25 ms·

Like it or not, abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over.

idontwantthis 3y ago
Last year, this statement would have been factually incorrect. This year, this statement is factually correct. Like it or not.
- rayiner 3y ago
  It was always correct, which is why by the end the defense of Roe was reduced to stare decisis.
  - anonymousab 3y ago
    The constitution - or rather, judicial interpretation of the constitution - is constantly in flux. The kinda things that were seen as constitutionally valid by SCOTUS less than a century ago are completely off the wall compared to today. And today's views will likely be very different from a future court's interpretation.
    - kiba 3y ago
      It's in flux because it's really difficult for us to change the constitution. So, we basically live patch the constitution with the supreme court. A proper fix would let the constitution change over time.
- skissane 3y ago
  That statement ("abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over") was factually incorrect last year and is still factually incorrect this year – insofar as one accepts SCOTUS as the ultimate authority on what the US Constitution says. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [0] is a federal law prohibiting certain abortion procedures. SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart, holding that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate abortion, and that the regulation in question was not contrary to Roe or Casey. Dobbs did nothing to overturn either the 2003 Act nor that 2007 decision, so abortion remains a federal concern, within Congress' power to regulate. (Thomas wrote a concurrence, joined by Scalia, casting doubt on whether such an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause is correct, but saying that this particular case was not the right vehicle for examining that issue.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart
mikem170 3y ago
Tell that to the Republicans who want a federal ban. p.s. It's a shame when so many people loose the right to their own bodies, despite the 13th amendment.
littlestymaar 3y ago
Not really. SCOTUS just ruled that constitution isn't responsible of enforcing that right, and noted that there's currently no federal law on the topic. But if congress passed a bill about guaranteeing abortion, it would become “federal concern”.

Last year, this statement would have been factually incorrect. This year, this statement is factually correct. Like it or not.

rayiner 3y ago
It was always correct, which is why by the end the defense of Roe was reduced to stare decisis.
- anonymousab 3y ago
  The constitution - or rather, judicial interpretation of the constitution - is constantly in flux. The kinda things that were seen as constitutionally valid by SCOTUS less than a century ago are completely off the wall compared to today. And today's views will likely be very different from a future court's interpretation.
  - kiba 3y ago
    It's in flux because it's really difficult for us to change the constitution. So, we basically live patch the constitution with the supreme court. A proper fix would let the constitution change over time.
skissane 3y ago
That statement ("abortion is not a federal concern. It just isn't something the Constitution gives power over") was factually incorrect last year and is still factually incorrect this year – insofar as one accepts SCOTUS as the ultimate authority on what the US Constitution says. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [0] is a federal law prohibiting certain abortion procedures. SCOTUS upheld its constitutionality in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart, holding that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate abortion, and that the regulation in question was not contrary to Roe or Casey. Dobbs did nothing to overturn either the 2003 Act nor that 2007 decision, so abortion remains a federal concern, within Congress' power to regulate. (Thomas wrote a concurrence, joined by Scalia, casting doubt on whether such an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause is correct, but saying that this particular case was not the right vehicle for examining that issue.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

mikem170 3y ago

Tell that to the Republicans who want a federal ban. p.s. It's a shame when so many people loose the right to their own bodies, despite the 13th amendment.

littlestymaar 3y ago

Not really. SCOTUS just ruled that constitution isn't responsible of enforcing that right, and noted that there's currently no federal law on the topic. But if congress passed a bill about guaranteeing abortion, it would become “federal concern”.