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

[Biden his time]

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.

I respectfully disagree. I think most people IRL don't care enough about their states' abortion laws to move to a completely different state just because they disagree with their states' laws.

For instance, there was no mass exodus from the United States to Canada when Trump was elected. Democrats in Texas and Florida still exist and have been increasing in raw numbers for a long time, as well as Republicans in California and New York.

[Damocles]

Fetal personality is a ludicrous position to take. Can you talk to a fetus? Can it eat? Can it work and pay taxes? Does it observe a culture? Can it vote? Can it drive a car? No sane person would say that fetuses have personalities, or by extension, that they are people. The concept of life beginning with insemination is an oversimplified and reductionist view that ignores all of what makes humans, human.

As a corollary, intransigent, state-sponsored denial of family planning tools and contraceptives amounts to undermining bodily integrity. It violates the sovereignty of the person who already exists. Abortion is a necessary tool to abrogate at least some suffering among people who already exist. It should be solemnly carried out in clean, safe, regulated, easily available facilities.

Nobody seeks out an abortion for an abortion’s sake, due to the invasiveness of the procedure, but if they elect to take that option, it should be available.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

But people keep on telling me that abortion bans have no affect on the rate of abortion!

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Fetal personality is a ludicrous position to take. Can you talk to a fetus? Can it eat? Can it work and pay taxes? Does it observe a culture? Can it vote? Can it drive a car?

Most of those things don't apply to newborns, half of them apply to 14 year olds.

[I’m not Stu]

The chief justice will look like an 1d10t with egg on his face.

[Damocles]

Fetal personality is a ludicrous position to take. Can you talk to a fetus? Can it eat? Can it work and pay taxes? Does it observe a culture? Can it vote? Can it drive a car?

Most of those things don't apply to newborns, half of them apply to 14 year olds.

It’s almost like that’s what rhetorical questions are!

[OSR stands with Israel]

Wouldn’t it just permit states to ban it at 15 weeks if they rule this constitutional

[I’m not Stu]

Wouldn’t it just permit states to ban it at 15 weeks if they rule this constitutional

It depends on how broad the decision is.

[7,052,770]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

But people keep on telling me that abortion bans have no affect on the rate of abortion!

No they don't?

As you know, there is a huge difference between "a ban won't reduce them to 0" and "a ban won't reduce them at all from their current rate."

[Damocles]

Assert your reproductive rights and bodily sovereignty with this one weird trick! Reactionaries HATE this!

[7,052,770]

Wouldn’t it just permit states to ban it at 15 weeks if they rule this constitutional

It's totally up to the justices. They can do anything they want, ranging from making all abortion illegal everywhere, to overturning all restrictions whatsoever anywhere.

I think they likely allow this 15-week ban, which would be an overturn of Roe. Whether they allow bans to go further is anyone's guess, but there sure will be a lot of pressure on these judges, several of whom were handpicked as being likely to go that far.

Elections have consequences. I wish Democrats grasped that like Republicans do.

[I’m not Stu]

I think cert was granted because there were already four votes to hear the case with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. It’s possible Kavanaugh could have been the sixth vote to deny cert if Ginsburg were still alive.

[7,052,770]

I think cert was granted because there were already four votes to hear the case with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. It’s possible Kavanaugh could have been the sixth vote to deny cert if Ginsburg were still alive.

Would Kavanaugh becoming a feminist icon as the deciding vote to uphold Roe be the most ironic twist in American political history?

[I’m not Stu]

I think cert was granted because there were already four votes to hear the case with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. It’s possible Kavanaugh could have been the sixth vote to deny cert if Ginsburg were still alive.

Would Kavanaugh becoming a feminist icon as the deciding vote to uphold Roe be the most ironic twist in American political history?

I didn’t mean that. I meant he might have been a sixth vote to deny cert just to avoid hearing an abortion case for now.

[7,052,770]

I think cert was granted because there were already four votes to hear the case with Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. It’s possible Kavanaugh could have been the sixth vote to deny cert if Ginsburg were still alive.

Would Kavanaugh becoming a feminist icon as the deciding vote to uphold Roe be the most ironic twist in American political history?

I didn’t mean that. I meant he might have been a sixth vote to deny cert just to avoid hearing an abortion case for now.

I mean it though. He's probably the deciding vote on this case and may single handedly let US abortion policy for a generation or more.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

But people keep on telling me that abortion bans have no affect on the rate of abortion!

No they don't?

As you know, there is a huge difference between "a ban won't reduce them to 0" and "a ban won't reduce them at all from their current rate."

A lot of "personally pro-life, politically pro-choice" people say exactly that in order to justify voting for Democrats.

[Geoffrey Howe]

The Mississippi 15 week abortion case will be heard by SCOTUS. Although John Roberts opposes abortion, I would guess he voted to deny cert to avoid the spotlight.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1394288613471424517

You should desensationalize the title a little bit. We don't know for sure yet how the court will rule, even if it's likely the court will go in one direction. Your title makes it sound like the court has already ruled in such a direction.

Maybe one of these works better:

"Supreme Court to hear Mississippi abortion case challenging Roe v. Wade"
"Supreme Court takes up major abortion case next term that could limit Roe v. Wade"
"Supreme Court To Consider Mississippi’s Abortion Ban In Move That Could Challenge Roe V. Wade"
"Supreme Court will hear an abortion case that could undo Roe v. Wade"

It's ERM64man.

[freepcrusher]

How come no one will talk to me. Does anyone have an idea on how to get the majority. I have ideas but I might be exceeding Brandenburg if I say them.

[Mopsus]

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.

I don’t see why that would happen. Most women who get abortions don’t have the economic resources to move to a new state on a whim, and those who do could just as easily drive or take a train to the nearest legal abortion state if they really wanted to get one.

[VAR]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[I’m not Stu]

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.

I don’t see why that would happen. Most women who get abortions don’t have the economic resources to move to a new state on a whim, and those who do could just as easily drive or take a train to the nearest legal abortion state if they really wanted to get one.

Remember that Georgia passed a law to make it illegal to leave the state to get an abortion.

[Damocles]

I don’t see why that would happen. Most women who get abortions don’t have the economic resources to move to a new state on a whim, and those who do could just as easily drive or take a train to the nearest legal abortion state if they really wanted to get one.

And risk getting fired from their jobs for absenteeism in their convalescence and recovery from the procedure?

[Former President tack50]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

Which will do more long-term damage to the country? A few months of abortion being harder to get, or Republicans winning big in 2022?

Surely after 2010 we should all know the answer by now.

It's going to be a lot longer than 3 months. It's not like a 55-47 senate or whatever can just overrule a Supreme Court decision. It will be years if not decades before abortion has a chance to become legal in every state again,  basically waiting to appoint enough justices to the Supreme Court who are willing to reverse the new precedent and getting the right case in front of them.

Worth noting there is also the possibility of a constitutional amendment to re-legalize abortion. Not like that is any more realistic (if anything it is a lot less realistic)

[Former President tack50]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

But people keep on telling me that abortion bans have no affect on the rate of abortion!

If you want to be precise, rich women who want to get an abortion will get an abortion by travelling to California/Canada for the weekend (your pick) and paying out of pocket; while poor women will just have to suck it up and raise the child (or put him up for adoption, or do a dangerous illegal abortion)

[I’m not Stu]

I'm honestly increasingly beginning to believe this is a good thing. It would drive D turnout up and R turnout down for the midterms.

And the women unable to get abortions in the meantime are just collateral damage?

But people keep on telling me that abortion bans have no affect on the rate of abortion!

If you want to be precise, rich women who want to get an abortion will get an abortion by travelling to California/Canada for the weekend (your pick) and paying out of pocket; while poor women will just have to suck it up and raise the child (or put him up for adoption, or do a dangerous illegal abortion)

Wrong. If a woman leaves Georgia to get an abortion in Virginia (the closest state with legal abortion), the woman can be charged with a crime.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1125857619191660544