Abortion after the end of Roe vs. Wade?

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

That are always more rights to try and destroy. But the main one is allowing people to refuse services to other people they feel aren't due service (for honestly held religious beliefs of course).

 

[Toni]

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.

I grew up just north of the edge of the Bible Belt where Methodist were the liberals, Catholics were exotic and I never met a Jew or a Muslim until I went to college. My first grade teacher attempted to shame us all out of trick or treating because she saw it a heaven devil holiday. It’s pretty solidlyTrump country, if my former classmates’ Facebook can be believed.

No one taught or even mentioned creationism. Unless it was in a Sunday school —which I really would not know about.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Do you think the relevant factor for access will be skin color, rather than money? If so, why?

 

[Elixir]

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?

That's why a scorched earth approach by Dems, if they win the trifecta (House, Senate, White House) might be best.
The abortion question is a 60/30 issue at closest, and so might provide rationale for an 11-seat SCOTUS that wouldn't create a terrible backlash.

 

[SLD]

One way that it can still be protected on a national level is if Biden wins and the Democrats win the Senate. They could pass a simple law enshrining federal protections for abortion for women. That would overrule any state law to the contrary. It likely wouldn't be struck down as unconstitutional even by such judges as Barrett - it would be upheld in the same way that other civil rights laws have been upheld in the past. Over turning that law would endanger way too many other federal statutes passed in the last 80 years and I doubt if even this new Court would go that far.

SLD

 

[southernhybrid]

I found an opinion piece that gives a very different take on Barrett.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe.html

Judge Barrett’s views about stare decisis are probably not as decisive a signal for how she would treat the particular precedent of Roe as some might hope, or fear. Like other jurists, she thinks incorrectly decided precedents should sometimes be overruled, and Roe does not fall within the category of precedents that she thinks the court should definitely leave alone. But her general approach to precedent does not indicate that it should necessarily be overruled either.

Judge Barrett is already being denounced as an extremist on questions of stare decisis. But in fact, she is decidedly in the mainstream.

Even an originalist judge, she believes, should frequently defer to what might be flawed precedents. That is true for what are sometimes called “superprecedents” like the unconstitutionality of racial segregation and the constitutionality of paper money, but it is also true for many more ordinary precedents that might have been badly reasoned but that are now broadly accepted.

Some have suggested that it is a “bombshell” that Judge Barrett wrote in 2013 that the “justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.” But outside the superheated environment of a Supreme Court confirmation fight, that statement is anodyne.

Is there any doubt that Ruth Bader Ginsburg likewise thought that precedents should fall when they conflict with her best understanding of the Constitution? Justice Ginsburg made her career by convincing the court to abandon precedents on the equality of women under the Constitution. As a justice herself, she voted with her colleagues to overturn precedents she thought were flawed. Justice Ginsburg would have almost certainly voted to overturn precedents that were set over her dissent, like Citizens United.

I think this person makes some good points. We really don't know exactly how Barrett will rule on a lot of long standing precedents. I'm not happy about her being on the court, and I'm disgusted with the Republicans who denied Obama a chance to put Garland on the court, while pushing through Barret while people are in the process of voting or have already voted. Still, I like to keep an open mind.

I know a very lovely Catholic woman here in my town, who once told me that she was personally against divorce and abortion, but those were her very personal beliefs and her personal beliefs should never be considered when it comes to government. Of course, the woman I know is a Democrat, and I don't personally know any Republican women who might say that same thing. Still, since it's highly likely that we will be stuck with Barrett, let's hope that she won't be as extreme as some seem to think. Let's hope that she will realize that her personal beliefs have no place in her judicial decisions.

If Roe v Wade is over turned, there will be more unsafe abortions and perhaps even worse there will be a lot of unwanted children being raised by people who may not be fully equipped to raise a healthy, well adjusted child. Of course we all know that most Republicans find a fetus to be sacred but once a baby is born, they don't seem to care about the needs of that child, especially if that child is born in poverty.

I've always found it strange that since god or nature if you're an atheist is the biggest abortionist of them all, ( statistically about 1 out of 4 pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion ) why shouldn't a woman have the same ability to end a pregnancy for her own private reasons? What business is it of others what a woman does when it comes to her own reproductive health? This is a personal choice which never should be decided by government.

If the court does turn out to be disastrous and highly right wing partisan, then I see the only option being to expand the court when the Dems take control.

Meanwhile, it's past time to stop making any court appointments life time. We need term limits for the justices as far too many have stayed on the courts until their dying day.

 

[SimpleDon]

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 the Republican states outlaw abortion they are finally going to have to answer the questions that they now avoid, who is the criminal, and what is their punishment? Is abortion a capital offense because according to you it is the murder of an innocent baby? Or is it somehow a lesser crime than murder torching years of your hysterical exaggerations?

Do you consider contraception to be an abortion? Turning tens of millions of women into criminals at the stroke of a pen?

If you outlaw surgical abortions women will start to use pharmaceutical abortions, depriving you of the evil abortion mill doctor to charge, leaving only the woman to charge with your capital crime and then to presumably execute or to imprison for life.

And will you send the police to haunt emergency rooms to question those women who suffered a miscarriage? Or do you require the hospitals to report all miscarriages to the government?

To launch an investigation to determine if the woman committed the crime of forcing an abortion or if only your God was responsible for the murder of the baby?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think this person makes some good points. We really don't know exactly how Barrett will rule on a lot of long standing precedents. I'm not happy about her being on the court, and I'm disgusted with the Republicans who denied Obama a chance to put Garland on the court, while pushing through Barret while people are in the process of voting or have already voted. Still, I like to keep an open mind.

I hope they are right and Barrett is an own-goal for the right.

How will Barrett rule? Well, she and the dominionists can not rule that gay marriage is illegal. That won't work. What they will try to do is say that such rights are outside the purview of Federal Law. I think it'll be a copycat of the Voting Rights Act. They'll concede that the Federal Government needed to be involved, but it is now unnecessary. A bullshit reasoning that probably avoids the issue of presence by inventing a new world in which to justify removing said protections because the states can be trusted.

 

[ZiprHead]

In confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett says abortion decision in Roe v. Wade is not a "super-precedent" protected from reversal.

..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that Trump nominated her is enough to show she's an extremist. There's no way he would have picked a moderate.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact that Trump nominated her is enough to show she's an extremist. There's no way he would have picked a moderate.

She was groomed. Put to the Appeals Court two years ago with just academic experience (anyone remember when that was UNACCEPTABLE for Obama?). And now on the Supreme Court. Moderate? She doesn't sound like a conservative either. She is a far-right conservative who couldn't speak to Griswold v Connecticut.

 

[Harry Bosch]

View attachment 30084

I'll get attacked for saying this. But if women don't want their vagina regulated, they need to vote. And vote for Biden. Period. A majority of white women voted for Trump last time. Either not as many white women care about reproductive rights or they just don't care. Either way, abortion rights are in dire straits due to Trump being elected and putting three religious hard right jurists on the court. The only way to possibly blunt this is with a democratic senate, house and presidency. Without that, you are ceding your bodily control to legislators.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Christ. They fire bullets now??? Please tell me there's no Proud Girls units forming.

 

[Politesse]

View attachment 30084

I'll get attacked for saying this. But if women don't want their vagina regulated, they need to vote. And vote for Biden. Period. A majority of white women voted for Trump last time. Either not as many white women care about reproductive rights or they just don't care. Either way, abortion rights are in dire straits due to Trump being elected and putting three religious hard right jurists on the court. The only way to possibly blunt this is with a democratic senate, house and presidency. Without that, you are ceding your bodily control to legislators.

There's some evidence that women are voting in this election to unprecedented proportion, and with a strong anti-Trump bias.

 

[Toni]

View attachment 30084

I'll get attacked for saying this. But if women don't want their vagina regulated, they need to vote. And vote for Biden. Period. A majority of white women voted for Trump last time. Either not as many white women care about reproductive rights or they just don't care. Either way, abortion rights are in dire straits due to Trump being elected and putting three religious hard right jurists on the court. The only way to possibly blunt this is with a democratic senate, house and presidency. Without that, you are ceding your bodily control to legislators.

Still do not believe a majority of white women voted for Trump. Women outvote men in most age categories.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

View attachment genderdiff.pdf


I think it's way past time for men to step up and own the assholery that they worship and nominate and vote for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Still do not believe a majority of white women voted for Trump. Women outvote men in most age categories.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

View attachment 30089


I think it's way past time for men to step up and own the assholery that they worship and nominate and vote for.

According to CNN, the Exit polls indicated White Women voted 52 to 43 in favor of Trump.

The majority of white people are voting our nation to hell. White men 2 to 1, white women much closer to 50-50. Didn't even get a chance to vote in a primary that mattered this year. But Harris was out early.

 

[ZiprHead]

Voters in Colorado overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 115, a state ballot measure that would have banned abortions after a fetus reaches 22 weeks gestational age. In rejecting the initiative, Colorado remains one of the most progressive states in the country on reproductive rights. It is one of only 7 states with no limits to abortion whatsoever, per data from the Guttmacher Institute.

In Louisiana, however, reproductive rights saw a setback. Voters in the Bayou State approved a new state amendment, by a margin of 62-38%, that adds language to the state constitution effectively prohibiting the right to an abortion and/or right to funding for an abortion.

..