BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS

[Greedo punched first]

Georgia might violate the guidelines on confidentiality.

[Greedo punched first]

Georgia might violate the guidelines on confidentiality.

Then there may need to be a public service campaign to tell people that they are not safe if they have a doctor in Georgia.

Georgia would go after people with a doctor from another state.

[Greedo punched first]

Georgia might violate the guidelines on confidentiality.

Then there may need to be a public service campaign to tell people that they are not safe if they have a doctor in Georgia.

Georgia would go after people with a doctor from another state.

Just for having a doctor? Even men?

Yes, even for men because husbands might want to help women who need an abortion. Roe v. Wade is toast.

https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1394341643172581376

[Greedo punched first]

What do you think the abortion map will look like the first cycle after Dobbs v. Jackson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures#Party_summary

Possible exceptions are Pennsylvania and Michigan, and with the obvious caveat that the map could change if state legislative control changes. But expect every Republican legislature to ban up to the extent allowed.

Wouldn't Whitmer, Wolf and Evers just veto an abortion ban? As far as I know, Republicans don't have the votes to override the vetos. That may not be the case in Kansas or Kentucky though. In Louisiana, I assume JBE would approve such a bill.

In Kentucky, vetoes are overridden by a simple majority.

[Greedo punched first]

There are likely five votes to overrule these cases too, even if John Roberts votes not to.

https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1394349096597692431

[Greedo punched first]

There are likely five votes to overrule these cases too, even if John Roberts votes not to.

Please hop in the shower or something so you can extinguish the fire on top of your head.

I would agree that Griswold could be at risk, but there's nothing in the pipeline that I know of that attacks that decision. Most issues regarding birth control have to do with religious exemptions to government mandates. At worst, the decision will be chipped away, not explicitly overruled.

Lawrence and Obergefell are pretty safe I think as well. Once again, this would require a case to appear before the Court. It's hard to see how Lawrence would reach the Court. It's conceivable that a state like Alabama could try to get Obergefell back before the Court, but I just don't see that happening. I think there are probably enough Justices for that to avoid a reconsideration. Just look how long it took for the Court to take up this abortion case.

As for Engel v. Vitale, I would say that is most concerning. I'm most concerned about religious cases. In that vein, I'm far more concerned about Lemon v. Kurtzman. That's where the damage could really be done.

Even if Roberts wants to weaken but not completely overrule Lemon v. Kurtzman and Locke v. Davey, there are still five votes to explicitly overrule them completely.

[Greedo punched first]

Any justice to the right of Roberts doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Greedo punched first]

John Roberts would prefer to have a circuit split before hearing an abortion case.

[Greedo punched first]

Yep. It's finally happening. Start writing your eulogies for Roe v. Wade now.

The big question now is what will be the right's next long-term goal after this happens? I almost don't want to know, it's sure to be terrifying.

Fetal personhood. I think there might be five votes for it already.

[Greedo punched first]

I'm rather shocked they didn't hold off on taking this type of case until the spring 2023 term, given the current composition of the federal government. 

Alternative theory: Roberts and Kavanaugh have worked out a relatively uncontroversial way of resolving it?

If that were the case, questions 2 and 3 would be addressed.

[Greedo punched first]

Manchin is pro-life, right? So even if he could support court-packing this would be the wrong issue to do it, and Democrats would then only have 49 votes to codify Roe v Wade (Murkowski and Collins claim they're pro-choice though but it would be a big leap for them to openly sabotage the Republican agenda).

The right case to do it is Brnovich v. DNC.

[Greedo punched first]

Susan Collins will have egg on her face.

[Greedo punched first]

Adrian Vermeule is gaslighting.

https://twitter.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1394415263513260039

[Greedo punched first]

There are already four definite votes for fetal personhood.

[Greedo punched first]

Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again.]https://www.wsaw.com/2021/02/13/green-co-teen-accused-of-killing-newborn-daughter-pleads-not-guilty/]Here’s your daily preview of what will be increasingly common after abortion becomes illegal again. A 16-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend get pregnant, hide it for nine months, and then she gives birth in a bathtub. They decide they can’t raise the child, so the boy then puts his infant daughter in his backpack, goes out into the woods, and shoots her twice.

That my friends is why abortion should be legal, unrestricted, and publicly funded.

Maybe fourteen-year-olds shouldn't be having unprotected sex in the first place (or ideally any sex at all)? It speaks more to how we need improved sex education in the U.S. rather than we need abortion to be available (even from a secular perspective).

I frankly don't have much sympathy for those children.
They made a decision then couldn't handle the consequences.

The people trying to ban abortion are the same people preventing comprehensive sex ed from being taught in school...

Some of them even think coitus interruptus is a form of abortion.