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

‘f the decisions go back to the individual states, won't law makers have to make decsions in line with what the electorate want or they will get voted out for someone who will.

So states planning to ban abortion will only do so if the electrorate supports it and the law will be changed again if they don't.’

Yes. But what the Constitution does is set out areas where States can’t legislate, because the matters contained in it are considered to be inalienable rights, even when a majority of your fellow citizens disagree.

If this goes through, abortion will be something you can be granted, or not, depending on what other people think.

On what the electorate in each state might do, the US is far from democratic, with barriers to voting, no limits on campaign spending, gerrymandering and so on.

‘On what the electorate in each state might do, the US is far from democratic, with barriers to voting, no limits on campaign spending, gerrymandering and so on.’

Yes, there are issues there.

This seems to be a ‘states’ rights’ issue, really. The Fourteenth Amendment itself has an interesting history. It was ratified in 1868 and (according to Wikipedia) contested by the defeated Confederacy states. It underpins decisions on segregation and same-sex marriage. You get the impression that all these cultural conflicts we’re seeing (the culture wars themselves) go back to the divide between ex-Confederacy states in the South versus the Democratic states in the North.

Scary stuff.

Well yes the US has flaws with its deomcratic systems, but that criticism stands for any law making there.

The position of abortion not being a 'right' but legally granted or taken away, is the same as here in the UK, or other western countries isn't it?

It's just there it is now the individual states who now decide rather than individual countries such as in Europe?

‘The position of abortion not being a 'right' but legally granted or taken away, is the same as here in the UK, or other western countries isn't it?’

Yes. It’s complicated by human rights law but I’m not sure exactly where that comes out.

The reason why JK Rowling hasn't commented on Roe v. Wade.

Some people oppose abortion for religious reasons and they are entitled to. We have no reason to think JKR takes a religious stance on abortion, so I don't see the point there, Duck.

Joe Biden seemed to be very off message yesterday when he spoke about 'a woman's right to choose'. Will he be cancelled for associating the 'w' word with female biology or might it make some US Democrats, particularly the female ones, think a bit harder about the real-life implications of accepting male people as women when it comes to fighting for our sex-based rights?

It is interesting how the US considers itself a beacon of individual rights and freedom, but even "third world" countries allow abortions up to 20 or even 24 weeks.

Yeah - all the rednecks bleating on about ‘freedom’ at the Jan 6 riots, and when they don’t want to wear a mask - couldn’t give a shit about women’s actual freedoms.

About your first two paragraphs:

In theory that could happen, in practice it never will. Deep Red States are so heavily gerrymandered the Republicans will never lose control of them. That produces a cycle of Republican-controlled State Legislatures and Assemblies that then push Republican-controlled propaganda specifically designed to foster a culture that is pro-Republican. Add that to the gerrymandered seats and this guarantees a massive majority vote to return Republican lawmakers to the Legislature or Assembly and the cycle continues.

Not sure exactly what the point was but i think it might be something along the lines of ‘desperate attempt to have a pop at JKR…again’

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

It was probably the usual , how dare she speak about this one aspect of womens rights when she doesn't speak about xyz. If she were to spend her time talking about all the wrongs women face, she'd have no time to eat, sleep or do anything else.

Exactly mandodari

and interesting that a poster having a pop at somone NOT commenting

also appears to have NOT commented themselves 🤔

(maybe on another thread?)

Look, this isn't twitter. Generally on here we use reasoned arguments and evidence and avoid logical fallacies (association fallacy being one of them).

We're also aware of how easy it is to send a quick tweet saying "Oh no this is terrible", and how that achieves fuck all.

TRAs with their snidey little digs amd shit memes are really showing themselves up on this thread. Nobody is stopping you from discussing this subject properly and maturely.

GB News on the sniff for an appetite in the UK to limit access to abortion. Fuck off, GB News. No, women in the UK don't use abortion as a form of contraception. Women who need an abortion need an abortion. It's not a 'lifestyle choice without consequences', it's a need. Forced pregnancy and birth is not an option.

What I never quite understand is why the pro-life movement never seems to consider the implications their "life begins at conception" position has upon assisted conception: aka IVF.

If you are going to argue that "conception" is the start of life, then you basically disagree completely with reproductive technology -- as you cannot then, logically, support the creation of embryos that maybe be perpetually stored or even destroyed.

I also don't understand why pro-choicers never seem to point this out. By holding a "life begins at conception" position and seeking to legislate to uphold that belief, you are basically condemning infertile couples who wish for a child to infertility, and those that do not want a child to parenthood.

I also wonder just how many Republican lawmakers would change their minds about embryos and their "right to life" if it meant they would never be grandparents.

Have you name changed or is it a bit more of a tag team deal?

Unless she's actually promoting his anti-abortion views, I don't see what your point is.

What is with TRAs using this really serious issue to have a pop at GC women? It's not a good look, trust me.

I also wonder just how many Republican lawmakers would change their minds about embryos and their "right to life" if it meant they would never be grandparents.

Vocal anti choice Republicans have been caught getting abortions for their daughters and mistresses so I can't imagine this would have an impact. Its the classic 'the only moral abortion is my abortion' position.

Restricting abortion is wrong for any reason, the one I particularly cannot understand is the ectopic pregnancy. It's a medical emergency, it's barbaric to deny medical care to women who have it.

Not that the rest isn't barbaric.

'If you are going to argue that "conception" is the start of life, then you basically disagree completely with reproductive technology -- as you cannot then, logically, support the creation of embryos that maybe be perpetually stored or even destroyed.'

I imagine they do think destroying or not using fertilised embryos destroys life. There's not a lot someone can do it they think life starts at conception - they just do. That's not dependent on what other people then choose to do in terms of technology, is it?