Breaking: claims that the American Supreme Court will strike down Roe v. Wade

[PurgatoryOfPotholes]

extract from article tonight

Headline:

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.

Continues: Article on leaked draft opinion

Just seen this video of someone asking the protesters "what is a woman?"

twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1521902232161210368?s=20&t=7hvPlFd6qFtdH-L9Hajuuw

Sorry, if it's been posted before. It's funny, but also shows how that having these ridiculous redefinitions actually leads to serious consequences, such as the restrictions around women's rights.

Not aimed at me, but I'd like to answer if it's ok.

The two crucial parts of the Republican base are people who are financial conservatives (vote on taxes etc.) and people who belong to far-right Evangelical Christian denominations.

The religious group is very conservative, lots of literal Bible-thumping, and the Republican Party needs their numbers, because they don't have a large enough base otherwise from the money-based conservatives.

This Xtian group is against GLB rights and against abortion and also for male domination inside families and other similar ideas, often based on literal interpretations of the Bible (the way similar conservative groups interpret the Quran literally).

The unwritten contract they have with the Republican Party is that they vote Republican as long as that Party is willing to ban abortion.

So it's interesting to see what might happen if abortion is outlawed in at least half the states. Could be the end of the Republican Party, because the conservative Xtians would no longer feel tied to voting for them and a few of them might care about the poor (mentioned in the Bible many, many more times than abortion which is not really mentioned at all).

Nice try at distraction, but I'm sure everyone at the protest will manage to carry on protesting about abortion laws anyway. (Including those protesting against abortion.)

Tossing "Trans! Trans!" around like a laser pointer in front of a cat is not going to distract them. Or me.

Thank you, nepeta, that was very interesting.

I've seen the Republicans described as "the dog that caught the car".

So I guess there are two sections of the Republican party which are horrified right now: those who were actually pro-choice; and those who were cynically assuming the conservative Christians were their captive vote.

That is interesting - it sounds like Roe vs Wade was actually quite critical to both parties. To the Dems for holding on to voters that wanted to keep it and the Republicans for holding on to those who wanted it repealed.

No, I can't see how.

Whether Dems maintained Roe v Wade, or were campaigning for reinstatement of abortion rights taken away by the right wing, both these would be attractive to pro-choice voters.

The only way that loss of Roe v Wade would lessen the Dem vote is if it were somehow made the Dems' fault that a right-wing-tilted court appointed by a Republican president at the behest of the religious right is striking down Roe v Wade.

Oh, and look at the torrent of messaging trying to make out exactly that.

Plus of course lots of opportunistic attempts to blame, well, absolutely everyone except the right-wing misogynist establishment that has done this. Eg as tabbycatstripy pointed out earlier, a Twitter-storm blaming not men, but women, and not just women but specifically white women (thus adding a bit of race-baiting to distract further). And then I've seen blaming even more specific, so it's white feminist women. And so on.

It's all mince. Energetic and desperate mince to distract from who has actually done this. Because if that responsibility rests where it's due, the Republicans may be toast.

Sorry, that should have been a emoji not a .

There's nothing funny about what's going on .

People are being given extreme choices when they probably want some moderate policies.

The right to abortion established under Roe and then Casey isn't an extreme choice. There isn't some magical more moderate policy that would be fine. The majority of americans want the Roe ruling to stand and are happy with the protections it gives. They don't think it is extreme.

Roe will be overturned by a supreme court majority appointed by Trump - a president who did not have the popular vote by a long mile and who appointed his last justice under the shameful watch of Mitch McConnell as votes were already being counted in the election he lost. The republicans (who actually don't give a shit about the unborn - but even less about the born - and who have abortions when they need them) have campaigned on this issue for decades.

And yet it is Obama and the democrats who caused this? Seriously? Is there no way Obama and the democrats (who I admit are often useless outside a couple of people like Stacy Abrams) can't be blamed for the republican shit?

This isn't just about abortion rights although that is enough to make this the most important issue of this decade. This is also about minority rule in the US and is deeply damaging to democracy.

The trans attempt to get on the bandwagon just makes me roll my eyes. Read something on NPR today by a trans activist telling us access to abortion is important to non binary and trans men too - no shit sherlock, we always knew you were biologically female even while we used they/them or he/him out of politeness - everyone does.

The trans attempt to get on the bandwagon just makes me roll my eyes. Read something on NPR today by a trans activist telling us access to abortion is important to non binary and trans men too - no shit sherlock, we always knew you were biologically female even while we used they/them or he/him out of politeness - everyone does.

The attempt to police people's language even to the point of them telling "cis women" to stop "centering themselves" has been quite sickening and I hope has opened a few more eyes. That and them saying "actually, it's about bodily autonomy" so that transwomen can be included too. FUCK. OFF.

If people want abortion rights in law they will now vote for it.

Is there another country that has abortion rights protected in the constitution?
I believe most/ all countries which allow abortion do so within laws which could be changed by an elected legislative?

That is what is happening here. It will be decided by the state law, and the people will vote on this.

How do you think abortion law should be decided? Particularly in a country with very divided opinion?

And that is a very different question from, what do you think the law should be.

Ireland had a vote on it very recently and people seemed to think that was a reasonable democratic way to decide.

In fact Ireland is an interesting comparison, as it moved from a type of constitutional ban, to a democratic vote where people decided the law on abortion.
And people wanted access to abortion.

The supreme court in the USA has decided there shouldn't be a protection in the constitution and it should be decided by democratic vote of the people. And in the states this is by state.

Genuine question: is there a country which provides abortion on demand without limit up to 9 months?

This will continue to be the case in many US states.

And it is an extreme position.
(Just not on here).

And some states will have a complete ban (if people support it).
And that is an extreme position.

Most states will continue with abortion with varying degrees of limits.

I understand the theoretical point that abortion laws should be determined by democracy and the legislature. But given that roe v Wade has been in place since the 70s, why change this now? And if the real reason is a sudden realisation after decades that the court has over stepped its boundaries, then what about all the other similar decisions? The Supreme Court in America has famously made many decisions that have side stepped the democratic process: brown v board of education, for example. It seems incredibly destabilising to look back at all these decisions and say “oops , we didn’t really have the power to decide that after all. Should have left it to the states.”

And in Ireland people voted for legal abortion but with significant limits, which I'm sure many on here would disagree with.

Some states will go with a more extreme no limits vs complete ban positions (if a majority support it) which are extreme.

Most won't.
Because most people don't support those extreme positions.

Well yes @WeeBisom that's the point of law in question since roe vs Wade and what has been considered by the supreme court.

If you read the draft position it addresses all those points.
Which obviously many would argue differently.

But a supreme court gets to consider those points and make a decision.

And the decision (it seems) is to allow abortion law to be decided democratically. As it is in all (?) democracies which allow abortion.

I’m just suspicious that this decision wasn’t motivated by jurisprudential concern, but because the court is full to the brim with right wing catholics. I’m also concerned that this is going to have a massive knock on effect to the concept of binding precedent and other judgments (like gay marriage.)

Well yes, both sides are equally suspicious that the other's motives influence the court, and both obviously make clearly partisan choices for their judges.

Which would strengthen the decision for this not being an issue decided by a court increasingly utilised to implement political policy, but to return it to the people and democratic process.

The concept of binding precedent has been challenged before in other cases which have been overturned. If you read Judge Alitos draft it addresses why this will not impact other judgements.

But again, if we have partisan judges surely the best way forward is to remove the decision from them and allow people to decide.

I'm still genuinely interested in whether there is another country which has abortion as a right under a constitution?

Or a country which legalises no limit access to abortion up to 9 months? As some states will now do.

This judgement will allow some states to now make decisions on abortion those conservative judges see as abhorrent and immoral.
Yet their position is, the people decide the law.