DKW 86 7,431 Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it's citizens who will decide. (msn.com) With the release of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, politicians and pundits went public with a parade of horribles – from the criminalization of contraceptives to the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. In reality, the post-Roe world will look much like the Roe world for most citizens. was a full overturning of row. Another option was something a little Loaded: 87.56% Pause Current Time 0:17 / Duration 1:15 HQ Captions Fullscreen Roe v. Wade is overturned by Supreme Court. What comes next? Unmute 0 While this is a momentous decision, it is important to note what it does and does not do. The decision itself was already largely known. It did not dramatically change since the leak of an earlier draft. The conservative majority held firm in declaring that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided: "The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." © Gemunu Amarasinghe, APAnti-abortion protesters celebrate after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the federally protected right to abortion, in Washington on June 24. Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning. Chief justice stood alone In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts cut a bit of a lonely figure in the mix of the court on the issue. His concurrence did not seriously question the majority view that Roe was not based on a good law. However, he would have stopped short of overturning the decision outright. It is the ultimate call of an incrementalist detached from the underlying constitutional interpretation. Opinions in your inbox: Get exclusive access to our columnists and the best of our columns every day The court now has a solid majority of justices who are more motivated by what they view as "first principles" than pragmatic concerns. From a court that has long used nuanced (and maddeningly vague) opinions to avoid major changes in constitutional doctrine, we now have clarity on this issue. It will return to the citizens of each state to decide. The court anticipated the response to the opinion by those who "stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil ... other rights." The opinion expressly does not address contraception, same-sex marriage or other rights. That claim has always been absurd but has become a talking point on the left. After the leak of the draft opinion, the New York Times opinion editors warned that some states likely would outlaw interracial marriage if Roe v. Wade is overturned: “Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white people to marry. Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t.” PROGRESSIVES TRY TO CANCEL CONSERVATIVES: Here's how the right is fighting back It takes considerable imagination because it is utter nonsense, though it must come as something of a surprise to Justice Clarence Thomas, given his interracial marriage, or to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, given her own interracial family. Nevertheless, politicians lined up to lead the parade of predicting horrible consequences. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that "with Roe and their attempt to destroy it, radical Republicans are charging ahead with their crusade to criminalize health freedom.” Yet, the fact is this decision is closely crafted to address whether there is a constitutional right to abortion and would not undermine these other rights. Thomas alone raised the issue of reexamining cases that protect same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and contraceptive rights. A majority of justices noted that "abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called 'fetal life' and what the law now before us describes as an 'unborn human being.'" The court held that "it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." Much of course has changed since 1973 when Roe was handed down. At that time, most states restricted legal abortions. Majority of Americans support legal abortions Now, the overwhelming majority of Americans have supported Roe v. Wade and 16 states have guaranteed abortion, including states such as California, Illinois and New York that hold a significant percentage of the population. States like Colorado protect the right of a woman to make this decision without limitations on the stage of a pregnancy. Moreover, abortions can be carried out at home, not in a clinic, with the use of "morning-after" pills. It would be difficult for states to prevent access to such pills even if they were inclined to do so, particularly if such access is supported by the federal government. ARE WE TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA?: Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson vs. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush Yet, 26 states asked the court to overrule Roe and its successor, Casey. With Dobbs, we will now have a new political debate over access and any limitations for abortion. Most citizens are in the middle on this debate. While a strong majority support Roe v. Wade, they also support limitations on abortion. Polls also show that 65% of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80% would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester. (The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks.) President Joe Biden responded to the opinion by calling, again, for a federalization of the Roe standard by Congress. Even if the votes could be found to pass such a law, it is not clear that it would be upheld by a court that has now returned this issue to the states. One thing Biden said was clearly true. Abortion will now be "on the ballot." The justices were indeed motivated by the need for the public to make these decisions and wrote that "Roe abruptly ended that political process." The issue will loom large in the upcoming election now that states will decide their own laws, ranging from prohibitions to restrictions to absolute guarantees. And the outcome will turn on the votes of millions of citizens rather than nine justices. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it's citizens who will decide. Topics for you 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
With the release of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, politicians and pundits went public with a parade of horribles – from the criminalization of contraceptives to the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. In reality, the post-Roe world will look much like the Roe world for most citizens. was a full overturning of row. Another option was something a little Loaded: 87.56% Pause Current Time 0:17 / Duration 1:15 HQ Captions Fullscreen Roe v. Wade is overturned by Supreme Court. What comes next? Unmute 0 While this is a momentous decision, it is important to note what it does and does not do. The decision itself was already largely known. It did not dramatically change since the leak of an earlier draft. The conservative majority held firm in declaring that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided: "The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." © Gemunu Amarasinghe, APAnti-abortion protesters celebrate after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the federally protected right to abortion, in Washington on June 24. Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning. Chief justice stood alone In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts cut a bit of a lonely figure in the mix of the court on the issue. His concurrence did not seriously question the majority view that Roe was not based on a good law. However, he would have stopped short of overturning the decision outright. It is the ultimate call of an incrementalist detached from the underlying constitutional interpretation. Opinions in your inbox: Get exclusive access to our columnists and the best of our columns every day The court now has a solid majority of justices who are more motivated by what they view as "first principles" than pragmatic concerns. From a court that has long used nuanced (and maddeningly vague) opinions to avoid major changes in constitutional doctrine, we now have clarity on this issue. It will return to the citizens of each state to decide. The court anticipated the response to the opinion by those who "stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil ... other rights." The opinion expressly does not address contraception, same-sex marriage or other rights. That claim has always been absurd but has become a talking point on the left. After the leak of the draft opinion, the New York Times opinion editors warned that some states likely would outlaw interracial marriage if Roe v. Wade is overturned: “Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white people to marry. Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t.” PROGRESSIVES TRY TO CANCEL CONSERVATIVES: Here's how the right is fighting back It takes considerable imagination because it is utter nonsense, though it must come as something of a surprise to Justice Clarence Thomas, given his interracial marriage, or to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, given her own interracial family. Nevertheless, politicians lined up to lead the parade of predicting horrible consequences. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that "with Roe and their attempt to destroy it, radical Republicans are charging ahead with their crusade to criminalize health freedom.” Yet, the fact is this decision is closely crafted to address whether there is a constitutional right to abortion and would not undermine these other rights. Thomas alone raised the issue of reexamining cases that protect same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and contraceptive rights. A majority of justices noted that "abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called 'fetal life' and what the law now before us describes as an 'unborn human being.'" The court held that "it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." Much of course has changed since 1973 when Roe was handed down. At that time, most states restricted legal abortions. Majority of Americans support legal abortions Now, the overwhelming majority of Americans have supported Roe v. Wade and 16 states have guaranteed abortion, including states such as California, Illinois and New York that hold a significant percentage of the population. States like Colorado protect the right of a woman to make this decision without limitations on the stage of a pregnancy. Moreover, abortions can be carried out at home, not in a clinic, with the use of "morning-after" pills. It would be difficult for states to prevent access to such pills even if they were inclined to do so, particularly if such access is supported by the federal government. ARE WE TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA?: Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson vs. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush Yet, 26 states asked the court to overrule Roe and its successor, Casey. With Dobbs, we will now have a new political debate over access and any limitations for abortion. Most citizens are in the middle on this debate. While a strong majority support Roe v. Wade, they also support limitations on abortion. Polls also show that 65% of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80% would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester. (The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks.) President Joe Biden responded to the opinion by calling, again, for a federalization of the Roe standard by Congress. Even if the votes could be found to pass such a law, it is not clear that it would be upheld by a court that has now returned this issue to the states. One thing Biden said was clearly true. Abortion will now be "on the ballot." The justices were indeed motivated by the need for the public to make these decisions and wrote that "Roe abruptly ended that political process." The issue will loom large in the upcoming election now that states will decide their own laws, ranging from prohibitions to restrictions to absolute guarantees. And the outcome will turn on the votes of millions of citizens rather than nine justices. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What progressives get wrong about overturning Roe: Now, it's citizens who will decide.
GoAU 1,600 Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 This article sums it up well. As I said in the other thread, I think there is an area that compromise can occur to have a legislated solution, but it will actually require lawmakers to do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted June 26, 2022 Author Share Posted June 26, 2022 22 minutes ago, GoAU said: This article sums it up well. As I said in the other thread, I think there is an area that compromise can occur to have a legislated solution, but it will actually require lawmakers to do something. It has already been 49 years. They need to get going. Most of the Nation wants essentially the MS Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAG-91 1,483 Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 3 hours ago, GoAU said: This article sums it up well. As I said in the other thread, I think there is an area that compromise can occur to have a legislated solution, but it will actually require lawmakers to do something. This is the way it needs to happen. There is much too much reliance on using the judiciary to "legislate" (or, in the case of multiple presidents, overusing EOs), instead of the House and Senate crafting legislation that is agreeable to a sizable majority. The opportunity has been there for, well, a long time to codify abortion legislatively. Legislators need to, well, legislate. No one in Foggy Bottom wants to farm in that land of "not too extreme one way or the other," though. They're too busy getting elected and too risk-averse to put their names on a bill that *might* not make everyone happy, so they punt and say "nope, not our problem." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted June 26, 2022 Author Share Posted June 26, 2022 for 49 years. Now they have to DO something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoAU 1,600 Posted June 26, 2022 Share Posted June 26, 2022 54 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said: This is the way it needs to happen. There is much too much reliance on using the judiciary to "legislate" (or, in the case of multiple presidents, overusing EOs), instead of the House and Senate crafting legislation that is agreeable to a sizable majority. The opportunity has been there for, well, a long time to codify abortion legislatively. Legislators need to, well, legislate. No one in Foggy Bottom wants to farm in that land of "not too extreme one way or the other," though. They're too busy getting elected and too risk-averse to put their names on a bill that *might* not make everyone happy, so they punt and say "nope, not our problem." Couldn’t agree more. Somewhere between “no abortion at all” and 3rd trimester / partial birth abortions is where the majority wants it. I prefer these laws (and most others that aren’t in the Constitution) to be settled at the state level, but if the desire is to do it nationally, then let our politicians do their job rather then spouting rhetoric and trying to find short cuts like the judiciary, executive orders, and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeTiger 5,135 Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 I just don't get all the: "Oh, it doesn't matter if half the country outlaws abortion because places like California allow it, so it's really no big deal." Like, this isn't how "rights" are supposed to work. We aren't supposed to allow some citizens to have more basic freedoms in some states while more restricted in others. Nothing "small government" about going from "Abortion is available to anyone but nobody is ever forced to have one" to " Half of the US is now forbidden to have an abortion regardless of their wishes or needs unless they have to do a cross country trip to have a medical procedure." This isn't good...this isn't progress. I also like how the author chastises progressives for worrying about things like contraceptives and same sex marriage when Clarence Thomas specifically stated in his opinion that he WANTS the court to go back and look at those things based on this new Roe ruling. Progressive's are only responding to what the court justice himself is saying....author conveniently doesn't address this though. This entire article is just a bad faith argument that ignores the actual issues. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted June 27, 2022 Share Posted June 27, 2022 14 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said: I just don't get all the: "Oh, it doesn't matter if half the country outlaws abortion because places like California allow it, so it's really no big deal." Like, this isn't how "rights" are supposed to work. We aren't supposed to allow some citizens to have more basic freedoms in some states while more restricted in others. Nothing "small government" about going from "Abortion is available to anyone but nobody is ever forced to have one" to " Half of the US is now forbidden to have an abortion regardless of their wishes or needs unless they have to do a cross country trip to have a medical procedure." This isn't good...this isn't progress. I also like how the author chastises progressives for worrying about things like contraceptives and same sex marriage when Clarence Thomas specifically stated in his opinion that he WANTS the court to go back and look at those things based on this new Roe ruling. Progressive's are only responding to what the court justice himself is saying....author conveniently doesn't address this though. This entire article is just a bad faith argument that ignores the actual issues. Unfortunately, that is who Jonathan Turley has become. He is a prostitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 On 6/27/2022 at 10:10 AM, CoffeeTiger said: I just don't get all the: "Oh, it doesn't matter if half the country outlaws abortion because places like California allow it, so it's really no big deal." Like, this isn't how "rights" are supposed to work. We aren't supposed to allow some citizens to have more basic freedoms in some states while more restricted in others. Nothing "small government" about going from "Abortion is available to anyone but nobody is ever forced to have one" to " Half of the US is now forbidden to have an abortion regardless of their wishes or needs unless they have to do a cross country trip to have a medical procedure." This isn't good...this isn't progress. I also like how the author chastises progressives for worrying about things like contraceptives and same sex marriage when Clarence Thomas specifically stated in his opinion that he WANTS the court to go back and look at those things based on this new Roe ruling. Progressive's are only responding to what the court justice himself is saying....author conveniently doesn't address this though. This entire article is just a bad faith argument that ignores the actual issues. Your opinion is totally correct vis-a-vis RIGHTS. I am pointing out that in a Democratic Framework, the majority opinion OFTEN trumps the absolute rights. If I have a right to own a gun in America, I dont in Chicago. We have a paradox here. It is Rights versus the Democratic institutions imposition of rules, laws etc on those Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 2 hours ago, DKW 86 said: Your opinion is totally correct vis-a-vis RIGHTS. I am pointing out that in a Democratic Framework, the majority opinion OFTEN trumps the absolute rights. If I have a right to own a gun in America, I dont in Chicago. We have a paradox here. It is Rights versus the Democratic institutions imposition of rules, laws etc on those Rights. Agree, at one time, we had the common sense to realize that one size doesn't fit all. Now, we have lots of partisan political legal groups ready to challenge the constitutionality of every law, anywhere. It seems so absurd that we crossed the bridge of carrying firearms and, the associated gun violence, in the 1870s. Now, we have to do it all over again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeTiger 5,135 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 3 hours ago, DKW 86 said: Your opinion is totally correct vis-a-vis RIGHTS. I am pointing out that in a Democratic Framework, the majority opinion OFTEN trumps the absolute rights. If I have a right to own a gun in America, I dont in Chicago. We have a paradox here. It is Rights versus the Democratic institutions imposition of rules, laws etc on those Rights. A majority of guns in America are perfectly legal to own in Chicago. The only illegal guns are semi-automatic guns and "ghost guns" that don't have serial numbers and are illegally sold. You can even fairly easily get concealed carry licenses in Chicago, We also don't have a real Democracy. 100 People in North Dakota have the same national senatorial power that 1,000,000 people in Los Angeles have. Even in our Presidential elections what "most people want" has no influence on who wins the election. A score of undeveloped, unpopulated poor states in the middle of bum-**** nowhere get an outsized influence on the lives and politics of all the rest of the 340,000,000 Americans. State Governments are gerrymandered so that the liberal big cities get a limited number of seats compared to population whereas the majority of the seats get spread around all the unpopulated, rural, conservative areas which gets a bigger say in State politics. We don't have a Democracy. We have a Republic that's designed so that smaller populated, conservative areas have just as big and often more influence than the super populated commercial and industrial centers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said: A majority of guns in America are perfectly legal to own in Chicago. The only illegal guns are semi-automatic guns and "ghost guns" that don't have serial numbers and are illegally sold. You can even fairly easily get concealed carry licenses in Chicago, We also don't have a real Democracy. 100 People in North Dakota have the same national senatorial power that 1,000,000 people in Los Angeles have. Even in our Presidential elections what "most people want" has no influence on who wins the election. A score of undeveloped, unpopulated poor states in the middle of bum-**** nowhere get an outsized influence on the lives and politics of all the rest of the 340,000,000 Americans. State Governments are gerrymandered so that the liberal big cities get a limited number of seats compared to population whereas the majority of the seats get spread around all the unpopulated, rural, conservative areas which gets a bigger say in State politics. We don't have a Democracy. We have a Republic that's designed so that smaller populated, conservative areas have just as big and often more influence than the super populated commercial and industrial centers. Completely see and agree with your view here. It is time we made large adjustments to the nation. Last nite I discussed adding DC, PR, Guam, Am Samoa, etc to the states 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now