Mississippi Abortion Ban Case to be Heard December 1 by Supreme Court

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard. There may be a few justices willing to go that far, but not a majority, and in any event, this case can't be used to make such a ruling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

End roe v wade NOW

BAN abortion

Ending - overturning - Roe v. Wade will not result in banning abortion nationwide. Overturning it will result in returning control of the issue to the states. Most, if not all, (Atlas) red states will still allow abortion to be legal, and many (Atlas) blue states will ban abortion. Women who are in the latter states who need to get an abortion will be able to travel to the former states to get one.

I worry about what else the Supreme Court majority will say if they do overturn Roe. Roe was a misinterpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court does overturn Roe, will they also provide the country with a correct explanation of what the Due Process Clause means? If the Court explains the DP Clause in a manner similar to the way the plurality opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) explained it, then that will mean the Court will continue to give this country an erroneous interpretation of the Clause and that the only reason the Court is upholding state laws that ban abortion is because the Justices politically agree with anti-abortion laws. It will mean that the Court's ruling will still be politically motivated, and the Court will then come under political pressure to reinstate Roe.

Attempts to overturn Roe will continue as long as the Court adheres to it. And, so long as the decision remains, the Court will be perceived, correctly, as political and will continue to be the target of demonstrations, marches, television advertisements, mass mailings, and the like. Roe, as the greatest example and symbol of judicial usurpation of democratic prerogatives in this century, should be overturned. The Court's integrity requires that. But even if the case is relegated to the dustbin of history where Dred Scott and Lochner lie, the right of privacy and the judicial techniques and attitudes it represents are likely to remain. A more fundamental rethinking of legitimate judicial power than the mere demise of Roe would signify is required. (Robert Bork, "The Tempting of America," (1990), page 116.)

The Supreme Court is going to go for a full overturn (as in Fetal Personhood, as in, states can't legalize abortion either) if they do overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court may decide to overturn Roe, but it won't have any basis for requiring States to criminalize all abortions. Even under an extreme pro-life interpretation of originalism, they could only go as far as banning post-quickening abortions (i.e., second and third trimester abortions) as that was the standard under common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There was no statutory law in 1788 in either the UK or the US that banned abortion, only common law which used the quickening standard.

Other than John Roberts, I'm willing to bet none of the conservatives on the court will care about any legal basis for making such a decision.

Even if that were so, there's no justiciable point in this case for them to make such a ruling. It literally would require someone suing to prevent an abortion in a State where it was legal for them to even have a basis for such a ruling.

While the Court does lack the power to issue a ruling that conclusively bans abortion nationwide until the circumstance that you describe, there is still the possibility that a 5 or 6 person majority on the Court, if they really want to, could include a non-binding statement -- in any abortion-related ruling, such as the upcoming Dobbs case -- that hints at the prospect that it is unconstitutional to allow abortion to be legal. Surely you've heard of obiter dictum. I can foresee a ruling by the Court, in Dobbs, upholding the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks in which the opinion states the law should be upheld because it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and it might even be constitutionally necessary to ban abortion after 15 weeks. It's just obiter dictum, so it isn't binding on future court decisions, but it can be cited in a future case that does challenge the constitutionality of laws that allow abortion to be legal -- and obiter dictum has certainly made its way into majority decisions before.

None of this would be a very good plan for the conservative justices though. It’s easy for a court to strike down a law. It’s easy for a court to uphold a law. It would be very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to create a new crime. I suppose under this “fetal personhood” doctrine the Court could enjoin the government from supporting abortions. But how would such a ruling ban doctors (i.e. private citizens) from a particular practice? They can’t order the state legislatures to pass legislation criminalizing abortion or impose a sentence for said crime. They cannot order state officials to prosecute said crime. So how would this “fetal personhood” thing work, exactly?

Simple. Someone files for a writ of mandamus to require a prosecutor to prosecute an abortionist under an existing manslaughter or murder statute for performing an abortion. The mechanism is fairly straightforward if SCOTUS ever rules that the Federal constitution requires State recognition of fetal personhood. Frankly, I don't see any possible justification for such a ruling, but then the court has a history of making rulings with little justification, such as Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, and pretty much all of its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.