That will not happen.
Kavanaugh’s concurrence, on first skim, is almost apologetic. He talks a lot about how he respects the justices who decided Roe and Casey, but thinks they got it wrong and that the Constitution is neutral on abortion so it should be decided legislatively. He also says it doesn’t impact other substantive due process rights, but that argument seems to be half-hearted (because even Kavanaugh’s neutrality argument applies to those other substantive due process cases as well).
No. All Americans should have the same rights, no matter in which state they live. There is absolutely no logical reason to ban abortions.
I don’t see how this conflict with the Roe decision. Roe was not a law, it was a legal ruling.
As a policy matter I have always favored abortion being a state matter, and legislatively decided. I actually think it is correct (and RBG even said as much) that imposing it by judicial fiat did massive damage to the country’s politics.
Constitutionally the issue I mainly have is Roe is a somewhat logical step to take after Griswold, and I do believe there is a constitutional right to privacy (I don’t believe in the idea that only specifically enumerated rights can be Federally protected–otherwise there is no Federal right to travel, and arguably no explicit right to property, only a suggested one.)
I think if I had been on the court when Roe was decided I would have ruled against it, but on the grounds that the State has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine, I think there is a good constitutional argument against criminalizing a woman getting an abortion, but there’s also a strong argument that the State should be allowed to criminalize doctors performing them, the right to regulate medical practice is a well-established State power, and regulating a doctor isn’t the same as criminalizing a woman’s individual action. Such a regime FWIW would make it all but impossible to ban mail order abortions, which I would be fine with.
Anyway, with where we are now I have serious concerns about the right to privacy–remember this Supreme Court, like certain posters here, thinks the 14th Amendment is invalid (well, unless it is promoting the 2nd Amendment.)
Are there not already laws being passed that criminalize traveling to another state to obtain an abortion? Any enforcement of such laws is near enough border controls.
Not passed, no. There was a legislator in Missouri that was proposing one. It is an open constitutional question if such laws restricting travel or criminalizing things across State lines are valid, there was a big thread on it a few months ago.
Roberts’ concurrence, on first skim, seems to wanted a much narrower ruling (as he tends to do). He doesn’t like the Roe/Casey “viability line” and thinks that Mississippi’s 15 week line is fine. BUT he would not invalidate Roe in its entirety and does not think viability and Roe are inexorably linked. So he concurs that MS 15 week line is fine, but his holding would just strike down the viability line. Where the line is ultimately is too short, he does not say. Roberts says that would be a question for another day. He does say that under the narrower approach that fulling banning abortion would still violate binding precedent.
However, Roberts is the 6th vote. If he was the 5th vote, his opinion would likely be the majority.
Put that question in front of this Supreme Court and they’ll say it’s fine.
More guns.
More unwanted children.
I see a really disgusting nexus in America’s future.
[segue]
We have enough features that differentiate one US coin from another. Ditto one US dollar note from another.
At this point, why not just put Jesus’s image on all of them – coins and bills.
No. Absolutely nothing stops this SC from undoing same-sex marriage, contraception, or – pending Clarence Thomas’s death – miscegenation laws.
“Oh, no. We won’t do that” carries surprisingly little weight.
I don’t agree they will, obviously anything is possible.
Ah, I thought one had already passed.
As to its constitutionality, given the reluctance of this court’s extreme reluctance to uphold the stays on the absurd Texas everyone has standing for civil action abortion law, I wouldn’t be putting much faith in SCOTUS striking down such laws.
My take on SB8 is if the conservatives on the court had not already decided to overturn Roe, they would likely have quashed it for the simple reason that laws like SB8 are functionally an “end run” around the very power the courts yield. If the court doesn’t step in to reign in the “bounty system private prosecutor” type shit, then almost any issue a Federal court decides could, with creative legislating, be nullified by a State.
The court obviously doesn’t want itself neutered, but it is anti-abortion, so it was content to let the matter stew, knowing SB8 is explicitly written to “deactivate” automatically if Roe is overturned (and a stronger outright ban goes into effect.) Likely the court will step in to neuter such similar laws soon enough, likely out of California’s approach on guns that uses similar mechanisms.
Meanwhile the same Supreme Court just overturned state-level gun control rules. So much for consistency.
FWIW I believe there is no obvious barrier, right now, to a State forcing women to get abortions in certain circumstances, as a consequence of this ruling.
The right to pew-pews is sacred.
The right to medical privacy is not.
It’s that simple.
Yes, they do seem to have established a state religion, First Amendment notwithstanding, and one that involves human sacrifice to boot.
The Caravan is forming up in the predawn hours, in a Walmart parking lot in Austin.
One by one, women of childbearing age arrive in cars driven by their mothers and grandmothers, and tearful goodbyes abound. Fleeing the violence and human rights abuses in their homeland, these women have no option but to seek freedom and safety in the first world. The journey ahead is long, and fraught with danger, but these women see it as necessary to preserve their lives.
“Conditions here are just too dangerous,” said one woman, daughter in tow. “Between our failed health care system, 18th century economy, and the violence of our legislature against us, emigration is our only choice!”
“Women in my state should be considered ‘persons’ with rights, just like a fetus or blastocyst!”, said another.
In New York, California, and other states with “personhood” amendments for American women, preparations are being made to receive and acclimate refugees, while, in the fetus fetishizing states, the livestock are nervous.
This right here. The state that has the power to forbid abortions also has the power to require them.
I can’t stop crying. I feel so helpless.
Oh my god, what can we do?