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

Absolutely. And it rather puts paid to the "we're concerned about the babies".

If its considered acceptable that Grave Lavery can compare his flaccid penis to a miscarriage then nothing else really surprises me.

Well let's sink to a TRA's level for just a moment: anyone who has associated with Tara Hewitt (anti-abortion and influential TRA) or the TRA twit who decided that the tweet announcing this leak was the perfect time to 'ratio' SCOTUSblog is anti abortion themselves.

Ugh, I feel that I lost several IQ points and levels of maturity just typing this.

Jane Clare Jones said yesterday on Twitter: "One of the things I hate so much about the phrase 'pro-life' is that these people have nothing but contempt for the life of the mother or for the life of a child brought into the world against its mother's desire, intention and love."

Quite. I've seen "forced birthers" used as an alternative.

It is interesting that the USA is uniquely expected to have abortion written into its constitution, as it is apparently such a corrupt democracy that elected officials couldn't decide the law, as in other democracies?

Presumably this logic extends to all election results and undermines all lawmaking in the USA? Or just the ones people on here don't agree with?

Abortion law is a legal issue and will now be decided by whoever gets elected in individual states. If the majority of the population is pro choice, and nearly all women support this, as is assumed on here, there will be a huge landside towards the democrats based on this issue alone.

In reality most people are some where between the pro lifers and pro choicers calling each other evil, and do not want abortion banned but do think there should be some limits, and so most states will reflect something along these lines, with a few being at either more extreme no compromise end.

This will proably lead to an increasing division between states with people moving to wherever they feel reflects thier own values and states becming more strongly red or blue and less purple.

Apparently Biden is conflating allowing states to decide abortion law and segregating LGBTQ children in schools, which is what the Evil People will do next.

twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1521873391950569472?t=ApgRY78Us8HYB_zo8Uu8-A&s=19

This is so annoying. The two issues are completely separate of course. We need far more nuance in these discussions to be able.to resolve them ffs.

Sorry if this has already been linked to but here's Hadley Freeman on the subject: unherd.com/2022/05/american-feminism-has-turned-its-back-on-abortion/

I've done some further reading and this is where they are coming from on the 'the same people will come after LGBT people next". IANAL but this person is.

Alito's draft declares that, inter alia, the right to marry a person of a different race, the right to contraception, and the right not to be forcibly sterilized, all lack "any claim to being deeply rooted in history" – which is the same reason he overrules the right to abortion.

After casting some drive-by shade on the existence of these other fundamental rights, Alito then says: don't worry, all of these other rights are different, they don't involve the "critical moral question" like abortion does, so just relax about the others, they're fine.

twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1521307417434374145?s=20&t=N2EAzKKB35SnWj3AtOqIXQ

twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1521307417434374145?s=20&t=N2EAzKKB35SnWj3AtOqIXQ

Yeah too late, Stonewall and the righteous have already come for the LGB, homosexuality is now a shameful thing and not to be tolerated. Particularly not at Pride.

The problem for the Dems on making this a rally the vote issue, is that most people don't buy their lgbtqIa+ line anyway, so trying to conflate this with abortion & 'The Baddies' to scare people won't work.

Most people don't buy their America is full of white supremacists waiting to legislate racism line either.

Most people don't buy into their (and here's) view that people who morally object to any abortion do it because they hate women.

Most people don't buy into their rhetoric that pro choice has no limits and there is no other moral issue in abortion.

So they're trying to protect abortion rights which most people probably do agree with to varying degrees, whilst at the same time insisting you buy a whole lot of other crap you don't want.

Where's the rational party in the US that says:

It's a very tough balance on abortion and we need to agree where we draw a line?
Women are adult human females.
Children are not Trans.

They've all lost their minds.

From 4W

4w.pub/how-a-decade-of-democratic-delusions-failed-women-on-abortion/

Wow that was a very detailed, nuanced and informative read. I cannot believe how Obama threw abortion rights under the bus. I did do a brief google to see if what's written is true and from what I've read it seems it is.

And what the fuck about the morning after pill? Surely that should be something everyone could get behind as it actually prevents conception in the first place? But, of course, not if your goal is to control and dominate women and nothing really to do with babies.

Of course Obama's wife and daughters aren't ever going to be in the position of not being able to access abortion if needed. Shame he didn't do anything for the rest of the population of black women and indeed the rest of the 51% of the population that this will harm. Shameful.

Seems pretty clear that rich Dem men are relying on their wealth to protect 'their' women whilst throwing women's rights under the bus for all other women.

MalagaNights, why aren't Republicans protecting abortion rights?

And this what happens when we cannot even call a woman a woman anymore.

Oh don't worry, ChardonnaysBeastlyCat, the people passing laws like the Texas Heartbeat Act have no difficulty telling what a woman is.

No, they seen to have no problem telling women what to do.

I don't know.
It's interesting that abortion has become such a party line issue, rather than a personally held moral position which crosses party lines.

I presume it's because of the influence of some religious groups in the Republican party and their position on the issue.

In reality I suspect both parties are full of people who are much more moderate on the issue than the official party line and would agree on access to abortion with some limits and the disagreement would be there.

But both parties seem to have staked out extremist positions probably not reflective of majority opinion, with a whole lot of other crap you have to swallow with it, like Trump or Trans kids.

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

Wow that's a pretty damning and informative article.

This is like looking into the future. I note the early denunciation of women as "dinosaurs" for example. It feels like Labour is copying the Dems' every move as regards women.

This is the left in NZ too, as much as the world loves Jacinda Adern, she - and her Minister for Women - are no defenders of women’s rights.

Thanks for sharing - what a read…

Yes, I agree MalagaNights, it’s such an obviously cross-party issue.

It’s very clear that for some voters abortion is a pure single issue that overrides anything else at all.

For example, the articles below make explicit that there were people who were unhappy with Donald Trump’s admission of sexual assaults, and with his previous pro-choice position – or who actively disliked him. Some will doubtless also have been unhappy with him across other issues like job-losses, handling of Covid, support for Putin, or whatever. But they were prepared to ignore all of that for the sake of getting the abortion legislation they wanted.

Meanwhile there must be pro-choice people who voted Republican for a whole host of the other issues, who are stunned at the loss of Roe v Wade. (If it does actually go ahead.)

I don't know, maybe they just assumed it wouldn’t happen?

I mean, Trump made no secret of his promises to the anti-abortion religious right, but he also broke his promises regularly (wallowed in the swamp, didn’t build that wall, etc). So maybe it came as a bit of a surprise that appointing anti-abortion judges is a promise he kept – one the US will be living with for a long time after he’s dead.

Trump campaigning for election in 2016:

Donald Trump recruits hardline anti-abortion activist, Marjorie Dannenfelser, to consolidate evangelical support
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-hardline-antiabortion-marjorie-dannenfelser-conservative-prolife-roe-wade-a7313676.html

Donald Trump has quietly doubled down on his anti-abortion stance appointing one of the pro-life movement’s most radical activists, Marjorie Dannenfelser, to lead what he calls his ‘Pro-Life Coalition’.
In a letter to anti-abortion groups Mr Trump vows to appoint Supreme Court justices who will support new curbs on abortion rights

During Trump’s term in office, 2018:
Trump first president to attend anti-abortion rally
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51239795

Trump seeking re-election in 2020:
Trump gets huge boost from anti-abortion group
www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/trump-anti-abortion-pac-100258
Before Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, agreed to chair the Donald J. Trump for President Pro-life Coalition in 2016, she requested a list of commitments in writing from the Republican nominee.

To ensure that Trump, who described himself as “very pro-choice” not two decades earlier, wouldn’t betray anti-abortion conservatives as president, Dannenfelser asked that he promise to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding, codify into law the Hyde Amendment limiting the use of federal money for abortions, enact legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks and strictly nominate anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.

Despite the fulfillment of just one of those promises — two conservative Trump nominees now sit on the high court — Dannenfelser’s group is preparing to reward the president handsomely

And to be fair, when concerns about creeping loss of abortion rights, or elevation of anti-abortionists to positions of power, have been mentioned on MN, I've often seen right-wing posters say,
"Nah, stop thinking about it, Roe v Wade will never fall."
or
"Oh, that Jacob Rees-Mogg would never dare actually act against women's reproductive rights."

Jacob Rees-Mogg accused of spreading ‘harmful clinical falsehoods’ about morning-after pills
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-morning-after-pills-abortion-b2006978.html
He had been asked to make parliamentary time for a discussion about "proper funding and accessibility for women's contraception and health services".

But in response to the question from Labour's Diana Johnson Mr Rees-Mogg replied: "The right honourable lady cannot expect me to speak in favour of abortifacients."

Mr Mogg said in 2017 that he was "completely opposed" to abortion including in cases of rape or incest.

The article also makes the interesting point I've seen MRAs use here, that's the sweetly dropped hint to the effect of 'nice bit of protection around abortion you've got there, what a shame if something were to happen to it' - usually used to shut women up on the grounds that if they fight for that right they'll get their reproductive privileges rescinded.

Well here we are. Honestly, what have we got left to lose?