US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[CharonY]

A leaked draft of the majority opinion shows that in SCOTUS is set to overturn Row vs. Wade, which was a landmark decision which effectively allowed abortions. 

Quote

The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

Effectively conservative states are poised to make abortions impossible, which is like going to cause a significant public health problem.

[StringJunky]

Amazon is setting up a fund for its women employees that are more than 100 miles away from those services, so they can get there and California is setting itself up to be sanctuary for women outside the state. Mitigation strategies are already being worked on, it appears. Will it have a tangible effect on swing voters in the mid-terms which way they vote?

Edited May 3, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

They've been working on this a long time. They finally succeeded.  Another step forward to the past.

Wouldn't it be nice to see this one backfire? 

[MigL]

I was just reading that ...

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

and that last line caught my eye.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

I would think this puts the onus on elected representatives to make appropriate laws and not rely on Supreme Court decisions to do it for them. Unfortunately I also see more polarization in the US, and more women suffering as a result.

Also note that in the '72 Roe vs. Wade decision, Republican appointed Justices sided with Democrat appointed Justices in making that decision.
Sadly, those days of reasonable Republicans are gone.

Edited May 3, 2022 by MigL

[StringJunky]

Clandestine mifepristone/misoprostol distribution is about to become a thing, methinks . With the advent of such medication, it may not have such far reaching effects as in the past that the GOP/religious wingnuts  hope. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by StringJunky

[swansont]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I would think this puts the onus on elected representatives to make appropriate laws and not rely on Supreme Court decisions to do it for them.

In ~half the states they won't. Many of them already have laws lined up to severely curtail the right, if not eliminate it completely.

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

Many of them already have laws lined up to severely curtail the right, if not eliminate it completely.

And most of them are considered "trigger laws," which means they're already on the books, already approved, already signed into law, and will automatically go into effect the MOMENT the SCOTUS decision becomes official. 

Just like that... Boom. Half the country jumps back in time by 50 years.

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Will it have a tangible effect on swing voters in the mid-terms which way they vote?

This will be ALL the mid-term elections are about. It will drive turnout. The only question is if the rabid anti-abortion god followers turn out in greater frequency than the ~75% of the rest of the country who actually approves of Row and doesn't want it overturned. 

My guess? They will turn out in greater number. For those animated by this particular wedge issue, the animation is stronger for those against allowing safe, legal, limited abortions. 

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I would think this puts the onus on elected representatives to make appropriate laws and not rely on Supreme Court decisions to do it for them.

In which case, we're screwed.

Data: Axios research. Cartogram: Sara Wise and Oriana Gonzalez/Axios

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

This will be ALL the mid-term elections are about. It will drive turnout. The only question is if the rabid anti-abortion god followers turn out in greater frequency than the ~75% of the rest of the country who actually approves of Row and doesn't want it overturned. 

The crux will be of this will get people to vote for democrats who would never vote democrat because the've been quite effectively demonized by the right (vilified for things they have not done, and not done even when holding enough seats to do so (see e.g. they will take your guns!), unlike the GOP, who have done many things the left complained about, and have promised to do more)

and also getting people to vote who would not otherwise have voted.

[TheVat]

It's ironic, there are areas of law where having legislation be determined at the state level makes sense.  But this comes down to what the definition of a living human, with legal personhood, is going to be.  That's an awfully weighty issue, deciding if a metaphysical or a scientific view prevails, and not one that should change everytime you drive across a state line.  There you are, young woman, in South Dakota, with an embryo that the state has applied a religious concept of personhood to, and you drive into Minnesota, and it turns into nonviable tissue which may be excised.  I'm not sure many people grasp the absurdity. 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It's ironic, there are areas of law where having legislation be determined at the state level makes sense.  But this comes down to what the definition of a living human, with legal personhood, is going to be.  That's an awfully weighty issue, deciding if a metaphysical or a scientific view prevails, and not one that should change everytime you drive across a state line.  There you are, young woman, in South Dakota, with an embryo that the state has applied a religious concept of personhood to, and you drive into Minnesota, and it turns into nonviable tissue which may be excised.  I'm not sure many people grasp the absurdity. 

The irony seems to be that most of the unwanted will fund the prison business.

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It's ironic, there are areas of law where having legislation be determined at the state level makes sense.  But this comes down to what the definition of a living human, with legal personhood, is going to be.  That's an awfully weighty issue, deciding if a metaphysical or a scientific view prevails, and not one that should change everytime you drive across a state line.  There you are, young woman, in South Dakota, with an embryo that the state has applied a religious concept of personhood to, and you drive into Minnesota, and it turns into nonviable tissue which may be excised.  I'm not sure many people grasp the absurdity. 

If the USA was just 'America', one country instead of states, and the US SC word prevailed, being Conservative-biased, abortion would be illegal all over the country. At least such prohibitive judgements can be circumvented somewhere in the country, although maybe not easily for some. Like I said earlier, probably the internet, for remote online consultation with a qualified provider and mailed medication, it might not be so destructive to women that need the assistance as pre-internet. There are also proactive sympathetic states that will and can professionally do it properly either in-person or remotely. The days of gin and knitting needles aren't likely to be returned to, so the fears women had in the 70's aren't likely to manifest now to the same degree.

Maybe the outlook isn't as bleak as one might think as at first glance.

Edited May 3, 2022 by StringJunky

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The days of gin and knitting needles aren't likely to be returned to, so the fears women had in the 70's aren't likely to manifest now to the same degree.

The people that are impacted probably don't care so much if/that fewer people are impacted.

Quote

At least such prohibitive judgements can be circumvented somewhere in the country, although maybe not easily for some.

If they make it illegal to travel to get an abortion, or to assist in this way (such as with the Texas law civil statute) then this can't be circumvented.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

The people that are impacted probably don't care so much if/that fewer people are impacted.

If they make it illegal to travel to get an abortion, or to assist in this way (such as with the Texas law civil statute) then this can't be circumvented.

How are they to know?

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

f they make it illegal to travel to get an abortion, or to assist in this way

That law, itself, should be subject to review, shouldn't it? Post-abolition, is it constitutional for a state to prohibit freedom of movement? 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How are they to know?

Your ultra-religious cousin rats you out. The governor sets up checkpoints (gosh, would a governor set up needless checkpoints at their border?) and the police intimidate people, who aren't aware of their right to remain silent. Whatever. 

Does it really matter?

 

Just now, Peterkin said:

That law, itself, should be subject to review, shouldn't it? Post-abolition, is it constitutional for a state to prohibit freedom of movement? 

What does this matter if SCOTUS is hell-bent on one course of action?

[LazyLemonLucas]

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They've been working on this a long time. They finally succeeded.  Another step forward to the past.

Wouldn't it be nice to see this one backfire? 

"If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

If the law is on your side, argue the law." -Al Gore

The people who are trying to overturn abortion rights or diminish the level at which it is allowed have the advantage of the law. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your ultra-religious cousin rats you out. The governor sets up checkpoints (gosh, would a governor set up needless checkpoints at their border?) and the police intimidate people, who aren't aware of their right to remain silent. Whatever. 

Does it really matter?

 

What does this matter if SCOTUS is hell-bent on one course of action?

The ultra-religious cousin, yeah, but the others, that's imagining obstacles that probably have no basis in reality.

2 minutes ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

"If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

If the law is on your side, argue the law." -Al Gore

The people who are trying to overturn abortion rights or diminish the level at which it is allowed have the advantage of the law. 

 Why are you stating truisms? What am I missing?

[swansont]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

The ultra-religious cousin, yeah, but the others, that's imagining obstacles that probably have no basis in reality.

Overturning Roe was something that supposedly had no basis in reality, either. Obstacle doesn't have to be real to have a perception of being real, and keep people from traveling.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Overturning Roe was something that supposedly had no basis in reality, either. Obstacle doesn't have to be real to have a perception of being real, and keep people from traveling.

OK. I'd just rather try to be positive, where possible, than pessimistic.... saps too much energy before one has even started.  

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

OK. I'd just rather try to be positive, where possible, than pessimistic.... saps too much energy before one has even started.  

To my mind we have continually missed with our estimation about how low the GOP will go. Contraception and same-sex marriage are next. How do we know this? Because they told us.

Quote

We understand that only by electing a Republican president in 2016 will America have the opportunity for up to five new constitutionally-minded Supreme Court justices appointed to fill vacancies on the Court. Only such appointments will enable courts to begin to reverse the long line of activist decisions — including Roe, Obergfell, and the Obamacare cases

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform

See also https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jackson-supreme-court-roe-republicans-griswold-loving

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

To my mind we have continually missed with our estimation about how low the GOP will go. Contraception and same-sex marriage are next. How do we know this? Because they told us.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform

See also https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jackson-supreme-court-roe-republicans-griswold-loving

Might this restore the idea of packing the Court as a potential option?

[iNow]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Clandestine mifepristone/misoprostol distribution is about to become a thing, methinks .

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

probably the internet, for remote online consultation with a qualified provider and mailed medication, it might not be so destructive to women that need the assistance as pre-internet.

I understand and appreciate that you’re reaching for hope and I have a desire to join you in minimizing forecasted harms… but…

Poor women and minority women will have disproportionately more difficulty in accessing or affording these alternatives. They lack access to medical care, funds for prescriptions, often lack a car or ability to travel for treatment or to fill prescriptions if they’re lucky enough to have coverage, and some of them don’t even have internet to find these things. 

As always, the wealthy and well-to-do (those who are connected) will be largely unaffected by this, but the most vulnerable and at risk populations have now been made even more vulnerable and at risk. 

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Might this restore the idea of packing the Court as a potential option?

Killing the filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation seems more likely to me, but even that is a Hail Mary long shot. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by iNow

[Peterkin]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

What does this matter if SCOTUS is hell-bent on one course of action?

I'm not sure. But SCOTUS is not a single mind; even the Republican appointees don't have the exact same response to every constitutional issue. It's a difficult document to interpret in the face of contemporary social reality. And they're not - mostly - stupid people or dishonest judges. They may reach a majority decision on one issue and  a different conclusion on another.

41 minutes ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

he people who are trying to overturn abortion rights or diminish the level at which it is allowed have the advantage of the law. 

You know laws are passed by legislatures, right? And changed by legislatures? And guided, limited or knocked down by the constitutional principles that gave them the authority to legislate. 

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

Killing the filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation seems more likely to me, but even that is a Hail Mary long shot. 

I read earlier that SC Court numbers is a Congress decision, does it still have to go through the Senate?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I read earlier that SC Court numbers is a Congress decision, does it still have to go through the Senate?

While they don’t always act like it, they are a part of congress.