Roe v. Wade Overturned (1 Viewer)

[BladeRunner]

There is an argument to be made that laws shouldn’t change until and unless the majority want them to change. We didn’t have gay marriage, for example, until the public was ready for it. The public is not ready to overturn Roe. 

fair enough, but I just can't see how someone who is pro-life wouldn't want this done right now while they have the chance.  They may never get the opportunity again so you need to strike while the iron is hot, IMO.

 

[Joe Bryant]

He says quite clearly this may not be the final version and that with two months left before an opinion is released there's a lot of room for change.  This opinion might be the final word, but it might not be too.

Almost zero doubt that it's a legit draft though.

That's how I read it too. I haven't yet been able to find the clip @timschochet is talking about when the reporter made it sound like it was a done deal. "The reporter responded with, we are confident that the decision has already been made. "  If anyone has that clip, can you please share?

 

[timschochet]

Tim be honest, did this disrupt your sleep last night?

Yes. Of course it did. I have two daughters and their rights are being taken away. This is awful. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Just two points, but it's  other way around: 49-47 Pro Choicero Life.

Apologies. Fixed. But same question. How do we reconcile 30% want it overturned but 47% are pro life? Just polling differences?

 

[Desert_Power]

There is an argument to be made that laws shouldn’t change until and unless the majority want them to change. We didn’t have gay marriage, for example, until the public was ready for it. The public is not ready to overturn Roe. 

You can make that argument all you want, but that is not how our system works. We're increasingly subject to minority rule, this is just the latest example

 

[timschochet]

That's how I read it too. I haven't yet been able to find the clip @timschochet is talking about when the reporter made it sound like it was a done deal. "The reporter responded with, we are confident that the decision has already been made. "  If anyone has that clip, can you please share?

That’s my interpretation of what he said. You and others may have a different reaction. 

 

[timschochet]

You can make that argument all you work, but that is not how our system works. We're increasingly subject to minority rule, this is just the latest example

Right, I’m just explaining the differences in polling. 

 

[Stealthycat]

There is an argument to be made that laws shouldn’t change until and unless the majority want them to change. We didn’t have gay marriage, for example, until the public was ready for it. The public is not ready to overturn Roe. 

that's actually NOT how it works with our Constitution

the public has been ready to protect unborn babies lives for a long, long time

left liberals will hate this - most people not really liking abortion will be fine with more restrictions, the conservatives who don't like killing unborn babies will be very happy 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I don't think this was leaked to intimidate Justices into changing their votes. I think it was leaked to push congress (and I hope it works).

If it were leaked in the hopes of changing the SCOTUS ruling, it backfired. No way any of the Justices reverse course now.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Anyone that doesn't think this leads to a national ban as soon as the GOP is in control has their head in the sand.  This will be the next battle over the next decade until it happens...

I don't think I have my head in the sand, but this seems very very unlikely to me.  Three reasons:

1. The filibuster. No, I don't think the Republicans were being sincere when they sung its praises in this Congress. They would get rid of it in a second if they thought it would help them long term. But it won't, because on a fundamental level Dems want the government to do things to help people and the GOP wants the government to stay out of everyone's business and the filibuster obviously hurts the first effort and helps the second. They just don't care enough about abortion to make that sacrifice.

2. The politics would be really bad for them. Right now abortion is an indirect issue for federal legislative elections. Some on the left laughed off arguments that everyone should unite behind Clinton in 2016 in order to protect the Court and, by extension, abortion rights. Nobody's gonna laugh that off now, of course, but enacting legislation, or even having a vote on it, would make this the #1 issue for candidates for the near future.

3. Abortion is an incredibly useful tool for the GOP. It won them the widespread support of evangelicals to the point that those voters will forgive pretty much anything else in a politician says or does as long as they promise to oppose abortion. Right now they can still wield the possibility of a federal abortion ban to keep those folks in line. If they pass it they lose their most effective trump card, no pun intended.

 

[crackattack]

Maybe a run on Plan B? Buy stocks in the medical company that makes it?

 

[Joe Bryant]

That’s my interpretation of what he said. You and others may have a different reaction. 

Thanks. Do you have a link to the clip?

 

[The Commish]

if rumors are true

state govt's and fed govt's need to move fast to reallocate moneys to help single mothers, poor mothers, revamp adoption policies etc etc

those are good things everyone can get behind I'd think

I don't think I've ever agreed with you on anything meaningful in the past.  This is something I've been preaching for the better part of two decades.  The question is, are people really going to hold their GOP legislatures to this list?  Because, it's my belief that these things here are absolutely crucial to the solution not that they are leaving abortions up to the state.  Unfortunately there is ZERO meaningful evidence I've seen from ANY of these states looking to overturn RvW are interested in this.  I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling this is going to ignored like it has been for the past 30 years.

However, one quibble I have here is the bold.....the states have pushed for this to be a state issue.  Federal funds need not be going to these sorts of things IMO.  This is what the states are asking for, it's up to them to fund it.  

 

[skol asylum]

Well, so much for the the Left being the ideology of "judicial activism." Not only would this ruling effectively eliminate the idea of legal precedent, it also lays clear aim on the established right to privacy (that is, the right to conduct your life as you see fit without the interference of the government). The right to privacy is not enshrined anywhere in the constitution, but for a hundred years or more our Supreme Court has determined that rights which are officially given (the right to freedom of speech, religion, etc) would be impossible to have without the underlying concept of a right to privacy.

Without precedent and the legal decisions that have given us that right as settled law, you can rest assured that more change is coming. The right to contraceptives, gay marriage, elimination of anti-sodomy laws, and interracial marriage are all based on this framework of decisions via the right to privacy. You take away the first piece in the manner described in this decision, and none of those other decisions are safe. Welcome to our American theocracy.

I've been trying to view what's been going on with our politics in this country with a longer view. I believe there is a conservative/right wing backlash happening right now against all the progressive advances we've made in the last 50 years, led by a minority movement with an outsized power thanks to gerrymandering and state level politics that have allowed those minorities to seize control. The counter backlash is coming. This is the last dying breath of an older generation who are not comfortable with change, and who put this discomfort ahead of the human rights of others not like them. It's both sad and frustratingly maddening. But this too shall pass. Because the power structures are corrupt and very hard to change it's going to take way longer than it should for reform to roll back these claims to power by the minority but we will get there. 

 

[Doug B]

Medical tourism is already a thing. This will make it even more so. 

There could potentially be some unusual hotspots for abortion services judging by the list of states that have trigger laws ready to ban abortion upon reversal of Roe. Cairo, Illinois. Clovis and Las Cruces, New Mexico. Pensacola, Florida maybe very briefly -- no trigger law, but the state has apparently moved far enough right in the last decade or so. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

if rumors are true

state govt's and fed govt's need to move fast to reallocate moneys to help single mothers, poor mothers, revamp adoption policies etc etc

those are good things everyone can get behind I'd think

How do we get the holier than thou judgmental  to not bring decades of shame on women who God forbid get pregnant at the wrong time and irresponsibly give up their child to fade into the woodwork?  Otherwise abortion adoption is never going to be the viable option that these very  same people argue it should be.     

 

[timschochet]

Joe I’m sorry I can’t find the link from where I’m at, and maybe my read was totally off, but the Politico reporter definitely pushed back against the speculation that Roe would not be overturned. He said that the opinion leaked was just a draft and that there would likely be changes to wording and phrases but not to the body of the decision. He seemed pretty clear to me, but again sometimes I make mistakes in what I hear. 

 

[Stealthycat]

3. Abortion is an incredibly useful tool for the GOP. It won them the widespread support of evangelicals to the point that those voters will forgive pretty much anything else in a politician says or does as long as they promise to oppose abortion. Right now they can still wield the possibility of a federal abortion ban to keep those folks in line. If they pass it they lose their most effective trump card, no pun intended.

If Roe is overturned, GOP has fulfilled something conservatives have long waited for, overturning Roe. That's a massive success, Trump will forever be remembered for adding the SC Justices who made a difference

no line to be kept - its a huge success to be celebrated and the fights on restrictions go to State levels

 

[Doug B]

Apologies. Fixed. But same question. How do we reconcile 30% want it overturned but 47% are pro life? Just polling differences?

IMHO, the questions asked in each poll are quite different. It's a "render unto Caesar" issue in a way.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don't think I've ever agreed with you on anything meaningful in the past.  This is something I've been preaching for the better part of two decades.  The question is, are people really going to hold their GOP legislatures to this list?  Because, it's my belief that these things here are absolutely crucial to the solution not that they are leaving abortions up to the state.  Unfortunately there is ZERO meaningful evidence I've seen from ANY of these states looking to overturn RvW are interested in this.  I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling this is going to ignored like it has been for the past 30 years.

However, one quibble I have here is the bold.....the states have pushed for this to be a state issue.  Federal funds need not be going to these sorts of things IMO.  This is what the states are asking for, it's up to them to fund it.  

it'll be State levels and more accountability to be held than we do at Fed levels

did you not see the link I posted? dozens of states are posed to ban abortions and/or severely restrict with a Roe overturn.

I think we'll see 800,000 killed unborns drop in half the first year after Roe is overturned. If that's true - there had better be something being done as well to help those who need it. And the numbers can be talked about on who has abortions, what age, marital status, race etc and all that .... but its something that really needs to be address and neither Democrats nor Republican's want to talk about it :(

 

[thecatch]

I'm having a tough time with the idea that a clerk (for any of the justices) leaked it.  These are young attorneys with a phenomenally bright future.  SCOTUS clerk is like winning the lottery for one's future legal career.  Getting caught leaking this would end all that and very possibly end in disbarment.

The clerks are generally also young and very ideological.  

 

[timschochet]

enacting legislation, or even having a vote on it, would make this the #1 issue for candidates for the near future.

.

It already is, as of last night, 

Every single Republican politician is going to be asked if they support a federal ban on abortion. I suspect most of them will say yes. 

 

[JIslander]

Except, y'know, I have actual and factual history behind my statements. 

Yeah, we see it every other post.

 

[skol asylum]

Apologies. Fixed. But same question. How do we reconcile 30% want it overturned but 47% are pro life? Just polling differences?

Pro Life and Pro Choice, to some, are not opposite sides of the same coin.

I'm Pro Choice in that I believe the government should not step in between a woman and her doctor to make medical decisions for her.

I'm Pro Life in that personally if I were faced with the decision whether to abort a fetus I would have a very hard time doing so. Most likely I couldn't but it's really hard to say depending on the facts of the situation.

Final note, it's beyond reprehensible to force a woman who was raped to carry a baby to birth. She should absolutely have the right to make that decision herself with no outside political BS having a say.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe I’m sorry I can’t find the link from where I’m at, and maybe my read was totally off, but the Politico reporter definitely pushed back against the speculation that Roe would not be overturned. He said that the opinion leaked was just a draft and that there would likely be changes to wording and phrases but not to the body of the decision. He seemed pretty clear to me, but again sometimes I make mistakes in what I hear. 

Thanks. This is the only one I find on MSNBC. It's another anchor not the Joe guy interviewing the Politico reporter. https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/politico-reporter-many-steps-taken-to-verify-the-authenticity-of-the-draft-opinion-139165253898

Said it does appear it has backing of 5 conservative judges but not yet Roberts.

Said he was certain it was real. 

At about 4:10 in the clip he specifically said that does not mean in the next two months there cannot be revisions to it. But then talked about typos and such. So I"m not sure if he's talking about revising a few words or changing sides. 

 

[timschochet]

If Roe is overturned, GOP has fulfilled something conservatives have long waited for, overturning Roe. That's a massive success, Trump will forever be remembered for adding the SC Justices who made a difference

no line to be kept - its a huge success to be celebrated and the fights on restrictions go to State levels

Similar to the Dred Scott decision, I’m afraid your celebration will be short-lived. This decision will focus the nation on what it does not want, and will eventually lead to federal rights protecting a woman’s right to an abortion. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

If it were leaked in the hopes of changing the SCOTUS ruling, it backfired. No way any of the Justices reverse course now.

This is the most popular interpretation I'm seeing on this - that if the leak was motivated by one side or the other, it was most likely done to lock a majority in place and to a large degree minimize any changes to the text of the draft between now and whenever it is released.

Here's one example from a Texas conlaw prof:

Steve Vladeck@steve_vladeck

Suppose you're a conservative Justice committed to overruling Roe and Casey. There were five votes for that result at Conference, and Justice Alito circulated a draft opinion memorializing it. Now, dissents are coming, and you're worried about losing the majority. What do you do?

 

[BladeRunner]

Yeah, we see it every other post.

Thanks for confirming. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The Alito argument is "abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.”

Alito goes back to cite to medieval and 17th century law to when women were chattel. Then uses the fact that women were traditionally denied rights to continue denying us those rights.

This is a big alarm for anyone who relies on rights not historically in existence—like those for women, the LGBTQ+ community and people of color.

They (abortion rights/privacy rights) are not deeply rooted according to the Court, not quickened, not viable, and so the court performs a dilation and curettage.  Ironic.

 

[jm192]

Couldn’t federal laws now be passed to ban abortion nationwide? Obviously not with the current government but in the future. 

I'd have to spend more time reading the exact wording.  My takeaway from this was abortion rights should be decided state by state.  

I would think that precludes Ted Cruz and Co. from making a federal law that bans it.  But I'm far from a lawyer or legal scholar.

Along the same lines others have said, I don't think it would ever happen for a myriad of reasons.  The biggest of which is money.  Both sides have been dangling this carrot in the name of fundraising for a long time.  

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

it'll be State levels and more accountability to be held than we do at Fed levels

did you not see the link I posted? dozens of states are posed to ban abortions and/or severely restrict with a Roe overturn.

I think we'll see 800,000 killed unborns drop in half the first year after Roe is overturned. If that's true - there had better be something being done as well to help those who need it. And the numbers can be talked about on who has abortions, what age, marital status, race etc and all that .... but its something that really needs to be address and neither Democrats nor Republican's want to talk about it :(

This is absolutely wrong. It's not like this is an unknowable hypothetical either.  Governments have outlawed abortion before, and similar countries have different abortion laws so we can do comparisons there too. All the evidence I've seen suggests that abortion bans have only a negligible effect on abortion rates. 

And that data is from countries where you can't just hop in your car and drive an hour to a different state for your abortions, which you'll be able to do in the US for the foreseeable future.

I'm not even gonna bother with absurd pie in the sky hopes of some sort of massive expansion of the welfare state, or the even more absurd premise that both parties will be to blame when (not if) the states that ban abortion fail to take any meaningful action on that front.

 

[BladeRunner]

You can make that argument all you work, but that is not how our system works. We're increasingly subject to minority rule, this is just the latest example

I don't think you realize how incredibly ironic this is.  

 

[The Commish]

it'll be State levels and more accountability to be held than we do at Fed levels

did you not see the link I posted? dozens of states are posed to ban abortions and/or severely restrict with a Roe overturn.

I think we'll see 800,000 killed unborns drop in half the first year after Roe is overturned. If that's true - there had better be something being done as well to help those who need it. And the numbers can be talked about on who has abortions, what age, marital status, race etc and all that .... but its something that really needs to be address and neither Democrats nor Republican's want to talk about it :(

I will be absolutely floored if anti-abortion states address in any meaningful way the support structures required by the decisions they make.  I hope I'm wrong, but I have little confidence in ANY of them that they are thinking about how to support all these kids that are going to be put up for adoption or simply abandoned.  

Again, I've preached this very topic for years on this board and elsewhere at times arguing that bringing a child into the world in it's current condition and into the conditions they are likely going to see is more inhumane than aborting them, so I see exactly what is going to be needed.  I have ZERO evidence presented to me that state lawmakers have looked at anything that will be required after they are born.  And I have ZERO evidence presented to me that their constituents have any interest in it either.  That will likely change once the financial impact hits them, but until then there are going to be some bad situations out there.

 

[sho nuff]

Thank you.

What do folks think about the 30% wanting to overturn Roe v Wade on the CNN poll but the Gallup poll has it 49-47 Pro Lifero Choice?

I thonk a lot of people separate out feelings on pro choice vs pro life.  Or try to take a more nuanced view of it that just for or against abortion.  For example, personally, I abhor the very idea of abortion (and I purposely use the word abhor to convey how deeply my hate is that it is even a thing).   But I fundamentally do not believe the government should be making that choice for all women.  I recognize there is a need for the procedure and do not believe it should be overall prohibited or made so difficult that it might as well be banned (as will be the case in several states).  Yes, there should be limits as far as how far along…and so on.   And I think even some who may believe they themselves are pro life, also are not necessarily for a federal ban on abortion.

Along with that, as I said above, I believe the general public does not fully understand what Roe established vs not.   And that overturning will ban abortion (and believe that to be true among those wanting it banned and those who oppose the ban)

 

[quick-hands]

Joe I’m sorry I can’t find the link from where I’m at, and maybe my read was totally off, but the Politico reporter definitely pushed back against the speculation that Roe would not be overturned. He said that the opinion leaked was just a draft and that there would likely be changes to wording and phrases but not to the body of the decision. He seemed pretty clear to me, but again sometimes I make mistakes in what I hear. 

I heard the interview my take was same as yours.   But he couched  it in vague language, just in he is wrong.    But he definitely came off as "it's a done deal".

 

[Stealthycat]

Similar to the Dred Scott decision, I’m afraid your celebration will be short-lived. This decision will focus the nation on what it does not want, and will eventually lead to federal rights protecting a woman’s right to an abortion. 

the nation didn't want abortion when SC ruled in 1973

IMO this nation does not like killing unborn babies - and allowing states to decide is a good move

I know you 100% disagree - but now? your side has had legalized abortion at Fed level for 50 years. Your time is over, gone. Lobby your state but federally? its over, done (assuming the ruling is true)

its time for our country to progress, move away from killing unborn babies ... and we're doing it. Join the progress and lets all move towards a better world

 

[SoBeDad]

DeSantis just signed a law reducing legal abortion in Florida from 24 to 15 weeks. That seems like a reasonable compromise IMO. With the recent SC leak, now some groups want Florida to consider a total abortion ban in the upcoming special session called to address the homeowners insurance crisis as many insurers leave the state or hike rates by 30 to 50%. It'll be a chance for DeSantis to further solid his popularity, with some risk for house seats.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Washington Post article on public polling around Roe and abortion

 

[JIslander]

If Roe is overturned, GOP has fulfilled something conservatives have long waited for, overturning Roe. That's a massive success, Trump will forever be remembered for adding the SC Justices who made a difference

no line to be kept - its a huge success to be celebrated and the fights on restrictions go to State levels

Sure, but then they risk losing the single issue voter.   Not sure they can find another carrot as strong to dangle. 

 

[quick-hands]

Similar to the Dred Scott decision, I’m afraid your celebration will be short-lived. This decision will focus the nation on what it does not want, and will eventually lead to federal rights protecting a woman’s right to an abortion. 

Well  thats the way it should be handled.   It's a political question.   

 

[Snotbubbles]

For those clamouring to have the "leaker" thrown in jail....on what grounds do you think this is justified?  What law was broken?  I am unaware of a single law that's been broken.  Is that incorrect?

That said, is there ANY scenario where the court would actually reach out to a group like the FBI to investigate this?  I have to think they'd handle this internally, no?  Events over the last 10ish years have already began to chip away at the confidence/legitimacy of the courts from the "sides" perspective.  

Andrew McCarthy, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney discussed this this morning.  The draft opinion is property of the United States.  The people working at the Supreme Court are government employees.  The embezzlement of Government records is a crime.  He had a laundry list of other crimes as well like fraud and obstruction of justice.  

The leak is bigger news than allowing States to legislate the issue of abortion.  The person who leaked this should be tried criminally and if they are a barred attorney should be disbarred permanently.  

 

[Stealthycat]

This is absolutely wrong. It's not like this is an unknowable hypothetical either.  Governments have outlawed abortion before, and similar countries have different abortion laws so we can do comparisons there too. All the evidence I've seen suggests that abortion bans have only a negligible effect on abortion rates. 

And that data is from countries where you can't just hop in your car and drive an hour to a different state for your abortions, which you'll be able to do in the US for the foreseeable future.

I'm not even gonna bother with absurd pie in the sky hopes of some sort of massive expansion of the welfare state, or the even more absurd premise that both parties will be to blame when (not if) the states that ban abortion fail to take any meaningful action on that front.

more scare tactics and I'm not buying

lets move away from celebrating women having their unborn babies killed - lets more TOWARDS a society that helps women with unwanted pregnancy, financial help, adoption help etc. and nobody loses really

one thing pro-abortion never wants to discuss is the massive life trauma that abortion brings - its real, its factual ..... it doesn't need to be. 

 

[Doug B]

And that data is from countries where you can't just hop in your car and drive an hour to a different state for your abortions, which you'll be able to do in the US for the foreseeable future.

There is a giant unbroken block of the South with trigger laws, and I can't imagine Florida leaving abortion legal much longer. Many people would have to drive more like 6-8 hours at best.

Maryland and Illinois have trigger laws the other way -- abortion becomes officially legal statewide upon overturn of Roe.

Anyone know likely near-term abortion legality in states like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana? Call "near-term" within three years.

EDIT: SoBeDad gave the Florida info above -- thanks.

 

[The Commish]

fair enough, but I just can't see how someone who is pro-life wouldn't want this done right now while they have the chance.  They may never get the opportunity again so you need to strike while the iron is hot, IMO.

The primary reason for me is the states don't have the infrastructure to handle it.  The resources to care for and provide for these babies simply isn't there and I see zero evidence of this fact being on any political radar....been that way for 25 years.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

DeSantis just signed a law reducing legal abortion in Florida from 24 to 15 weeks. That seems like a reasonable compromise IMO. With the recent SC leak, now some groups want Florida to consider a total abortion ban in the upcoming special session called to address the homeowners insurance crisis as many insurers leave the state or hike rates by 30 to 50%. It'll be a chance for DeSantis to further solid his popularity, with some risk for house seats.

No exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking. That doesn't sound like a reasonable compromise to me.

If Dems are smart, this is the political point they hammer home every day from now until November. Only the fring-iest of fringe right wingers thinks women who get raped should be forced to carry a rapist's baby. Even in states that protect abortion in such cases, or in every care, it's a potent and emotional argument, one that seems to confirm the worst things that the pro-choice movement says about the pro-life movement.

 

[Stealthycat]

Washington Post article on public polling around Roe and abortion

they've been told for 50 years killing unborn is a right  -  its not going to be a 5 day process to unwire how people believe

you can see that here on abortion debates - nobody can argue against me that abortion kills a living human baby and that's a fact .... but people don't want to hear they believe something so awful should be legal

in time - the damage done with legalized killing of unborn babies can be undone - this is a monumental move in that direction

progress is GOOD

 

[Joe Bryant]

I heard the interview my take was same as yours.   But he couched  it in vague language, just in he is wrong.    But he definitely came off as "it's a done deal".

Thanks. If you can find a link for that I'd appreciate it. The only one I can find is https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/politico-reporter-many-steps-taken-to-verify-the-authenticity-of-the-draft-opinion-139165253898

 

[SoBeDad]

No exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking. That doesn't sound like a reasonable compromise to me.

If Dems are smart, this is the political point they hammer home every day from now until November. Only the fring-iest of fringe right wingers thinks women who get raped should be forced to carry a rapist's baby. Even in states that protect abortion in such cases, or in every care, it's a potent and emotional argument, one that seems to confirm the worst things that the pro-choice movement says about the pro-life movement.

You're right I forgot to mention the only exceptions were to save the mom's life, no exceptions for incest, rape or human trafficking. I thought going from 24 to 15 weeks was a reasonable compromise in Florida.

 

[Stealthycat]

The primary reason for me is the states don't have the infrastructure to handle it.  The resources to care for and provide for these babies simply isn't there and I see zero evidence of this fact being on any political radar....been that way for 25 years.

truth here - but https://adoptionnetwork.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-adopt-a-child/

"Usually, the time it takes to adopt a baby can be anywhere from several months to a year or more"

that has to change  - we're going to see many many more babies for adoption. When married, we'd considered adoption and looked into it, but the process was long.

it doesn't have to be

 

[skol asylum]

DeSantis just signed a law reducing legal abortion in Florida from 24 to 15 weeks. That seems like a reasonable compromise IMO. With the recent SC leak, now some groups want Florida to consider a total abortion ban in the upcoming special session called to address the homeowners insurance crisis as many insurers leave the state or hike rates by 30 to 50%. It'll be a chance for DeSantis to further solid his popularity, with some risk for house seats.

What if at say 16 weeks at her check up the doctor tells your wife that your baby is going to be born with crippling birth defects. That their very ability to reach 9 months is at doubt. If they do there is a large (say greater than 80-90%) possibility that they won't live past a few weeks and those weeks will be very painful for the child. Let's say for sake if argument that these type of outcomes are not detectable until the 16th week or later. 

As a parent, shouldn't your wife and you have the right to make a decision whether or not you want to put your unborn child through that? I'm not saying one decision is right or wrong here. But shouldn't bthat decision be yours and not some arbitrary date set by a politician seeking power by playing to people's emotions?