But if you outlaw it in, say, Texas, you’re making it near impossible for many people in Texas to get one, since going to another state may not be practical. “Problem” solved (for Texas, anyway).
Don’t need no steenking federal ban on abortion, when many states are making it difficult to impossible on a practical basis to secure abortion services.
The Kentucky legislature just overturned the Governor’s veto of a bill that, unless there’s a successful court challenge, will likely end abortions in the state.
I wonder of the conservatives on SCOTUS will see the success the states are having in banning abortion with Roe still in place and will leave it alone. Texas has effectively almost banned it, and it looks like Kentucky will, too. Other states that want to ban abortion in their state can just follow the lead of those two.
They can’t just leave it alone.
People will challenge the laws, and it will work its way up to SCOTUS one way or another.
However they rule, even if they decide not to take the case, will have an effect on reproductive rights one way or another.
They can just choose not to take the Kentucky law, or the OK law that copies Texas, etc.
I assume the opposite – the conservatives will overturn Roe because that will look like the reasonable course in light of all the machinations states are going through to effectively outlaw abortion. Then they can strike down the “sue thy neighbor” schemes in TX and OK that are Constitutionally problematic.
Honestly, that’s my assumption. The “sue thy neighbor” scheme can open the door to too many ways of skirting constitutional protections. So, overturn Roe and then they can piously state, “no, this law is no good.” In the meantime, they’ve left it standing for now, but the risk is that some state will use it to allow individuals to sue those bigoted bakers or something.
These laws will be appealed. I would think that the courts would overturn them, based on Roe v Wade as precedent.
If SCOTUS “leaves them alone” and refuses to take the case at that point, then they are dead in the water.
If district courts uphold the laws in spite of Roe V Wade as precedent, then SCOTUS refusing to take the case would mean that the laws stand.
Either way, they will get to the point where SCOTUS has to make some sort of decision, even if the decision is just to let the lower court’s decision stand.
Oklahoma too:
Interesting article here:
We gotta get ready, y’all.
Oh yeah…Idaho is trying and nearly there:
But we will have Dobbs coming out in the meantime.
I know that Roberts is trying mightily to chart some sort of middle course where there can be very significant restrictions on abortion but not outright bans, but I think such a position would be even more indefensible than Roe itself, or if I was on the other side, a decision overruling Roe. At least each of those positions have arguable merit. This middle ground that Roberts proposed in oral argument would be the worst of both worlds for each side.
Not really, if you’re a woman who is pregnant in the middle of Texas or something. If you have some means to get an abortion, as stupidly arduous as it might be, it’s better than no means at all.
Supreme Court is ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, leaked draft shows
It was so nice when we still had hope, wasn’t it?
Link that includes the full draft of the ruling,
When was that again?
One interesting/troubling/incredibly hypocritical thing about the leaked opinion is that it (very intentionally) avoids mandating that overturning Roe sends the issue to the individual States. Instead, it seems perfectly plausible that the ruling would allow a federal ban on abortions.
It would be weird if the court did try to rule on that question in this case. It’s a case about a state law, so whether Congress has the power to regulate abortion is not really relevant one way or the other.
I do not think they would rule on it but congress can read between the lines and make an educated guess if the court would be amenable to letting a federal law stand.