Roe no mo?

[Jonny]

U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, Politico reports

The U.S. Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico on Monday.

www.reuters.com

For the first time that I can recall, a SCOTUS ruling has been leaked before being finalized and released. And it’s perhaps one of the most monumental rulings in many of our lifetimes…

 

[Tiger Owl]

good

 

[Virtual ghost]

From what I understand this isn't 100% final. Therefore this is probably testing the ground.
However this is basically the culmination of the decades of work to overturn Roe. The supreme court looks like this exactly because this is the grand goal. But the irony is that this just might be the miracle that Democrats need in the midterms. If this is overturned that is basically the political reset of all maps and forecasts.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Rich republicans will still be able to fly their daughters out of the country for abortions, so I guess all’s not lost.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Rich republicans will still be able to fly their daughters out of the country for abortions, so I guess all’s not lost.

From what I gathered it is not even that. They will give the issue to the states. So that they can ban it in red states.
What could easily be very unstrategic move. Abortions will continue legally and illegally and most of the states will move a few or perhaps even many points to the left. Due to desire to maintain laws related to the issue and related issues (if anything simply because of increased turnout). Therefore GOP is almost surely shooting itself in the foot with this by making their electoral math even harder. The places where GOP could make gains with this are already quite red. While in 2020 plenty of states were just a few points or even less from a complete tie/balance. Therefore this is just what the democrats need, "cheap" ideological topic that isn't going away and they don't have to do much to keep it in the air.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

From what I gathered it is not even that. They will give the issue to the states. So that they can ban it in red states.
What could easily be very unstrategic move. Abortions will continue legally and illegally and most of the states will move a few or perhaps even many points to the left. Due to desire to maintain laws related to the issue and related issues (if anything simply because of increased turnout). Therefore GOP is almost surely shooting itself in the foot with this by making their electoral math even harder. The places where GOP could make gains with this are already quite red. While in 2020 plenty of states were just a few points or even less from a complete tie/balance. Therefore this is just what the democrats need, "cheap" ideological topic that isn't going away and they don't have to do much to keep it in the air.

so rich republicans living in red states will be able to send their wives and daughters to liberal states for abortions, got it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

so rich republicans living in red states will be able to send their wives and daughters to liberal states for abortions, got it.

Yeah, that is basically what I am saying.
I mean if this is really the final outcome I really don't see the point of this move. You are only pushing a good chunk of electorate from yourself, or you are increasing turnout (that rarely favors you).

 

[Coriolis]

so rich republicans living in red states will be able to send their wives and daughters to liberal states for abortions, got it.

Exactly. The rich are usually able to get what they want, whatever the regulatory landscape. And, as @Virtual ghost observed, abortion will continue. Those who are poor or unable to travel out of state will resort to illegal and often unsafe means, as they did before Roe. The game changer now is the "abortion pill", which should be much easier to smuggle into states that ban abortion. I have already heard of networks of medical providers and others who will do what they can to maintain abortion access despite restrictions. It may get worse before it gets better, but people won't go back.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Exactly. The rich are usually able to get what they want, whatever the regulatory landscape. And, as @Virtual ghost observed, abortion will continue. Those who are poor or unable to travel out of state will resort to illegal and often unsafe means, as they did before Roe. The game changer now is the "abortion pill", which should be much easier to smuggle into states that ban abortion. I have already heard of networks of medical providers and others who will do what they can to maintain abortion access despite restrictions. It may get worse before it gets better, but people won't go back.

To be honest I think that perhaps most common outcome here is that some people will move into the blue states or at least swing states. What will again have political and economic consequences.

 

[Kephalos]

The United States has become a little less of an example to emulate for foreign and non-Western liberals/progressives today. A little less of a liberal, progressive, secular, democratic "light to the nations" (Isaiah 49:6). A little less worthy of praise and support from true liberals/progressives everywhere, anywhere. Much more worthy of criticism, reproof, disapproval, pity, and mistrust.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

John Roberts and Mitch McConnell complaining about the leak being a betrayal is kind of funny.

Gosh, I wonder why nobody believes that the Supreme Court isn't partisan or has any respect for it. Gee it's not like they've picked the President (and done so along partisan lines) before or anything.

But it doesn't matter because the entire country (nay, the WORLD) benefitted from the sage wisdom of that administration, and we should be grateful there was no sacrifice to something like public opinion (which is obviously of no importance in the freeest country in the world). So I'm willing to be bygones be bygones and drink beers with people who cheered that on; it's not like they didn't have different opinions than me on how to moderate an internet message board or anything like that; this would be truly unforgivable Nazi bullshit.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The investigation into leak is starting. Which kinda burned the element of surprise.

 

[Virtual ghost]

States Aren’t Waiting For The Supreme Court To Rule On Abortion


Some thoughts on where all of this is going.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I've long thought "pro-life" was virtue-signaling, long before the phrase existed. This is a fantastic explanation of why. If unborn babies are the only group you strongly feel the government should protect, that should be a red flag. (And it sure seems like this describes the majority of pro-lifers I've known).

Also though? I get that some pro-lifers dogmatically believe "life starts at conception" and that abortion is murder, but I wish more of them would respect the importance of democracy. Just imagine if a group of vegetarians (another minority in this country) gained control of SCOTUS and tried encoding "meat is murder" into law. What matters more: the very deep-seated conviction of a minority, or the ability for people to respect what "democracy" means? Imposing the convictions of a minority onto a majority is not a sustainable model of democracy.

(Plus? Anyone who's done geneology re: the initial colonies knows this particular democracy is *founded* on the desire for religious freedom.)

(This is all on top of the point about how this change basically actually only applies to poor women; as if McConnell's state didn't already suck the nation dry for welfare before).

 

[Totenkindly]

I've long thought "pro-life" was virtue-signaling, long before the phrase existed. This is a fantastic explanation of why. If unborn babies are the only group you strongly feel the government should protect, that should be a red flag. (And it sure seems like this describes the majority of pro-lifers I've known).

Along with the fact that until about 1975-1980 evangelicals were like everyone else in accepting (as a lesser evil) the need for abortion in some circumstances. WTF is their memory so awful that they cannot remember that this is a relatively new political stance in the USA? Moral Majority my ass, it was all just a way to solidify their base on messaging and make money.

In the Old Testament, property was more important than abortion. It was even prescribed to use an abortifacient to induce a miscarriage if you suspected your wife had been sleeping around on you. (If you hadn't had sex with her and she has a miscarriage, she's put to death; otherwise, it's like, "Okay, guess she was faithful -- sorry honey.") Numbers 5:11-28.

[hilariously I just found a high-falutin' exegesis justifying that even if it is exactly what it seems to be, babies died all the time in the OT because of their parents' sins so it's just routine with God -- e.g., Bathsheba's baby, dying because of David's sin -- and in this case it is still the woman's fault for lying about the pregnancy, rather than the priest or husband being at fault for the unborn child's death. Like, wow...]

John Roberts and Mitch McConnell complaining about the leak being a betrayal is kind of funny.

"Damn whistleblowers! How dare someone break their sacred vow to permit perfidy to fester in the darkness of ignorance and tell everyone ahead of time, rather than blame the judges for lying under oath about their actual beliefs!"

I mean, frankly, no one should be surprised. Of course they were all lying. Otherwise they knew they wouldn't get on the Court. Everyone except for Susan Collins knew this, apparently, and so now here we are.

It's not an impartial court, and I'm not learned enough to know how far back I'd have to go to find one that wasn't crooked in some way. Although I do think obviously that there was a time when you could get nominees approved by a majority of both parties and the process wasn't so partisan. We shouldn't be surprised that the nominees are tainted if we can't even get them onto the court aside from a squeaker and they are obviously being opaque during their confirmation process.

Fuck McConnell too. No matter which way you look at things, he stole a seat (either Gorsuch or Barrett) and is directly responsible for what is happening. It would be nice to believe a god figure would right these wrongs at least in eternity but... nope.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Along with the fact that until about 1975-1980 evangelicals were like everyone else in accepting (as a lesser evil) the need for abortion in some circumstances. WTF is their memory so awful that they cannot remember that this is a relatively new political stance in the USA? Moral Majority my ass, it was all just a way to solidify their base on messaging and make money.

In the Old Testament, property was more important than abortion. It was even prescribed to use an abortifacient to induce a miscarriage if you suspected your wife had been sleeping around on you. (If you hadn't had sex with her and she has a miscarriage, she's put to death; otherwise, it's like, "Okay, guess she was faithful -- sorry honey.") Numbers 5:11-28.

[hilariously I just found a high-falutin' exegesis justifying that even if it is exactly what it seems to be, babies died all the time in the OT because of their parents' sins so it's just routine with God -- e.g., Bathsheba's baby, dying because of David's sin -- and in this case it is still the woman's fault for lying about the pregnancy, rather than the priest or husband being at fault for the unborn child's death. Like, wow...]

There was a scene in some viking-ish series based on this. I'm trying to remember which one. Last Kingdom maybe? I didn't realize it was from the Bible.

(The takeaway - strictly on the abortion aspect - seems to be that it's okay if the father isn't the woman's husband, and it's even actively encouraged where that's the case).

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Good. Leave it up to the states if the legislature can't come up with a workable solution. Legislating from the bench and creating constitutional rights out of whole cloth was never the purpose of the court. Creation of the law was never the courts job with good reason.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Good. Leave it up to the states if the legislature can't come up with a workable solution. Legislating from the bench and creating constitutional rights out of whole cloth was never the purpose of the court. Creation of the law was never the courts job with good reason.

Why should democratic opinion matter in this one particular case and not any others?

Very interested to see how you will spin this.

I mean, I know you are against the "civil rights shadow constitution", but I doubt you'll invoke that here.

 

[Coriolis]

I've long thought "pro-life" was virtue-signaling, long before the phrase existed. This is a fantastic explanation of why. If unborn babies are the only group you strongly feel the government should protect, that should be a red flag. (And it sure seems like this describes the majority of pro-lifers I've known).

Well, yes. I have often said, everyone is "pro-life", we just differ in exactly whose life we are "pro". And most people who support access to abortion are not so much "pro-abortion" as wanting to preserve this option for women in a difficult situation, and wanting to leave the decision to them. The best way to reduce abortion is not legislation, but cheap, reliable birth control. The fact that people who oppose access to abortion often also oppose access to birth control hints at what their real agenda is.

Why should democratic opinion matter in this one particular case and not any others?

Very interested to see how you will spin this.

I mean, I know you are against the "civil rights shadow constitution", but I doubt you'll invoke that here.

One solution would indeed be for congress to protect access to abortion through legislation. Perhaps some day they will. Until then, the court needs to do what only they can: prevent needless encroachment of government into our private lives. Traditional "less government" republicans should be all in favor of that, and they are when it comes to business. When it comes to our bodies, our relationships, and our families, though, "big government" is the name of the game now. Unfortunately hypocritical confirmation processes stacked the court with "justices" who will put their own ideology over precedent and our foundational documents. The recently leaked document claims the original Roe v. Wade decision was on shaky ground, almost sloppy reasoning. Yet it was a 7-2 decision, suggesting relatively broad support on the court at the time.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This story is all over various international news. It is condemned and some questions are opened about how the abortion is addressed globally. This will evidently fuel much more than just the situation in US.