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

[Person Man]

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.

I can’t imagine how a state would enforce that.

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?

Most people are able to take a few days off of work.

Georgia would ask for extradition if the woman is still out of state. If not, authorities might suspect a terminated pregnancy.

Showing my ignorance here, but can you be charged with a crime for doing something that’s legal in the state you’re in? If you live in a state where gambling is illegal, but you go to an Indian Reservation to go to a casino, your home state can’t prosecute you, can they?

Georgia would try to prosecute anyway.

Can’t you just not go back or apply for foreign asylum if they keep hounding you? (Theoretical)

It’s still legal in Florida by constitutional referendum. I think.

[Person Man]

Why are people responding seriously to erm64man’s ridiculous claims?

He put down that it MIGHT. This is vey similar to 1992 where, in Casey, the court took up a PA law that required filial consent to obtain an abortion. The public thought that there were enough Republicans on the Court and the restriction was broad enough to overturn Roe v. Wade. They got the "undue burden" instead. Of the four restrictions in the Abortion Control Act, waiting period, consent for minor,  and consent from husband, all but the consent from husband was struck down. So we are pretty much in that predicament.

That said, I severely doubt either Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Roberts is 100% in on fetal personhood. I could definitely see them interested in overturning Roe and can see them say its a state issue while ACB, Thomas, Alito consenting by saying there is a Right to be Born (which is stupid because Courts can't make crimes... I guess they can say that common law torts of survivorship could be brought forth though).

Honestly, if Roe v. Wade gets overruled, I can see its effects being very similar to the current marijuana situation or the COVID situation. It will just make this country that much harder to govern and I can even see local DAs and sheriffs in big cities offering defacto amnesty and when AZ, GA, TX, or FL finally get a D governor, but still not having the votes to legalize,  that they do that too.

[Person Man]

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.

Watch for Handmaid-Red States to start taking action on that front. "Tried to leave the state for an abortion? Now you're a felon and can't leave the state." (I'm not saying it will be effective, but they'll try.)

And if they leave, do you think they will try to kidnap people?

[Person Man]

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.

Watch for Handmaid-Red States to start taking action on that front. "Tried to leave the state for an abortion? Now you're a felon and can't leave the state." (I'm not saying it will be effective, but they'll try.)

And if they leave, do you think they will try to kidnap people?

Yes. I think Georgia will try to abduct people if the blue state refuses to extradite.

Did you get that from your health law class?

This isn’t Health Law. It’s Constitutional, Civil Procedure, Criminal, and Family Law. And at least two of them might not matter anymore in a years’ time.

[Person Man]

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.

[Person Man]

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?

[Person Man]

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

[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.

[Person Man]

I think the majority of the judges of the SCOTUS have neither the will nor the bravery to oveturn Roe vs Wade.

I wish I could share in your optimism. This has been what the Federalist Society has been training judges for over the past few decades, and there are now six of them on the nation's highest court.

Well, they don’t need courage, but they are more or less putting abortion on the ballot in 2022.

What do you think overruling Roe will take the trajectory of? The cycle after Vermont legalizes Gay Marriage or the cycle once people start opening up to it?

[Person Man]

Only people who voted for Hillary Clinton on 11/8/2016 get to complain if they overturn Roe v. Wade.

You'd probably never get Trump, if Democrats didn't embrace one of the most disliked persons of the US, "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long", Hillary Rodham Clinton. FWIW.

I don’t know about all of that but she was definitely disliked by the voters that made the difference between her and Biden. That’s why I thought even Bernie was a good idea. If he did he well, it gave us options. If he lost, the “socialists” would shut the hell up for another 20 years. I thought it was a win win.

[Person Man]

Where are all the choir boys?

[Person Man]

As I said before there are so many family members adopting their own relatives now, a female or make partnership to make an unwanted pregnancy can give it up for adoption so that one of their own relatives van get the baby

Birth rates have plummeted, we are at record adoptions since 1979, don't  users on this forum realize that

Kennedy was the one that pretended to be a moderate, and gave Trump the Appointment, this issue is gonna be important but passing DC statehood and HR 1 is more imperative than some adoption

Since  Covid Birthrates have plummeted and adoptions are at records, even Athletes and celebritied are adopting, you can surpass the in meant state and get a ready made child

Adoption really isn’t this magic replacement for abortion. For many who oppose abortion but don’t think it’s  necessarily murder, adoption and abortion are wrong for the same reason. That reason is that abortion and adoption are avoiding doing things that society relies on you to do. A lot of those people see not paying child support the same as abortion.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of people, even those considering abortion, are not comfortable with adoption because it’s “selling your children”. The act of abandoning a child is also more traumatic to some than abortion. For every person who regrets an abortion, there’s probably a person who regrets adoption just as much.

This might be hard for many people to understand which should again bring us back to this idea that some groups of people don’t have or ever will have same type of empathy as other groups of people when it comes to certain things. Abortion being one of them. If abortion isn’t a religious issue then it is quite possibly a neourophenotypal issue.

In a way, it’s even worse if it’s the latter because if you punish people involved in abortion with murder it might not be anyway different than punishing a puppy for peeing on the rug 3 hours ago. Like many other issues with moral underpinnings, the motivations for advocacy on this issue are mostly quite selfish.

[Person Man]

As I said before there are so many family members adopting their own relatives now, a female or make partnership to make an unwanted pregnancy can give it up for adoption so that one of their own relatives van get the baby

Birth rates have plummeted, we are at record adoptions since 1979, don't  users on this forum realize that

Kennedy was the one that pretended to be a moderate, and gave Trump the Appointment, this issue is gonna be important but passing DC statehood and HR 1 is more imperative than some adoption

Since  Covid Birthrates have plummeted and adoptions are at records, even Athletes and celebritied are adopting, you can surpass the in meant state and get a ready made child

Adoption really isn’t this magic replacement for abortion. For many who oppose abortion but don’t think it’s  necessarily murder, adoption and abortion are wrong for the same reason. That reason is that abortion and adoption are avoiding doing things that society relies on you to do. A lot of those people see not paying child support the same as abortion.

On the other side of the coin, a lot of people, even those considering abortion, are not comfortable with adoption because it’s “selling your children”. The act of abandoning a child is also more traumatic to some than abortion. For every person who regrets an abortion, there’s probably a person who regrets adoption just as much.

This might be hard for many people to understand which should again bring us back to this idea that some groups of people don’t have or ever will have same type of empathy as other groups of people when it comes to certain things. Abortion being one of them. If abortion isn’t a religious issue then it is quite possibly a neourophenotypal issue.

In a way, it’s even worse if it’s the latter because if you punish people involved in abortion with murder it might not be anyway different than punishing a puppy for peeing on the rug 3 hours ago. Like many other issues with moral underpinnings, the motivations for advocacy on this issue are mostly quite selfish.

I was talking about families whom give up their children for adoption that have other family members that want the children, like my family situation this has happened.

But celebrities and athletes whom have the money love to adopt, they don't have the time to keep making babies, Freddie Freeman, Rosie O'Donnell, Buster Posey, especially White families where males fertility is lower.  

But, churches promotes adoptions, that's what they do, but it's very expensive to adopt, but the media just said adoption is at its highest point since 1979

Just sounds like the situation where I got Lacey the bitch and she does think me and her are the same so...

[Person Man]

Most likely scenario is a 5-4 decision with any one of the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Coney Barett/Gorsuch group joining the liberals, reversing Roe v. Wade, and ruling that states also cannot legalize abortion.

If the blue states just said no to this, what would happen hypothetically saying, after all who would enforce it?

I can easily see Red State Governors raising militias and invading Blue states to enforce said ruling.

What lmao

Most likely it will just open them up to civil liability and most judges that would rule that the defendant would owe $1 or something like that since there would be no way to prove damages. Judges can’t make criminal laws.

[Person Man]

Well I guess I expected people to realize I wasn't meaning to literally cover all of human history when I said "no one has ever said..."

Obviously, as evidenced by the very article he linked, abortion rates will go down some, just not to 0. I don't think any relevant figures on the pro-choice side (not just talking about message board anonymos) are alleging the rate will stay the same

Most pro choice people I’ve talked to on the subject have assured me that abortion rates will go up.

Banning anything doesn’t reduce use of it to zero. If somebody who was PL has told you that banning abortion would prevent all abortions, they were factually wrong.

so murder  being illegal is basicly useless

The major difference is that one of these issues is bullsh**t. It just is. There is something not normal about referencing biochemistry as some sort of replacement for organic empathy in determining civil rights and social/personal responsibility. It’s weird. Just like it’s weird to justify incest or something like that.

[Person Man]

If a building was burning down and you could save either a newborn baby or 1,000 fertilized human embryos in test tubes, which would you save? If it's the baby, congrats-- you're pro-choice. Get over yourself.

What if the baby is Baby Hitler, though?

Or adult Hitler?

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

[Person Man]

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.

This line of thinking is so disgusting.

It's a high-risk, high-reward situation. The risk being that this is the start of either some new "War on Abortion" that ushers in a police state or will be that thing that causes most people to take things into their own hands.
The potential upside risk is that after a cycle or two, this issue drops off the national radar through a reasonable compromise. Maybe a certain number of states agree to keep it and certain number don't and all states have to have certain restrictions or exceptions.

[Person Man]

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

”Hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet”? Do you think abortions happen before pregnancy?

That's what traditionalists and nationalists say about certain forms of birth control or stem cell research. Those are "abortions" that happen before pregnancy. This is because there is technically a "conceptus" but there is no pregnancy because there has not yet been implantation.

[Person Man]

The point is that some people can’t emphasize with the notion that you are a parent immediately after having unprotected sex. Should this be a responsibility issue? Sure. If we go the right way about it but it’s just really silly to me that someone who swears to God that there’s only two genders, not just two sexes (even if that’s even qualified by chromosomal disorders that people like this tend to forget about unless they are found in a fetus), wants us to believe that a being that hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet needs a social security number simply because it’s metabolizing and has human DNA.

”Hasn’t even consummated into a pregnancy yet”? Do you think abortions happen before pregnancy?

Only around half of fertilized eggs even implant into a uterus. Birth control pills may lower those odds, it hasn't been proven, but their primary purpose is to stop ovulation altogether, so it would be basically impossible to test this idea.

And of course there are identical and Siamese twins.

[Person Man]

I've held my nieces as babies, fed, changed and burped them. Made them laugh. The choice of saving a born baby is really easy.

That you struggle to not only see that, but to condemn me and Dule is really disturbing. You're dehumanising by resorting to nothing but thought experiments with respect to human life and human experience.

I pretended to talk to my baby brother for months before he died, and ever since my mother miscarried I have had a huge and aching hole in my heart. About two years ago, I realized that this was decidedly inconsistent with claiming life begins at birth. Perhaps it would be easy for you not to feel this pain of mine, yet I cannot help but feel it. I am, in my own mind, the boy with the dead brother. Every now and then I catch a smiling face about the age he would be now, and my eyes water profusely. Within me there is a deep well of sadness for my brother, and I refuse to apologize for this. I have lost a grandmother and great-grandparents, too, and each of these great griefs is different from the others. For me, when you ask if I would rather save an embryo or a baby, these are not abstract things, but human beings which I remember dying.

(I did not “resort to nothing but thought experiments” - you are confusing me with Dule.)

But even you admit that it isn’t exactly the same and what should/do expectant mothers feel if they miscarry? That they kill their children or that if they have had miscarriages before that they should be guilted into not trying because it’s endangering a child? That sort of stuff destroys people. It’s one thing to have feelings but it’s another to think other people should be expected to feel the same way. That’s usually a thing conservatives say and that is usually on the issues that they are popular on. Most people are OK in having conversations about marijuana, abortion, public options, and police reform. People can sympathize. When you berate them for not empathizing? That’s what you call Cancel Culture.

[Person Man]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

Says who?

People who told us to “ your feelings”. There’s that. And those who said one egg + one sperm = person. End of story.  That seems pretty sterile to me. You can’t make the same argument that we just made for your side. That’s not fair.

[Person Man]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

And while you hold your feelings above our feelings, you also hold them above the objective indisputable welfare of others. The fact that the harm  is beyond a reasonable doubt in one situation and is not in the other is also dispositive.

[Person Man]

But you can’t legislate based on that feeling. I am sorry to hear your story, truly, but it does not mean that everyone else’s world has to realign itself to fit with yours. That’s a little solipsistic.

On the contrary! I assert that I think my values are superior to yours; if I did not, I would not hold my values.

I also want to legislate based off of my feelings about the barbarity of genital mutilation; my feelings about the evilness of slavery; in short, I feel very strongly in what I think ought to be legislated. You seem to be one of those who wish to dehumanize all of human life into thought experiments; to deprive an emotional world of emotion. I refuse to apologize for my tears, or that my motivation for a great deal of legislation I advocate is based off of my own life experience.

You are, in short, not disputing my point about how valuable my dead brother is to me, but insisting that it is illogical for me to grieve over him. You might as well tell me to defy gravity, for I will never apologize for grieving for my dead relatives. I would sooner cut out my own tongue than to disgrace them so.

And while you hold your feelings above our feelings, you also hold them above the objective indisputable welfare of others. The fact that the harm  is beyond a reasonable doubt in one situation and is not in the other is also dispositive.

Objective and indisputable, according to...?

You dispute that many lives will be disrupted by a sudden massive change in abortion policy?

[Person Man]

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.

What is the point of winning elections if you lose on the actual issues? This is the apex of the "politics as a spectator sport" mindset.

You misunderstand the nature of the abortion issue.

If this decision is overturned, suddenly, millions of people will no longer have a reason to vote R. They could start voting for their own economic interests, finally. This might finally give us the voting power to end the seemingly unstoppable wealth inequality spiral.

You do realize that Republicans still have to pass laws to actually ban abortion and after that still stay in power to keep said bans?

People get kind of lazy after people start to listen to them and if they are getting what they want then they actually have to defend the status quo.