SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[OSR stands with Israel]

SunriseAroundTheWorld wanted me to posts this here on his behalf: Sunrise is Pro-Life and agrees with this decision

[fhtagn]

SunriseAroundTheWorld wanted me to posts this here on his behalf: Sunrise is Pro-Life and agrees with this decision

Liferiso ❤️

[KaiserDave]

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.

You falsely assume that the current reactionary majority really cares. For the record I think you are right that such a law wouldn't survive, but you really have to give these judges less credit. Alito is an obvious political hack, he is an angry right-wing message board poster in a robe, he deserves none of the respect afforded to his office.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

Let's hope you're right.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Per wikipedia

When the United States became independent, most states applied English common law to abortion. This meant it was not permitted after quickening, or the start of fetal movements, usually felt 15–20 weeks after conception.

Can't we just default to this + life of the mother and call it a day? I think we had it right and started overanalyzing.

A 20-week ban would be a completely acceptable compromise that the vast majority of Americans on both sides would support. Six weeks is bullsh!t, Alabama's zero-weeks law is bullsh!t, and legal third-trimester abortions would be bullsh!t but we don't see Democrats going for that.

In any case, as I said a few days ago, the median American voter is more moderate on abortion than the politicians are. A national 20-week abortion guarantee and ban would be very popular, but Congress would never pass it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

SunriseAroundTheWorld wanted me to posts this here on his behalf: Sunrise is Pro-Life and agrees with this decision

     Sunrise continues to be amazing.

[Mr. Reactionary]

8 pages on this in two hours and real issues like inflation are lucky to get two

Abortion, regardless of your view on it, is a very real issue unless you're a smugly sheltered male who can afford to not care. Does that describe you?

Yeah sure smugly sheltered whatever lol I don't care

I don't get the rich part though. Don't you mean "afford to care"?
Most everyone else is getting hit in their wallet because of these prices.

You have to be a certain level of wealthy to consider this an important issue

...you don't understand who is actually harmed by restrictions on abortion, do you?

A small percentage of total abortions are for health reasons. Like less than 20%.

[Sestak]

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.

No? They’ll just extend Carhart to this. Not difficult to do at all. Even Roberts was in the majority on that one.

[Sol]

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.

You falsely assume that the current reactionary majority really cares.

Yeah, it's all about forcing women and other people who can get pregnant into a disadvantaged position, and the clever but ultimately hollow legal justification comes after for these monsters in the Supreme Court.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

Lol

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

There's no reason to think Gorsuch has the liberal-ish attitudes on beginning- and end-of-life issues that he has on (some) LGBT issues (a fact that is itself somewhat idiosyncratic because he's at least nominally the least religious current conservative justice). His doctoral dissertation was an extended legal and moral argument against assisted suicide under the advisorship of the person who introduced constitutional/common-law personhood arguments into the relative legal mainstream.

[Pres Mike]

How will this affect the elections in November?

[Pericles]

There's an awful lot of religious fundamentalists in this thread trying to impose their values on others. Yes, Congress should have passed a law legalising abortion. However, the issue should have remained settled judicially. Roe was good policy, and a lot of suffering will now be caused by millions of people losing their rights. Just as Roe was not a permanent victory, this won't be either and eventually, one way or another, abortion rights will be guaranteed again.

It is not the job of the courts to decide what is or what is not good policy.

I'm not trying to give an interpretation of the US Constitution, I'm giving my opinion that I support abortion being legal and accessible and so it's obviously a bad outcome from my view that this will not be the situation in many states.

Sadly while I agree with you, it is a huge stretch to say that abortion is guaranteed by any clause within the constitution.

It is long, LONG overdue that congress passed a law guaranteeing the right to an abortion in every single state so that we can finally settle this issue once and for all. Make it limited like in Europe so that the majority of people support it.

This is the number one thing that Democrats should make the centerpiece of their agenda for the next six months. Murkowski and Collins would absolutely go along with it, so you don't need to rely on Manchin or Sinema at all (and Sinema I presume would also go along with it). Use reconciliation this year to pass it and use the legislation itself to continuously make this decision and abortion in general the centerpiece of the 2022 election.

Democrats are largely doomed to a poor result, but if abortion is at the forefront of voters' minds that is infinitely better for Democrats than, say, inflation. Decent chance Dems keep the senate if abortion becomes the main issue at stake.

I don't see how it's possible to pass abortion rights through reconciliation, and filibuster reform still would not get 50 votes-even if Sinema somehow changed her mind Manchin would never do it for this bill. Susan Collins also opposed a federal abortion rights bill this year. She and Murkowski will find some reason to say they support the goal but not the Democrats' particular bill, rather than go against their party in such a big way.

Democrats might as well put it to a vote anyway. They could also put other rights they are worried about now, like gay marriage, to a vote in the Senate as a messaging vote.

[DrScholl]

Some humans cannot survive outside an iron lung. Can we abort them?

You're comparing apples to oranges. A living person has the choice to survive on support such as an iron lung. A week old pregnancy is not viable outside the womb.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In any case, as I said a few days ago, the median American voter is more moderate on abortion than the politicians are. A national 20-week abortion guarantee and ban would be very popular, but Congress would never pass it.

     This is something that falls on deaf ears here. Everytime a topic is made on abortion, it is a matter of time before someone posts a chart and declares America is majority pro-choice. More granular surveys find that the median voter supports abortion on demand in the first trimester only, which is a view effectively unrepresented among our elected officeholders.

[Schiff for Senate]

Some humans cannot survive outside an iron lung. Can we abort them?

You're comparing apples to oranges. A living person has the choice to survive on support such as an iron lung. A week old pregnancy is not viable outside the womb.

For a change I agree totally with you.

Also the level of moderations in this thread is insane...I guess this thread has sparked a lot of vitriol from both sides. I saw the thread shrink from 18 pages back down to 17 as two replies somewhere got deleted (likely moderated). However, the post I'm quoting of yours is the first on the 18th page (unless more have been since moderated).

EDIT: So another post just got deleted.

[jojoju1998]

In any case, as I said a few days ago, the median American voter is more moderate on abortion than the politicians are. A national 20-week abortion guarantee and ban would be very popular, but Congress would never pass it.

     This is something that falls on deaf ears here. Everytime a topic is made on abortion, it is a matter of time before someone posts a chart and declares America is majority pro-choice. More granular surveys find that the median voter supports abortion on demand in the first trimester only, which is a view effectively unrepresented among our elected officeholders.

Abortion on demand in the first trimester only IS what the rest of the world does.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Question for more informed people on this issue: let's say the Democrats keep control of both houses of Congress this November and pass the Pro-Choice Protection Act of 2023 or whatever, signed into law by President Biden.

On what grounds could states or others (religious organizations being likely examples) challenge such a law in the courts? The Roberts Court, especially with six conservative justices, has been notably pro-religious freedom in a lot of cases; I suppose the issue would be whether the federal law was so sweeping in its protections of abortion that it didn't have adequate carve-outs on religious freedom grounds, no?

[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.  

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Question for more informed people on this issue: let's say the Democrats keep control of both houses of Congress this November and pass the Pro-Choice Protection Act of 2023 or whatever, signed into law by President Biden.

On what grounds could states or others (religious organizations being likely examples) challenge such a law in the courts? The Roberts Court, especially with six conservative justices, has been notably pro-religious freedom in a lot of cases; I suppose the issue would be whether the federal law was so sweeping in its protections of abortion that it didn't have adequate carve-outs on religious freedom grounds, no?

That would be the most expedient way to get it in front of the Court, yeah, which could then pretty easily strike it down on Tenth Amendment grounds (the same rationales would all also apply to abortion restrictions passed by Congress, but, well...).

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There's an awful lot of religious fundamentalists in this thread trying to impose their values on others. Yes, Congress should have passed a law legalising abortion. However, the issue should have remained settled judicially. Roe was good policy, and a lot of suffering will now be caused by millions of people losing their rights. Just as Roe was not a permanent victory, this won't be either and eventually, one way or another, abortion rights will be guaranteed again.

It is not the job of the courts to decide what is or what is not good policy.

I'm not trying to give an interpretation of the US Constitution, I'm giving my opinion that I support abortion being legal and accessible and so it's obviously a bad outcome from my view that this will not be the situation in many states.

Sadly while I agree with you, it is a huge stretch to say that abortion is guaranteed by any clause within the constitution.

It is long, LONG overdue that congress passed a law guaranteeing the right to an abortion in every single state so that we can finally settle this issue once and for all. Make it limited like in Europe so that the majority of people support it.

This is the number one thing that Democrats should make the centerpiece of their agenda for the next six months. Murkowski and Collins would absolutely go along with it, so you don't need to rely on Manchin or Sinema at all (and Sinema I presume would also go along with it). Use reconciliation this year to pass it and use the legislation itself to continuously make this decision and abortion in general the centerpiece of the 2022 election.

Democrats are largely doomed to a poor result, but if abortion is at the forefront of voters' minds that is infinitely better for Democrats than, say, inflation. Decent chance Dems keep the senate if abortion becomes the main issue at stake.

I don't see how it's possible to pass abortion rights through reconciliation, and filibuster reform still would not get 50 votes-even if Sinema somehow changed her mind Manchin would never do it for this bill. Susan Collins also opposed a federal abortion rights bill this year. She and Murkowski will find some reason to say they support the goal but not the Democrats' particular bill, rather than go against their party in such a big way.

Democrats might as well put it to a vote anyway. They could also put other rights they are worried about now, like gay marriage, to a vote in the Senate as a messaging vote.

What Collins opposed is a bill that is a thinly veiled attempt to codify elective abortion in the 9th month, which was above and beyond what Casey or Roe envisioned. What she supports is a bill that she authored:

"Collins and Murkowski’s measure would prohibit states from imposing an “undue burden” to the right to abortion before fetal viability, which is generally considered to be around 23 weeks into a pregnancy. Their bill would allow states to restrict abortion after that as well as protect health care providers who do not want to provide abortions for moral or religious reasons."

Democrats could put this up for a reconciliation vote and overrule the parliamentarian with respect to this specific matter. Quite possible Murkowski and Collins go for that even if Manchin doesn't. (Of course, if you've got Sinema, you don't need both Murkowski and Collins, one or the other will do)

* This post is not designed to say that I would personally support the Collins bill. Just speaking about what Democrats could do.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[politicallefty]

I'm sure those cheering this decision will be the first among us to support ensuring Medicaid for pregnant women and ensuring that those born will be ensured healthcare throughout childhood, right?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Some humans cannot survive outside an iron lung. Can we abort them?

You're comparing apples to oranges. A living person has the choice to survive on support such as an iron lung. A week old pregnancy is not viable outside the womb.

Give the baby a choice.

[BGBC]

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.

No? They’ll just extend Carhart to this. Not difficult to do at all. Even Roberts was in the majority on that one.

Carhart didn't deal with the 10th Amendment. Thomas and Scalia even hinted in their concurring opinion that they would've struck it down on those grounds if the petitioners had argued on it.

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.

There's no reason to think Gorsuch has the liberal-ish attitudes on beginning- and end-of-life issues that he has on (some) LGBT issues (a fact that is itself somewhat idiosyncratic because he's at least nominally the least religious current conservative justice). His doctoral dissertation was an extended legal and moral argument against assisted suicide under the advisorship of the person who introduced constitutional/common-law personhood arguments into the relative legal mainstream.

This hypothetical doesn't deal with personhood, just federalism. The federal government doesn't even have the power to prescribe laws against murder, like actual murder, unless it's on federal property or somehow affects the federal government directly. Precedent on non-economic criminal issues has almost always granted power to the states.