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

Yes. Absolutely true.

I'm not sure of the situation in the US but I know a few years ago there was an outcry because getting contraception has got harder (or possibly more expensive? I'm not 100% sure). The two are definitely linked.

I agree with this but have never understood it. I mean, why is it that men are so anti women having abortions. we all know they don't care about the babies (they're certainly not insisting that the men who impregnated these women should then take responsibility). So WHY WHY WHY do they care so much?

I note that at least some of the states that are seeking to ban abortions also have the death penalty. I don’t understand how one is acceptable and the other not.

They will be, yes. The opposition to abortion isn't just about 'not killing babies', it's a deep-seated cultural issue. For the people who support such bans, it seems to be about the preservation of a mid-twentieth century (pre second wave feminism), white, Christian version of 'family life', where people went to church, fathers earnt the money and were 'respected', people could live on one wage, kids rode their bikes outside and if you were 'a homosexual', you didn't tell anyone. :)

Isn't there a democrat president right now? They don’t seem to have done a lot to protect women to date

It's abhorrent.
(And the use of 'birthing bodies' is confusing - these are people who are giving birth and presumably haven't had an abortion for the current pregnancy? Surely that's a tiiiiiny subset of fertile female people, who might want to have an abortion at some point?)

Should be noted that in the US there are barriers for getting even basic birth control pills - even if you have insurance, prescription etc they are fairly tightly controlled. So it's like they WANT women to have unwanted pregnancies. Or rely on honest men using condoms, or just not have sex. Bet they'd change their minds swiftly enough if women decided to use abstinence as protection against unwanted pregnancy... or perhaps we'd see how many men really are rapists.

Yes, I think this is a lot of it. it's a complete inability to understand that the experience for most people is NOT the same as for this small group who make laws.

'I mean, why is it that men are so anti women having abortions.'

Well, firstly, many of them truly think life starts at conception (so they think it's murder). I suspect many of them also think it contributes to the breakdown of traditional family life - in other words, they believe (as someone suggested above) that women would be more enthusiastic about committing to 'family life' if they couldn't get access to legal abortion. What that probably means for many of them is that women would be keen to marry young, more willing to rely on men economically, less willing to seek out higher education, less ambitious (because they would be distracted by all the babies), and basically more under the power of men. At the even less pleasant end, they think women would have less chance to 'shop around' and the men would have more access to younger, more attractive women. Incel culture, basically.

'it's a complete inability to understand that the experience for most people is NOT the same as for this small group who make laws.'

Yes, but in order to win, we have to understand what some of them are trying to achieve. If we act like their position is inexplicable, it's harder to argue against it. Some people (even many people) DO live in communities where most people do want to pursue a very traditional version of family life, religious life etc. Their version of the past is probably warped, but it's not like it bears no relation to reality.

What this amounts is the removal of abortion rights for the poor or those on low incomes.

Women who can afford it will go to other states where it is still legal (if the ban isn't nationwide) or to Canada, to the UK or any other Country that upholds the right of women to have a termination.

Are the right wing going to pay benefits for all the unwanted children that will be born? What "punishment" are men who refuse to use contraception going to face?

How are they going stop women taking the abortion pill? Are they going to open the mail of every woman of child bearing age to ensure she's not ordered it?

Erosion of women's rights by men, trying to control our bodies. I suppose when the dead women from botched back street abortions start to pile up the Supreme Court can congratulate themselves on a job well done.

Triffid1

Thanks, no, I completely understand. I don't think women (in general) seek abortion lightly.

I think this highlights a key issue. Abortion rights are not properly grounded in Federal legislation. In the U.K. the courts have refused to give judgements on sensitive topics that they believe are a matter for legislation. A key example is “right to die / euthanasia” cases. Courts are very careful not to stray into law making/law extension in this area.
I suspect this is the issue with Roe v Wade - technically the SC may be correct that the Constitutional basis is not clear cut and this should have been a matter for legislation.

I understood similar but they've had since 1973 to get this in Federal legislation- longer than I've been alive so clearly never been a priority.

I think the US has many poltical issues it will need to get to grips with at some point and women's rights are clearly very much behind many other western democratic countries - hopefully this will be some sort of rallying cry.

It will massively suck for many women in meantime - and yes some may die a s a direct result and poor ethnic minorities will probably be worse effected as always - but it does indicate how low down prioties women rights and health have fallen over there.

Have some states made it illegal to travel out of state? Money offers little protection here.

And any legislation on abortion passed at a Federal level would have been (and would still be) struck down as being unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment

An associated article from Politico here. www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/28/the-new-abortion-restriction-no-one-is-talking-about-00028171

Some poster mentioned maternal health care. These may explain it a bit. Note that these stories are a few years old now.
www.propublica.org/series/lost-mothers

Part of the problem is that even though the vast majority of Americans (69?) claim to support the right to abortion, few will go out and fight for it. Instead they hoped that the sticking plaster of Roe v Wade would hold back the religious right.

Trying to change the law to provide, a legal basis for abortion rights would open up all kinds of worms, so the democratic party prefers to stay way clear. But now if looks like the genie is about to be released from its bottle - at a time when many states have already restricted, or are in the process of restricting, access to abortion and criminalising it.

I fear it's going to get ugly.

One of the episodes of Jon Ronson's podcast series Things Fell Apart is very interesting on the pro-life movement in America and how the Evangelical Christians only took the cause on in the 1970s. Before that it was a mainly a Catholic thing. One fringe religious lunatic and the 50 years later women's reproductive rights in the US are fucked.

The realities of life

khn.org/news/article/emergency-contraception-marks-a-new-battle-line-in-texas/

tabbycatstripy, you’ve nailed part of it at 03/05/2022 06:51: This is divide and rule, and it’s working against women.

I completely agree with you that the Twitter-messaging that “white cis women are to blame” is nonsense.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This messaging, and the choice of Twitter, isn’t the least bit surprising to me. I’ve been watching over the last half-dozen years or so, and the modus operandi of weaponising trans (this issue that’s blown up from nowhere to all-consuming ), is:

1. choose an axis (race, sex, left-right, colonial-colonised, etc);
2. identify one group on the axis and declare they have committed trans-related evils, it absolutely doesn’t matter in which direction;
3. pump it using bot-fuelled, anonymous social media like Twitter;
4. sit back and watch divisions grow. The instigator can meanwhile get on with the real-world actions they’re up to while everyone else is distracted.

In fact you can substitute any issue for trans in this MO. It’s just that trans has been found to be a particularly effective fire-starter.

The aim is, as you so rightly say, divide and rule.

Indeed as information-wars watcher I suppose I have to grudgingly admire the speed and slickness with which the conversation has been moved from "the right wing has finally achieved its decades-long project of rolling back Roe v Wade" to "whatever the right do, it's the left's fault."

What did you do?

Also of course, "whatever men do, it's women's fault".

I made a post along those lines many moons ago. It got deleted and it was gently and politely explained to me that I couldn't say things that included an I word and an F word.

Who would have thought that Frock could be such an offensive word?

Anyhow, TRAs complain they can't get laid with young lesbian women/who are less likely to have had sex with a penis before. Incels complain they can't get laid with young women and preferably women who haven't had sex with a penis before. TRAs complain that they want access to female spaces and worshipful acceptance and welcoming. So do Incels. TRAs use violent imagery when imagining how they would punish/defeat/overcome women saying no and hate those who say it. So do Incels.

Spot the difference. It may take a while.