or what it meant that Roe v. wade provided “constitutional protection”. Much clearer now. One thing I learned is that “right to privacy” does not mean, as I thought, “right to an absence of surveillance”, but is broader than that. I’m still not sure of the definition, though.

Vor Monat
Chiral
Chiral

@Lil Mupp Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. How the friend ends up in the river would probably be pretty difficult to prove in court as it was likely just you and them there at the time but if it's important to you how about we look at two slightly more detailed examples: 1) You and a friend are standing by a river and a third person shows up and shoves your friend into the river without consent. Are you obligated to dive in and risk your life to save your friend in that case, where the whole situation was forced on you by someone else? 2) You and a friend go jogging regularly by the river path. You both wear really good running shoes that offer excellent grip, you picked the safest path along the river for a jog, you took all the measures someone would reasonably expect to prevent an accident. Sadly though, one day the protection you relied on didn't work and the river? Your friend's in it! Oh no! ...Are you obligated to risk your life to save them then? Technically even though you didn't mean for this to happen and did your best to prevent it if you didn't go jogging they wouldn't be drowning right now... I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would blame the person in example 1 for leaving their friend and running, much less pass a law forbidding that choice, but it's happened in some states when it comes to not wanting to carry a child that was forced on them. For example 2 I can see some people might say "well, just don't jog near rivers then even if you prepare and wear protection" but really? You're just gonna tell people (specifically only women, not men) that they're not allowed to jog near rivers just because there's a small chance an accident might happen? Sounds pretty sus.

Vor Monat
Miles Rout
Miles Rout

It has nothing to do with privacy. Yet another example of the way in which activist judges have tried to change the meanings of words to suit their agendas.

Vor Monat
kitolz
kitolz

@Lil Mupp You will have to clarify which statement you're replying to as I'm not sure which scenario you're talking about.

Vor Monat
Lil Mupp
Lil Mupp

@Chiral another poor analogy. U did not make that person start drowning. Sex makes a person to become pregnant

Vor Monat
Alex Newhall
Alex Newhall

I would love to hear about the upcoming case Moore v. Harper!

Vor Monat
Old Doggo
Old Doggo

Never thought I would agree with Kavanaugh about anything….but his explanation actually made more sense than the other justices

Vor 26 Tage
Wicked
Wicked

Sometimes simple is better, at least in my mind.

Vor 9 Tage
Kenneth Walker-Chase
Kenneth Walker-Chase

You are an amazing person, and we all (I hope, but know at least the majority of us) VERY much appreciative of your knowledge, expertise, and (Very important, and likely the greatest cause of struggle) honesty. You seek the honest truth, even when it frustrates you. You want to educate in the most neutral way, and that IS the best way. After this video, I would not blame you in taking a break, no-one worth their moral weight (I know the oddity of the phrase) wouldn't. Please, don't EVER forget to fill your own cup first. You are definitely worth keeping around and happy. :)

Vor Monat
whatsapp_me +①⑥①⑦④⑥⑤①⑨⑨⑦
whatsapp_me +①⑥①⑦④⑥⑤①⑨⑨⑦

ʜᴍᴜ ɪ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀɴ ɪɴᴄᴇɴᴛɪᴠᴇ ғᴏʀ ʏᴏᴜ ☝️

Vor Monat
Mike Adair
Mike Adair

Fantastic analysis! Thank you!

Vor Monat
ChaosKei
ChaosKei

Thank you so much for this, LeagleEagle. If you have the time can you go over trigger laws? I’ve been hearing about a lot of states having these sort of laws already prepared if Roe v Wade died and now that it has, a lot of them have officially become law apparently.

Vor Monat
Conk
Conk

@BigfootTornado mothers? Thought it wasnt a child though..

Vor Monat
Kate S
Kate S

@Hulkaiden if in order to have an abortion you need to prove that life is in danger, proving that may take too much time, and it may be too late. That is why "exemptions don't work". Proving assault is not always possible, and proving danger to life can be hard and take too much time

Vor Monat
Lance Cyber
Lance Cyber

@Kyle Kaelerra "Imagine..." Again, not the way to start off if you want to have a mature conversation with an adult. Your loss.

Vor Monat
Lance Cyber
Lance Cyber

@Kyle Kaelerra "You heard it here first folks. That sums up his entire view point. No need for further discussion." Not the way to talk if you want somebody you'd respect to engage with you in conversation and your stats are wrong. Bye.

Vor Monat
Kyle Kaelerra
Kyle Kaelerra

@Lance Cyber I'm going to assume you don't actually think that everybody can afford to cross sometimes multiple state lines and back to go get an abortion. So.. 5% of people who need abortions are irrelevant. You heard it here first folks. That sums up his entire view point. No need for further discussion.

Vor Monat
Keith Berjeron
Keith Berjeron

It is My Will that the legal right for a woman to choose whether or not to carry her fetus to term be restored. Thank you for this clear and detailed explanation. You have waded through so many years of court proceedings with *sprezzatura*

Vor 3 Tage
Tigerstar0405
Tigerstar0405

You brought up so many scenarios that would have never crossed my mind with how states may enforce their own authorities. I haven’t yet heard of peoples opinion in how the laws may treat a trans man wanting an abortion, though, and I feel like it’s a bit of an oversight to limit the conversation to cis women when it affects many many more…

Vor Monat
Tyghe Deerfield
Tyghe Deerfield

Would love to see your take on Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. I'm trying to understand how far the implications reach.

Vor Monat
Luke Hartley
Luke Hartley

I'm realising that the nature of the law being based on set precedents from similar cases from the past is dependant on the false assumption that the population's values have not changed since those past cases. Essentially, the law system assumes we still have the same values as we had 400 years ago

Vor Monat
Peter Ondracek
Peter Ondracek

I find that to be one of the law's greatest saving graces. Ofc it doesn't always work (see Scientology, Amway, Timeshare and Bitcoin not being treated as scams), but today's values are unironically sending men to women's prisons, advocating against freedom of speech & freedom of association, and advocating for discrimination in favour of protected groups, even when, say, those protected groups have *all* of the non-merit scholarships and comprise 60% of higher education. If nothing else, your forefathers certainly had a better grasp of fairness and freedom than today's values. With Roe v Wade, there are only like 19 other options that planned parenthood can offer which aren't affected whatsoever. And if this gets passed under an equality clause as per RBG's opinion, I just don't see how they can avoid at least visiting the topic of men(/poly/mono partners of any gender) being offered a financial abortion, meaning any future changes would piss off roughly double the number of people.

Vor Monat
Cris DLZ
Cris DLZ

Kindw odd you didn't mention Thomas stating that the cases he mentioned could be upheld on the Privileges and Immunities Clause

Vor Monat
Jenny Crawford
Jenny Crawford

This is really great info! Can you do a video on all the drama going on with Bannon defying the J6 Committee and what's going on there? Thanks for your wonderful videos, I listen while I'm working on my plans :D

Vor Monat
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①
DM on WhatsApp+①③④⑦⑨⓪⑥⑦①⑥①

⤴️⬆️Text Max for more update on XRP, NFT', BTC 📊, And something new•

Vor Monat
Wolf
Wolf

This is what happens when you have a an entire branch of government that is elected and choose not to handle complex issues themselves but rather push them off onto the judicial and executive branch for fears that something they do will end up with them not being re-elected. They knew it was fragile and had 50 years to put roe into law with a constitutional amendment, such an amendment has never been proposed. This is one of the reasons that term limits on senators and representatives is necessary, too many of them don't want to make tough decisions just to keep their job of doing nothing.

Vor 12 Tage
Nani Lawrence
Nani Lawrence

This is the most pertinent comment I've read on here.

Vor 10 Stunden
C0lorman
C0lorman

Do you honestly think House Republicans would just stand by and allow such a thing to happen? Why do you think the term filibuster exists? Any attempt at all to codify abortion as a right in law would be immediately stomped out.

Vor 5 Tage
Will8635
Will8635

This is by far the most convoluted video you've ever produced, but a necessary one.

Vor Monat
Yokora -dono
Yokora -dono

I think it's vitally important that people understand what goes on behind the headlines and popular opinion and I really appreciate the effort that goes into making these events more digestible to the average person. Also I probably never would have read the dissent without this video and I enjoyed hearing someone rip into the majority.

Vor Monat
belal bhuiyan
belal bhuiyan

I find the Majority Opinion to be correct. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and so was Casey. The Constituion only prevents the States from taking life , liberty , and proptery if there is no due process. Due Process , since the Founding Era and to this day, means following a set procedure to pass a law enforced through seperate process that has predefined protocall without going to what is in the law itself. If New Jersey wanted to pass an ex post facto law , we would say that is a violation of Article 1 section 10 of The Constitution , not a Due Process Violation. Substantive Due Process is mostly a court invented Concept not originating from any Lawmaker in The US or Common Law. Secondly , the 9th amendment only forbids restriction of unenumerated rights if it is based upon the enumeration of rights. If it is through the enumerated powers then it is fine. When all of this is also taken with the 10th amendment giving all powers that are not expressly given to the Federal government and forbidden in the Constitution is for the States or The People. This makes abortion something the states are fully able to decide to make illegal or restrict.

Vor Monat
rollersky
rollersky

@DarkSide Blues Completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with how Roe V Wade affected people.

Vor Monat
Katherine Kure
Katherine Kure

Wait a minute…physician assisted suicide is becoming a thing around the world. In Canada it’s called MAID Medically assistance in death. There has to be a diagnosis with no treatment and undue suffering.

Vor Monat
E G
E G

you covered this very well, thank you

Vor Monat
Patrick Sparks
Patrick Sparks

Thoughts on jury nullification as a tool for subverting any legislation that bans abortion?

Vor 20 Tage
Conrad Cole
Conrad Cole

After watching this it's clear that only 1/9 of the court was consistent and thoroughly correct.

Vor Monat
JimTheFly
JimTheFly

There's not much I can think of to say here except: Thank you. I can tell by the tone of your voice how this must have been a significant amount of work into a massively important topic, and you did wonderful here. You're a credit to your profession and help to the common citizen with your clear, concise descriptions.

Vor Monat
Ben
Ben

What does overturning constitutional protections of something you don't see as a constitutionally protected right have to do with your political opinions on the issue? Isn't it possible that Thomas politically agrees with any or all these issues, such as inter-racial marriage being legal, but disagrees that there are currently grounds for a constitutional protection from state laws against these things?

Vor Monat
Walkaza
Walkaza

To, LEGAL EAGLE, thank you for this video. I know this was tough for you.🙏

Vor Monat
CoffeeLover2010
CoffeeLover2010

I cannot imagine how much time he spent on this.

Vor Monat
Jedi Sentinel
Jedi Sentinel

Thanks for insight! My brother is a public defender and I find this fascinating. I’m guessing your specialty is criminal law?

Vor Monat
sigheyeroll
sigheyeroll

I appreciate that you're always willing to cover these heavy topics. Thanks LegalEagle.

Vor Monat
DarkSide Blues
DarkSide Blues

@KingBobXIV look it up. Was all over the news. And his video was the one where his sister went to portland and said everything us peaceful here, which was a lie. That night my class mate got murdered.

Vor Monat
Entropy
Entropy

@DarkSide Blues yeah we gonna need you to 1) site the video, 2) timestamp

Vor Monat
KingBobXIV
KingBobXIV

@DarkSide Blues - "He lied about the riots in Oregon, where a classmate of mine was murdered" [Citation needed]

Vor Monat
Ghostface
Ghostface

@DarkSide Blues Yet you've made 557 comments on this channel...

Vor Monat
Kevin Archambault
Kevin Archambault

When can i vote for LeageEagle for a SCOTUS seat? Especially if they give the full youtube explanation to go with your opinions.

Vor Monat
Pit Gutzmann
Pit Gutzmann

17:23 Didn't the Texas abortion law even target people who "assist" in getting an abortion? How can you travel outside the State for an abortion without risking to get other people into jail then? A driver would "assist" you in getting an abortion by those Texas standards. Wouldn't that inflict the "right to interstate travel"? An internet provider hosting a web page of another State's abortion clinic would "assist" a person getting knowledge about abortion procedures... and so on... a Pandora's box opened.

Vor Monat
7eventeenth
7eventeenth

I don't believe that it could be used to prosecute out of state abortions or the internet providers, but I you found a good line of questioning. Would a uber driver who which drivers a lady to a clinic in state be liable for a suit?

Vor Monat
Sanjay Chakroborty
Sanjay Chakroborty

Great work bro, Very informative video, Thanks for sharing with us, Just keep it up.

Vor Monat

Nächster

All The Possible January 6th Crimes

27:56

All The Possible January 6th Crimes

LegalEagle

Aufrufe 1 000 000

Uvalde and Police "Duty"

15:56

Uvalde and Police "Duty"

LegalEagle

Aufrufe 1 600 000

Megan Thee Stallion - Her [Official Video]

2:21

Megan Thee Stallion - Her [Official Video]

Megan Thee Stallion

Aufrufe 969 605

Beyoncé - I’M THAT GIRL (Official Teaser)

3:37

The Constitution Doesn't Say That!

14:33

The Constitution Doesn't Say That!

LegalEagle

Aufrufe 1 800 000

Military Laws Broken: Top Gun (with real JAG)

24:57

Elon Musk Pulls Out

22:06

Elon Musk Pulls Out

LegalEagle

Aufrufe 1 300 000

Megan Thee Stallion - Her [Official Video]

2:21

Megan Thee Stallion - Her [Official Video]

Megan Thee Stallion

Aufrufe 969 605