These feelings run very deep, and the emotional appeal made in
arguments over abortion is very strong indeed.
Not exact matches
With more than a hint of exasperation, Scalia concludes: «One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the
argument over these distinctions; and will find in our society's tradition regarding
abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional
argument about them ought to be resolved.
(If that sounds familiar, it's because the same
argument was made twenty - five years ago in the early stages of the battle
over legalized
abortion.)
Should one invoke the same
arguments used in the debate
over abortion, or is this a separate issue?
The very first
argument advanced in the first congressional debates
over extending Medicaid funding to
abortion referred to the many millions of dollars in future welfare costs that
abortion would save.
Anti-
abortion-rights demonstrators stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 after oral
arguments over buffer zones around
abortion clinics.
If the context behind the
arguments is not included, the public just sees dispute, and can simply lump a science fight with those
over abortion, gun rights, energy policy and other issues framed by ideology or values as much as (or more than) data.
Contentious disputes
over abortion rights, race, punitive damages, and the environment loom large, and the Court has only just begun to fill its
argument calendar for the term.
The videos reignited a long - standing debate
over the use of fetal tissue collected through
abortions, fueled efforts seeking to ban
abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, re-energized
arguments over whether public money should support Planned Parenthood and became the subject of a Republican - led investigation on Capitol Hill.