The Roe Countdown

[The Atheist]

When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

With a SCOTUS now built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives, I can see a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states happening in the very near future.

I reckon the Red Team will be looking for a judgement before the 2020 election, so my pick is within one year. I believe there's a case of one state in the courts right now, so should be an easy one for SCOTUS to pick up, since every judge so far has denied legislative attempts to block abortion.

Pence's words - "Roe will be overturned within our lifetime" looking fairly prophetic about now.

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.

 

[dudalb]

You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Given the tremendous pressure the Trump Judges are under to deliver this one thing, I do see a real risk for Roe v. Wade within the year.

 

[lionking]

You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

How on earth do you get that from the OP?

While you are at it, please reveal how reversing Roe vs Wade will impact other countries.

 

[d4m10n]

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.

Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?

 

[8enotto]

Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.

 

[William Parcher]

Embryos that do not even exist are praying.

 

[Butter!]

If this really happens, I think I'd stop having sex. Now, a pro-life rightwinger would probably say to that, "Ha! You're proving my point. You skanks are frivolous with your reproductive planning because you can always just get an abortion!" Yeah, I've heard it all before. But that's not quite it.

See, I would really hate to have to get an abortion. I believe it would cause me extreme shame, psychological distress, etc. on top of the obvious concerns about cost, traveling to the sort of clinic that gets targeted for violence and picketing, and safety. It would practically be the end of the world for me, at least temporarily, if I had to do that. I'd do anything I reasonably could to avoid an abortion. There's only one thing I can think of that would be worse - and that's having a kid. (For me, personally, I mean. I've got nothing against kids. I've got something against myself as a mother.)

The idea of abortion is that unpleasant to me, BUT it's still there as a last-ditch safety net in the unlikely event that birth control fails. Remove that safety net, and the risk of BC failure suddenly seems more real. .00001% chance of failure? Yeah, I don't like those odds if it means I have to grow a kid inside me and bring them into the world. I can't risk that. Any nunneries accepting new nuns?

Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?

 

[plague311]

How on earth do you get that from the OP?

While you are at it, please reveal how reversing Roe vs Wade will impact other countries.

You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.

 

[mumblethrax]

Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.

But desire isn't the only factor in what people actually do. Economists understand demand as desire in addition to purchasing power. Doesn't matter how much you want a Tesla if you can't come up with the money.

Place significant obstacles before those who desire an abortion, and there will be fewer abortions. That black market abortion will be more difficult and dangerous, deterring some. Flying to New York for an abortion will cost more, and raise some questions that you might not want raised. Not everyone will manage.

Are there more pot smokers in Colorado since legalization? Take a guess.

 

[Cavemonster]

There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.

 

[Babbylonian]

You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?

You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.

You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.

 

[Butter!]

You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.

Well come to think of it, TA always has a sort of boisterous style, so I'll acknowledge I may have misunderstood the OP's tone. I'm very sour where this topic is concerned. I can't stand my ******* country right now.

 

[Trebuchet]

I voted the first option, which is the worst case. Once it happens, the party of states rights and limited federal government to outlaw it in states that continue to allow it.

 

[Babbylonian]

There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.

A couple of things:
1. The first person (people) convicted under a new abortion ban would have their appeals (and probably their initial defense) fully funded by pro-choice organizations. I know I'd see to it that what little money I can spare would find its way to that cause.
2. The appeals process can be expedited so that things happen faster if the need for urgency can be demonstrated (capital punishment cases being examples). Given the number of people affected here, the clock under which everyone would be operating (if someone is being prevented from getting an abortion that was previously legal), and the enormous national interest, I think a case could definitely end up in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

I can't be certain that RvW will fall (a little hope can't hurt), but there will have to be a ruling on Alabama's outright abortion ban and it should happen fairly fast to avoid disrupting lives unnecessarily...though "should" and "will" are obviously quite different.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.

It can also get there through suit. A provider or a person wanting an abortion might have standing to sue.

 

[Cavemonster]

A couple of things:
1. The first person (people) convicted under a new abortion ban would have their appeals (and probably their initial defense) fully funded by pro-choice organizations. I know I'd see to it that what little money I can spare would find its way to that cause.

Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I can't imagine a pro-choice group right now feeling excited to bring this law to the SC and be responsible for overturning RvW.

Cases that get to the SC over things this fraught tend to be there because the group that's funding the whole thing imagines there's a good chance to set a precedent for their desired outcome. Since the risk is opening the flood gates to banning abortion everywhere and the chance of getting a positive outcome seems low. I can't imagine a sincere pro choice org wanting to do that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. One can sue the government to overturn a law because it is an undue burden.

This is where you get into "legitimate public interest" and "least restrictive means to achieve" kinds of arguments.

Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I can't imagine a pro-choice group right now feeling excited to bring this law to the SC and be responsible for overturning RvW.

There are 2 issues...

- If an anti-abortion law is passed, even if its unconstitutional, it still can have an effect. So, if pro-choice groups try to delay having the case heard, women still have their rights taken away. Basically a bad law that hasn't been challenged yet in the supreme court is almost as bad as a bad law that the court rules as constitutional

- There may be concerns that, while the conservatives do have a 5-4 majority on the courts, its possible that one or more of the conservative judges might actually do what they claim and respect precedent. However, if they wait, the republicans may be able to get additional supreme court judges appointed (giving a 6-3 majority). So, better to challenge the law when you have a slim chance of victory than wait and have no chance.

 

[Babbylonian]

Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I don't think you really get it. Until the law is overturned, it's the law and people violating that law will go to prison or be otherwise punished.Leaving it unchallenged doesn't make the law go away, nor does it make it ineffective. The only potential positive would be that other states might be reluctant to do their own bans, but we can already see that this isn't true.

I'll break it down further:
1. Dr. <X> is convicted of performing an abortion.
2. Dr. <X> is sentenced to <Y> years in prison.

Now, right here, with no appeals, Dr. <X> is spending time in prison. Dr. <X> will for good reason find that situation unacceptable and will therefore instruct their attorney(s) to file an appeal on constitutional grounds citing RvW and move on to step 3.

3. The state appeals court will uphold or overturn the conviction.
4a. If upheld, Dr. <X> will appeal to the federal level.
4b. If overturned, the state will appeal to the federal level.

5. The federal district court will affirm or overturn the previous court's decision.
5a/b. Same as above, but the appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: The law has to be fought, not only on principle but because as of this moment the law is unconstitutional as determined in Roe v. Wade.