6 ms·
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade
- kaesar14 4y agoFor the first time in my life, it seems conceivable that in the next 10-20 years abortion will be fully outlawed in the United States.
- cbnotfromthere 4y ago
- foodforthots 4y ago
- gruez 4y agoIt seems unlikely that Democratic strongholds like california or new york would ban it.
- evan_ 4y agoThe next time republicans get a trifecta- or house, presidency, and enough of the senate to drop the filibuster charade- they will pass a nationwide ban. Bank on it.
- shankr 4y agoWhat's next on the agenda? gay marriage being overturned? interracial marriage?
- AtreidesTyrant 4y agolikely both. contraceptives next. capitalism and imperialism require a lower caste of workers to turn the gears of the machine--domestic supply of babies needs to be higher for those machines to feast upon.
- green50 4y agothey want immigrants not natural citizens, you can pay an immigrant less for five generations
- Ancapistani 4y agoOn that topic, I wonder how much immigration from Latin American countries impacted this? People who identify as Hispanic are nearing 20% of the US population - and the vast majority of those come from predominately Catholic countries and many see religion as a much more central part of their life and worldview than other Americans.
- mythopedia 4y agoLiterally yes, by the Court's own admission: > For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
- 4y ago
- ryanmarsh 4y agoCan a lawyer please explain what the word "overturned" means in this context? This wasn't an appeal in Roe v Wade was it? I'm super confused.
- spacemanmatt 4y agoIt means superseding law renders Roe v Wade ineffective. (IANAL, etc)
- ryanmarsh 4y agoI thought law is written by the legislature not the courts. This is a decision in a case no?
- spacemanmatt 4y agoWhen courts step outside their traditional role of interpreting and judging legislation we often refer to it as judicial activism. Otherwise you'd be correct.
- joemazerino 4y agoNow it's down to the individual States. Need an abortion? Drive to California.
- rychco 4y agoOh you're from Texas? Better pray nobody finds out you went to California for that abortion & reports you to the morality police for the $10,000 bounty
- voakbasda 4y agoSimple solution: don't go back to Texas. Let the exodus from such regressive states begin. Emigration is the ultimate way to vote with your wallet.
- jeremyashort 4y agoThat's one strategy, yes. How about joining the migration of blue going IN TO the state to actually change the backward laws?
- yakubin 4y agoHow economically accessible is interstate travel in US for average citizens?
- CalRobert 4y agoDepends a lot on the situation/distance, but someone who requires an abortion has a decent chance of already being economically vulnerable.
- Clubber 4y agoYou can take a Greyhound bus from Dallas to California for under $200. https://www.greyhound.com/en-us/bus-from-dallas-to-los-angeles https://www.greyhound.com/en-us/bus-from-dallas-to-los-angel...
- h2odragon 4y ago"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion" But Congress can.
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- notacoward 4y agoCongress-in-theory can. Congress-in-reality? No chance.
- pmdulaney 4y agoThat is an interesting question, though you are probably right. The Court has not asserted that abortions per se are a violation of the Constitution, but that Roe incorrectly affirmed that there was a right to abortion. Presumably there are laws that could be passed (e.g., red-haired persons may be shot on sight) that would certainly be found to be unconstitutional. In the case of abortion, the Court could find a right to life for the unborn and invalidate any law Congress might pass that guaranteed the right to an abortion. Bottom line, I don't think one can assert without fear of being proven wrong either that Congress can confer a right to abortion or that it can't.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mytailorisrich 4y agoIf the right to abortion is deemed an important right to protect at federal level then Congress should have the courage to legislate. I am not a lawyer at all but looking at descriptions of Row v. Wade the feeling I have is that the Supreme Court of the time wanted to rule in favour of abortion rights and stretched the Constitution as much as it could in order to justify its decision, which is why that decision has always been under attack, IMHO. This is an eminently political issue and thus it calls for a political decision by Congress (assuming they do want a federal law on this...) In the meantime, an 'industry' will develop in 'liberal' states for those who can travel to them.