Page values for "A terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court decision"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetimeJuly 20, 2022 3:16:30 PM
_modificationDateDatetimeJuly 20, 2022 3:16:30 PM
_creatorStringYaron Koren
_fullTextSearchtext{{Item |author=Harry Litman |source=Los Angeles Times |date=June 26, 2022 |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-26/roe-vs-wade-dobbs-supreme-court-samuel-alito |quote="What is distinctive about abortion," Alito writes, is that it results in the termination of a &qu ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |Items
_numRevisionsInteger1
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringA terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court decision
_pageIDOrRedirectInteger14,289
_lastEditorStringYaron Koren
_pageIDInteger14,289
_pageNamePageA terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court decision
_pageTitleString

A terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court decision

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Items" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
AuthorList of Page, delimiter: ,Harry Litman
SourcePageLos Angeles Times
DateDateJune 26, 2022
URLURLhttps://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-26/roe-vs-wade-dobbs-supreme-court-samuel-alito
QuoteText"What is distinctive about abortion," Alito writes, is that it results in the termination of a "potential life." And so it does. That is the core difficulty that makes abortion doctrine so vexing — both the individual and society have vital interests at stake. But Alito's leap from that truism to the conclusion that the right to abortion merits no constitutional protection rests on an embarrassing flaw in legal reasoning. It is a non-sequitur to say that the existence of a state or societal interest in fetal life means there is no individual interest in whether to bring a fetus to term. A countervailing state interest says exactly nothing about the existence of an individual right.
SummaryWikitext

A terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Supreme Court decision by Harry Litman (Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2022) (view)

"Opinions" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeAllowed valuesValue
TopicPageDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Position_fragmentStringSupreme Court was correct in its ruling
PositionPageDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization / Supreme Court was correct in its ruling
Position_linkWikitext

Supreme Court was correct in its ruling

StanceStringfor · mixed · againstagainst