All I ever hear is that if Roe vs Wade is overturned very little will change. Each state will determine abortion and most states will be pro-choice.
So no great problemo right? A little annoyance maybe.
I am no lawyer but , as I understand it Roe vs Wade was based on the so called “right to privacy” —kind of dubious Constitutional wise I think, and I am pro choice-----but whatever works.
I think the general assumption behind the idea that all that will happen is that abortion will go back to the states—is that the “right to privacy” is bogus constitutionally.
But suppose Roe vs Wade is overturned because SCOTUS. in its infinite wisdom, decides that life begins at conception and therefore any fetus is a legal entity with full rights of citizenship?
Wouldn’t that mean denial of all abortions in all states?
Or am I just overly worried about recent SCOTUS appointees?
In what way could you see it being narrowed without starting down the slippery slope to elimination? Is there some excess perhaps you believe that could be trimmed from the original ruling?
Ps- GD is far from my usual haunt, so please forgive me if that’s coming off as anything but genuine interest in a reply.
No, many states have laws that will not allow residents of other states to avoid the law by coming instate. For instance, same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts (for now), but only for legal residents. If SSM is illegal in your home state, you cannot get one in MA. I would expect many states would adopt similar laws to avoid “abortion mills” that cater to out-of-state trade.
The case in front of the SCOTUS right now is an example. It would no be a slippery slope to elimination than a widening of the scope would be a slippery slope towards legalizing abortion on demand in the 3rd trimester.
(disclaimer: I am totally ignorant of legal procedure in Supreme Court appeals)
–But I think that in order for an appeals judge to rule on a specific question, (i.e. that life begins at conception,) the original case had to deal with such a ruling. If the issue under appeal is the “Right to privacy” as defined in Roe vs. Wade, doesnt the judge have to limit his response to the definition privacy in Roe?
It would be a reach for any federal decision to criminalize abortion nationwide. Murder (which many anti-abortionists already claim is occurring under legalized abortion) has uniformly been considered a crime to be defined and prosecuted at the state level.
I would think the opposite would be more likely. Some state might set itself up to be the place to get a <insert city here> abortion, like the Reno divorce of yesteryear.
I agree that it’s highly unlikely, and it would be stupid policy. But I agree that the federal government could do this. From a jurisdictional perspective, how would it be any different than criminalizing sex tourism? (This last part is directed to Sua, as I think the jurisdictional impediment is what he may have had in mind.)
Yep. If SCOTUS were to overturn Roe based upon it’s merrits, it would have to be a privacy issue. However, if a case came before them that life began at conception, and they found that the state had an interest in protecting the fetus, then that could ipso facto overturn Roe without a privacy case before it. Kind of like if we had a bench full of strict constructionists and they decided that there was no right to privacy. Such a ruling could overturn a slew of rulings that were based on the privacy issue. I say could becaus ethey could find that the state had an interest in protecting the woman’s ability to abort. Theyw ould just have to find another excuse besides a right to privacy.
Look, in the strictest of senses, which I realize nobody means in this context, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. We know this because Norma McCarvey, the woman who was “Jane Roe” in the original case, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear arguments to reverse her case a few years back, and they declined to do so.
The reason I’m setting up and knocking down that straw man is that the answer here is, it depends on what the Court says. It’s not like a B.C. parody where a character is going ‘Abortion bad’ and along comes the court and says, ‘No, abortion good’ – even though some advocates would have you think that.
Essentially, Roe sets limits on the power of the states to regulate abortions, by, among other things, guaranteeing the pregnant woman’s right to choose whether to continue to remain pregnant during the first three months of her pregnancy.
“Reversing it” might mean that those limits are removed. Or adjusted. Or something else entirely. A “fetal rights” case argued and won might mean that the court would find abortion to be against public policy anywhere, not that the states have the power to regulate it. It’s plausible, if a tad outre, that the court might grant limited recognition to the child’s rights, and require that every contemplated abortion be preceded by a civil suit between the woman and her fetus (represented by a guardian ad litem protecting its rights, of course),
It all depends on who argues what, and whether five justices buy into it. (Why did the lawyer tour the Mountain Dew bottling plant? He wanted to see procedural dew process in operation. ;))
I think the ‘whatever works’ idea is the weakest point for the ‘pro-choice’ movement. Their continous reliance on RvW, which is a incorrect decision that never should have happened and has to be overturned will leave them in a very bad position.
If the right to abortion is so important it was a very bad idea to just pretend that the right exists, the right should be added.
Another weak point in the ‘pro-choice’ argument is that of the human rights of fetuses, which is a totally unrelated avenue of attack against the right to abortion.