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

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.
However, the impact of this decision, no matter how technically correct it is, is potentially appalling and regressive. I hope there is sufficient political momentum generated to sort this out properly.

‘God, it's comments like that that are part of this slippery slope we on. If even the people who think abortion should be legal think that women use abortion as just one of many contraceptive choices....’

That wasn’t what I said. Any sex comes with the risk of pregnancy. Abortion is a (wholly necessary) safeguard. If that safeguard is removed, some people will stop having sex. I would if I couldn’t afford a pregnancy, or my physical or mental health couldn’t sustain one.

Please don’t put words in my mouth again.

Many women (including me, probably) might change aspects of their sexual behaviour if they knew safe abortion wasn’t an option

To be honest, this is probably the only way to galvanise the Nigels of this world (or whatever the American equivalent is of a Not My Nigel) into pushing back and standing up for women. Shut up shop. If I cannot access a safe and legal abortion if I need or want one, then I cannot consent to sex.

Yes, I know that's regressive, makes women the gatekeepers, doesn't of course work in cases of coercion, rape or abuse, but there is a significant body of 'decent' men who need to get woke on this issue and denying them sex feels like a pretty good way to do it.

Why on earth didn't Clinton or Obama put this into legislation?

‘Shut up shop. If I cannot access a safe and legal abortion if I need or want one, then I cannot consent to sex.’

It’s what I would do if I couldn’t take the risk of a pregnancy. Contraception doesn’t always work.

How many women will have to die before any of these male activists, legislators and their handmaids care?
It is so depressing.

Not having sex doesn't work if women aren't allowed to say 'no' though and would result in rapes going up. What's the rape conviction rate like in the US?

Except the number of women who would stop having sex if abortion was removed is such a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total population as to be statistically irrelevant. And we know this for a fact because in states without access to safe legal abortion, pregnancy rates don't go down. They just either have more children or more unsafe abortions.

Oh woeful of course @theemperorhasnoclothes

I don't mean it as an entirely serious solution, but men don't rape because they're not getting sex at home - they rape because they can. Of course simply not having sex isn't going to work for lots of women, but I agree with a pp - I simply wouldn't have had sex after the birth of my son if I didn't know I had a right to an abortion, due to birth trauma. DH maybe wouldn't be the first out in the streets to protest Roe v Wade being questioned, but his thinking would adapt pretty quickly if I said 'we are never having PIV again and here is why'.

Again, it's something to think about if women are safe to do so. There is a direct line between abortion and sexual behaviour for some women, including me.

‘Except the number of women who would stop having sex if abortion was removed is such a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total population as to be statistically irrelevant. And we know this for a fact because in states without access to safe legal abortion, pregnancy rates don't go down. They just either have more children or more unsafe abortions.’

That’s interesting. Do you have data on that?

‘There is a direct line between abortion and sexual behaviour for some women, including me.’

And me. I can live without sex if I have to. If abortion (and possibly contraception, in the long-run, given the direction of thinking) became illegal, I wouldn’t go near a bloke until after the menopause.

Men might want women chaste and married, but they're also generally pretty keen on having sex.
I wonder what impact it might have if women did start refusing more. The advent of contraception was the supposed herald of choice for women about whether or not to have sex, without the added risk of childbirth.
Maybe America is going to find itself back in those days when abstinence was the contraception of choice. If this really was the case I think that more men would actually be in favour of bodily autonomy for women.

This is horrifying. A massive step backwards in women's rights.

I am also concerned that they will turn their attention even more vociferously to other parts of the world. The UK can certainly do without it.

But they don't care about actual breathing, living women. They just care about getting their own way. They also don't care about the unwanted children once they're born. It's a big crossover between pro-life and small-state, anti-benefits, anti-state provided medical services etc.

Another day closer to the handmaids tale

I have seen data yes. Here's one I found with a quick google. I've seen similar data when doing some work with a client who did some pro bono work in this space but don't have that any more due to routine deletion of client data.

www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

Unintended pregnancy rates are highest in countries that restrict abortion access and lowest in countries where abortion is broadly legal.
As a result, abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is restricted and those where the procedure is broadly legal (i.e., where it is available on request or on socioeconomic grounds).

www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30315-6/fulltext

In countries where abortion was restricted, the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion had increased compared with the proportion for 1990–94, and the unintended pregnancy rates were higher than in countries where abortion was broadly legal.

The only possible benefit of woman refusing to have sex is if it made (powerful) men change their mind re abortion. ie if men who make these decisions could no longer have sex unless they allowed abortion.

Otherwise, women refusing to have sex will have little to no difference to abortion rates.

However, I believe Congress cannot create a right (not without a constitutional amendment).

I feel sick. I just hope this is a lesson for Lib Fems - none of our rights are safe - NONE. Cheering on the loss of single sex spaces, men in women's prisons and sports is just the tip of the iceberg. Women should be making no concessions on any of our rights.

Thanks, Triffid. Interesting stuff.

Amen

I imagine countries that limit or ban legal and safe abortion are also much more prohibitive in terms of women's rights as a whole, and contraception and sexual autonomy are also compromised.

I've always found it amusing, in a bleak sort of way, that the ones shouting loudly about their pro life credentials are the same ones shouting equally as loudly about the right to bear arms. Their concern for life only is limited to foetuses it would seem.

@tabbycatstripy It feels counter intuitive so I understand your comments for yourself, but it doesn't reflect the reality as you can see. Thank you for looking at those links.

Like you, the thought of getting pregnant is a HUGE issue for me. And while I'm pro choice, I really didn't want to ever face an abortion and it definitely had an impact on my libido for a while (when DC2 was young and I was late 30s). But women like you and me are a) probably being super super careful in the first place and b) are the minority of women who seek abortions.

The woman I know of who have had/considered abortions, even my little middle class bubble, have still only done so under extreme conditions:

• the one who was 21 and had a contraception failure, much to her surprise
• The one who was pregnant with a much wanted baby but whose husband was having a mental health crisis and she was having to decide whether having this baby would make the lives of her existing children much worse as a result of her husband's situation.
• The 40+ year old who genuinely thought she couldn't have children.
• The women who discovered, post 12 weeks, that their babies could not survive.

And these women are the minority. So many women who seek abortions do so due to rape, due to lack of access to other contraception, due to health concerns and more.

Too much focus has been placed on identity politics that results in a push back becoming quite extreme (like restricting abortion).

Democrats should've been more focused on strengthening abortion rights, rather than change language to "birthing people".

You change language to "birthing people" and it no longer becomes a women's rights issue, and consequently support for women drops.