I wouldn’t be so confident in things remaining fine in the blue states. If Republicans have a unified federal government when it happens, the ruling will be quickly followed by at least an attempt to pass federal legislation to ban or severely limit abortions nationwide, and if it passes it will be upheld by the same judges on the grounds that Congress is the legislative branch and the it is not the job of the courts to say what the law should be. (But if Democrats have control, any attempts to protect reproductive rights at the federal level will be struck down for violating Republican States’ Rights.)
This. If the Dems fail to win the House this November, the GOP will likely pick up a seat or two in the Senate, and Collins and Murkowski get to cast protest votes for free because the legislation would pass without their help.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and the GOP controls Congress next year, some conservative state will pass a fetal-personhood law, the Supremes will vote 5-4 that it’s Constitutional, and it will be followed by similar Congressional legislation.
Given the willingness of the Roberts court to overturn long-standing precedent on everything from campaign finance to labor law to interpretation of the Second Amendment, it’s hard for me to envision that they would exercise restraint here.
They are not going to overturn Roe. They will, however, be more likely to narrow its scope and allow things like 20-week bans.
I disagree. I think a full overturn is possible.
I daresay you’re going to have bigger problems than the overturning of Roe. It’ll be a clear signal that the United States is regressing and nobody gives enough of a fuck to stop it.
What’s the vote tally?
Roberts ?
Thomas - overturn
Ginsburg - uphold
Breyer - uphold
Alito - overturn
Sotomayor - uphold
Kagan - uphold
Gorsuch - overturn?
Kavanaugh the Perjurer - overturn
I’m guessing it comes down to what Roberts wants to do. Also, liberal justices are older than conservative ones. So overturning Roe is a real possibility.
Tru dat, but even in that environment, overturning Roe would be a huge fucking deal. Not only would legal abortion be ended, but so would all contraception other than barrier contraceptives - at least in much of the country, if not nationally.
You can expect a general, widening persecution against women. Women thrown into prison for miscarriages, hospitals refusing to treat pregnant women for any reason out of fear of being accused of engaging in abortion, and so on; the things you normally see in anti-abortion countries. There will probably be a large spike in the rape and abuse of women in general, as well as a general effort to keep them from voting. Expect many polling places to be surrounded with cops & thugs who will drag off women and imprison, beat or rape them in order to intimidate women into not voting.
In the long run I expect they will be stripped of the right to vote and of most civil rights, reduced to property again.
Your love for long-standing precedent was curiously absent when Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges came along. Don’t try to pretend you care anything about precedent: you care about results you like.
That would be pretty convoluted to accomplish, since the justification is a right to privacy. They’d either have to get rid of that right, which they will be unwiling to do(imagine the mischief a liberal government that is not bound to respect privacy rights can get into), or explain how the right to abortion isn’t a privacy issue. I don’t think they can pull off either one. And Roberts cares too much about the reputation of the court to participate in such a farce.
But sure, get one more arch conservative justice and I can see it.
I have no doubt that Roberts and his staff could overturn Roe without ruling out some sort of right to privacy in the constitution. In a pinch, he could say that the birth control decision is perfectly well propped up by a reasonable basis test: that’s what Bork argued during his confirmation hearings.
Roberts likes to decide things narrowly though. It’s his judicial temperament, such as it is, which would get in the way. Roe has been known to be a legally problematic decision for years: it wouldn’t be hard to overturn based on argument. Nor is it hard to prop.
Interpreting the constitution isn’t about achieving ideologically fixed ends. It’s about calling balls and strikes. I base my constitutional interpretation on original intent, as reflected in the 9th amendment of the constitution. How do I figure out the original intent of the collection of individuals known as the founding fathers? I use the Scalia method: I read minds across time and space. Armed with my Ouija board, darkened shades, arcane ritual, and strong medicine I glean the inner thoughts of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Napoleon Bonaparte. It turns out that their beliefs almost perfectly match my biases and preconceptions.
I was surprised too.
And you know, he’ll never come back and admit how totally right you were!
And like every other right winger, all you care about is hurting people. Don’t bother pretending to some kind of moral superiority because you like using pseudolegal babble to excuse your malice, you aren’t any better than the other thugs on the right.
This is the big one that I expect – we’ve already gotten a taste of this offensive with cases like the Little Sisters of the Poor and their ‘religious/moral objection’ to the ACA’s birth control mandate. Never mind the large numbers of women who use some type of birth control to manage a medical condition, or to tame unruly cycles. >.<
Well, would abortion prohibition come back? I think it would…and the resultant carnage of back-alley butchers armed with coat-hangers and bleach will be so horrific, we’d legalize abortion out of revulsion. If that isn’t enough, the sudden rise of children abandoned to the system would overwhelm the system to the breaking point - and that’s when we either legalize abortion or start officially tolerating it.
There’s also the fact that feminism seems to be a lot stronger than it was back in the 1970s. The patriarchy is seeing its ranks reduced to incel losers who won’t be doing any reproducing. This, in turn, causes me to believe that an abortion prohibition would just go the way of alcohol prohibition.
Either way, prepare for one helluva ride.
I think from a legal standpoint, it would be fairly easy. The Justices would announce that there is a foetal right to life in the Constitution and that this right to life supersedes the woman’s right to privacy.
Legally, it’s a hard argument to refute. The basis of Roe is an implied right to privacy. So how can you argue that there’s a foundation for an implied right to privacy in the Constitution and there isn’t one for an implied foetal right to life? If you argue there are implied rights then one has just as strong a case as the other. If you argue against implied rights, you have to throw out both of them and you lose Roe anyway. And if you accept that both of these rights exist, it’s hard to argue that a right to life doesn’t outweigh a right to privacy.
Because the latter contradicts how we define personhood and rights everywhere else, and is contradicted by legal precedents going back thousands of years. And it would be very destructive if taken seriously, since the same logic would require giving rights to everything from brain-dead bodies to tumors. It also strips women of their rights and reduces them to as status less than an animal in the law (treating animals like the anti-abortionists treat women would get you prison time a lot of places).
Wow. Talk about sensationalism.
In any case, abortion in the US is not going anywhere at least until society wakes up to the hell that the sexual revolution has brought about, which may take a couple more generations.
Hell, really? Pretty sensationalistic, wot?
There was more unwanted pregnancies and infidelity *before *the sexual revolution. And plenty of abortions, they were just more dangerous.
And women not being slaves isn’t a “hell”.