Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My prayer is that one day in the future, abortion won't just be illegal or left to the states to decide, but in the minds of all Americans unthinkable.

I agree.  However, I absolutely disagree that can be done by legislative force or, that legislative force is even a correct step towards achieving that goal.

 

 

[homersapien 11,369]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you think the decision was incorrect it can be overruled by Congress by legislation.  This how it is supposed to work, not having the SCOTUS make legislative rulings.

IMO, there is ample constitutional justification for the SCOTUS to rule on the basis of equal rights (for women) as well as natural rights of autonomy to one's own body.

The current "conservatively stacked" SCOTUS doesn't agree.  So you are correct in that it now must be done legislatively state by state, which is bad for the unity of country.  Better we all enjoy the basic constitutional rights of autonomy in such matters.  But we shall see. 

Personally, I think this ruling will usher in a long period of discord, unwanted children and increasing poverty, which will last as long as it takes for a progressive majority rule to prevail.  This will be take a long time considering the way our political system is set up.

But as Trae Crowder (the "liberal redneck") explained in an interview, in the long term (generational) trend is liberal/progressive.  This is evidenced by how much racist attitudes have changed in the last 100 years (for example).

We still have a long way to go, but the direction has been consistent for generations.

Edited June 24, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,369]

23 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  However, I absolutely disagree that can be done by legislative force or, that legislative force is even a correct step towards achieving that goal.

 

 

Agreed.

We were already trending in the right direction.  This will not help that trend.

I doubt if we will even approach the rates in countries with the lowest abortion rates. 

But I fully expect poverty to go up.  No way conservatives are going to provide the sort of assistance to poor pregnant women to prevent that. 

And I haven't seen any proposals to promote contraception.

Edited June 24, 2022 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

What merit is there in an equal protection case for something not explicitly outlined in the Constitution? 

If Roe and Casey are fair game, Obergefell is too. 

Point is, the reasoning behind any substantive due process case is now legally fiction as of today.

[homersapien 11,369]

39 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  However, I absolutely disagree that can be done by legislative force or, that legislative force is even a correct step towards achieving that goal.

Abortion rates go down when countries make it legal: report

Countries with stricter abortion laws have higher abortion rates

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

[icanthearyou 4,462]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But I fully expect poverty to go up.  No way conservatives are going to provide the sort of assistance to poor pregnant women to prevent that. 

Wait 20 years to see what that combination does for crime, for violence, for government spending.

Remember how crime mysteriously went down in the 1990s?

Flooding the country with guns and unwanted children will be destructive beyond current imagination.

[homersapien 11,369]

46 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Point is, the reasoning behind any substantive due process case is now legally fiction as of today.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

By Quint Forgey and Josh Gerstein

06/24/2022

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Since May, when POLITICO published an initial draft majority opinion of the court’s decision on Friday to strike down Roe v. Wade, Democratic politicians have repeatedly warned that such a ruling would lead to the reversal of other landmark privacy-related cases.

“If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. A whole range of rights,” President Joe Biden said of the draft opinion at the time. “And the idea [that] we’re letting the states make those decisions, localities make those decisions, would be a fundamental shift in what we’ve done.”

The court’s liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — echoed those concerns in a dissenting opinion released on Friday, writing that “no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work.”

The constitutional right to abortion “does not stand alone,” the three justices wrote. “To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation.”

The court’s past rulings in Roe, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges and other cases “are all part of the same constitutional fabric,” the three justices continued, “protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”

The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, repeatedly insists that the justices’ decision to abandon Roe poses no threat to other precedents.

“Our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

However, the court’s liberal wing argued that assurance was unsatisfactory, given Thomas’ simultaneous invitation on Friday to open up numerous other precedents for review.

“The first problem with the majority’s account comes from [Thomas’] concurrence — which makes clear he is not with the program,” Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote, adding: “At least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again.”

Still, no other justice joined Thomas’ concurring opinion, which largely reiterated his long-stated views on the legal theories behind many of those decisions.

Furthermore, it appears doubtful that many of Thomas’ conservative colleagues would be eager to revisit issues like contraception and same-sex marriage anytime soon, considering the claims in Alito’s majority opinion that the court’s ruling on Friday casts no doubt on those decisions.

Still, by declining to explicitly repudiate Thomas’ stance, his conservative colleagues provided fodder to the court’s liberal members and left-leaning critics to warn that more overrulings of precedent are on the way.

Of those in the majority on Friday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh came closest to rejecting Thomas’ position, although without mentioning him by name. In a solo concurring opinion, Kavanaugh wrote: “Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

Speaking from the White House shortly after the decision was released, Biden directly invoked Thomas’ concurring opinion and reasserted that the ruling “risks the broader right to privacy for everyone.”

“Roe recognized the fundamental right to privacy that has served as a basis for so many more rights that we’ve come to take for granted, that are ingrained in the fabric of this country,” Biden said. “The right to make the best decisions for your health. The right to use birth control. A married couple in the privacy of their bedroom, for God’s sake. The right to marry the person you love.”

With his concurring opinion, Thomas “explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality [and] the right of couples to make their choices on contraception,” Biden continued. “This [is an] extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on.”

[autigeremt 6,603]

I'm split on the issue (ideologically speaking) personally but a ruling that allows each state to dictate the situation is better for the Republic. If it goes beyond that it is no longer better for the country in most cases (my trained opinion). 

[CoffeeTiger 5,106]

We need some Supreme Court reform immediately. 

-lifetime appointments are dumb

-Allowing wildly unpopular Presidents who lose the popular vote in their elections being able to nominate 1/3 of the court and affect the country for decades is dumb. 

 

The legitimacy and respect of our supreme Court is crumbling. It's effectively an arm of the Republican Party at this point. 

 

 

A lot of young high school girls in Red states are going to get alcohol poisonings from trying to drink their fetus to death. 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[Didba 5,256]

The amount of you that think forcing your religious beliefs onto others in a secular nation is okay, fine and dandy is absolutely disgusting.

The separation of church and state and the establishment clause exist for a reason to produce a secular nation and without them its a slippery slope to a theocratic government such as the Emirates.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Point is, the reasoning behind any substantive due process case is now legally fiction as of today.

Thank you for so succinctly stating the law. 

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Agreed.

We were already trending in the right direction.  This will not help that trend.

I doubt if we will even approach the rates in countries with the lowest abortion rates. 

But I fully expect poverty to go up.  No way conservatives are going to provide the sort of assistance to poor pregnant women to prevent that. 

And I haven't seen any proposals to promote contraception.

The proposal to promote contraception is abstinence being taught as the only contraception.

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, PUB78 said:

VICTORY!!! PTL!!!🙏

Yes, force your beliefs onto others in this secular nation. This is not a christian nation.  Such a victory for you that women cannot get an abortion after being raped in Alabama. So christ like of you to force a woman to have her rapists child.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Ironic he doesn't mention Loving. 

Well Loving falls under equal protection as well as SDProcess so it has other precedent to stand on.

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Same sex marriage was decided differently than the others as well.  The Court ruled that the right to marry was a "fundamental right", which makes overturning that decision extremely unlikely.  In addition to that, the 14th Amendment should preclude the over turning of that decision, due to the fact that it would then be used to the same ends.

Abortion was a fundamental right.

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The conservative side of the court has actually looked at the Constitution to make a ruling as opposed to creating legislation when the Left has the majority.  We need more of this, thank God for Trump.  It was the best thing he did.

Tell me you know nothing about Con law without telling me you know nothing about con law.

Yeah thank God women cannot get abortions after being raped in the state of Alabama.  And before you say you know more about the law than I do. You don't unless you have a law degree.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Didba

[CoffeeTiger 5,106]

Alito's opinion:

This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights (...)

Thomas's concurrence:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Alito acts all offended that anyone would have the audacity to suggest that they're also looking at contraception and gay marriage, only for Thomas to jump in and helpfully point out that they're definitely looking at those too.

 

Lol...these Republican Judges can't even get their own messaging straight. I guess ole Thomas didn't get the memo that they weren't supposed to let the cat out of the bag on all that just yet.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you think the decision was incorrect it can be overruled by Congress by legislation.  This how it is supposed to work, not having the SCOTUS make legislative rulings.

With this rationale we'd still be dealing with segregation.

[CoffeeTiger 5,106]

Just now, Didba said:

Tell me you know nothing about Con law without telling me you know nothing about con law LMAO. Yeah thank God women cannot get abortions after being raped in the state of Alabama.

A raped woman will just be shunned and blamed for having sex outside of marriage and for putting herself in the situation to be raped to begin with. 

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not sure if I believed we'd ever see this day.  I think the ruling is correct, no surprise to anyone here.  My prayer is that one day in the future, abortion won't just be illegal or left to the states to decide, but in the minds of all Americans unthinkable.  I hope that our understanding of human dignity allows us to reach that point, but like Roe being overturned, I think it far in the future if it's even possible.  But I do pray hearts and minds change over time.

That said, I also pray that those who consider themselves pro-life will reevaluate what that term means, or what it should mean.  I don't think that opposing abortion in and of itself is enough to label one "pro-life."  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate.  And that's good as far as it goes, but it falls far short of being pro-life.  I think pro-life needs to be an outlook that seeks to bring about conditions in society that are helpful, encouraging, conducive, and create an environment where children are cared for, families can thrive, where our laws and workplace policies are pro-family.  We should be making it easier for young couples to have children and raise and take care of them, not harder.  It should be more affordable, not less.  We should eliminate structures, policies, and laws that force women to choose between finishing college or having a baby, or between a career that can provide for them and their family or having a baby. 

I can think of a lot of things we could do to address such things.  Some will necessarily involve government through programs, changes in law, and so on.  Some might involve private organizations and religious institutions.  Some will involve businesses.  And some of it will have to come from you and me just seeing the resources we've been blessed with as not being just for "me and mine" but to help and bless others. 

For the truly pro-life, the work is just beginning - if they truly mean it when they call themselves "pro-LIFE."  But it's going to take some rethinking of the typical ways of poltical alignment.  It's going to take pushing back against those who would try to force conformity to a political tribe or party and all its typical stances on things.  Some folks are going to have to shove back against charges of "RINO" or "gone woke" or whatever other mindless epithet gets tossed around.  But for me, as a Christian, I owe no party my unquestioned loyalty.  The fact that I may align with conservatives on most things doesn't mean I'm obligated to do it on all things.  My agreement on abortion doesn't necessitate my agreement on tax policy or paid parental leave for instance.  And neither should you feel that way if you're in the same camp.

So we'll see.  This is gonna be messy for a while.  But I hope people of faith will step up and prove their critics wrong when all the dust settles. 

To do what you ask, conservatives would have to change their entire ideological outlook on helping others, among many many other social issues.

[Didba 5,256]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

A raped woman will just be shunned and blamed for having sex outside of marriage and for putting herself in the situation to be raped to begin with. 

"She deserved it, can you believe what she was wearing" - Christian women,  See AU Fam conservative women's response to Harsin's family wardrobe.

[CoffeeTiger 5,106]

The dissent is spicy

Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.

...

The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. [...] Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.

...

The majority scoffs at that idea, castigating us for “repeatedly prais[ing] the ‘balance’” the two cases arrived at (with the word “balance” in scare quotes). Ante, at 38. To the majority “balance” is a dirty word, as moderation is a foreign concept.

 

The minority dissent making it clear that the decision today on Rowe has nothing to do with constitutional law, and EVERYTHING to do with the majority of the court being picked for the express purpose of doing what is now happening. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, W.E.D said:

The hood has been removed.  First step towards Christian Fascism led by the Federalist society's mission since they were founded. Legislate through the courts.

 

Looking forward to contraceptives being banned and gay marriage being overruled.  

The Federalist Society is the Supreme Court.

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, W.E.D said:

The hood has been removed.  First step towards Christian Fascism led by the Federalist society's mission since they were founded. Legislate through the courts.

 

Looking forward to contraceptives being banned and gay marriage being overruled.  

I once had a catholic acquaintance tell me at church that the country would be far better off if it was a catholic theocracy where everyone was forced to be catholic, I stopped going shortly after that.  That's the scary thing.  They are the minority, but hold the power of the majority and want to institute a theocracy to save all the rest of us heathens.

[Didba 5,256]

I have to go back to bar prep but I'll be back.  Gonna be so damn hard to study today. Such BS.