Abortion after the end of Roe vs. Wade?

[lpetrich]

As we all know, pResident tRump has appointed a hardline opponent of abortion and Roe vs. Wade to the Supreme Court.

This gives a strong risk of Roe vs. Wade being revoked in the near future. What might happen then?

Currently, states are very divided, with opponents of abortion having varying amounts of success in antiabortion legislation and varying amounts of success in convincing the courts that their antiabortion efforts do not violate Roe vs. Wade.  Abortion in the United States by state

Without Roe vs. Wade, the most optimistic scenario is that abortion will be left up to the states.

Robin Marty on Twitter: "(map on expected action on abortion)" / Twitter His map has three states, legal, questionable, and illegal. Pro-Democratic states will likely accept abortion, pro-Republican ones reject it, and several states will be in between.


Antiabortionists may not be willing to settle for leaving it up to the states, and they may want more. At the very least, they may want to criminalize travel outside of an antiabortion state to get an abortion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As we all know, pResident tRump has appointed a hardline opponent of abortion and Roe vs. Wade to the Supreme Court.

This gives a strong risk of Roe vs. Wade being revoked in the near future. What might happen then?

Currently, states are very divided, with opponents of abortion having varying amounts of success in antiabortion legislation and varying amounts of success in convincing the courts that their antiabortion efforts do not violate Roe vs. Wade.  Abortion in the United States by state

Without Roe vs. Wade, the most optimistic scenario is that abortion will be left up to the states.

Robin Marty on Twitter: "(map on expected action on abortion)" / Twitter His map has three states, legal, questionable, and illegal. Pro-Democratic states will likely accept abortion, pro-Republican ones reject it, and several states will be in between.


Antiabortionists may not be willing to settle for leaving it up to the states, and they may want more. At the very least, they may want to criminalize travel outside of an antiabortion state to get an abortion.

If Roe v. Wade and other applicable rulings are overturned (I think there is a pretty good chance), then it will be up to the states as a result. The SCOTUS can't criminalize it; it can only allow laws that criminalize it to stand (plus, at least some of the justices who would vote to overturn those rulings clearly think it's up to the states) .

While war are (unconstitutionally) criminalized using the commerce clause, it is extremely difficult (i.e., not happening) that the same would happen with abortion that is within a state. As for traveling outside a state to get an abortion, that would be more doable if the Republican party got the House with a sufficient number of people willing to ban abortion. But it seems pretty improbable that the Republican party will get the House any time soon, especially not with enough anti-abortion representatives.

 

[Politesse]

"Hardline opponent of abortion" is a very extreme way to describe Judge Barrett, especially in the specific matter of Roe vs Wade; she has always been somewhat reserved about the possibility of ending it, and openly skeptical that the Supreme Court in particular should or could overturn that decision. She did call the practice "always immoral", but she herself would be quick to observe that immoral and unlawful are not always synonyms. Her stated position is commensurate with her general position of originalism; as there is no constitutional language overtly resolving the issue, it should fall to individual states to legislate the practice as they see fit, and she has ruled on previous abortion cases in a way that would be consistent with that position. "Hardline" seems to me a hyperbolic way to describe a position that would allow for abortion in most states, even if Roe were overturned.

 

[Angry Floof]

Whatever happens, white, affluent, Christian women will always have access to safe abortion, especially the mistresses of rich white Christian men.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Hardline opponent of abortion" is a very extreme way to describe Judge Barrett, especially in the specific matter of Roe vs Wade; she has always been somewhat reserved about the possibility of ending it, and openly skeptical that the Supreme Court in particular should or could overturn that decision.

The word is hamstring it. The trouble is SCOTUS ruled, not too long ago that hamstringing isn't Constitutional. Then there is the whole problem of how in the world can they justify making it a "state issue". I also ponder whether being on the bench changes her view. It is so easy to call for something drastic, but when it is your signature that enacts it, your mind starts thinking about it a lot more.

I'm not certain how their anti-Roe v Wade ruling can possibly not hurt the court's standing.

She did call the practice "always immoral", but she herself would be quick to observe that immoral and unlawful are not always synonyms. Her stated position is commensurate with her general position of originalism; as there is no constitutional language overtly resolving the issue, it should fall to individual states to legislate the practice as they see fit, and she has ruled on previous abortion cases in a way that would be consistent with that position. "Hardline" seems to me a hyperbolic way to describe a position that would allow for abortion in most states, even if Roe were overturned.

To be honest, I can't imagine the GOP would have been dumb enough to handpick this random professor to the Appeals Court to put her on SCOTUS without this already being pre-discussed. This isn't some Judge who did this and that on the courts and worked her way up, she was given an express pass to SCOTUS. That isn't happening without a pre-arrangement.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm pretty sure it will be left up to the states if Roe v Wade is overturned. Abortion was legal in NJ in 1970, which was 3 years before Roe v. Wade. It was also legal in some other states, but I don't remember which ones.

I was pregnant in 1970 and living in NJ when it became legal. While I wasn't interested in having an abortion, I was very pleased that women now had the choice of ending an unplanned pregnancy. I remember when the federal government paid for abortions for poor women. When I worked as a public health nurse in NC, we had a full time nurse who assessed women who opted for abortions. From what I recall, the purpose of the assessment was to make sure that this was the woman's choice and she wasn't being pressured by someone else to have the abortion. That was in the early 80s. That was before the Republicans realized that they could manipulate voters based on this one issue. I worked with Christian nurses and only one objected to abortion. Things have changed drastically since those days.

And, as you all know, making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. It just makes them less safe.

 

[lpetrich]

sohy,  Abortion in the United States by state shows what abortion was like in each state just before RvW.

The earlier antiabortion laws were passed a century or so ago, because abortion was often dangerous back then. But abortion was made much safer since then, and the Sixties reform effort involved reforming abortion laws. The statuses listed:

• Illegal
• Legal in case of rape
• Legal in case of danger to woman’s health
• Legal in case of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus
• Legal on request

New York City was a major destination around 1970, and I recall in the 1950's, women going to Sweden to get abortions.

So we could see a major revival of abortion tourism.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So we could see a major revival of abortion tourism.

At least for those who can afford it.

 

[Lion IRC]

SCOTUS has been the supreme 'authority' appealed to by abortion-on-demand activists for decades.
Now the back-peddling hypocrisy begins.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Barrett hearings begin today. I'm actually trying to think of the silver linings here if she gets confirmed. First, the dems probably can't stop it. We're not strong enough of a party to stop it. But maybe having Roe overturned, and 40 years of a very conservative court will motivate the left to vote. A majority of white women voted for Trump in 2016. Roe is going to affect them obviously. Secondly, I know a lot of religious voters who only vote republican (and Trump) due to abortion. Maybe if it's overturned, abortion rights returns to the states, then these people can vote democratic again.

 

[BH]

If I remember right didnt the republicans like Gerald Ford run a pro choice campaign and Jimmy Carter ran the more prolife one.

 

[Politesse]

If I remember right didnt the republicans like Gerald Ford run a pro choice campaign and Jimmy Carter ran the more prolife one.

In those days, most Evangelicals considered anti-abortion to be a "Catholic issue", though Carter himself had an influence on that shift.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If the Religious Right does succeed in overturning Roe, then 4 things seem obvious to me:

1, they will collectively announce that, as they have achieved their number one goal for America, they are willing to pull back from such issues as gay marriage, use of public space for religious displays, public school curricula, prayer in school, and in fact say, "Live and let live."
2, they will expeditiously push for increased government child support and publicly funded day care to accomodate the increase in live births.
3, they will be able to focus their energy on other issues involving children, such as caging them on the Rio Grande.
4, as Dorothy Parker once said, the Statue of Liberty is situated in the state of Kansas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS has been the supreme 'authority' appealed to by abortion-on-demand activists for decades.

SCOTUS was a bit less politically tainted and much less partisan in the 50s and 60s.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If the Religious Right does succeed in overturning Roe, then 4 things seem obvious to me:

1, they will collectively announce that, as they have achieved their number one goal for America, they are willing to pull back from such issues as gay marriage, use of public space for religious displays, public school curricula, prayer in school, and in fact say, "Live and let live."
2, they will expeditiously push for increased government child support and publicly funded day care to accomodate the increase in live births.
3, they will be able to focus their energy on other issues involving children, such as caging them on the Rio Grande.
4, as Dorothy Parker once said, the Statue of Liberty is situated in the state of Kansas.

You make a good point. I'm sorry to say that gay marriage and ACA are done. The other justices have already signaled this. It's sad. Biology classes will be teaching ID and that the Grand Canyon is proof of the flood. Immigrants will lose rights. But maybe losing these rights will fire up the dems and motivate them. Maybe a generation will motivate the left to vote and keep on voting with the goal of taking back the SC. Or maybe I'm just trying to find some light in a depressing situation?

 

[Toni]

Whatever happens, white, affluent, Christian women will always have access to safe abortion, especially the mistresses of rich white Christian men.

White women, period, will have access. Affluence will help, of course but girls in my small, not at all affluent town made it to NYC for abortions back in the 70's.

 

[Toni]

"Hardline opponent of abortion" is a very extreme way to describe Judge Barrett, especially in the specific matter of Roe vs Wade; she has always been somewhat reserved about the possibility of ending it, and openly skeptical that the Supreme Court in particular should or could overturn that decision. She did call the practice "always immoral", but she herself would be quick to observe that immoral and unlawful are not always synonyms. Her stated position is commensurate with her general position of originalism; as there is no constitutional language overtly resolving the issue, it should fall to individual states to legislate the practice as they see fit, and she has ruled on previous abortion cases in a way that would be consistent with that position. "Hardline" seems to me a hyperbolic way to describe a position that would allow for abortion in most states, even if Roe were overturned.

I disagree strongly re: Coney Barrett's abortion position.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...te-panel-she-signed-ad-decrying-roe-v-wade-as

She signed a letter calling Roe v Wade 'infamous' and called for 'protection of the unborn.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/11/amy-coney-barrett-member-right-to-life-organization

Amy Coney Barrett, the supreme court nominee, was a member of a “right to life” organization in 2016 that promoted a local South Bend, Indiana, crisis pregnancy center, a clinic that has been criticised for misleading vulnerable women who were seeking abortions and pressuring them to keep their pregnancies.

As for making abortion rights (and the rights of gay people to marry people of their own choosing) being relegated to states? What's next? Making whether or not black people can be enslaved a state's issue?

 

[Toni]

If the Religious Right does succeed in overturning Roe, then 4 things seem obvious to me:

1, they will collectively announce that, as they have achieved their number one goal for America, they are willing to pull back from such issues as gay marriage, use of public space for religious displays, public school curricula, prayer in school, and in fact say, "Live and let live."
2, they will expeditiously push for increased government child support and publicly funded day care to accomodate the increase in live births.
3, they will be able to focus their energy on other issues involving children, such as caging them on the Rio Grande.
4, as Dorothy Parker once said, the Statue of Liberty is situated in the state of Kansas.

You make a good point. I'm sorry to say that gay marriage and ACA are done. The other justices have already signaled this. It's sad. Biology classes will be teaching ID and that the Grand Canyon is proof of the flood. Immigrants will lose rights. But maybe losing these rights will fire up the dems and motivate them. Maybe a generation will motivate the left to vote and keep on voting with the goal of taking back the SC. Or maybe I'm just trying to find some light in a depressing situation?

Biologists will not be teaching creationism.

Gay marriage will stand and so will abortion rights.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If the Religious Right does succeed in overturning Roe, then 4 things seem obvious to me:

1, they will collectively announce that, as they have achieved their number one goal for America, they are willing to pull back from such issues as gay marriage, use of public space for religious displays, public school curricula, prayer in school, and in fact say, "Live and let live."
2, they will expeditiously push for increased government child support and publicly funded day care to accomodate the increase in live births.
3, they will be able to focus their energy on other issues involving children, such as caging them on the Rio Grande.
4, as Dorothy Parker once said, the Statue of Liberty is situated in the state of Kansas.

You make a good point. I'm sorry to say that gay marriage and ACA are done. The other justices have already signaled this. It's sad. Biology classes will be teaching ID and that the Grand Canyon is proof of the flood. Immigrants will lose rights. But maybe losing these rights will fire up the dems and motivate them. Maybe a generation will motivate the left to vote and keep on voting with the goal of taking back the SC. Or maybe I'm just trying to find some light in a depressing situation?

Biologists will not be teaching creationism.

Gay marriage will stand and so will abortion rights.

I hope that you are right. But to me, Barrett seems to be a woman bent on a mission. She has those crazy eyes that seems to say that she is on a mission to save the heathens. I could be wrong, but I think that the religious right will have a long time in the sun with this court.

 

[Politesse]

"Hardline opponent of abortion" is a very extreme way to describe Judge Barrett, especially in the specific matter of Roe vs Wade; she has always been somewhat reserved about the possibility of ending it, and openly skeptical that the Supreme Court in particular should or could overturn that decision. She did call the practice "always immoral", but she herself would be quick to observe that immoral and unlawful are not always synonyms. Her stated position is commensurate with her general position of originalism; as there is no constitutional language overtly resolving the issue, it should fall to individual states to legislate the practice as they see fit, and she has ruled on previous abortion cases in a way that would be consistent with that position. "Hardline" seems to me a hyperbolic way to describe a position that would allow for abortion in most states, even if Roe were overturned.

I disagree strongly re: Coney Barrett's abortion position.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...te-panel-she-signed-ad-decrying-roe-v-wade-as

She signed a letter calling Roe v Wade 'infamous' and called for 'protection of the unborn.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/11/amy-coney-barrett-member-right-to-life-organization

Amy Coney Barrett, the supreme court nominee, was a member of a “right to life” organization in 2016 that promoted a local South Bend, Indiana, crisis pregnancy center, a clinic that has been criticised for misleading vulnerable women who were seeking abortions and pressuring them to keep their pregnancies.

As for making abortion rights (and the rights of gay people to marry people of their own choosing) being relegated to states? What's next? Making whether or not black people can be enslaved a state's issue?

I can only re-assert my position that abortion is a mutually beneficial golden goose that neither party seriously desires to kill while it's still laying eggs for them. Few politicians truly give a shit about religion beyond what it can do for their careers, let alone Black foetuses.