SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

How will this affect the elections in November?

     I could see it increasing turnout among people who place a high premium on abortion as an issue (both liberal and conservative). Most voters don't cite it as a top issue in general, and some may be swayed by this but I suspect inflation and other issues that affect their wallets will overall remain most prominent.

[UncleSam]

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.

The bill you're referring to included a lot of other stuff which Collins / Murkowski don't like.

So don't make it a Democrat vs. Republican bill. Make it two sentences long and let Collins write those sentences. 'The right to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy shall not be infringed by the states.' Do the same for gay marriage (which I think actually could hit 60 votes at this point), then put it to a vote.

I agree that I think the Rs will likely find some way to block it, but at the very least you need to get these things on the agenda and have people talking about them leading up to the election. A huge number of independents (especially women) across the country will shift their thinking over this.

[jojoju1998]

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?

Yes. As a Pro Life Progressive, Yes.

Makes me a rairity, but so be it. It's progresisve to support life.

[Frodo]

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?

Sign me up. 

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?

I actually would.

[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 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?

Haha yes, should be “now”…I’ve corrected it.

[ElectionsGuy]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

[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.

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.

I think you're seriously underestimating the role that motivated reasoning plays in American federal judges' decision-making process.

[DaleCooper]

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.

The bill you're referring to included a lot of other stuff which Collins / Murkowski don't like.

So don't make it a Democrat vs. Republican bill. Make it two sentences long and let Collins write those sentences. 'The right to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy shall not be infringed by the states.' Do the same for gay marriage (which I think actually could hit 60 votes at this point), then put it to a vote.

I agree that I think the Rs will likely find some way to block it, but at the very least you need to get these things on the agenda and have people talking about them leading up to the election. A huge number of independents (especially women) across the country will shift their thinking over this.

Democrats are unfortunately not going to do this. They can't bear to bring any legislation forward that isn't a modern-day Great Society bill. They're allergic to any kind of straightforward, simple legislation.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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?

Sure. Easy trade.

[Schiff for Senate]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

[Mr. Reactionary]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

Whats a sleep?

[DaleCooper]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

If you understand this country then you understand that abortion debates will outlive all of the current members of congress. It's not a matter of it helping or not helping in 2022 and then never being an issue again.

[kwabbit]

Would the Democrats be able put abortion protections in a reconciliation bill? It'd pass the House and probably the Senate honestly. Sinema would be yes, Manchin idk, Collins probably yes, Murkowski idk, Casey idk.

Democrats would have to kill the fillibuster to even try it, as it's not going get through reconciliation (no Senate Parliamentarian will agree to that) and other than maybe Murkowski, I can't think of a single Republican who would oppose a fillibuster of any abortion protection.

Dumb filibuster. Hopefully the court strikes down Texas' law. 15 weeks is less than 22 weeks but still enough time for a woman to find out she's pregnant and obtain an abortion. Texas is not enough time. Pregnancy is typically measured from ovulation, so six weeks means only four weeks after a missed period, which is not enough time to be sure of the change to get a pregnancy test and obtain an abortion.

[Ferguson97]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

If you feel more strongly about the leak than the court decision, you are a fundamentally unserious person.

[Sol]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

Why do you care so much? This is major political news and will deeply harm American women and other birthing people. Lots of posts are only natural.

[NewYorkExpress]

Would the Democrats be able put abortion protections in a reconciliation bill? It'd pass the House and probably the Senate honestly. Sinema would be yes, Manchin idk, Collins probably yes, Murkowski idk, Casey idk.

Democrats would have to kill the fillibuster to even try it, as it's not going get through reconciliation (no Senate Parliamentarian will agree to that) and other than maybe Murkowski, I can't think of a single Republican who would oppose a fillibuster of any abortion protection.

Dumb filibuster. Hopefully the court strikes down Texas' law. 15 weeks is less than 22 weeks but still enough time for a woman to find out she's pregnant and obtain an abortion. Texas is not enough time. Pregnancy is typically measured from ovulation, so six weeks means only four weeks after a missed period, which is not enough time to be sure of the change to get a pregnancy test and obtain an abortion.

Given Republicans are going to be trying to be passing fetal personhood, if not on by judicial fiat, then by constitutional amendment or just by plain legislation (which the current Supreme Court will uphold)...I think you are wrong here.

[Schiff for Senate]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

Why do you care so much? This is major political news and will deeply harm American women and other birthing people. Lots of posts are only natural.

Well I'm just amused and incredulous (obligatory reminder that I'm a 'safe, legal and rare' moderate on abortion who opposes extremists from both sides - though let's be real, most of the extremism, including the one discussed in this thread, comes from the right). I mean don't you run out of things to say? We get that right-wingers love this and let-wingers hate it. Many posts have added nil to the discussion. Nonetheless, I'm just curious to see how long until the posting starts declining and it finally makes it way off the first page of the board (my bet is that won't happen for several days and not before 35+ pages).

[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.

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.

I think you're seriously underestimating the role that motivated reasoning plays in American federal judges' decision-making process.

Maybe, just remember that the case I initially analogized this hypothetical to (Bostock) is a real case that happened in this "reactionary majority" (without ACB, which doesn't matter considering it was 6-3).

Some might also remember Gonzales v. Raich where the entire conservative bloc (save Scalia) voted to strike down federal marijuana prohibition on 10th Amendment grounds. It's not as polarized as you think it is.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

18 pages? lol

By the time it's been 4 hours since its creation (9:43 PM PT, or a little under 30 minutes from now) I imagine it'll be at 20.

I personally think by the time I wake up tomorrow and log on to the forum (probably like 8:30 AM tomorrow PT), it could have exploded to 40 (though on the other hand, most of the posters here are American and I'm sure that most of them will take a break to go to sleep at some point).

I'll probably be posting here rather than finishing my History final, as I've done for much of the evening. Who needs sleep when there's sh**tposting to be done?

[DaleCooper]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

If you feel more strongly about the leak than the court decision, you are a fundamentally unserious person.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be disturbed by the leak. I'm not and I don't care because I have long been opposed to the Supreme Court. If (again, emphasis on if) we could set up a better replacement then I would support the Supreme Court's immediate abolition, I think SCOTUS is one of the worst things about the United States. But if you're a person who thinks positively about it then I get why you would be unsettled by the leak.

[7,052,770]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

[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?

Yes. As a Pro Life Progressive, Yes.

Makes me a rairity, but so be it. It's progresisve to support life.

I have seen nothing of the sort so far in terms of legislation across this country. If one were going to show oneself as pro-life, maybe put in some provisions that support life?

How many blue avatars or those of that persuasion? We all know how this will go. There will be no changes to Medicaid in the deep red states. They refused free money to expand Medicaid to all adults below 138% FPL. In many states, the cut-off is for pregnant women or women with children and the cut-off is well below the federal poverty line. And that's just the issue of healthcare. What about daycare? There's only one party that appears to support the idea of universal daycare. I don't see many so-called pro-lifers support that either.

[Vosem]

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.

I think you're seriously underestimating the role that motivated reasoning plays in American federal judges' decision-making process.

Although it's also possible to overestimate it. I don't think judges who have spent decades arguing that such-and-such is a federal or state issue are very likely to reverse themselves on that point. (Not to be very hackish here, but this is more true for conservatives than for liberals who are likelier to take the Harry Pregerson "conscience" approach to decision-making. This is what Alito does too, of course, even if he would never put it in those words.) Even from Alito such a move would be eyebrow-raising, and it would be stunning from any of the others.

[Schiff for Senate]

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

Has it been established that this was leaked by a pro-choicer, and what the motivations were? Or are you just assuming? It's very easy to see the argument that this was releasing by a supporter of ending Roe v. Wade to make sure those 5 stay in line, because if one of them flips now, everyone will know about it.

This. I actually feel like, for the reasons you explained, it's likelier a pro-lifer strategically leaked this to ensure it happened, than a pro-choicer leaked this to shame one of the judges into switching to the pro-Roe camp.

As ElectionsGuy said, it would be incredibly dumb if a pro-choicer leaked this because all they'd be doing is actually forcing them all to double-down and support this to the bitter end when one might have considered changing their mind - because now if they do, it'll look like they're weak-kneed, unprincipled flip-floppers who caved to pressure. On the other hand, a pro-lifer strategically leaking it would be good 3D chess (though on the other hand, the fact that's it's so well thought out makes me wonder that someone pro-life could come up with it, given the average pro-lifer's arguments against abortion and Roe).