The Roe Countdown

[angrysoba]

I would like to think that liberal democracies around the world would have common opinions about things like access to abortions, yet this seems to not be the case. While there are no doubt methodological problems with surveys from country to country, it seems that 80% of Australians believe in the right of women to choose to have an abortion in all cases. This drops to 38% in the UK and 30% in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_towards_abortion#Europe

There is something wrong with those figures if it is spitting out numbers that suggest the UK population is against abortion. As with Australia it is not an election issue. Banning abortion is considered a fringe issue (as in one that only religious crazies hold. I don’t believe for a second that the same questions with the same framing resulted in 80% in Australia and 38% in the UK.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It should be pointed out that it also wasn't a Christian concern in the USA (other than with some Catholics) until it was.

Well they needed to hide their outrage at having to allow in blacks to their schools behind something to look less racist.

 

[welshdean]

There is something wrong with those figures if it is spitting out numbers that suggest the UK population is against abortion. As with Australia it is not an election issue. Banning abortion is considered a fringe issue (as in one that only religious crazies hold. I don’t believe for a second that the same questions with the same framing resulted in 80% in Australia and 38% in the UK.

I thought the same, scroll a little further down, they become more realistic in the 2005 survey, but still...

 

[angrysoba]

I thought the same, scroll a little further down, they become more realistic in the 2005 survey, but still...

Yeah, the surveys are completely different with completely different wording.

My hunch is that the UK and Australia's attitudes to abortion are more or less the same.

According to that source...

36% responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 55% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and 3% that it should be illegal in all circumstances

So in the UK, support for abortion is 91%

Of course, if people want to create dishonest polls or present their findings dishonestly, that will be easy to do:

"Do you think people should be able to have an abortion at 8 months or that parents should get a choice between a boy or an abortion?" No? We'll put you down as "Abortion only in limited circumstances then, right?" etc... Then the same people can show their results and say, "lookee here, the people are against abortion on demand" etc...

 

[theprestige]

Back to the topic: In order to do something about Roe, the court needs to hear a case that turns on some point of constitutional interpretation central to the Roe decision.

So we can ask, what was the central question answered by the court in Roe? How easy would it be to reverse that answer? What kind of case would give the court the opportunity?

Is it possible that some lower court has already heard such a case and issued a ruling that overturns Roe, but their own ruling was overturned on appeal before reaching the Supreme Court?

Now that I think about it, I'm a little surprised there's no "Roe watch" on the courts. Appeals that, if they made it to the Supreme Court, would amount to a re-litigation of Roe v Wade.

Have any such cases emerged in past forty years or so? Or has the aura of RBG's immaculate jurisprudence held them at bay all this time?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- The central judicial... err theme I guess you could call of Roe V Wade was the decision by SCOTUS that having an abortion fell under Due Process Clause of of the 14th Amendment. It was, in legal terms, a declaration that women getting an abortion is nobody else's business.

- Roe V Wade was reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v Casey and used as precedent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

 

[Venom]

I wonder how many progressive accelerationists hope Roe v. Wade gets overturned so that complacent neoliberals can finally wake up from taking it for granted for decades.

 

[angrysoba]

- The central judicial... err theme I guess you could call of Roe V Wade was the decision by SCOTUS that having an abortion fell under Due Process Clause of of the 14th Amendment. It was, in legal terms, a declaration that women getting an abortion is nobody else's business.

Yes, essentially it is based on the idea of the right to privacy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I wonder how many progressive accelerationists hope Roe v. Wade gets overturned so that complacent neoliberals can finally wake up from taking it for granted for decades.

Accelerationism, generally speaking, is a fringe position. The vast majority of progressvies or leftists are not encouraged by the prospect of material conditions getting worse for so many people.

 

[theprestige]

- The central judicial... err theme I guess you could call of Roe V Wade was the decision by SCOTUS that having an abortion fell under Due Process Clause of of the 14th Amendment. It was, in legal terms, a declaration that women getting an abortion is nobody else's business.

- Roe V Wade was reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v Casey and used as precedent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

Yes, essentially it is based on the idea of the right to privacy.

Thanks. So what kind of case would the court need to hear, in order to have an opportunity to overturn Roe?

Would it have to be a case about women's health, or health at all? Could it be any case that turns on the right to privacy or due process under the 14th Amendment?

 

[theprestige]

Going back to the OP:

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.

So much for that prediction. I wonder what case The Atheist had in mind, and what happened to it.

Given the complete lack of "Red Team" action on this front in the past year+ since TA made his prediction, I'm going to make a prediction of my own: In the year following RBG's replacement, there will be a similar lack of action on this front.

 

[The Atheist]

I wonder what case The Atheist had in mind, and what happened to it.

They declined to hear it.

Given the complete lack of "Red Team" action on this front in the past year+ since TA made his prediction, I'm going to make a prediction of my own: In the year following RBG's replacement, there will be a similar lack of action on this front.

The lack of action is down to recognition that the court was still 5-4 in favour of retaining Roe. With 4-5, I'll gladly take bets they will try during 2021.

 

[theprestige]

They declined to hear it.



The lack of action is down to recognition that the court was still 5-4 in favour of retaining Roe. With 4-5, I'll gladly take bets they will try during 2021.

A year and a half ago, you were convinced the court was "built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives" that would deliver "a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states" within the year.

What makes you so certain the new roster will be any more solidly anti-abortion than the old one?

 

[autumn1971]

Yes, essentially it is based on the idea of the right to privacy.

That is the really scary part. HIPPA probably wouldn’t survive a post Roe v. Wade challenge.
And all those silly anti-sodomy laws still on the books would be completely enforceable.
Want to buy a sex toy in Utah or Alabama or South Carolina? Enfoceably illegal again!

 

[The Atheist]

A year and a half ago, you were convinced the court was "built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives" that would deliver "a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states" within the year.

Roberts found a backbone.

What makes you so certain the new roster will be any more solidly anti-abortion than the old one?

He won't have the casting vote any more.

 

[theprestige]

Roberts found a backbone.



He won't have the casting vote any more.

The casting vote?

Again, a year and a half ago, you were confident Roberts would be spineless in the service of overturning Roe v Wade.

Now you're similarly confident again. What makes your confidence warranted this time around?

 

[The Atheist]

Again, a year and a half ago, you were confident Roberts would be spineless in the service of overturning Roe v Wade.

Yes, I was wrong. I under-rated Roberts.

Now you're similarly confident again. What makes your confidence warranted this time around?

3 Trump lackeys changes the dynamic of the court, although, as my supportive thread on Gorsuch indicates, he may well be better than that, too.

But I'm not betting on it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

So you do agree that when a major and influential society normalizes a behavior, or the condemnation of it, this influences behaviors around the world. Like, say, ayatollahs issuing fatwas of death.

A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past....

In light of Abu Ghraib and the BushII normalization of torture, the use of false premises to violate national sovereignty (IraqII, later imitated by Russia in Ukraine), knowing and purposeful use of coercive and dehumanizing treatment to discourage asylum seekers with rights under signed treaties, and a long list of Trump's outrageous support for dictators, "fatwahs" calling for the suppression of a free ("fake") press, and constant scoffing at constitutional law... one might think it's time for 2+2.

Not your pappy's post-WWII hero nation, if it ever was in fact.

***
As for Roe, I expect Trump's nominee to not only be an anti-constitutional nitwit and absolutist, but thanks to highly unwise and loose lips from Democrats, to expand SCOTUS to 15 judges and truly pack the court for a generation or more.

Give them time, and the rule of law will become, as they understand it, the rule of White Man "law" over all things, including "bitches and misfits."

 

[angrysoba]

Thanks. So what kind of case would the court need to hear, in order to have an opportunity to overturn Roe?

Would it have to be a case about women's health, or health at all? Could it be any case that turns on the right to privacy or due process under the 14th Amendment?

No idea.

 

[theprestige]

As for Roe, I expect Trump's nominee to not only be an anti-constitutional nitwit and absolutist, but thanks to highly unwise and loose lips from Democrats, to expand SCOTUS to 15 judges and truly pack the court for a generation or more.

You expect Trump's nominee to expand SCOTUS and pack the court?