24 ms·

Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the

• vitruvian_man 4y ago
  While I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights, I agree with this logic. If anything, this will force conservatives to solidify and clarify their views on abortion which will allow voters to decide where they land on the spectrum of abortion rights. Whereas before, conservatives just deferred to "abortion bad. look at supreme court decision". Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents.
  • joshstrange 4y ago
    As if any of the "abortion bad" people rail against it only because it was a supreme court decision. We'd see the same fervor if it was a law. I've never hear someone say "I'd be fine with abortion if it was a law instead of a supreme court decision". I'm sure you can find someone making that argument but the vast majority (90%+) don't care. In fact I bet you could say "The Roe v Wade law" and most people wouldn't bat an eyelash because they just consider it "established precedent" and law vs court decision is irrelevant for them.
    • troyvit 4y ago
      I can think of one person who said that: > The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed[?] [1] https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/ https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/ (edited to add forgotten source)
      • bobkazamakis 4y ago
        >I'm sure you can find someone making that argument > I can think of one person who said that: congratulations, really pushing the boundaries of what is possible here.
        • troyvit 4y ago
          Yep I misread your comment. My apologies.
      • interestica 4y ago
        Did you forget to actually link to source?
        • troyvit 4y ago
          Yep I did. Thanks for catching. I added it.
          • interestica 4y ago
            Thanks for link! Really interesting added context for an outsider (Canadian)
  • systemvoltage 4y ago
    Agreed, it will also make democracy more granular and for the lack of a better word: authentic. Citizens can vote their way for pro or anti Abortion issues and kick out electives that do not support their preferences.
    • lanstin 4y ago
      Until they use their political tools that worked to suppress so many popular things to supress democratic feed back cycles as well.
  • lowercased 4y ago
    > is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Most Americans support some form of universal access to health care as well - some variation of single payer, or public option, or similar. That is nowhere reflected in state-level policy in many many states.
    • inlined 4y ago
      And most Americans support additional restrictions on access to guns like background checks, red flag laws, and banning assault rifles. Unlike abortion, those rights are being taken away from the legislators due to a horrible interpretation of the second amendment
      • lanstin 4y ago
        And pot. And legal protections for workers in the workplace. Still, the Dems seem like weirdly ineffective standards bearers for all this, plus the Senate and gerrymandering.
  • lanstin 4y ago
    Or to solidify their dedication to minority tule, specifically minority rule of one particular anti-science religious sect over the majority in a formerly pluralistic, science and education and hard work based society. Stop educating people on biology (and in the post genome sequencing world), stop women from having reproductive control, stop LGBTQ folks from participating without fear, stop the free thinking people, stop it all in the name of that olde time religion (which itself is mostly a modern nostalgic reconstruction). Very harmful to our ability to focus and succeed on technological transformation.
    • munificent 4y ago
      > a formerly pluralistic, science and education and hard work based society. While today is certainly a dark day for the US, that paints an inaccurately rosy picture of the past to make us look even worse than we are today. Our literacy rate has never been higher, belief in evolution is at an all time high, more people have college degrees, and access to accurate information has never been easier. We are in a short-term downswing on many axes, but the long term trends are towards science and education. You are absolutely correct that we are more polarized than we have been since the Civil War.
      • lanstin 4y ago
        Bless you for that. Unironically. I keep telling my kids you have to judge things in the 100 years over hundred years metrics, but have been feeling rather bleak today, also with the midterms looking like the anti-democratic forces may well win. Also, due to having to argue basic shit like the value of a pluralistic educated democracy when we have the physical problem of climate change bearing down and really wanting our attention. I marched for Roe v Wade in 1988 the first time, protested against stupid wars in 1986, helped build what I thought would tie humanity together in an enlighten network of discourse in the 90s as a programmer, had kids in the 2000#, and now back to Roe v Wade. Meanwhile the CO2 is 420 ppm and we haven’t got a damn Mars 100 picked out yet (Sci fi reference there). I want Red Mars with more realistic population distribution, not Parable of the Sower.
      • lovich 4y ago
  • snoopy_telex 4y ago
    > Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents. 13 states have trigger laws going into effect with this. It’s not going to move the needle at all. The red states will ban it. Blue won’t. And it’ll still be a hot button topic in the reversed states. Red candidates in blue states will want to outlaw it. Blue candidates in red states will want to allow it.
    • cryptonector 4y ago
      On the contrary, it may well move the needle if Republicans overplay their hand and piss off the electorate.
  • babypuncher 4y ago
    > Also, is it not the case that most Americans support some abortion rights? Thus, this could force conservatives to move center on the abortion spectrum in order to appease their constituents. One would hope, but they have only been veering further to the right on this issue. In the past year, multiple states have passed the most extreme abortion laws this country has seen over half a century. Texas will literally throw women in jail if they are caught leaving the state to get an abortion. But those evil Democrats want to teach kids that there is nothing wrong with being gay, so I guess it equals out? I do not know how any sane person can still support the GOP, especially after the Jan. 6 insurrection and this SC ruling.
  • ncr100 4y ago
    The law is (was) not perfect. The distribution of Americans who support the right to abortion is also not even. In States where the distribution of "anti" outweighs "pro" all citizens will lose the right. So human rights are lessened in the United States. It is a tragic day.
  • fassssst 4y ago
    Which is why they’re simultaneously trying to make it harder to vote.
• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  From 2008-2010, the Democratic party had the chance to enshrine abortion into the law of the land. They even had a perfect vehicle, the ACA, in which to do it, since it already dealt with healthcare rules. They declined.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • delecti 4y ago
    Both parties benefited from abortion being a wedge issue that wasn't under legislative control. The dems knew that if they enshrined it in law, then the GOP could campaign on undoing that legislative imposition. The GOP just plays politics better though, so now they're a dog who caught the car they were chasing. The dems have a chance to make that backfire on the GOP in the midterms, but they're awful at getting or wielding power, so I'm skeptical they will.
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      This is honestly the reason why the DNC chose to gamble on Roe rather than seizing one of the opportunities they had in the last 50 years to write a law. It's a sleazy move, and I'm not sure why they think people don't see what they are doing.
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
    Do you think the ACA would have been more or less likely to pass if it had mentioned a federal right to abortion (which would have benefited zero people for the next decade)?
    • pclmulqdq 4y ago
      The ACA would probably have had equal chances. It was passed on a party line vote anyway. Besides, nothing stopped them from passing a right to an abortion otherwise.
  • Slow_Hand 4y ago
• juve1996 4y ago
  Roe V. Wade has decades of precedent. Even if the ruling was "horribly decided," this is not a good look for the legitimacy of the court. Especially at a time when the country is more polarized than ever. This is just horribly timed and will further split this country apart. This will be our century's dredd scott - the court "thought" this would settle the issue. But it won't: "Although Taney and several other justices hoped the decision would permanently settle the slavery controversy, which was increasingly dividing the American public, the decision's effect was the opposite."
  • splitstud 4y ago
  • snoopy_telex 4y ago
    Roe was also a basis for many other ruling and this opens for them to be overturned as well. THOMAS, J., concurring “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
    • masklinn 4y ago
      Fwiw Roe was not precedent for griswold, griswold was the precedent for roe. More generally griswold was one of the landmark decisions at the core of finding a (non-enumerated) constitutional right to privacy.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      Griswold (which articulated the right to marital privacy, which prevented laws banning contraception for married couples) was precedent for Roe, not vice versa. Obergefell and Lawrence rested more strongly on Griswold directly (or through other non-Roe cases) than on any innovation from Roe, as I recall. (Note that Thomas’ explicit attack on “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents” strikes much more deeply, though, than just the Griswold line of privacy-related cases; the incorporation of the Bill of Rights as applicable against the States is substantive due process, and even the application of even the rational basis test requiring some connection to some legitimate public purpose for any legal distinction, are all part of the substantive due process precedent of the Court. I guess, if this Court wasn’t nakedly partisan and selective in its logic, this could be a hopeful sign for Dems on state gun control, since if there were a serious reconsideration of that precedent the incorporation of the second Amendment – the only Amendment with a purpose clause explicitly stating that it is for the benefit of the states – against the States would be on the weakest ground of any of it.)
• lanstin 4y ago
  Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it. Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. The constitution doesn’t mention a million specific things, but it protects our freedoms anyways. A democracy is a place to gradually expand equal protection of the laws to all people. Each change seems radical to the people accustomed to undemocractic flaws, but the outcome has been very successful these last few hundred years.
  • wilsonnb3 4y ago
    > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Why did Roe v Wade rely on an unwritten right to privacy rather than the equal protection clause then?
    • lanstin 4y ago
      I will defer to the explanation in chapter sixteen of https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-ebook/dp/B08TKKYP9L https://www.amazon.com/Allow-Me-Retort-Black-Constitution-eb... Something to do with some bad uses of substantive due process stuff in early 1900s.
      • TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
        > Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning. Just one comment away from implying that this case is straightforward, and you're bringing up esoteric case law from 100 years ago. I don't point this out to denigrate you, but to highlight just how complicated law can be, particularly when it comes to landmark SCOTUS decisions. I thought I heard on the news that the majority opinion was 90 pages long, but I can't find a reference. However detailed it was, for the next month, literally millions of people will be on Twitter making 280-character-limited reductio ad absurdum comments about it.
• cryptonector 4y ago
  Yes. In fact, this ruling might well lead to an end of Republican majorities in red States, and to multi-decadal Democrat rule. Certainly that is likely if: a) public opinion is strongly in favor of some legal abortion, and b) Republicans ignore that and move to ban all abortions. In 1992 Republicans ran on abortion and lost badly. In 1994 they ran on everything-but-abortion and won big. So there is precedent for them to lose badly if they overplay their hand now.
  • lovich 4y ago
    In 1992 they had to win the majority of the vote in elections to win seats, but they have innovated around that restriction in the past 30 years, so no, there isn’t a good expectation that this will make them lose
  • ok123456 4y ago
    I don't see this really having any impact on voting patterns. Voting demographics are largely over-determined. Republicans lost in 92 because of the "economy stupid" and, after sixteen years of incumbency, the pendulum swung to "throw the bums out." They were trotting out "Family Values" when people had actual concerns about their material conditions as we were in a relatively minor recession.
  • mywittyname 4y ago
    I think the opposite, and this ruling is the precursor to a lifetime of Republican rule at the Federal level and in all but the most blue states. Next up on the chopping block will be voting rights. SCOTUS will act to ensure that disenfranchisement is perfectly legal and that attempts to help disenfranchised people vote are illegal. We are currently in a recession that will likely turn into a depression of epic proportions. Republicans are going to walk away with the midterms and next presidency. They will use the food/stability crisis we are as justification for further attacking blue states and attempting to bend them. That's assuming they don't just impeach Biden then throw him and his staff in prison once they have control of the Senate and House.
  • melior 4y ago
    It’s the exact opposite. With this ruling, long-time red states will never have to flipping due to low voter turnout.
• sporkland 4y ago
• noelsusman 4y ago
  RBG had her criticisms of Roe, but a quick reading of her critiques would clearly show she would be with the dissent today, not the majority. Reproductive rights are essential to women's liberty and equality, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The unborn child has a competing right to life that is also guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Roe/Casey balanced these competing interests well, and today's decision blows that up and eliminates any notion of reproductive rights for women. Rights are not supposed to be subject to the whims of political majorities.
  • i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
  • tablespoon 4y ago
    > Rights are not supposed to be subject to the whims of political majorities. They kind of are, when they're controversial and as weakly justified as Roe was. The Democrats really botched this, when they put all their efforts into puffing up Roe than creating other supports.
    • noelsusman 4y ago
      If anything controversial rights should have even more protection from political majorities, not less.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • thatguy0900 4y ago
        Do you think the same about other controversial rights like gun control?
• thathndude 4y ago
  This is a good point. In some ways, Roe v Wade gives pro-life movement an easy layup. It’s poorly decided law with no solid foundation in the Constitution. Nine white men jumped into a raging battle, and killed any debate through the Democratic process. And they did this during a time when the democratic process was trending in favor of abortion rights. Don’t take my word for it. This was Justice Ginsburg’s take on it too. The smart move for the pro-choice movement, would be to get some state constitutional amendments on the books.
• bmitc 4y ago
  > Getting rid of roe v wade kicks the issues to legislatures. The problem with this sentiment is that the issue was kicked to the legislatures decades ago. Congress has had decades to take care of this, and they haven't. So now all of the sudden it's a whole "but the Supreme Court overstepped". Well yea, because Congress refused and still refuses to do their damn job. It's easy: pass a law that gives people their appropriate rights and move on.