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

[I’m not Stu]

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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The US is about to turn into a third world country.

[politicallefty]

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.

Kavanaugh is to the right of Roberts, but he's not a Thomas or even an Alito. I admit we're in early days with this new Court and have yet to see how things play out. The pro-choice movement lost when Justice Kennedy retired under Trump. The only reason Roberts ruled the way he did in June Medical was because of precedent. They were asking the Supreme Court to overturn a decision made only four years prior. I think that offended Roberts, as someone that does make at least some attempt to put the Court above partisanship.

If you're asking me to consider every possible decision this Court is going to make, I can't do that. There are going to be a number of nasty decisions over the coming years so long as this composition exists, but that doesn't mean everything is gone or every case is lost. We don't have 5 Thomas or Alito clones. They're not going to overturn every liberal decision of the past 80+ years, but yes, they are going to overturn some. Abortion and religion have always been the most at-risk with a conservative majority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lots of ignorance about how the Supreme Court works in those tweets above.

Overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas or Obergefell v. Hodges would require an actual case to make it to SCOTUS in direct contradiction of those decision. No state is going to ban birth control, begin enforcing an overturned sodomy law (which were hardly ever enforced prior anyway, and are almost impossible to in almost all cases), or start denying marriage benefits to same-sex couples and thus create such a case.

And if anyone disputes the last one just look at how everywhere heeled immediately after Obergefell with the exception of Kim Davis...also take a look at the backlash and economic boycott of North Carolina that happened after its anti-LGBT bill that was so bad it likely led to the defeat of its Republican Governor the same election it voted for Trump. Even a really conservative state isn't going to want to have to pay the legal fees and deal with the negative PR and backlash and boycotts over something that even most conservative voters don't really give a sh!t about anymore, something like 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage now. And I probably don't even need to explain why a state banning condoms and/or the pill isn't going to happen.

Abortion is still a concern at the court because it's still a highly polarized and hot button political issue. The things covered in those other court cases are not.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

The US is about to turn into a third world country.

You're at least 1,578 days late with that take.

[I’m not Stu]

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

[freepcrusher]

does anyone here think that certain sects of christianity might have to be outlawed for america to survive? Basically AOG, Pentecostals, nondenom, SSPX/Latin catholicism might all need to be banned. The sad thing is that there are a lot of conservative christians who are otherwise nice people. But like where do we draw the line. I kind of think Tushnet is right.

[Mercenary]

does anyone here think that certain sects of christianity might have to be outlawed for america to survive? Basically AOG, Pentecostals, nondenom, SSPX/Latin catholicism might all need to be banned. The sad thing is that there are a lot of conservative christians who are otherwise nice people. But like where do we draw the line. I kind of think Tushnet is right.

Because the right to kill your child is more important than the right to believe what you think is right.

[Not Me, Us]

does anyone here think that certain sects of christianity might have to be outlawed for america to survive? Basically AOG, Pentecostals, nondenom, SSPX/Latin catholicism might all need to be banned. The sad thing is that there are a lot of conservative christians who are otherwise nice people. But like where do we draw the line. I kind of think Tushnet is right.

Because the right to kill your child is more important than the right to believe what you think is right.

Your rights end where others' rights begin.

[Person Man]

Lots of ignorance about how the Supreme Court works in those tweets above.

Overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas or Obergefell v. Hodges would require an actual case to make it to SCOTUS in direct contradiction of those decision. No state is going to ban birth control, begin enforcing an overturned sodomy law (which were hardly ever enforced prior anyway, and are almost impossible to in almost all cases), or start denying marriage benefits to same-sex couples and thus create such a case.

And if anyone disputes the last one just look at how everywhere heeled immediately after Obergefell with the exception of Kim Davis...also take a look at the backlash and economic boycott of North Carolina that happened after its anti-LGBT bill that was so bad it likely led to the defeat of its Republican Governor the same election it voted for Trump. Even a really conservative state isn't going to want to have to pay the legal fees and deal with the negative PR and backlash and boycotts over something that even most conservative voters don't really give a sh!t about anymore, something like 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage now. And I probably don't even need to explain why a state banning condoms and/or the pill isn't going to happen.

Abortion is still a concern at the court because it's still a highly polarized and hot button political issue. The things covered in those other court cases are not.

It would be funny if other issues came up instead like if they decided that obsesity/gluttony was a sin or something.

[Person Man]

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.

So by 2025, something like this

 https://www.270towin.com/maps/ZQdbk

By 2030, something like this

https://www.270towin.com/maps/RQAbm

Grey being where the laws COULD change.

[H. Ross Peron]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is a silly fantasy. Some states with restrictive abortion laws such as Mississippi already have very few clinics not accessible to large swathes of the population. Despite that, you aren't seeing mass migrations of people for reasons of lack of accessible abortion services. As others pointed out, people simply don't move for ideological reasons short of actual persecution for your beliefs.

[politicallefty]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is a silly fantasy. Some states with restrictive abortion laws such as Mississippi already have very few clinics not accessible to large swathes of the population. Despite that, you aren't seeing mass migrations of people for reasons of lack of accessible abortion services. As others pointed out, people simply don't move for ideological reasons short of actual persecution for your beliefs.

I think the difference is that some of these states are moving to consider abortion as murder/homicide. Current abortion restrictions aren't even close to what some of these states are attempting to do.

[H. Ross Peron]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

Certainly not! Those states are doing fantastic now. Every day one of my friends at the bagel shop says, boy, I can't wait til my number comes up and I can move to Huntington, WV or Branson, MO!

Glad to see "socialists" express contempt for economically deprived areas.

[H. Ross Peron]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is a silly fantasy. Some states with restrictive abortion laws such as Mississippi already have very few clinics not accessible to large swathes of the population. Despite that, you aren't seeing mass migrations of people for reasons of lack of accessible abortion services. As others pointed out, people simply don't move for ideological reasons short of actual persecution for your beliefs.

I think the difference is that some of these states are moving to consider abortion as murder/homicide. Current abortion restrictions aren't even close to what some of these states are attempting to do.

Yes but the Court's decision (given it will rely on Roberts and Kavanaugh) is going to be an incremental one that allows abortion restrictions at 15 weeks not a decision that allows prosecution for abortion as murder.

[Sestak]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is a silly fantasy. Some states with restrictive abortion laws such as Mississippi already have very few clinics not accessible to large swathes of the population. Despite that, you aren't seeing mass migrations of people for reasons of lack of accessible abortion services. As others pointed out, people simply don't move for ideological reasons short of actual persecution for your beliefs.

I think the difference is that some of these states are moving to consider abortion as murder/homicide. Current abortion restrictions aren't even close to what some of these states are attempting to do.

Yes but the Court's decision (given it will rely on Roberts and Kavanaugh) is going to be an incremental one that allows abortion restrictions at 15 weeks not a decision that allows prosecution for abortion as murder.

There is no point trying to explain this to people; this is one of those threads where everyone has decided they’re going to be insanely hysteric for no reason.

[EastwoodS]

You know the Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when even a restriction down to 15 weeks would still put the US well to the left of a lot of European countries. Yah, there need to be some major restrictions, especially when half the country wants them. I guess the Supreme Court was under the fanatical impression that the US Overton window was to the left of Europe on this issue in 1973?

[RI]

I fully expect a rather narrow ruling on the Mississippi case.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know the Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when even a restriction down to 15 weeks would still put the US well to the left of a lot of European countries.

It is true that lots of European countries have abortion laws that are on paper far more restrictive than the US's, but it's also true that: 1-Those laws are seldom enforced and/or 2-Often have a ton of loopholes in them making them de facto comparable to the US.

[H. Ross Peron]

You know the Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when even a restriction down to 15 weeks would still put the US well to the left of a lot of European countries.

It is true that lots of European countries have abortion laws that are on paper far more restrictive than the US's, but it's also true that: 1-Those laws are seldom enforced and/or 2-Often have a ton of loopholes in them making them de facto comparable to the US.

Also abortions are often funded by the healthcare system. Otoh, abortion *rates* are lower than in the US.

[politicallefty]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is a silly fantasy. Some states with restrictive abortion laws such as Mississippi already have very few clinics not accessible to large swathes of the population. Despite that, you aren't seeing mass migrations of people for reasons of lack of accessible abortion services. As others pointed out, people simply don't move for ideological reasons short of actual persecution for your beliefs.

I think the difference is that some of these states are moving to consider abortion as murder/homicide. Current abortion restrictions aren't even close to what some of these states are attempting to do.

Yes but the Court's decision (given it will rely on Roberts and Kavanaugh) is going to be an incremental one that allows abortion restrictions at 15 weeks not a decision that allows prosecution for abortion as murder.

There is no point trying to explain this to people; this is one of those threads where everyone has decided they’re going to be insanely hysteric for no reason.

I'm one that's quite rational about this, but this is very bad for the pro-choice side. Criminal penalties for abortion post-15 weeks isn't really different from considering abortion to be an act of homicide. It's just a lower degree. It will be illegal and penalized with the full force of the law. When the Court hands down this decision, the constitutional right to choose under the US Constitution will be eliminated.

[Alcibiades]

You know the Supreme Court made a horrible mistake when even a restriction down to 15 weeks would still put the US well to the left of a lot of European countries.

It is true that lots of European countries have abortion laws that are on paper far more restrictive than the US's, but it's also true that: 1-Those laws are seldom enforced and/or 2-Often have a ton of loopholes in them making them de facto comparable to the US.

Yeah, the UK is a good example of this: abortion is technically illegal unless you have a valid reason, but in practice it’s incredibly easy to provide such a reason; I’ve never heard of anyone being denied an abortion who was within the 24 week limit. Thus, we have de facto abortion on demand in spite of non-approved abortion remaining a de jure crime.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

Certainly not! Those states are doing fantastic now. Every day one of my friends at the bagel shop says, boy, I can't wait til my number comes up and I can move to Huntington, WV or Branson, MO!

Glad to see "socialists" express contempt for economically deprived areas.

Don't play that game with me. I'm from economically deprived areas. My contempt is for the government decisions that have made these places miserable to live, not for the people there.

[I’m not Stu]

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

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.