Member Update: Mississippi Makes the Case for Overturning Roe, and more

Dear Webmaster220, In this member update we discuss: State of Mississippi Reply Amicus Brief in Dobbs Supreme Court Case EU Parliament Interferes in US law Regarding Abortion Mississippi states the case for overturning Roe in the Dobbs Case currently before the Supreme Court Last week, the State of Mississippi filed a brief in the Supreme Court responding to the claims of the abortion industry and declaring that the Emperor indeed has no clothes. Their brief says it all:  INTRODUCTION           For 30 years, no party has had to defend Roe v. Wade, . No party has ever had to defend Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Finally forced to defend those cases, respondents drive home the stark reality: Roe and Casey are indefensible. At each turn, respondents' "effort to defend" Roe and Casey "underscores" the overwhelming case for rejecting those decisions. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 382 (2010) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).           Respondents do not claim that constitutional text or structure establishes a right to abortion. And they do not seriously argue that Roe and Casey are correct as an original matter. Their defense of Casey is to repeat its reasoning. Resp.Br.17-22. But Casey's reasoning is "not just wrong" but "exceptionally ill founded." Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2178 (2019). Casey reasoned that general interests in personal autonomy support a constitutional right to abortion. Yet this Court has repudiated that approach of "deduc[ing]" rights "from abstract concepts of personal autonomy." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 725 (1997). To tie due process to the accumulated wisdom of the people rather than "the policy preferences" of judges, this Court demands that an asserted fundamental right, "careful[ly] descri[bed]," be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Id. at 720, 721. A right to abortion has no such roots. Pet.Br.12-13. Like Roe, Casey cast the Constitution and precedent aside to recognize a unique due-process right that ends a human life. "Casey said it" is no defense because Casey is gravely wrong.           Respondents do not claim that abortion jurisprudence is workable. Pet.Br.19-22. They claim only that a viability rule is workable. Resp.Br.22-23. But even that is not so. Viability has no relationship to the state interests that abortion affects, so a viability rule cannot workably account for those interests. Pet.Br.41- 42. And it is clear why respondents go no deeper on workability: they do not want to defend the workability of Casey's undue-burden standard. The fact that— in the first case squarely calling upon this Court to overrule Casey—respondents cannot bring themselves to defend the "standard of general application" that Casey announced, 505 U.S. at 876 (plurality opinion), tells this Court all it needs to know about the workability of its abortion caselaw.          Respondents do not dispute that Roe and Casey have damaged democratic self-governance, the Nation, the law, and this Court. Pet.Br.23-28. Indeed, respondents amplify these points when they excoriate this Court's special test for evaluating facial challenges to abortion laws. Respondents condemn that "rights-by-numbers test" as irreconcilable with the rules this Court applies elsewhere in the law. Resp.Br.47, 49-50. In spotlighting this Court's departure from neutral rules of law in abortion cases, respondents confirm the strong grounds for overruling.           Respondents urge that no factual developments support abandoning Roe and Casey. Resp.Br.23-36. Yet respondents deny the decades of leaps forward in policy, society, medicine, and science that have continued to "unmask[ ]" how baseless and arbitrary Roe and Casey are. Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1415 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part). When Roe was decided, this Court refused even to say when human life begins, many laws and policies 3 promoting equality were yet to come, and women composed but a small part of legislative bodies. It is not the same world today. And respondents' factual account would not aid them even if it were true. Overruling does not require any change in facts. Roe and Casey were egregiously wrong when they were decided. A factual standstill would just mean that they are as wrong now as they were decades ago.           Respondents urge that abortion is critical to women's success and health. Resp.Br.36-41. Yet respondents disregard the ubiquity of safe-haven laws that eliminate parenting burdens altogether, discount that the Act here includes a health exception, downplay laws that promote women's career and family success, and diminish contraceptive advances. Pet.Br.29-30, 34-35. Respondents even claim that abortion has driven women's success—while disparaging that success as "incremental." Resp.Br.41. That incredible view writes off the robust career and family success that innumerable women have achieved without relying on abortion.           Last, respondents contend that there is no sound alternative approach to judicial review of abortion laws other than the one imposed by Roe and Casey. Resp.Br.41-50. But there is a sound alternative: return the matter to the people. That approach—with abortion restrictions assessed under rational-basis review—is used on almost every important issue this country faces. Rational-basis review is familiar to courts and easy to apply. Unlike some areas of law where the right alternative may present a hard question, here it does not: rational-basis review is "what should replace" Roe and Casey. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1883 (2021) (Barrett, J., 4 concurring). And the other alternatives the State identified are far superior to Roe and Casey.           This case provides a vivid illustration that Roe and Casey are irredeemable. The Gestational Age Act— which was enacted by large legislative majorities— adopts a modest restriction to pursue important interests. It limits abortion in Mississippi by one week, with exceptions for life and health. It leaves ample time for each woman who would now obtain an abortion in that week to still obtain one. The Act operates when an unborn child has fully taken on the human form, when risks to women's health are higher, and when the common abortion procedure is especially brutal. Yet Roe and Casey led the courts below to hold—in line with every lower-court decision on a similar law—that the Constitution bars the State from reducing abortion's availability from 16 weeks' gestation to 15 weeks' gestation. That is indefensible. There is no credible argument that the Constitution offers a view on—let alone precludes—such a one week limitation. That is where Roe and Casey have brought us. This Court should overrule Roe and Casey, uphold the Act, and reverse the judgment below. AAPLOG is coordinating a physicians coalition to stand on the steps of the Supreme Court on December 1 as a visual witness that killing preborn human beings is antithetical to the purpose of medicine.   We invite you to come and stand beside colleagues from AAPLOG, CMDA, Catholic Medical Association, Coptic Medical Association and the American College of Pediatricians as well as other physicians who adhere to the Hippocratic Oath.  If you are interested in standing with us at the Supreme Court on the early morning of December 1, please reply to this email for more details.   We look forward to standing with you at this incredible moment in history. The European Parliament Interferes in U.S. Law Regarding Abortion The Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues reported on a resolution by a majority of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) calling for the US in its entirety to eliminate all laws against abortion by passing and enacting the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) and by establishing "federal legal protection for universal access to abortion".      "The non-binding pro-abortion resolution—European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2021 on the state law relating to abortion in Texas, USA (2021/2910(RSP)—was introduced by The Left political group and passed by a vote of 381 in favor, 253 against and 36 abstentions. It reads as if written by pro-abortion activists and even calls for the European Union (EU) and its Member States to provide EU support and funding for US-based civil society groups "protecting and promoting SRHR in the country, as an expression of its universal commitment to these rights." It seeks to provide 'safe haven' for medical professionals who violate Texan law and face legal action." We look forward to seeing you on Dec 1. Thanks for standing with us! Donna J. Harrison, M.D. Chief Executive Officer American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists www.aaplog.org Life. It's why we're here. Upcoming Conferences and Events AAPLOG members, students, and friends, please join us for our final regional Hippocratic Gathering, in-person or virtually.  Space is available!   AAPLOG Western Regional Hippocratic Gathering  Saturday, November 6, 2021, 10 AM -  2PM MT, doors open at 9:30 AM. Includes coffee, hot buffet lunch, dessert networking reception (2-3PM).  Thanksgiving Point Golf Club, Lehi, UT. Other Interesting Conferences Announcing the inaugural online conference of the Society for Christian Bioethicists (www.scbethics.com), on November 5, 2021, possibly extending to 4th or 6th depending on submissions. We are welcoming papers on any topic of interest to Christian bioethicists, and require only an abstract of 200-500 words. Papers need not directly address a Christian perspective, and are welcome from people of any faith and none. Keynote speakers are Prof John Wyatt, Dr Monique Wubbenhorst, and a panel discussion/debate between Prof. Peter Singer and Prof. Charles Camosy. Information available here or on the  SCB website. ********************************* The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity is excited for our 29th annual summer conference, Integrity and Conscience: Bioethics and the Professions, June 23–25, 2022, held on the campus of Trinity International University. We recently opened the call for papers and posters to be presented at the conference. Those interested may learn more on our website at https://cbhd.org/conf2022/cfp. The submission deadline is November 21, 2021. We also have a student paper competition with our 2022 summer conference. Please let undergraduate, graduate, seminary, and doctoral students know they can learn more on our website, including the amount of the cash prize. The student paper competition submission deadline is January 15, 2022. ***************************** The Billings Ovulation Method is offering online and self-paced learning on fertility awareness based methods. Learn the foundational science used by most all of the other methods and make more connections within the growing field of restorative reproductive medicine. For a limited time, all medical, nursing and allied health professionals in training qualify for a scholarship rate.  Any health care student across the U.S. would be able to access the course with the scholarship rate of $100.00. Practicing professionals in Dallas only can get the scholarship.  Click on the link to learn more. Classified Ads TN Private Practice for Sale  Faith-based, Pro-life OBGYN Private Practice for sale in scenic downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee.  Solo private practice with dependable staff.  Office space large enough to add midwife or second physician. 1 in 4 call.  Surgeries and deliveries at a single hospital with in-house anesthesia 24/7.  3500+ patients.  Electronic charting and billing system.  $575k gross revenue annually.  Please text or call 423.227.6244 for further information.  As a dues-paying member, you can email us to post your job needs here. These posts are available for dues paying members to see by logging in to the members only website and clicking on "members" then "classifieds" in the drop down menu.   To post your classified ad, please email us. Patient Education Brochures Did you know? AAPLOG has created a set of brochures to help members educate patients about the effects of abortion on their physical and mental health. We have worked with Kinetic Media LLC, a web design and print company, to offer these brochures to AAPLOG members at a large discount. There are four main Patient Education brochures along with an AAPLOG Information brochure. Each brochure is available in English & Spanish. To learn more, click the button below. Learn More OFFICE: 202 230-0997,  ADDRESS: PO Box 395  Eau Claire, MI 49111-0395 Website • Facebook • Twitter Want to change how you receive these emails? You can *update your preferences or *unsubscribe from this list.  Subscription Information This message was sent to  Webmaster220 Bible Study Blog *the blog owner has deleted the hyperlink intentionally