The Roe Countdown

[Suddenly]

I never heared a woman deny praise for being able to bear children, so why should they deny responsibility for it?

This would be a quality dril tweet.

So my apologies if this was meant seriously.

 

[Warp12]

This would be a quality dril tweet.

So my apologies if this was meant seriously.

Nobody who has read your series of posts likely thinks the same. But, hard to say...because, around here, nobody has likely read the full series.

I am not against Roe v. Wade, for the record.

 

[Suddenly]

As a legal matter, the idea that the conservatives having their 50 year plan to stack the the courts with reliable ideological conservative judges come to fruition and not overturn Roe seems awfully optimistic.

I mean, allowing for the fact that Planned Parenthood v. Casey already functionally overturned Roe, no matter how the opinion was framed, and that they certainly don't need to officially state they are overturning Roe to make it a dead letter via formalistic concern trolling over the safety of a procedure which is far less dangerous to the woman than childbirth....

Still, that is a scalp they are going to get sooner or later. With Roberts in charge it would probably be a little more nuanced. The only thing that will stop a repeal in the near future is the "liberal" wing voting along with probably Kavanaugh for a Roberts opinion that further restricts the right to abortion without fully overturning Roe, just laying further groundwork to reverse Roe in the future.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As a legal matter, the idea that the conservatives having their 50 year plan to stack the the courts with reliable ideological conservative judges come to fruition and not overturn Roe seems awfully optimistic.

I mean, allowing for the fact that Planned Parenthood v. Casey already functionally overturned Roe, no matter how the opinion was framed, and that they certainly don't need to officially state they are overturning Roe to make it a dead letter via formalistic concern trolling over the safety of a procedure which is far less dangerous to the woman than childbirth....

Still, that is a scalp they are going to get sooner or later. With Roberts in charge it would probably be a little more nuanced. The only thing that will stop a repeal in the near future is the "liberal" wing voting along with probably Kavanaugh for a Roberts opinion that further restricts the right to abortion without fully overturning Roe, just laying further groundwork to reverse Roe in the future.

I'm not convinced that an outright reversal of Roe is in the offering, though it certainly isn't beyond the pale with the current composition of the court.

Seems more likely that Roe will be gutted of most of its impact without an outright reversal. I would expect further decisions like Casey that chip away at the protections provided by Roe, making it easier for right wing states to de-facto criminalize abortion while still claiming that the rights afforded in Roe are still respected. A token nod to "precedent", while completely undermining the actual impact of the law seems more like Robert's style than a frontal assault.

Then again, who knows. Seems more and more like Breyer is choosing to repeat RBG's foolishness and die on the court rather than retire strategically, so an 8-2 court might be in our near future. Who knows what bat-**** crazy rulings might be pushed through in such a court.

 

[Suddenly]

Then again, who knows. Seems more and more like Breyer is choosing to repeat RBG's foolishness and die on the court rather than retire strategically, so an 8-2 court might be in our near future. Who knows what bat-**** crazy rulings might be pushed through in such a court.

The vast majority of people have no idea how screwed we are as it is. This court even before RBG mistook herself for a highlander was doing some absurd work (corporations having religious freedom), just that the people who report on these things tend to be those that have a stake in the legitimacy of the court so it all gets downplayed.

(If it gets to 7-2 that means a GOP president and given things as they are the court might be the least of our worries.)


But yeah, I wouldn't be shocked if we saw a few more cases limiting the right to abortion before it gets whacked, but I don't think that is the probability. The assumption they won't relies on the idea that the court is either concerned with legitimacy and/or worried about blowback from an energized Democratic Party, but these guys don't care much about the first and the Democrats are continuously proving that they are totally incompetent in the face of this sort of aggression.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Australian law probably has little to no influence on US law, but FWIW:

"Protesting outside abortion clinics will no longer be allowed in any Australian jurisdiction, after laws to introduce safe access zones in Western Australia passed State Parliament."

"The Public Health Amendment (Safe Access Zones) Bill 2021 passed the Labor-dominated Legislative Council today.

"With WA the last state to legislate safe access zones, the bill's passage means women in every state and territory are now protected against intimidation when accessing abortion services."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08...banned-under-safe-access-zones-bill/100366664

 

[The Atheist]

Yay for Aussie!

They're not allowed to protest in NZ either. At least, if I see them, they aren't. The law may differ.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Why can't abortions be performed as ordinary in-patient procedures at regular hospitals anyway? It seems the mere existence of "abortion clinics" is unnecessarily stigmatising in the first place.

 

[Minoosh]

Why can't abortions be performed as ordinary in-patient procedures at regular hospitals anyway? It seems the mere existence of "abortion clinics" is unnecessarily stigmatising in the first place.

That would send the cost through the roof and makes abortion less accessible. Rarely would someone need to be an in-patient at a hospital. Something like half of first-trimester abortions are medical abortions, meaning a woman takes a combination of medications at home that end the pregnancy. In addition, a doctor would need admitting privileges at a hospital, which is IMO an unnecessary hurdle. Some states try this though.

It's only stigmatizing if people choose to attach a stigma to it, which is big in the US, not so much the rest of the modern world. Why add a bunch of roadblocks to a legal medical procedure?

 

[Ron Obvious]

Duh, I meant to say "outpatient" in the first place.

 

[Minoosh]

Duh, I meant to say "outpatient" in the first place.

There could be a euphemism employed I suppose, but what's the point? If you need a surgical abortion, you don't go to a place that specializes in cataract repair. Everybody would know which centers performed abortions and they'd call them an "abortion clinics" anyway.

IMO.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Maybe though, they'd stop calling every Planned Parenthood clinic a 'abortion clinic', even the ones that have never performed a single abortion?

 

[Puppycow]

Texas Law That Bans Abortion Before Many Women Know They're Pregnant Takes Effect

Legislation banning abortions after about six weeks is now the law of the land in Texas, effectively ending Roe v. Wade protections in the state.

In a move that surprised some high court watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't act on an emergency request to stop the law from taking effect by midnight Tuesday. This allowed the policy to go ahead despite court challenges.

The Texas law, passed in May, bans all abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy — well before many women even know they are pregnant. The policy conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedents, which prohibit states from banning abortion prior to fetal viability, usually between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Texas' new law is one of the most strict abortion bans in the nation.

It also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion, including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance in obtaining an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing. If they prevail, the law entitles them to a minimum of $10,000 in damages plus attorney fees.

Wow, so this is one of those fetal heartbeat laws, if I'm not mistaken. Plus the part that allows any private citizen to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion, even if it's just giving her a ride to the clinic. Would that include driving her to another state with different laws? And the Supreme Court has through inaction allowed it to go into effect. Six weeks is a very short window.

Crazy stuff, but it may finally be upon us for real.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is RBG's legacy. All the things she worked for over a long life of advocacy are being wiped out because she refused to play the game.

Breyer seems dead set on repeating her error. It's depressing how bad the liberals are at this.

 

[cosmicaug]

So much for Roe v. Wade not being in danger of being overturned any time soon.

 

[Duncanthrax]

I count this as an overruling of Roe vs. Wade, de facto if not de jure. It’s a thoroughly awful law that turns a portion of the population into money-grubbing snitches, and another portion into subjects of harassment who are not afforded what I would consider due process of law. I would seriously rather have Roe vs. Wade de jure overturned and have criminal laws against abortion in which the person accused has full due process rights. For the poll, the people who said before 31 December 2022 were right.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Slight out context hijack//

Should this discussion stay here or in the Roe V Wade thread in Politics? I think (personal opinion only) if we keep both going it's just going to be the same arguments in both threads.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Glimmer of hope//

SCOTUS is already scheduled to rule on a 15 week abortion ban soon. Maybe they just aren't ruling on this one because they figure they can defacto rule on both of them.

*I know, not likely, let me hope.*

 

[cosmicaug]

//Glimmer of hope//

SCOTUS is already scheduled to rule on a 15 week abortion ban soon. Maybe they just aren't ruling on this one because they figure they can defacto rule on both of them.

*I know, not likely, let me hope.*

Wasn't the issue for today staying the law from going into effect? Such a stay would not have implied ruling on this one way or the other.

 

[dudalb]

//Glimmer of hope//

SCOTUS is already scheduled to rule on a 15 week abortion ban soon. Maybe they just aren't ruling on this one because they figure they can defacto rule on both of them.

*I know, not likely, let me hope.*

Roe ve Wade is dead;just a matter of when.