SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For those people supporting this decision that say it should be left up to the states, I call attention to this article published in the Post just this morning:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

Cliff: Republicans in Congress are piosed to introduce a nationwide ban on abortion after six weeks.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For those people supporting this decision that say it should be left up to the states, I call attention to this article published in the Post just this morning:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

Cliff: Republicans in Congress are piosed to introduce a nationwide ban on abortion after six weeks.

This flies in the face of Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment jurisprudence. I would expect a majority like Bostock, if not larger, to strike down a law like this.

In the short term, this doesn’t matter.  This is where the national debate on abortion will be moving, and it will be a much more prominent national debate than at any point in the last 50 years.  

Every Republican candidate running in a swing state or suburban congressional district will now constantly be asked whether they support a nationwide ban on almost all abortions.  I can’t fathom how people think this issue will be a wash in the midterms.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

For those people supporting this decision that say it should be left up to the states, I call attention to this article published in the Post just this morning:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

Cliff: Republicans in Congress are piosed to introduce a nationwide ban on abortion after six weeks.

This flies in the face of Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment jurisprudence. I would expect a majority like Bostock, if not larger, to strike down a law like this.

In the short term, this doesn’t matter.  This is where the national debate on abortion will be moving, and it will be a much more prominent national debate than at any point in the last 50 years.  

Every Republican candidate running in a swing state or suburban congressional district will not constantly be asked whether they support a nationwide ban on almost all abortions.  I can’t fathom how people think this issue will be a wash in the midterms.  

Typo?

Haha yes, should be “now”…I’ve corrected it.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

I am also pro-abortion and pro-right to privacy but fundamentally agree with this post.

A right to privacy in the Constitution naturally implies a right to abortion only if you have accepted the premise that a fetus is not a person with independent human rights.  Just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right to murder another person in the privacy of your own home.

So in order for our interpretation of the Constitution to include a right to abortion, that interpretation must also include a justification for why a fetus is not a human life.  And Blackmun's opinion in Roe complete hand-waves this question.  It literally includes the line, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." The opinion does include quite a bit of discussion of how other parts of the constitution by implication define person "only post-natally", if this is the standard for personhood, why does Roe permit unlimited restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

If there is a bright side to this opinion, I really believe it will force pro-abortion advocates to finally construct real arguments that actually engage the arguments of the other side rather than simply lazily resting on stare decisis to justify their positions.  I.e. rather than simply arguing that abortion is a right, we will actually have to make the argument for why abortion should be a right.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If Democrats theoretically have the authority to codify Roe into national law and override state law, then what's to stop Republicans from banning abortion nationwide the next time they have a trifecta? Is abortion just going to be banned nationwide in 2025/2029?

Democrats need to gain enough seats, especially in the Senate, to enact real structural reforms to our system that will ensure this cannot happen in the foreseeable future.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

A quick fact to demonstrate how the partisan politics of this issue have changed over the past 30 years:

When Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided (essentially reaffirming Roe in 1992), eight of the nine justices on the Court has been appointed by Republicans.  And the sole Democratic appointee (Byron White) dissented!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

When Obergefell was decided, everyone on the left was openly celebrating an unmitigated victory.

The reaction of Republican politicians and most others on the right could not be more different.
 
Whether they are sincerely anti-abortion or not, Republicans know this is a political catastrophe for their party and they have no idea how to respond except to lash out at some imagined left-wing leaker.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

If you don't think it's helpful, why are you posting tweets from randoms?  She also lists her location as "Occupied Ho-Chunk Land". 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If you really, really want to make sure you're inclusive of trans people, why not just say "pregnant people"?  Why do we need to invent an almost deliberately alienating new term for this?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What I would honestly like to see with respect to abortion policy is this:

Assemble a distinguished panel of obstetricians, neuroscientists, and philosophers studying philosophy of mind and phenomology and task them with assembling a report with their consensus opinion on when human life/consciousness begins. 

We should agree in advance that whatever their decision is will be binding national abortion policy, with abortion always permitted before this point, and prohibited beyond this point with narrow excpetions.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What I would honestly like to see with respect to abortion policy is this:

Assemble a distinguished panel of obstetricians, neuroscientists, and philosophers studying philosophy of mind and phenomology and task them with assembling a report with their consensus opinion on when human life/consciousness begins.  

We should agree in advance that whatever their decision is will be binding national abortion policy, with abortion always permitted before this point, and prohibited beyond this point with narrow excpetions.

There should be no national abortion policy other than the basic exceptions are protected and third trimester abortions being banned. Other than that it should be fully up to the states

If you believe that abortion is murder, why do you believe murder should be legal in some states but not others?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Is it possible they give the opinion earlier now that the cat is out of the bag? I read that next Monday is the next time they can give out opinions.

I wouldn’t expect the decision for at least another month.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why would it be surprising that Thomas wants to overturn Lawrence and Obergefell?  He dissented in these cases.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As a Catholic, glorious news. Abortion was always an abhorrent practice. Leave it up to the states.

If abortion is so abhorrent, why should a state be allowed to legalize it?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think it’s also important to note that the Supreme Court is made up of mostly justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

This is not a Court representing America. This is a sham Court.

The electoral college must go.

I agree that the process for selecting Supreme Court justices is pretty terrible, and the essence of your post is correct.

But it is worth pointing out that GW Bush didn't appoint any justices until after he had won the popular vote in 2004.  A lot of people believe O'Connor delayed her own retirement for exactly this reason.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm actually pretty impressed that Manchin has been so publicly pro-choice as the sole Democratic federal representative in what is arguably the single most pro-life state in the country.

https://twitter.com/cwarshaw/status/1540341881342763008

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

We are increasingly living under a right-wing judicial dictatorship, and we need to treat that as the crisis that it is.

Lol so returning this decision to the people’s elected representatives is dictatorship

Except this is likely just the first step in trying to create a right-wing theocracy.

If you think this is the first step, you haven't been paying attention to American politics for the last 40+ years.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This will be a test of the polling industry. If public sentiment is truly against this ruling then the GOP will suffer long term for this. IF they’re right…interesting to see

     This is the mistake Atlas always makes in analyzing politics; people here think that because an issue exists and people say they have an opinion on it, they are willing to vote on it. The reality is most voters don't care about abortion and the ones that do are mostly not persuadable. The backlash that Democrats are hoping for is highly unlikely to materialize beyond a tiny movement at the margins.

I think it is a mistake to view this decision the same way as every other SCOTUS decision or every other thing that happens in a typical week in politics.

It's not.
This is the single biggest abrupt policy change in America in my lifetime.  

And it is one that should cut through even to low information voters.  If you ask a typical voter to name a single Supreme Court decision, they could probably name Roe vs. Wade and that's it (and maaaaybe Brown v. Board).  

I don't think you can predict how voters will respond to this based on how voters have responded to other routine stuff.

The better analogy would be 2002.  George W. Bush was likely in very bad shape in the 2002 midterms until 9/11.  But 9/11 was an event of a generational scale that completely reframed the political debate of that election cycle.  This decision strikes me as being of similar scale.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Interesting that the US markets appeared to respond very positively to this decision.  They are up about 3% today across the board.  I wonder what is predictions about the implications of this are underlying that.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

To be fair, the substance of this bill is probably the approximate position of the national median voter.

But it doesn't matter.  Publicizing -anything- that could be called a "nationwide abortion ban" is terrible politics.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

They noted in the fine print that they said "no rape or incest exceptions" in the summer poll when they didn't in the spring one.  While I hate that it's the case, people believe in rape exceptions (which make zero philosophical sense if you believe that life begins at conception).  The change would almost certainly be less stark if they had keep the question consistent.

Rape exceptions make perfect sense if oppose abortion not because you believe it murders children, but because you believe it encourages promiscuity.  A lot of Republicans aren't really pro-life so much as anti-sex.