Are there five votes to declare fetal personhood in a future case?

[I’m not Stu]

It looks like Roberts isn't a vote for fetal personhood. Are there five votes for it or not?

[NewYorkExpress]

It looks like Roberts isn't a vote for fetal personhood. Are there five votes for it or not?

Yes. Is there a justice willing to put their name on such an opinion and possibly become a pariah outside of certain right-wing circles? I'm not as certain about that.

[Xeuma]

No, and anyone voting yes needs to get off the internet.

[Donerail]

No, likely not, but I think it's closer than most think. Thomas is the only one I'd consider a sure bet to endorse the proposition, based on his concurrence in Box, but we really do not know how the new nominees think about these issues — there are not yet enough tea leaves for us to read. Tempting to say that Gorsuch might, for example, because of his doctoral work, or that Barrett might because of her general vibes, but we just don't know yet. Kavanaugh seems unlikely, which prevents you from getting to five in any event, but learning that there's 3-4 votes for it wouldn't surprise me.

[Person Man]

No, likely not, but I think it's closer than most think. Thomas is the only one I'd consider a sure bet to endorse the proposition, based on his concurrence in Box, but we really do not know how the new nominees think about these issues — there are not yet enough tea leaves for us to read. Tempting to say that Gorsuch might, for example, because of his doctoral work, or that Barrett might because of her general vibes, but we just don't know yet. Kavanaugh seems unlikely, which prevents you from getting to five in any event, but learning that there's 3-4 votes for it wouldn't surprise me.

I would say -

YES! -
Thomas, Alito, Barrett

Probably- Gorsuch

Probably Not- Kavanaugh

No-
Roberts

HELL NO!-
Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor

I think that if another Democrat gets replaced by another Republican, this probably comes to pass. This amongst other things. That's unlikely at this point.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Unfortunately not.  I think there are only (at most) two votes for that right now (Thomas and Alito).  The best strategy for a nationwide abortion ban would be to have Congress pass it in 2025.  Realistically, that would require 60 pro-life Senators and a pro-life president.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Unfortunately not.  I think there are only (at most) two votes for that right now (Thomas and Alito).  The best strategy for a nationwide abortion ban would be to have Congress pass it in 2025.  Realistically, that would require 60 pro-life Senators and a pro-life president.

Don't worry. With Roe states can declare it themselves, so you get to control women's bodies and we in blue states get to keep our own values.

[Pericles]

Kavanaugh went on the record opposing a few extreme anti-abortion positions to make himself look moderate while overturning Roe. For this, he said-

Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalize abortion

That is not vaguely saying something and letting people draw their own conclusions from it as he did in his confirmation hearing, that is being very clear. If he did not believe it he would not have worded it in that way and now that he has said it, he'll find it hard to walk back.

[lfromnj]

Kavanaugh went on the record opposing a few extreme anti-abortion positions to make himself look moderate while overturning Roe. For this, he said-

Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalize abortion

That is not vaguely saying something and letting people draw their own conclusions from it as he did in his confirmation hearing, that is being very clear. If he did not believe it he would not have worded it in that way and now that he has said it, he'll find it hard to walk back.

Yeah Kavanaugh has done this with the eviction moratorium .

[Pericles]

Kavanaugh went on the record opposing a few extreme anti-abortion positions to make himself look moderate while overturning Roe. For this, he said-

Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalize abortion

That is not vaguely saying something and letting people draw their own conclusions from it as he did in his confirmation hearing, that is being very clear. If he did not believe it he would not have worded it in that way and now that he has said it, he'll find it hard to walk back.

Yeah Kavanaugh has done this with the eviction moratorium .

What do you mean?

[lfromnj]

Kavanaugh went on the record opposing a few extreme anti-abortion positions to make himself look moderate while overturning Roe. For this, he said-

Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalize abortion

That is not vaguely saying something and letting people draw their own conclusions from it as he did in his confirmation hearing, that is being very clear. If he did not believe it he would not have worded it in that way and now that he has said it, he'll find it hard to walk back.

Yeah Kavanaugh has done this with the eviction moratorium .

What do you mean?

He gave Biden a few weeks to tone it down while he ruled in favor of the admik but explicitly said id it was extended he would have struck the moratorium down . Biden then proceeded to do that.

[Skill and Chance]

No, only 2-3 (Barrett).  Kavanaugh clearly won't touch it and Gorsuch wanting to take it away from the states would shock me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It looks like Roberts isn't a vote for fetal personhood. Are there five votes for it or not?

Yes. Is there a justice willing to put their name on such an opinion and possibly become a pariah outside of certain right-wing circles? I'm not as certain about that.

While I believe Human Life to begin at conception, I doubt a Constitutional argument could be made for this. 

On the other hand, if it's what the Constitution says, Justices should not be concerned about public opinion.  Their job is to say what the law is, not what they would like it to be, or even what it ought to be. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Apparently no: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court/index.html

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Apparently no: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court/index.html

No public dissent from denying cert either.

[Skill and Chance]

Apparently no: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court/index.html

No public dissent from denying cert either.

So likely zero interest in doing a reverse Roe.

[I’m not Stu]

Apparently no: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/fetal-personhood-case-supreme-court/index.html

No public dissent from denying cert either.

I bet Thomas and Alito secretly dissented from denial. Gorsuch and/or Barrett probably cast the deciding vote to deny cert. Kavanaugh's Dobbs concurrence implies he isn't a vote for fetal personhood. I'm pretty sure Thomas, Alito and Barrett are guaranteed votes for fetal personhood.

[NewYorkExpress]

Judging but what little I saw of the Dobbs case, it might actually be only Alito in favor of Personhood (and maybe Coney Barrett, but it doesn't look like she wants to risk her reputation on a such a case). Thomas doesn't seem interested in going that far, and it's a non-starter with Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/Roberts).

[I’m not Stu]

Judging but what little I saw of the Dobbs case, it might actually be only Alito in favor of Personhood (and maybe Coney Barrett, but it doesn't look like she wants to risk her reputation on a such a case). Thomas doesn't seem interested in going that far, and it's a non-starter with Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/Roberts).

Box v Planned Parenthood indicates Thomas is a vote for fetal personhood.

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

Judging but what little I saw of the Dobbs case, it might actually be only Alito in favor of Personhood (and maybe Coney Barrett, but it doesn't look like she wants to risk her reputation on a such a case). Thomas doesn't seem interested in going that far, and it's a non-starter with Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/Roberts).

Box v Planned Parenthood indicates Thomas is a vote for fetal personhood.

Does it? It indicates that he has a strong, animating personal opposition to abortion that might not necessarily be the case for all other anti-Roe justices (although it obviously is/was for Barrett, the late Scalia, and probably Gorsuch given his academic background), but that isn't the same as wanting to mendaciously read reverse-Roe language into the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Donerail]

Box v Planned Parenthood indicates Thomas is a vote for fetal personhood.

Does it? It indicates that he has a strong, animating personal opposition to abortion that might not necessarily be the case for all other anti-Roe justices (although it obviously is/was for Barrett, the late Scalia, and probably Gorsuch given his academic background), but that isn't the same as wanting to mendaciously read reverse-Roe language into the Fourteenth Amendment.

A strong, animating personal opposition to abortion rooted in the belief that abortion has functioned and continues to function as a form of racialized eugenics. Easy to see how that may implicate Equal Protection in a way other forms of opposition to abortion may not.

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

Box v Planned Parenthood indicates Thomas is a vote for fetal personhood.

Does it? It indicates that he has a strong, animating personal opposition to abortion that might not necessarily be the case for all other anti-Roe justices (although it obviously is/was for Barrett, the late Scalia, and probably Gorsuch given his academic background), but that isn't the same as wanting to mendaciously read reverse-Roe language into the Fourteenth Amendment.

A strong, animating personal opposition to abortion rooted in the belief that abortion has functioned and continues to function as a form of racialized eugenics. Easy to see how that may implicate Equal Protection in a way other forms of opposition to abortion may not.

Good point. I'm familiar with the eugenics argument regarding abortion and I think there's some merit to it (at least as an empirical, descriptive historical topic), but it's unusual to see it in a SCOTUS opinion. I doubt Scalia would have gone there.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

1-3, I imagine.

[Orwell]

Unfortunately not.  I think there are only (at most) two votes for that right now (Thomas and Alito).  The best strategy for a nationwide abortion ban would be to have Congress pass it in 2025.  Realistically, that would require 60 pro-life Senators and a pro-life president.

I'd say there are 3 potentially Fetal Personhood justices (Thomas, Alito, and ACB) While obviously Brown-Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are No Votes, Roberts is also (likely) a no vote and I think Kavanaugh who seems the closest to Roberts on the current court as a no, I think to get a Fetal personhood challenge through the court you'll need to wait until Roberts goes as long as he's replaced by someone more in line with the views of the conservative trio I mentioned in the first line. I personally find abortion abhorrent so I hope that this comes soon, hopefully President Trump/DeSantis appoints a Roberts successor in 2025 though Roberts looks very young for 67, but I think 20 years as Chief Justice and I feel like Roberts is the type to retire in his early 70s.

[Torie]

There are zero votes for that concept.