The Roe Countdown

[Warp12]

better than the theory that Republicans get to vote for the fetus, which is what they defacto do when they take away the right of the woman to make decisions.

That is sometimes what started the problem, obviously.

If Roe is overturned, outside of abstinence, it will have the least impact on those who decide to use responsible birth control methods...both male and female. I hope that if it is overturned it inspires more people make better decisions.

That would be the silver lining to this cloud, I suppose.

 

[Bob001]

There is no mechanism by which you can establish which Supreme Court rulings are sacrosanct and must never be overturned, and which rulings can be overturned at a later date. I do not think you want to live in a country where Plessy v. Ferguson couldn't be overturned. Hell, I doubt you even really want a court where individual justices cannot change their minds, let alone the court as a whole.

True. But over the history of the U.S., the general direction of the SC has been to expand personal rights. Overturning Plessy expanded the rights of black people. Roe expanded the rights of women regarding their health care. Overturning Roe appears to be the first time that the SC has reduced rights that it has recognized and re-affirmed for nearly half a century. And the legal logic that the SC is using would also allow it to overturn gay marriage, interracial marriage, access to contraception, etc. etc.: "If it's not named in the Constitution, the states get to decide." That's bad news for a lot of reasons.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Roe expanded the rights of women regarding their health care.

Except for all those aborted women who didn't get any say over their healthcare.....if one regarded them as such

 

[Warp12]

"If it's not named in the Constitution, the states get to decide." That's bad news for a lot of reasons.

Or good news, depending on where your views fall.

 

[Meadmaker]

True. But over the history of the U.S., the general direction of the SC has been to expand personal rights. Overturning Plessy expanded the rights of black people. Roe expanded the rights of women regarding their health care. Overturning Roe appears to be the first time that the SC has reduced rights that it has recognized and re-affirmed for nearly half a century. And the legal logic that the SC is using would also allow it to overturn gay marriage, interracial marriage, access to contraception, etc. etc.: "If it's not named in the Constitution, the states get to decide." That's bad news for a lot of reasons.

I think some of those areas are completely safe. The legal logic for overturning Roe does not apply to interracial marriage, because equal protection based on race is known to be the precise motivating factor of the post-civil war amendments. Access to most types of contraception is based on a substantive due process consideration that is widely accepted.

Gay marriage? Yeah, that one is in trouble if it ever comes up again. Also, "morning after" pills or anything that is effective after fertilization, because those methods, and abortion itself, introduce a variable that isn't present for other forms of birth control, which is the existence of a third entity. Is it permissible for a state legislature to protect the health of that third entity, i.e. the zygote or fetus? That's the legal issue involved here.

The current court says yes. That's something legislatures are allowed to do.

I suggest dusting off that "I'm pro-choice, and I vote" bumper sticker. Republicans have been focusing on "small" offices, like school boards and state representatives, for decades. It's time that liberals do the same.

 

[Bob001]

Or good news, depending on where your views fall.

Well, if you want to play that game, the word "woman" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Is it up to states to decide whether a woman is a person under the law? The word "corporation" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Should states be able to decide whether they should be able to exist? Etc., etc.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That is sometimes what started the problem, obviously.

If Roe is overturned, outside of abstinence, it will have the least impact on those who decide to use responsible birth control methods...both male and female. I hope that if it is overturned it inspires more people make better decisions.

That would be the silver lining to this cloud, I suppose.

They are trying: getting an abortion when it's better for the mother and future children IS a good decision.
We know that abstinence doesn't work in general, never has.

 

[Bob001]

....
Gay marriage? Yeah, that one is in trouble if it ever comes up again. Also, "morning after" pills or anything that is effective after fertilization, because those methods, and abortion itself, introduce a variable that isn't present for other forms of birth control, which is the existence of a third entity.
....

"Morning after" pills are basically high-dose birth control pills. They prevent fertilization. They have nothing to do with abortion, except by making one unnecessary.
https://www.planbonestep.com/

 

[Warp12]

Well, if you want to play that game, the word "woman" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Is it up to states to decide whether a woman is a person under the law? The word "corporation" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Should states be able to decide whether they should be able to exist? Etc., etc.

I understand your point, but I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves. There was a United States before Roe, you know.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, if you want to play that game, the word "woman" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Is it up to states to decide whether a woman is a person under the law?

No, because everyone knows that women are people, and that's what the word means.

Everyone knows a baby is a person, too. Everyone knows a sperm is not a person.

Any argument that pretends that there is any doubt about any of those issues is being disingenuous.

However, there is a great deal of debate, and it isn't inherently obvious, at what point a fetus turns into a baby.

The word "corporation" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Should states be able to decide whether they should be able to exist? Etc., etc.

Yes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Durr durr let's have the entire abortion debate over while I pretend all of this hasn't been explained to me a dozen times durr durr."

 

[Suddenly]

True. But over the history of the U.S., the general direction of the SC has been to expand personal rights.

Maybe if the history goes back to about 1950. Before that the SC was a menace. The idea of the Court as a force for good is of relatively recent vintage and even then they've not really made up for the damage they wrought going back to the civil war. I mean, sure, Brown v. Board was a nice gesture but it was indifferently implemented at best. What the court has been doing since roughly the Reagan era isn't so much reversing civil rights cases as much as attacking the enforcement mechanisms.

And the legal logic that the SC is using would also allow it to overturn gay marriage, interracial marriage, access to contraception, etc. etc.: "If it's not named in the Constitution, the states get to decide." That's bad news for a lot of reasons.

I mean, yeah. The specific legal reasoning is pretty ominous, but the quality of the reasoning suggests that there is no real bottom to their depravity and trying to forecast how this decision will affect future decisions is trying to find meaning in chaos.

 

[Bob001]

No, because everyone knows that women are people, and that's what the word means.
.....

Actually, that is a relatively recent development. At the time the Constitution was adopted, women had few rights, and 20th-century laws to allow women to vote and expand other rights were vigorously resisted on Constitutional grounds.

 

[Bob001]

Maybe if the history goes back to about 1950. Before that the SC was a menace. T
....

Fair enough. I should have said recent history. Obviously the SC issued the Plessy decision, and it resisted FDR's economic programs.

 

[Meadmaker]

"Morning after" pills are basically high-dose birth control pills. They prevent fertilization. They have nothing to do with abortion, except by making one unnecessary.
https://www.planbonestep.com/

https://experiencingfreedom.com/plan-b-vs-abortion-pill/

"Plan B uses a hormone called levonorgestrel to change your cervix. This hormone makes it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach."

(emphasis added)

The advertising usually says that "it does not terminate an existing pregnancy", but the fine print says that "pregnancy" begins at implantation.


Which, in my opinion, makes perfect sense. However, I wouldn't trust the Supreme Court to agree. I think this court would say that, since it is not specified in the Constitution, it is something that the legislature can decide.

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually, that is a relatively recent development. At the time the Constitution was adopted, women had few rights, and 20th-century laws to allow women to vote and expand other rights were vigorously resisted on Constitutional grounds.

Were they people? Yes, they were people. Was there anyone who said they weren't people? No. No one said that. Is there any constitutional provision that applied to people but did not apply to women? No. There was no such constitutional provision. (Well, except maybe a slight restriction on property with respect to married women. I'm not confident that has never been restricted.)

Allowing women the right to vote was never vigorously resisted on Constitutional grounds, except to note that nothing in the Constitution said that women had a right to vote. Now, there is something in the Constitution that says they do.

 

[TomB]

The U.S. Constitution specifically states that rights exist that are not explicitly mentioned. It's the ninth amendment. It does not say that the states get to arbitrate these rights. The Tenth states that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states, but it does not give states power over non-enumerated rights.

What this means is that it is within the court's authority to determine that something not mentioned in the Constitution is indeed a right.

From what I've seen of Alito's opinion he is at least is partly incorrect. I'll agree that citing the Fourteenth may be a stretch. But he is absolutely incorrect in that it's lack of mention is relevant. As one of the concurring justices on Roe (Douglas) wrote, the Ninth is a better foundation than the fourteenth.

As for "traditions," tradition is not law. And even then, traditionally, early term abortions were legal. Also, abortion laws were "traditionally" not made to protect the fetus, but rather to protect the health of the mother's health. At the time, women were dying from questionable snake oil drugs and unqualified practitioners. Hence 1870 Illinois law outlawing abortion inducing drugs unless prescribed by a qualified doctor.

So basically, Alito ignores tradition and ignores the part of the constitution that requires judges to...well...judge.

 

[TomB]

https://experiencingfreedom.com/plan-b-vs-abortion-pill/

"Plan B uses a hormone called levonorgestrel to change your cervix. This hormone makes it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach."

(emphasis added)

The advertising usually says that "it does not terminate an existing pregnancy", but the fine print says that "pregnancy" begins at implantation.


Which, in my opinion, makes perfect sense. However, I wouldn't trust the Supreme Court to agree. I think this court would say that, since it is not specified in the Constitution, it is something that the legislature can decide.

A statement which requires the court to disregard a portion of the constitution.

 

[lomiller]

Or good news, depending on where your views fall.

The US had a whole civil war to figure out where states rights ended and peoples rights began. The right is literally trying to reverse the outcome of the Civil War, and it won't end well.

Even if it doesn't lead to second Civil War, if the right gets it's way the US is destined to fall into being a backwards backwater country that has little or no influence in the world. For all the things the US does wrong on the international stage, that would be bad for everyone because China and Russia are worse. The EU may or may not be able to hold things together wrt freedom and justice when the US becomes the new Russia, but it will be a lot harder.

 

[TomB]

That is sometimes what started the problem, obviously.

If Roe is overturned, outside of abstinence, it will have the least impact on those who decide to use responsible birth control methods...both male and female. I hope that if it is overturned it inspires more people make better decisions.

That would be the silver lining to this cloud, I suppose.

You do know that birth control is not perfect, right? Women get pregnant while using "responsible birth control" methods.

Also, I don't see those supporting anti-choice positions promoting easy access to "responsible birth control." These are usually the same people who are against making such things available to teenagers. Who, in my opinion, are the ones in most need of easy access.

If they actually cared, they would advocate for free IUDs or birth control pills to teenage girls and fines and prison sentences for anyone (including parents) who tried to prevent them from using them.